Last week, I wrote about the neo-nationalist and quasi-fascist parties elected to the European Parliament. When a political movement calls itself, as in Bulgaria, the Attack Party, one naturally expects to hear the martial drum of approaching jackboots. But, in western Europe and in North America, the reality is that fascism pitter-patters in on cashmere slippers, smooth, unthreatening and beguiling as it gently ushers us ever deeper into Soft Despotism (to use the title of Paul Rahe’s new tome) or (to take Kathy Shaidle’s and Pete Vere’s book) The Tyranny Of Nice.
And so it is that the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, after lying low during the worst year-and-a-half in its existence, now feels it safe to poke its head above the parapet. A year ago, at the height of publicity over its investigation of Maclean’s for publishing an excerpt of my book, the CHRC sought to get itself off the hook in the traditional manner: commission a report. They signed up professor Richard Moon, who’s no pal of mine and is distressingly partial to state censorship. Yet, amazingly, his findings, published at the end of last year, recommended the abolition of Section 13—not, alas, on the grounds that this abominable “law” licensing ideological apparatchiks to police the opinions of the citizenry is at odds with eight centuries of Canada’s legal inheritance, but on the narrower utilitarian basis that in the age of the Internet Section 13 is unenforceable.
Still, this came as a bit of a shock to the CHRC thought police, who regard it as entirely natural for the state to regulate the bounds of public discourse. They decided that the Moon report was now merely the “first phase” of their analysis, and that a second would shortly follow. So this month the CHRC’s chief commissar, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C. (which I believe stands for “Queen of Censorship”), presented a special report to Parliament called “Freedom of Expression and Freedom from Hate in the Internet Age.”
By the way, lest you think I’m exaggerating about incipient fascism, consider that title: it appears to be “balancing” two “human rights,” but, in fact, it’s doing no such thing. “Freedom of” denotes a genuine human right: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly. “Freedom from” (with the exception of “freedom from government control”) denotes not a human right but a government right—the right to erect a massive enforcement regime in pursuit of some statist goal. “Freedom from want” or “freedom from inequality” sound, to Canadian ears, very benign, but they presuppose, at minimum, a giant government regulatory regime and a restraint on real, actual humans’ rights. “Freedom from hate” is an especially repugnant concept to a free society, since “hate” is a human emotion that beats, to one degree or another, in every human breast. To be human is to hate and be hated: see the scene in Invasion of the Body Snatchers or The Stepford Wives or whatnot in which it’s patiently explained to the hero how much more smoothly everything operates once you’ve had all those beastly, turbulent, destabilizing things called “emotions” ironed out and you’re just wandering around with a glassy-eyed expression and a flat monotone voice, like Jennifer Lynch reading out the fraternal greetings from the Sudanese Human Rights Commissioner at the CHRC Christmas office party. A society “free” from “hate” is, by definition, totalitarian, because such a “human” right is fundamentally inhuman: it can only be granted and policed by the state. And the fact that Commissar Lynch attempts to make it one end of her balancing act to be weighed against “freedom of expression” is very revealing: for the chief commissar and her colleagues, “rights” are not inalienable, but something which is essentially in the gift of the state, and therefore which it is necessary for the state to constrain and “balance” until it achieves the appropriate degree of harmony:
“The modern conception of rights is that of a matrix with different rights and freedoms mutually reinforcing each other to build a strong and durable human rights system.”
Really? A Matrix as in the illusory world created to maintain a supine citizenry by secretive government agents? Or some sort of intricate biological sequencing very few people can understand? No matter. In the old days, “human rights” meant rights for humans. Now it means building a “human rights system,” which sounds a lot like just another government bureaucracy. Back in 1215, if you read Magna Carta Libertatum (my italics; I don’t think they had ’em back then), human rights meant the King was restrained by his subjects. Eight hundred years later, “human rights” CHRC-style means that the subjects get restrained by the Crown, in the form of Queen Jennifer. I liked it better the old way.
The greatest threat to human rights is always an abusive government. For example, in February last year, Cameroon security forces shot and killed over 100 demonstrators. According to Cameroon barrister Joseph Lavoisier Tsapy, detainees are routinely stripped, beaten and then thrown into dumpsters filled with broken glass and ashes from burned tires. In 1997, Titus Edzoa, after announcing he would be running for the Cameroon presidency against long-time strongman Paul Biya, was suddenly arrested and has been in jail ever since. In March last year, 155 Cameroon detainees appeared for trial at the Douala Court of First Instance beaten and clad only in their underwear. In February, the publishers of Le Front, a newspaper in Yaoundé, reported on the high salaries of government officials, after which the police showed up, bound and blindfolded them, and took them away. According to Amnesty International, in 2007 at least nine men and four women were convicted of homosexuality.
