Nina Grewal: "a fundamental review is needed"

Nina Grewal, the Conservative MP, has written a letter to a constituent saying she's for a "fundamental review" of the Canadian Human Rights Act in light of recent abuses of the "hate speech" section by the federal human rights commission. She refers specifically to Mark Steyn's case and my own. Hers is not a rip-snorting defence of free speech -- Grewal's style is always understated, even cautious -- but it's a good start:

There are, however, areas where reform may be required; specifically the willingness of commissions to consider questions relating to freedom of speech.  I am worried that by censoring one kind of expression, it will be easier to start censoring others.

Like Keith Martin, the Liberal MP who has proposed a private member's motion to delete the offensive section 13 of the law, Ms. Grewal is from British Columbia. I think there is a libertarian streak in that province, across all party lines.

Of course, being from B.C. isn't the only commonality Ms. Grewal has with Dr. Martin: both are visible minorities. Most Canadians, especially British Columbians, don't even notice such things anymore -- politics, business and life in general in B.C. is completely integrated. They were the first province to have a Sikh premier, for example; twenty years ago their Lieutenant-Governor was of Chinese ancestry; their current Lt-Gov. is Aboriginal.

The most frequent argument marshalled by the defenders of section 13 of the CHRA is not really an argument -- it's to make ad hominem attacks on anyone who supports free speech, claiming they're in league with white supremacists and neo-Nazis. That insult is getting more and more ridiculous all the time, given that the leading advocates for amending the law are visible minorities and Jews.