Mark Steyn Versus the Human Rights Commission

Recently, the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), as well as four Osgoode Hall law students, filed complaints with The Human Rights Commissions (HRC) of Ontario, British Columbia, and Canada against Maclean's magazine for having published an excerpt of Mark Steyn's book, America Alone . The excerpt, titled "The Future Belongs to Islam", discusses Europe's changing demographics due to the high birth rates of European Muslims compared to the below-replacement birth rates of indigenous Europeans.

Although this complaint is, in the opinion of this writer, not only frivolous but an affront to democracy and liberalism, it is nevertheless welcome as it has led to a much needed discussion on free speech in Canada, and particularly on the sordid role so-called human rights commissions have in stifling free speech in Canada.

The complaint in question cites several passages from Steyn's writing as being flagrantly islamophobic, and portrays European Muslims as being unable or unwilling to integrate into mainstream European society. This characterization of "The Future Belongs to Islam", is quite accurate, and the fact that Muslims who read the piece were offended after reading it is understandable, even  expected.

Interestingly, one of the most offending phrases in the complaint,  "Muslims are expanding like mosquitoes", was actually penned by a Norwegian imam, and merely quoted by Steyn.

The complaint also deplores the fact that, when approached by the complainants in this matter, Maclean's editors refused to publish their response to the offending article.

Both the Canadian and British Columbia human rights commissions have agreed to hear the complaint, while the Ontario counterpart has yet to decide. The damage to freedom of speech, however, has already been done, and Maclean's has already been punished. Indeed, while the complainants do not have to spend a single penny to have their complaint heard, the defendants must defend themselves out of pocket. Therefore, even if the complaints ultimately fail, the legal costs and other difficulties associated with the defence constitute a punishment as well as a strong incentive not to publish controversial opinions in the future.

Freedom of expression is a hallmark of a free society. It is widely recognized as a basic human right in every major document which attempts to describe and guarantee human rights, including the United States' Bill of Rights, Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

More importantly, however, freedom of speech is the freedom which ensures ideas live and die based on their merit, rather than based on whether they conform to state-imposed orthodoxy. It is the freedom that ensures that citizens are well informed, and that citizens may express their disapproval with government policy. Other rights and freedoms, and in particular our democratic rights, such as the right to vote or the right to run for office, become meaningless without freedom of speech, as these rights are predicated on the existence of informed citizens capable of freely debating ideas.

Now, proponents of human rights commissions point out that free speech is in fact limited by law in Canada. For instance, they will refer to laws on libel and slander, as well as Criminal Code provisions regarding hate speech. Yet, regardless of whether these laws may or may not prove to be reasonable limits on freedom of speech, at least they are enforced through the courts, where rules of evidence apply, and where the conflict between our Charter freedoms and other legislation is handled judicially.

This is not the case with human rights commissions, where rules of evidence are "relaxed" (in other words, anything goes, including hearsay), and where the "hurt feelings" of complainants are important considerations. Moreover, truth is no defence at the HRCs, and the Charter guarantees are swept aside with a single sentence. The simple fact that a matter as important as freedom of speech is within the purview of such a kangaroo court should send shivers down the spine of every freedom loving Canadian.

Human rights commissions were originally intended to redress discrimination in the areas of employment and housing. Their roles have now expanded to monitor speech. This should be an unwelcome development to anybody who calls themselves "liberal" and who actually understands what being liberal means.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment

Email Name		Title Comment smaller | bigger
		I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage. Write the displayed characters Add Comment