A Dime a Dozen Blog

I’m sure you’ve heard by now that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has surrendered and begged off its prosecution of Maclean’s magazine and Mark Steyn.

But what does it mean now that the CHRC has thrown in the towel?  I suppose first off it means that we supporters get a small moral victory – even the CHRC recognizes that this case was preposterous:

the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision. Considering the purpose and scope of section 13 (1), and taking into account that an interpretation of s. 13 (1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a Tribunal.

For these reasons, this complaint is dismissed.

Look at the blue text.  That’s an unusual way to put it, it’s almost as if they’re not talking about the case at all, but are instead covering their collective institutional backsides.

And that’s the flip side of this coin.  All along we ‘Speechers’ have been saying that this case is the greatest example of the CHRC’s over-reaching, and suppression of free speech.  Now that the institution itself has thrown out the case, then our case for the reformation or abolition of 13(1) might be more easily attacked.

The ’supporters’ of 13(1) in the blogosphere have been saying that the CHRC is right to investigate all claims, and that its own mechanisms will work and decide this case on the merits and likely throw it out.    And on the face of it, it looks like they have a claim to, if not victory, then vindication.  “The system works.”

Bollocks to that.  The words of the tribunal belie the reasons for this case’s dismissal.  It has nothing to do with the facts of the case, and everything to do with the pressures they faced from parliament and a vocal segment of the public.  As I said, it was like they weren’t speaking about Maclean’s at all.  They were principally speaking to parliamentary committee members:

Be it resolved that the Justice and Human Rights Committee examine and make recommendations with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in particular:

a) review the mandate and operations of the Commission;

b) review the Commission’s application and interpretation of section 13 of the Act;

c) Solicit and consider oral submissions from the Chief Commissioner and oral or written submissions from other interested persons or organizations;

d) Submit a report, including any proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act arising out of the results of the Committee’s inquiry.

When the CHRC finds itself in front of the committee, they will have the ability to say that they have functioning mechanisms to throw out frivolous cases, and that section 13(1) is applied carefully so as to be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech.  And what do we have?

The committee will “review the Commission’s application and interpretation of section 13 of the Act”.

Now that the Macleans case has been dropped, our problem is no longer with how the act is applied or interpreted by the commission, but how the act was written by parliament.  The commission hasn’t gone off the rails in running with the Steyn case.  It looks completely consistent with the word and spirit of the Canadian Human Rights Act:

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

This has been the problem all along.  Even if the CHRC were composed of angels who believed in rules of evidence, fairness, funding public defenders for the accused, and applying the act equally across the political spectrum – even if that – it would still be wrong.

We’ve been spinning our wheels fighting a surprisingly cunning CHRC.  It’s never where your real fight was anyways.  We’ve fallen into our opponents’ trap.  Look at guys like self-described ‘pompous ass’ Warren Kinsella – he’s wanted this to be about specific cases.  He wants us to stand and defend Nazis.  It muddies the issue, because at the end of the day, most of us believe in  some limits, so we find ourselves parsing the sayings of Herr Tyepncrappen of the ‘White’ this or that site: which sayings are hateful? which are dangerous? where’s the line?

It’s beside the point.  We shouldn’t waste our time arguing over the merits of specific cases, or the flawed personalities and procedures of the CHRC.

Our time is best spent fighting this on principle.  Yes, finding a CHRC member who said ‘n*%ger in an email is really entertaining, but it doesn’t get us any further along toward our goal.  Our entertaining cause célèbre is finished – but the problem remains and we can’t give it up, as dry as the fight may be.

From Macleans’ response to the CHRC’s surrender:

Though gratified by the decision, Maclean’s continues to assert that no human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial decisions of the nation’s media. And we continue to have grave concerns about a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same
complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to say nothing of the inconvenience. We enthusiastically support those parliamentarians who are calling for legislative review of the commissions with regard to speech issues.