Two cases now before various Canadian “Human Rights Commissions” have begun to attract attention recently. Both Ezra Levant, former publisher of Western Standard magazine, and Mark Steyn, a popular columnist, have been brought up on charges for allegedly causing offense to some Muslim readers.
The complaint against Ezra Levant stems from his decision, in 2005, to print the famous “Danish cartoons” in his magazine. You will recall that most news media, both then and since, refused to print them. Accusations were flung at the mainstream media for its reticence — alleging double standards and cowardice — and at the Western Standard for its eagerness — alleging insensitivity and self-aggrandizement. Each party defended itself, most citing a tender concern for religious sensibilities (the press, after all, would never [well, sometimes] publish religiously offensive pictures) and Levant citing journalistic integrity (the cartoons were, after all, the occasion for the biggest news story of the time). But the details of the dispute are beside the point. Whether the cartoons’ publication was evidence of responsible journalism or just bad taste, I hope we can agree that Levant had the right to publish them. No doubt the cartoons are not “nice”, but political cartoons seldom are. (Most people are, I think, surprised at how tame these cartoons are.) In any case, Levant did not publish them as political cartoons, but as highly relevant illustrations to accompany a story covering the world-wide riots. Latitude for such an editorial decision is surely covered by our principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Those rights are being challenged by one Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, who filed the complaint.
I have no doubt that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are obnoxious to Mr. Soharwardy, for they are frequently obnoxious to me. I am therefore not surprised that he would wish to punish Mr. Levant, nor am I entirely surprised that he would solicit the state’s assistance to do so — for all I know, his strategy would be quite effective in Saudi Arabia or Iran, and he may believe that “that’s how things are done”. But in our polity, that’s not how things are done. Worse, therefore, than the original complaint is the decision of the Alberta Human Rights Commission to hear the complaint and initiate an inquiry, for by doing so they lend it the appearance of legitimacy. As a result, we are treated to the spectacle of a publisher forced to justify its editorial decisions to the state.
Some argue that, since the complaint may yet be thrown out, a judgment on the justice of the affair must wait for the Commission’s ruling. But in the world of Human Rights Commissions, the process is itself the punishment. The accused, for example, is forced to pay for their legal defence, while the government picks up the complainant’s tab. It’s a system ripe for abuse, a veritable solicitation for frivolous accusations.
Ezra Levant was questioned by the Alberta Human Rights Commission last week, and much, I’m sure, to the chagrin of said Commission, has posted videos of the proceedings on YouTube. (For instance, here are his opening and closing statements.) There are a few different tacks Levant could have taken when forced to testify; he chose to be as uncooperative as possible, refusing to recognize the Commission’s legitimacy and jurisdiction over him. Instead, he used the opportunity to give an angry, but largely eloquent, defence of those basic freedoms which should protect him from state censure.
Given the harm the Commission is able to inflict on the accused, and the belligerence with which Levant sallied forth, one cannot but be bitterly disappointed by the lame dramatic showing of his foe. The Commission’s interrogator — even the word seems too stern — responded to his anger with a shrug and some platitudes. Just another day at the office.
The case against Mark Steyn is even more ridiculous. Last year Maclean’s magazine published an excerpt from Steyn’s book America Alone. His theme concerns demographic changes in Western Europe, and he quoted a Norwegian Muslim leader, Mullah Krekar, who proudly claimed that “The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.” It was the entomological comparison that provoked the complaint, filed by the Canadian Islamic Congress. To their shame, the BC Human Rights Commission and the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission have agreed to hear the case. I am at a loss to comprehend the nature of the harm Steyn has allegedly perpetrated. If free speech does not cover accurate quotation, especially when it ruffles a few feathers, what does it cover?
A few public voices have begun to be raised in the defence of Levant and Steyn. Alan Borovoy, general counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who helped found these Human Rights Commissions several decades ago, has said that “during the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech”. A few Canadian columnists have also begun to speak up. For instance:
- Rex Murphy, at the CBC
- Andrew Coyne, at Maclean’s
- David Warren, at the Ottawa Citizen
- Mark Steyn himself, at Maclean’s
There is much more that could be said: about legitimate restrictions on speech; about the virtue of civility in public life; about the compelling of apologies; about the other, lower profile cases that have been and are now being prosecuted by these Commissions; about the irregularities in due process that the Commissions permit; about the foundations of free speech rights; about the political challenges of cultural pluralism; about the limits of government power; and so on. But not today.
Perhaps the best thing about these affairs is that they are shining a bright light on these Kafka-esque tribunals that exist on the fringes of our justice system. My hope is that they will provoke a serious re-examination and reform of these bodies, or even their abolition.