Okay, Steyn, that’s enough Cameroonian rolling news updates: what’s your point? Only this. Ever since Commissar Lynch decided to insert herself into my life, I’ve made it my job to keep at least as extensive a file on Jennifer as her organization keeps on those Canadian citizens of whom it disapproves. And I was struck by the chief commissar’s introductory remarks at last October’s “Discrimination Prevention Forum” in Ottawa:
“From year to year, we generate more interest in the global human rights community. I extend a warm welcome to our distinguished international guests, Mr. Divine Chemuta Banda, Chief Commissioner of the Cameroon National Human Rights and Freedom Commission, and Mr. Moise Segue, also from the Cameroon Commission. We are pleased to have with us Mr. Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, and Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall, from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, who bring a wealth of experience and knowledge to our gathering.”
What’s so “distinguished” about the Cameroon Human Rights Commissioner? Cameroon has an appalling human rights record. Freedom House ranks the country not merely as “not free,” but as one of the 20 worst nations on earth for political rights and civil liberties, down there at the bottom of the barrel with Burma, Equatorial Guinea, North Korea and Sudan. Why weren’t they among the “distinguished guests” at Commissar Lynch’s “Discrimination Prevention Forum”? Not enough Air Canada frequent-flyer miles?
If you schmooze enough Third World thug states, it’s not surprising your postmodern cultural relativism starts to drift past the point of no return. As Commissar Lynch primly notes in her report, America’s First Amendment absolutism on free speech is out of step with the “growing global consensus”—that would be the “growing global consensus” represented by the CHRC and its “distinguished guests.” Take Sweden and Cameroon, split the difference, and that should be enough human rights for anyone.
In an op-ed for the Globe and Mail, Jennifer Lynch justified her report on the grounds that it would assist a “balanced debate.” That same day, CTV booked her and Ezra Levant, author of Shakedown, the bestselling book about Canada’s “human rights” regime, on to Power Play, to have that, er, “debate” she’s always talking about. When Queen Jennifer heard Ezra was to be on the show, she refused to debate him, and demanded he be bounced from the airwaves. As Kathy Shaidle put it: “Canada’s Official Censor Tries To Censor TV Debate About Censorship.”
Okay, if she won’t debate Ezra, I’d be happy to do it. All very “balanced”: Maclean’s can sponsor it, Steve Paikin or some such public-TV cove can anchor it. Name the date, I’ll be there. But, in the absence of any willingness to debate, reasonable people pondering Canada’s strangely ambitious Official Censor might object not just philosophically but on Professor Moon-like utilitarian grounds: if you’re not smart enough to debate Ezra Levant, you’re not smart enough to police the opinions of 30 million people.
Print
Comment
Canadian Business Network 
“The modern conception of rights is that of a matrix with different rights and freedoms mutually reinforcing each other to build a strong and durable human rights system.”
Big Sister
That is true, but lucky for Canadians it only yet occurs in places where you get thrown into smouldering dumpsters filled with broken glass naked after being beaten with a club for being in disagreement with people who throw others into smouldering dumpsters with broken glass after they strip them and beat them.
You're FIRED!
[...] Source Commenters who threaten anyone while here because they are not smart enough to come up [...]
[...] . . Mark Steyn issues his challenge. I’d be happy to do it. All very “balanced”: Maclean’s can sponsor it, Steve Paikin or some [...]
[...] Steyn, in Macleans – Name the date, Jennifer. I’ll be there: Okay, Steyn, that’s enough Cameroonian rolling news updates: what’s your point? Only this. [...]
[...] NAME THE DATE, JENNIFER! CANADA vs HUMAN RIGHTS: The Chief Censor is looking for a debate …. [...]
It is interesting to note that, Mark Seyn who is a Jew, denounces so vehemently the Canadian Human Rights Commission. On the other hand, most of the complainants (36%) before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal between 1979 and 2008 have been by Jewish individuals or groups, followed by anti-racist or multi-cultural groups (28%), those with unknown affiliation (20%), homosexuals (8%) and blacks (4%). Now that Muslims are starting to complain to the commission, Jews are no longer happy with it. However, one could say that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".__ ____http://www.freedomsite.org:80/legal/Closing_submi... I fully agree with Steyn that Section 13 is an aberration and should be removed.
