Canada's Thought Police

From the New York Post:

Celebrated author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian judicial panels on charges linked to his book “America Alone."

The book, a No. 1 bestseller in Canada, argues that Western nations are succumbing to an Islamist imperialist threat. The fact that charges based on it are proceeding apace proves his point.

Reassuring thought for the day: No matter who wins the election, at least we're not Canada.

Comments

[David H. Sundwall]

Good point and thanks for the pick-me-up.

I've been meaning to get his book for awhile and now I think I'll have to do it.

[Drew]

"The plaintiffs allege that Maclean's advocated, among other things, the notion that Islamic culture is incompatible with Canada's liberalized, Western civilization. They insist such a notion is untrue and, in effect, want opinions like that banned from publication."

Islamic culture can coexist with Western civilization's freedom of choice and expression. Agree to that, or die!

How ironic.

[canadiancynic]

Now just hold on. Look at the arguments the book is putting forth. What is he advocating as a soloution to this 'muslim hegemony' argument? Check out the years devoted to the Ernst Zundle extridition proceedings before you run off your mouth about Canada not being serious about free speech. We have serious laws about 'fighting words'. Deal with your Chimperor disregarding the constitution.

[Dave]

Cynic, you are so elliptical I can't quite tell where you're coming from, but for anyone who is interested, Wikipedia has a long write-up on the colorful Mr. Zundel. In Canada, he was charged with "spreading false news" for publishing Holocaust denial literature. He was convicted, but the criminal convictions were later overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada because the underlying statute was held to violate Canada's rights of free expression. Canada has them, apparently.

I guess my question would be if it is established case law that Holocaust denial literature is permissible expression, why would any tribunal in Canada think that Steyn's book is not likewise permissible expression?

[canadiancynic]

Short answer to your question: Well, the CHRC and the BCHRC are both something of publicity whores. Many of these complaints are fairly mundane and since the HRC's are mostly investigative bodies, unless the complaint is completely scurrilous on first appearance they are investigated. Let me give you an example Take a look at the single final decision thus far in 2008. Totally soporific reading, very typical of the normal decisions these bodies investigate.

Excellent, you read up on Zundel. Note the route his interaction with the HRT took, first a complaint, then judicial proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court.

Let's get a few things clear. Steyr is not being brought up before a judge, he's appearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, an extra-judicial body that generally arbitrates cases of harassment in the workplace. The CHRT operates pretty much under the radar up here, mostly because they engage in arbitration, not judicial review. Furthermore, Steyr is not in the complaint, Macleans the magazine that published a chapter from his book is named in the complaint.

I know it's reflexive and all to point to us socialists up north, but check your sources...especially when they involve the New York Post opinion section. Let me give you an example

"Two separate panels, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, have agreed to hear the case. These bodies are empowered to hear and rule on cases of purported “hate speech."

Of course, a ban on opinions - even disagreeable ones - is the very antithesis of the Western tradition of free speech and freedom of the press."

'Hear and rule on cases of purported 'hate speech' to 'a ban on opinions' in one paragraph. HUGE jump here. The human rights commissions could never create sanctions of that magnitude, they are required to submit any recommendations to the federal courts. Criminal charges would be filed in the courts and judged according to the Constitution and precedent. This is a slow, tiresome process... just like the US Supreme Court. It took 15 years of court battles over Zundle before he was deported and he did far more than publish one book.

Maybe it's a bit of an overreaction but quick soundbite pundit thinking annoys the %^&* out of me. Your usually pretty thoughtful here, just think about the sources your using.

[Dave]

Thanks for the wealth of detail, Cynic. Not to be too tough on the homeland of salt and vinegar potato chips and Nanaimo bars, but what gets classified and prosecuted as "hate speech" is often just unpopular opinion, so it's not really a leap -- unless the article is completely off base, Macleans (and, indirectly, Steyn) is potentially in trouble precisely because of the opinions it published.

