CHRC Dismisses Complaint Against Maclean's

Well, good news on the free speech front: while the BC Human Rights Commission won't rule on the Canadian Islamic Congress' action against Maclean's for a couple of months yet (not sure why a decision like that takes a couple of months) the Canadian Human Rights Commission has decided to drop the case.

In their decision, the Commission first outlines the petinent section of the Canadian Human Rights Act, subsection 13(1), which reads as follows:

It is discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated,. . . 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 grounds for discrimination.

At the same time, the Commission acknowledges that to act upon section 13 would effectively limit section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads as follows:

2) Everyone has the fundamental freedoms: b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

The decision goes on to say (in essence) that precedent has established that, while section 13(1) of the CHRA could legally be used to limit section 2(b) of the Charter, the Commission must use "caution and restraint. . . so that the limitation of free speech would be minimized to the greatest extent possible." Further, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Dickson is quoted as saying that, "it is important to recognize that expressive activities advocating unpopular or discredited positions are not to be accorded reduced constitutional protection. . ."

In the end, the Commision has determined that while "The writing is polemical, colourful, emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. . . . the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered in whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court. . . and taking into account that an interpretation of section 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."

Council for the CIC said the decision came as no surprise "in light of the inappropriate political pressure that has been brought to bear on the commission and has prompted the commission to set up an internal review of its procedures. . ." I'm sorry, but did I read that correctly?? Inappropriate political pressure? Boy, have I been confused! I was somehow under the strange impression that Canada was a democratic country, and that democracy is premised on the idea of a government that is responsive to the will of the people. I had no idea that that will was subject to limitations on what is appropriate and what is not. The fact that the CIC has abused the legal process, attempting to have their "plight" heard in THREE seperate jurisdictions - they went to the BC Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which also dismissed the case - to me is inappopriate and appropriately has raised the eyebrows of the Canadian public who are forced to foot the bill!!

So, it looks as though democracy has dodged another bullet. I wish I could say I am relieved, but I know that the bullets will just keep coming, and I fear that, despite what they might say, Maclean's and other members of the media will take a lesson from this whole production and self-censor themselves in the future.