An Alberta election issue?

The National Post has an editorial about Alberta's human rights commission, and suggests that reining in the commission's abusive powers ought to be a campaign issue in the imminent provincial election.

I have focused my hopes for political reform of these commissions on the federal level, for two reasons: there is a sympathetic Conservative government in power, and the egregious complaint against Mark Steyn is before the federal HRC. I think that Saskatchewan might be another jurisdiction ripe for change, given their new government, and their HRC's outrageous rulings.

Alberta, I thought, was a hopeless cause -- Ed Stelmach's government is conservative in name only and, unlike Ralph Klein who was comfortable being a politically incorrect, ordinary guy, Stelmach is nervous, hyper-scripted and politically correct. More to the point, the Tory government actively uses the human rights commission; they specifically sent a lawyer from the Attorney General to intervene in a recent case against a Christian pastor, arguing that freedom of speech and freedom of religion take a back seat behind the "right to not be offended". The HRC followed the government's marching orders, and convicted the pastor. Here are some stunning excerpts from the Tory intervention in that hearing:

And, as Barry Cooper, at witness at that hearing, wrote:

Incidentally, the government lawyer at the Boissoin-Lund panel asked me one of the strangest questions I have ever answered in many cross-examinations as a so-called expert witness. "How," he asked, would I "distinguish" Boissoin's letter to the Red Deer Advocate from Hitler's Mein Kampf? I resisted the temptation to give the reply that came immediately to mind and provided a more or less civil answer.

These are staggeringly awful comments from the government of Alberta. Would such a government really take the Post's advice, and rein in the province's HRC?

I doubt it; Stelmach has underwhelmed me since he became Tory leader a year ago for a host of reasons. But it's never too late to realize and correct a mistake, as Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association himself has done. Stelmach probably would shore up his weak right flank by scotching the provincial HRC. Despite support from the left and the right in the province, I just doubt he's got the courage or vision to do it. I hope I'm wrong. 

********

P.S. The National Post has covered this story more than any other media outlet in Canada, with a half-dozen op-eds, two or three unsigned editorials and, as far as I've seen, the only serious news report on the subject in the country. It's a testament not only to the classical liberal values of the newspaper's staff, but also the love for the law of its chairman, David Asper. The first time I ever encountered David was at the funeral of his father, the great Izzy Asper. All three children gave touching eulogies but David's was the most striking. With both then-prime minister Jean Chretien and imminent-prime minister Paul Martin sitting just a few feet in front of him, David described how Izzy had encouraged him to learn the law and to use it to "fight the eternal fight against the tyranny of the state". I couldn't believe my ears; it was one of the most libertarian things I had ever heard, and to hear it spoken at a funeral was only unsurprising in that it really was one of Izzy's credos. Some public figures believe those ideas privately, but I can count on one hand those who would say such a thing to the gathered political elite of the country. The Post has changed since I left it in 2001, but it's still a great newspaper, and the salutary changes that it has wrought to both the political and media landscape of Canada are incalculable.

I write this because I'm impressed that they're still covering this story, and calling for constructive change. And also to acknowledge that their gentle chiding -- that I've been "increasingly strident and aggressive" in my campaign against the HRCs -- is the good faith advice of an ally, not an ad hominem attack by a malicious opponent who has collateral purposes. It's good advice, too: the best way to fight a heavy fight is to retain a sense of humour, and that goes doubly so when battling congenitally humourless government bureaucrats. That's one of the reasons why Mark Steyn has been so successful in his HRC battle in the court of public opinion: there is no more powerful a political critique than one that makes people laugh at the ridiculousness of your opponents. That's Steyn's specialty; I've tried in the main to stay a "happy warrior", too. One of the tragedies of being caught in the Kafkaesque web of "human rights law" is that it can turn a good-humoured man sour; I believe that's what has happened over the years to many of the opponents of these HRCs, Doug Christie being one of them.

But a fight like this can't be won with milk alone; there is a proper use for gall and bile, and checking the illiberal and malicious nature of the HRC's busiest complainants is one such use. Rough men like Mohamed Elmasry, Syed Soharwardy and Richard Warman have succeeded in part because the rest of us have been so careful to be gentle and nice while they've been naughty.