And the fact that these "extra-judicial" tribunals (which do seem to have the power to compel the accused to appear and answer the charges, so they must have some sort of contempt power) can only make recommendations to the Canadian federal courts certainly doesn't mean they are powerless or that one required to appear before that tribunal can't have their reputation smeared regardless of the outcome.

Perhaps Steyn's next book will be about Canada.

[Doc]

CC,
I am not so sure fighting hate speech and freedom of speech are not mutually exclusive. Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is very instructive as to how and why. I believe there is a point where fear of small minds can in itself cause our own minds to shrink.

[CanadianCynic]

I understand the objections... but honestly.. read that leap of logic again. And it's the New York Post people! The claim of 'thought police' is utterly ridiculous at face value.

Now, are some of the decisions troubling? Yes. I've read many of them. Most of the decisions are inane, some slightly frightening from a civil liberties standpoint (such as the Warman v. Beaumont decision) However this is an issue that is not aided in any way by posturing right-wing nuts making wild claims. The darn thing isn't even satire, it's the breathless fearmongering I've come to expect from Coulter.

[Dave]

"Thought police" ... that's just my own headline hyperbole. There are other sources than the New York Post, that just happened to be the story that I stumbled on while surfing:

National Review
Canada Free Press
Calgary Herald
and Macleans

[Jack]

"Deal with your Chimperor disregarding the constitution."

See, that's the kind of crap anyone can say anywhere, anytime in the free world and not get dragged up before some ridiculous socialist tribunal. But, breath the slightest criticism toward a mortal enemy and you're committing hate crimes of the first order--and are judged by a bunch of long faced socialist bureaucrats as a greater threat to national security than people who fly airplanes into large populated urban-centers.

[Nate W.]

Dave, the case hasn't been heard yet. How about you let the tribunal make a ruling before you fly off the handle? It just sounds to me like it's following in the western tradition of allowing a plaintiff to proceed with its complaint as long as they allege some facts to justify it. Even an American court wouldn't be able to throw this one out on summary judgment this fast.

Besides, from my research, it sounds as though the relief they want is to publish a response in MacLean's. While this particular fact scenario would not pass constitutional muster in the United States, change it from a magazine to a television network and their requested relief would be hunky dory under the first amendment as interpreted in Red Lion.

Save your outrage for a bad decision, if it happens.

[Dave]

Whoa -- outrage? Flying off the handle? I really don't think a link to the New York Post and a one-sentence, 15-word commentary amounts to outrage.

And even if, hypothetically, it did, it would be outrage over the failure of Canadian institutions to support free expression, not against Canada per se. I love Canada. I've shopped at Canadian Tire. I've driven the Coquihalla Highway in wintertime. I watched Due South. I've been through every border crossing between the Peace Arch and Minnesota. I've even watched Hockey Night in Canada in Canada.

Obviously, I don't think Canada's "free speech and how to enforce it" approach is going to win any awards. I don't even think it's coherent. But I've got nothing against Canada. Oh, and if you happen to be reading this post in Canada, please don't report me to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

[R.W. Rasband]

If Steyn were a liberal, would you wait "for the bad decision to come down" from this kangaroo court to express outrage? Doubt it very much.

[CanadianCynic]

@ Jack

Talk about leaps of logic. I can say whatever I darn well please about His Monkeyness as long as I don't suggest acts of violence against his primate person. If I do that you can be darn sure I'm going to get a visit from the FBI or the Secret Service. It's well established that there are limits to free speech. What exactly those are, our respective liberal democracies are still working out. Smart ass comments about your rich white establishment president do not hate speech make.

@Dave

I was impressed with the Macleans response. That was an excellent and moderate reply to both Stein and the CIC complaint. Nary a thought police reference in sight. The Free Press is a rag like WND, furthermore they just quoted the Calgary Herald article. The National Review coverage varies based on who's writing. Most of their articles are written in an alarmist tone.

