Harper must act now to protect free speech
By The Editors - Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 118 Comments
The Prime Minister admits there’s a problem. And he says he doesn’t have a clue how to fix it.
Stephen Harper used to have very clear—and colourful—ideas on human rights commissions and what should be done about them.
“Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” he said in a 1999 interview with Terry O’Neill of BC Report newsmagazine.“ It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.” He went on to complain about the “bastardization” of the entire concept of rights in modern society.
Of course, that was back when Harper was president of the National Citizens Coalition. Today he’s Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister. And he appears to have lost his fear of totalitarianism.
In an interview this past January with Maclean’s, the Prime Minister was asked what, if anything, he intended to do to halt the encroachment on individual freedom by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the name of regulating hate speech.
It is an issue of crucial importance to this country and our strongly held traditions of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
-
The CRTC human rights commission 'whitewash': None dare call it conspiracy!
By kadyomalley - Thursday, July 9, 2009 at 11:09 AM - 24 Comments
Including ITQ, at least for the moment, because — well, it seems distinctly possible that it simply isn’t one, and even if it is, it’s a pretty darned incompetent one. But she’s getting ahead of herself, so let’s start at the beginning.
Last night, Stephen Taylor blogged about a curious after-the-fact edit of a section of the CRTC’s recently released report on Canada’s broadcast policy. He ran the two versions of the report through document comparison software, which revealed that the only significant difference between the two was the removal of the following paragraph:
“The history of the regulation of speech in this country does not engender confidence that such powers will be used wisely. Canada has experienced several instances in recent times where regulatory commissions of another type and armed with a different mission have challenged the right to say controversial things. The struggles of Ezra Levant,14 Mark Steyn15 and others have served as important warnings that regulatory authorities charged with combating racism, hatred, and other evils have consistently expanded their mandates, have abused their powers and eroded fundamental liberties. Wherever there is official orthodoxy, disagreement is heresy, and where there is heresy, there is usually an inquisition to root it out. After centuries ridding ourselves of thought control agencies, 20th century Canada re-invented them.”
That revelation led him to question the motivation behind the change — “Why did the CRTC feel that it was necessary to omit references to Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn’s battles with “regulatory authorities”?“ – under a headline that suggested that the “CRTC drop[ped] references to egregious abuses of HRCs” from the final report.
It’s a fair question, yes — but before we all leap headlong off the Cliffs of Conclusion, there are a few things that Taylor’s post doesn’t mention that are worth taking into consideration.
-
Of all the committees on the Hill, the CHRC wound up here? Liveblogging the Subcommittee on Int'l Human Rights
By kadyomalley - Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 12:00 PM - 18 Comments
ITQ has to admit that she’s a little bit curious as to how, exactly, officials from the Canadian Human Rights Commission wound up on the witness list at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, which begins its study of “human rights commissions” this afternoon. It’s not that she doesn’t think it’s a worthy topic — goodness knows there’s enough confusion and controversy surrounding the issue — but doesn’t this particular committee usually stick to topics with an international focus? Human rights in China, persecution of religious minorities in Iran, the possible repatriation of Omar Khadr – you know, that kind of thing? Maybe the CHRC is just here to help MPs get their bearings on the various raisons d’etre of CHRC’s global counterparts. Nevertheless, she’ll be there for today’s meeting, which will also include an appearance by Alan Borovoy, general counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
12:20:05 PM
Greetings, fans of chronically undercovered committee meetings chaired by the perpetually effervescent Scott “Not The Evil One. Wait, Which One Do You Consider The “Evil” One Again?” Reid! ITQ managed to make it to the Reading Room just before the macadamia cookies ran out, and can report there is a sizeable contingent of witnesses and onlookers on the scene already — from what she can overhear of the ongoing convesations, there are at least a half dozen or so representatives from the CHRC, including deputy chief commissioner David Langtry, Sebastien Sigouin and Monette Maillet; Alan Borovoy is also present and accounted for, but beyond that, I’m not entirely sure who’s who.So far, I’m the only reporter here — although that could be due to my pathological punctuality — and a few MPs are starting to arrive, including Russ Hiebert, who was responsible for the motion that established this particular study, and the NDP’s Wayne Marston. For the Bloc, we have – or will have, according to the nameplates, Eve-Mary Thai Thi Lac, and Mario Silva and Irwin Cotler will be up for the Liberals. On the government side, we have David Sweet – who I remember quite fondly from the Khadr hearings – and – wait, is that Bob Rae? It is! I wonder whose spot he’s taking?
Anyway, w should be getting underway soon.
12:37:28 PM
And – here we go!
