The future belongs to the squeaky wheels
June 3rd, 2008 by Joanne
Many of my fellow Blogging Tories have done a great job covering yesterday’s events at the BC ‘Human Rights’ Tribunal, where an investigation is beginning into charges against Macleans for an article written by Mark Steyn, Why the future belongs to Islam.
In addition, Maclean’s Andrew Coyne has been live-blogging and Ezra Levant has been providing extensive commentary.
In reading today’s Post article by Brian Hutchinson (Court of last resort) , I was struck by the surreal Orwellian aspect of the whole situation:
…That’s the bizarre part, or one slice of it. None of the main players starring in this quasi-judicial drama actually live or work in B. C. Not Mr. Steyn, not the editors responsible for Maclean’s, and not Mohamed Elmasry, a Muslim who launched a complaint to the B. C. Human Rights Tribunal on behalf of all Muslims in this province.
Neither Mr. Steyn, nor his editors, nor Mr. Elmasry were in sight when the tribunal panel began the week-long hearing yesterday. Mr. Steyn will not testify, say lawyers for Maclean’s. Nor will Mr. Elmasry, the aggrieved. So why bring the complaint forward here? Because Mr. Elmasry can. This thanks to provincial human rights legislation of a breadth and elasticity not known in other parts of Canada.
Mr. Elmasry, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, and a highly controversial figure himself — especially among Jewish groups — claims the Steyn excerpt denigrated and vilified Canadian Muslims and promoted hatred of an identifiable group.
He is not obliged to demonstrate what harm occurred to whom, or to what degree. Maclean’s magazine and Mr. Steyn could still be found to have violated B. C.’s Human Rights Code. No proof of damage is required.
Meanwhile, if found to have violated the code, Maclean’s faces sanctions, including payment to the complainant “an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them.”The magazine could also be ordered to stop publishing certain ideas and points of view. Lawyer Faisal Joseph, representing the complainant, asked the Tribunal yesterday to use its “discretion” and order Maclean’s to publish a suitable response in its pages. That, or publish the panel’s ultimate findings. Such are the frightening aspect of this case.
“Strict rules of evidence do not apply” in cases before the Tribunal , noted its chairwoman, Heather MacNaughton…
Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin was the first federal politician to begin questioning this process, and others are slowing starting to follow.
We all need to work together to address this outrageous assault on our own Human Rights – that is to be able to express ourselves freely, and have a fair system in place if harm can be demonstrated to have occurred, rather than being prosecuted for some kind of contagious Thought Crime, which appears to be within the purview of the HRC as it stands now.
This is the tipping point. All Canadian citizens need to get involved before it’s too late.
* * * *
Update: Day Two of the Human Rights Farce (H/T to Gay & Right for that one!). Andrew and Ezra are doing some fine live-blogging.
More at Jack’s Newswatch.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008 at 8:45 am and is filed under Comment approved by HRC. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
Unbelievable ! It all sounds so bizzare. did we fall through the looking glass.???
cheers bubba
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 am
This happened because we let it. Complacency.
If the type of outrage that we now are mustering against the HRCs had been mustered 30 years ago, if the people working together to fight the HRCs had been around and fought back then, then they would not have come into place, or not have come into place in the current Stalinist form.
It’s far easier to oppose the creation of a government fiasco than to get rid of it once it is created.
This should be a lesson we never forget. If we do not get involved in the running of our society, and leave it to the bureaucrats and agenda-driven individuals who typically worm their way into positions of power while normal people try to go about their normal lives, then we will lose the soul of this country.
How on earth can we have Ayatollah Khomeini and Sharia supporters on the Ontario Human Rights Commission board (see Tarek Fatah’s post in Andrew Coyne blog) http://tinyurl.com/4sze5v
Case in point, the current retarded politically correct discussion about “carbon tax”. We need to muster a defense against this idiocy before it becomes accepted as the new normal.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 am
Lori, I agree that we need to get involved. Please contact your MP and express your concerns, Thanks.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 am
LOL. For the last 6 months I have been emailing, FAXing, posting, and snail mailing to everyone I could.
Today I just returned the special “certificate” that I received from the CPC a few days ago for my donations to the CPC over the years. I assume other people here have received this token.
I returned it along with a note saying that my donations all go to Levant and Co, as well as a few bucks to Keith Martin. Nothing more to the CPC for now until this issue becomes a CPC issue. I believe it has been mainstreamed enough for the CPC to step in on the matter. No more hiding behind bland form letters talking about “arms length” etc etc.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:13 am
…I returned it along with a note saying that my donations all go to Levant and Co, as well as a few bucks to Keith Martin…
Awesome! That should get their attention!!!
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 am
BTW, I’ve added a couple of links in the paragraph about Keith Martin. A few CPC MPs are beginning to get the message too.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
The government cut funding to various groups, can’t it just cut funding to HRC across Canada. How about a law saying those filing complaints must put up a 100,000 bond before it can continue.
I have also told those phoning for money that mine goes to Ezra and others, not the cpc.
They will still get my vote, but not my money.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
The government cut funding to various groups, can’t it just cut funding to HRC across Canada. How about a law saying those filing complaints must put up a 100,000 bond before it can continue.
I have also told those phoning for money that mine goes to Ezra and others, not the cpc.
They will still get my vote, but not my money.
mary T …I can remember embarking on what seemed to be a good cause here in NB …a bow hunting season ….the govt. grabbed it and took advantage of it ….recommendations were made to curve the results of the governments structuring and manipulations of the new plan …all with the same results that would lead to less liberty’s and freedoms ….don’t forget we are dealing with lawyers …they couldn’t give a shit past their next pay check . all too often we as citizens can come up with good ideas that they can turn to their advantage ….isn’t that what its about ..winning … http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9162
this link is a read …I know some will say its some sort of conspiracy or something else but as Canadians arnt we just a little behind the Americans …if this is true and you can take half of what this article may imply and in turn look forward to walking in our big brothers shadow then I think we have more important things to consider .Your suggestion of a person say like myself putting up 100,000.oo is ridiculous ….Oh I guess I could get some fat rich lawyer to take care of that part , but would have to adjust his rate based on the outcome …you know a percentage of the final deal with all his costs and I am sure other such hidden expenses …Yes we have created a monster …much like a good gun in the wrong hands …
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
If a person decides to file a complaint with HRC, on behalf of a group he/she feels was offended, then all those offended could contribute to the bond. And, if this person wins, all money awarded would have to be equally distributed to those offended. That would stop a lot of these stupid complaints. Why should one person benefit financially from his/her supposed insult.
If an individual felt he/she had a legitimate complaint, affecting only one person, the bond could be lowered. If these people lose, the bond could be used to pay the costs of said kangaroo court.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Sounds like a fair plan to me, Mary T. The way it’s set up now is totally ridiculous.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
[...] Many blogs (more and yet more) have covered the free speech aspects of the case. The result is clear: In the United States, for better or for worse, the article and the magazine would be protected by the First Amendment. [...]