This is a follow-up.
The reference site that I indicated above came out incomplete. Here is the complete site:
http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/Closing_submissi...
Well, in a sense you are right. Steyn has complained many times about the position of some Jewish organizations supporting the HRC. But those organizations remain consistent – they still support it.
Steyn isn't Jewish.
I am the one and only person qualified to decide what you should be allowed to say and hear.
You disagree? How then can there be any debate about anyone else being so qualified?
Freedom of speech often is not a pretty thing. Much of it is repulsive. It is when we find it most repulsive that we learn whether we really believe in democracy and freedom or not.
If people tell damaging lies about us, we can seek remedy in the courts.
Thought police and commissions are the antithesis of democracy and freedom.
Repression of speech, and thought, like repression of normal sexual urges, tends to breed perversion.
George, Mark Seyn (sic) may well be jewish but our Mark STeyn is not..
Sorry for the typo in the first instance, however, Mark Steyn is Jewish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn
From your own link:
"Steyn was born in Toronto to a family of Jewish descent, however he was baptized a Catholic and later confirmed in the Anglican Church."
I'm more Jewish than he is, since he's two flavours of Christian.
"It is interesting to note that, Mark Seyn who is a Jew, denounces so vehemently the Canadian Human Rights Commission. On the other hand, most of the complainants (36%) before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal between 1979 and 2008 have been by Jewish individuals or groups,"
This is what we call, in the trade, an oxymoron.
The writer "George" being an actual moron with an unhealthy obseession with cataloguing people he claims are "Jews."
Such as Mark Steyn who, I believe, is NOT Jewish.
George, your Jewometer needs servicing — that's one yellow star for Jew — I mean you.
Boy oh boy, Jack. My remark really hit you hard. Were you involved in those actions or what? You seem to be one of those guys who rather than discussing the topic, calls people names when he doesn't like what he hears.
First I am not he one who catalogued the complainants before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This has been done by the freedomsite. Do you consider it normal that Jews who constitute about 1% of the population of Canada should file 36% of complaints with the CHRT?
Richard Warman alone filed 26 complaints most if not all of them related to the so called "anti-Semitic" statements or publications. Do you find that normal?
http://www.richardwarman.com/chrc.html
As to Mark Steyn, he is a Jew because he was born of Jewish parents. Anyone having a Jewish mother is considered a Jew. There are many Jews who are secular or agnostic or who have converted to Christianity, they are Jews none the less.
"if you’re not smart enough to debate Ezra Levant, you’re not smart enough to police the opinions of 30 million people"
Styen is like watching Kobi – nothing but net!!!!!
Government by slush, mush, and gush.
Totalitarianism Lite is totalitarianism nontheless.
Lynch's whole "matrix" crappola is typical of the Left's Confusa-Speak. The previous defense of Big Government and the Nanny State had been rather questionable analogies to traffic lights ("A stop light is the same thing as a Go light, keep in mind!") and other such fluff.
The problem being, however, that with the hijacking of Human Rights Commissions, Steyn makes the excellent point that in a land where nothing "bad" (whatever ones perception of, including bad hair days) happens, or where "hate" (the definition getting softened up to mere policy and culture disagreements about opening the clitorectomy clinics next to furniture stores) is banned, you don't have a nation so much as you have a jailhouse guarded by censcors armed with pens and the occasional court appearance rather than high powered rifles.
The West is about to recreate the Magna Carta to be like that film "Escape from New York" Whole cities, and indeed entire nations will soon be prison systems where the inmates are told how they will live to as not to offend the other members with about the same level of freedom. The other inmates.
Poor Mark…OK, he has a problem with authority. I can understand that. He doesn't like to be told he's an insensitive who teeter's on the edge of racism and culturalism. His broad brush venom mirrors the very objects of his criticism.
Censorship is an ugly word, we all agree. But so is extremism and insensitivity. If there's no need to temper our words, why do we have diplomacy? If we're unhappy with the actions of others, is it more effective to "get in their face" or use the art of persuasion?
Apparently for Mark, it's the former. Sad.
Human Rights Tribunal? Now most reasonable people would say, "Hey, that's not a bad idea, but listen, it needs to be tweaked, modified and refined. It may need to be reexamined and certainly constantly questioned". But what does the intolerant and angry Mark say. "Scrap It!" Not just that but he lashes out and starts name calling himself! Childish and immature Mark.
That's just small-minded and narrow visioned. Mark, your not helping.
Hi Howard.