I'm pissed less with this being brought up before the CHRC than with the way that Steyn and the right are framing the complaint. Like most Canadians, I mostly ignore the CHRC. He hasn't been censured, there have been no tossing in jail... and if there was the howling would be spectacular.

[Jettboy]

CanadianCynic,

I really don't think you understand where American anger is coming from. No one should be brought before anyone for any reason when publishing a book that, by all accounts, doesn't directly promote violence to an individual or nation. As the saying goes here in the U.S., you fight speech with speech (or the liberal watch word education) and not a court of any kind. Heck, even promoting violence toward a group is not considered something that in the U.S. would automatically bring to a court setting.

Here in the United States, if the government has a complaint about what someone wrote they don't summon a court preliminary. They hold a press conference or publish a response somewhere. If someone sued the writer, I assure you it would be thrown out almost immediately. You really should read Fahrenheit 451 as it has become something of a Bible on American free press attitudes. If you are Mormon or understand the history of the LDS Church, you should understand that the final straw of the anti-Mormons that lead to the arrest and murder of Joseph Smith was a judicial response toward a published work. The line of "free press" in the United States has been drawn even more explicit over the years.

The American bottom line: Don't touch the press, Period! Not without a very specific and very good reason.

[Gary]

Jettboy: My understanding is that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a law which imposes a stiffer penalty for certain crimes which are motivated by hate. Even though this was in the context of a separate crime, and the hate itself was not the crime, this is still a recognition that the right to hate and to express hate is not absolute, and is punishable by the State, at least in some circumstances. Although I am a Canadian who is troubled by laws against hate speech, the issue is clearly not as simple as you or the New York Post would make it out to be.

And although the US probably does have a slightly more abolutist view about freedom of speech, Canada does not have elected representatives who are suppressing the teaching of science in schools in favor of religious dogma. And I am quite confident that Mitt Romney's religion would be a nonissue were he to run in Canada, and Mike Huckabee would be pilloried by the Canadian electorate for many of his comments on that topic. Not because of there would be any laws against his comments, but because they would be widely viewed as narrow minded and offensive. The promotion of tolerance for others' beliefs and opinions, and the protection of freedom of thought, expression and religion are accomplished by more than constitutional law.

[Gary]

Incidentally, the attitude in Canada, is also "Don't touch the press, period. Not without a specific and very good reason." That is actually a pretty fair summary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The issue here is whether there is a specific and very good reason, and no judicial tribunal has answered that question yet.

[Jack]

"Smart ass comments about your rich white establishment president do not hate speech make."

And that's the great irony--substitute "rich" with any other socio-economic stratum and "white" with any other color and, voila, your "smart ass comment" is miraculously transformed into hate-speech.

Now whether or not there will be any litigation following the "hateful" outcry is another matter. It is still hate-speech by modern cultural standards.

[Kim Siever]

"even if, hypothetically, it did, it would be outrage over the failure of Canadian institutions to support free expression, not against Canada per se"

Unfortunately, your comment "No matter who wins the election, at least we're not Canada" (rather than "at least we don't have Canadian institutions") gives a different impression.

[canadian_email]

I happen to be very fond of Canada. Good thing you are not coming home tonight. You might have to sleep outside in the snowy cat house.

[Clark Goble]

Let's be honest though. In Canada there are tons more limits on the press than in the United States. It's illegal in Canada to report on crimes if a judge decides they might bias any trial. Thus those nasty serial killers from back in the early 90's that it was illegal to report on. Then there are the Canadian content rules on radio stations, magazines and TV. Then there is the hate speech rule. While one can say it's limited the fact is that having to go to court or tribunals and defend oneself isn't cheap and is a de facto way of limiting speech.

Don't get me wrong. The United States has its own problems. But let's be cautious about defending Canada too much here.

[Kim Siever]

"Then there are the Canadian content rules on radio stations, magazines and TV."

Because providing protection from American media further eroding Canadian culture is such a bad thing.