|
CAN
Canada's human rights commissions be cured of their
free speech-stomping ways without changing any laws?
Irwin
Cotler seems to think so. (Though, to be clear, he didn't
use the words "free speech-stomping." That
would be my description.)
Cotler,
the former federal justice minister and attorney general
under the Liberals, dropped by The Chronicle Herald
building for an editorial board meeting last week. Cotler's
a lawyer with a long and impressive human rights resume.
He and Alan Borovoy, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's
general counsel, were two of the driving forces behind
the establishment of Canada's human rights commissions.
Like
Borovoy, it's clear Cotler believes the commissions
have, in investigating a number of complaints against
published materials that were deemed "offensive,"
gone off the rails from pursuing their original purpose.
These cases include the current complaints against Maclean's
magazine, for publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn's
latest book, America Alone, last fall, and Ezra Levant,
the ex-publisher of the now defunct Western Standard,
who reprinted the controversial Danish cartoons in 2006
of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Cotler,
as he's told bloggers who've asked him about this issue,
affirmed that though he supports restrictions on hate
speech, he believes freedom of expression is vital and
should be protected. Any suppression of speech, he said,
should only be for "wilful" expressions of
hate, occurring in "narrow, circumscribed circumstances."
The problem, he said, is that there's currently insufficient
protection against frivolous, vexatious complaints,
which those publishing at times edgy materials should
"not have to endure." What's needed, he suggested,
is some form of authorizing mechanism to vet complaints
before they go forward, such as the consent of the attorney
general. Any changes at the federal level, he added,
could hopefully be a template for provinces looking
at their own human rights commissions.
What
was most interesting was that Cotler, though at one
point musing human rights legislation may have to be
reformed or refined to deal with this problem, later
argued it should be possible to fix what's broken without
changing laws, i.e., administratively.
Cotler,
the MP for Mount Royal, said he's talked to fellow Liberal
MP Keith Martin - who's made a private member's motion
to eliminate section 13(1) of federal human rights law,
dealing with published materials deemed hateful to others
- and suggested Martin is open to his ideas. Martin's
motion, Cotler said, could take a long time to come
up for action, given how Parliament works. If the Canadian
human rights commission, however, took a course administratively
open to it, he said, amending the law may be unnecessary.
Unfortunately,
we had run out of time at this point, so Cotler provided
no further explanations. Cotler said he plans to write
extensively on this issue in an op/ed for The National
Post in the (near?) future.
Meanwhile,
although there's been extensive coverage of the matter
in the blogosphere online, and some politicians are
discussing the outrage over what are, at base, attempts
to censor free speech by those not wishing to be "offended,"
there's little indication that human rights commissions
have noticed they're treading the wrong path. Yes, Ontario's
human rights body declined to hear the Steyn case, but
the federal and B.C. commissions have continued investigations.
And Levant's file is still alive at the Alberta commission.
Whether
Martin agrees or not with Cotler on potential solutions,
the B.C. MP has rightly suggested Parliament's own human
rights committee should schedule hearings into the controversy.
Perhaps if MPs debated ways to corral the runaway government
agency, lights would finally go over the heads of the
CHRC brain trust. Though I'm as doubtful of that as
I am that the commission would administratively agree
to change its ways.
One
more tidbit for anyone interested in the ongoing battle
to protect free speech from human rights commissions.
A week from now, on March 25, the Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal will hold a hearing in Ottawa where the defendant,
Marc Lemire, can ask human rights commission staff if
they've used pseudonyms to plant hate messages in online
discussion boards. The answer to that is apparently
yes, but the hearing will hopefully provide more details
about what goes on behind the scenes. (Lemire is associated
with the Heritage Front, a white supremacist group,
but the idea that human rights agents may be planting
hate messages is repulsive). Oh, and here's a big surprise.
The tribunal has ruled the hearing will be closed to
the public.
|