Let's compromise. How about we say SCRAP the Tribunal crap that is reminescent of Stalinism and the phony charges akin to "walking during too crowded of moments" type charges, and just being afresh with something called "common sense."
So Mr. Steyn is "not helping" due to raising some rather discomforting issues to the forefront?
Mr. Steyn has raised nothing new. As with all things in life power and authority can be abused. I certain Stalin would utilize Section 13 differently that the esteemed board of Canada's Human Rights Commission. Mr. Steyn's belligerent name calling of someone as qualified, experienced and respected world wide as Ms. Lynch is nothing more than a obvious attempt to manufacture debate and ratings for Macleans and himself.
I'm sure he is actually relishing the attention.
Sorry Howard, but when CHRC starts to entrap potential victims, it's hard to differentiate it from Stalin's methods and to respect its director.
http://www.davidduke.com/general/marc-lemire-impl...
Mark Steyn is right, either we have free speech in Canada or we don't and presently I believe we don't because of Section 13. It should definitely be eliminated.
Ah yes, no Steyn comments section is complete without a link to David Duke's website.
Although Lynch cites "America’s First Amendment absolutism on free speech is out of step with the 'growing global consensus,' " she'll be gratified to know that 1) It's really not so absolute any longer, and 2) it's fast approaching that point where it'll be "getting in step" with the global desire to eliminate dissent, thanks to a Kenyan named Obama and the free speech-free thought pogrom known as "localism."
Well, that's true too.
And important to keep in mind.
People are learning quickly to watch what they say….
An EPA whistleblower who had the "audacity" to doubt the plight of those lovely fuzzy wuzzy polar bears just got told to shut the hell up, or else….
What BS. It was the American right that danced with glee when people really had to start watching what they said, post-9/11. Anyway, the repression of dissent is a long-established American tradition.
First topic for this Debate should be how this involves the current bete noir, child porn, people who are convicted for having kinky stuff on their computers, or writing fictional stories based on child pornographic ideas, no matter how odious or violent or sadistic, but having committed no offences against an actual person. Once you shoehorn a crack in the door for the thought police everything becomes equal fodder. Personally, I'd like to read some of this fiction just to see how their minds work, as much as I like reading Mein Kampf or The Happy Warrior. But I'll never get the chance because my government knows I can't handle it, and we're all the lesser for it. Knowledge is power, we fear it to our own detriment.
You can analyze all of this to death, but fascism is returning because the world needs it. Europe still has fresh wounds from the last time supposedly well meaning pinko thieves hijacked their lives. They'll do what it takes to prevent a return to that evil scam and I applaud them for their efforts. We too will get to that place and very soon. Human rights in Canada is a business and nothing more. The never ending stupidity flowing our way from the n'er-do-wells entrusted with this task, is quite simply the best they can do. Not promoting this drivel, would reveal the pathetic realities of their little cash machine. "No no…we're not just hanging around waiting for our expense cheques, we're trying to figure out how to correct those racist concrete sidewalks (I didn't make this up) and better ways to hammer UPS for making women wrapped in bed sheets climb 30 ft ladders." The only reason Canadians aren't marching is because of multiculturalism. This fragmented society, which includes 140 different languages, is far more difficult to unite and incite. Rest assured though, we will hit the wall, most likely when genuine financial hardship becomes the norm. Sign me up !!!!
I fear that the "Queen of Censorship" will replace Mark Steyn with a pod version of him soon. "It's better this way", "It won't hurt a bit, we promise"…
I've been out of Canada now for 25 years and I'm NOT sure I want to return… Sounds like it is NOT the country of my youth but something worse and more dangerous than 'Alice in Wonderland'. I know Canadians who have been terrified into silence to not speak out at work when a 'minority' person was unfairly promoted ahead of a better qualified Caucasian for fear of serious personal and professional repercussion! Remember the old Tv show "The Prisoner"? The HRC bubble is coming for YOU!
WAKE UP Canadians! You're NOT living in a free country!
You are perfectly qualified to come back and run for Prime Minister. So, please don't hesitate, we need you back here in Canada.
I'm probably left-wing enough to have been targeted by Steyn at least once, but I think people like Jennifer are even worse. Steyn might lack humility, but he's not a nihilist.
Mr Steyn , now you found yourself a good fight to pick up.
And do what you can to unmask those double-talkers.
If there is someone out there willing to say that you're attacking her because she is a woman, there's an easy reply:
stupidity has no gender.
I will state what I already did: this is the land of conformity. The forces of conformity are always there trying to do all they can to shut the door to free speech, free expression, new ideas.