Two newspapers

Earlier today I posted the Globe and Mail's editorial on human rights commissions without much comment. But it deserves significant notice; in a way it is as momentous a political landmark as Keith Martin's private member's motion.

It's one thing for conservative op-ed columnists to criticize the abusive human rights commissions or for the editorial boards of classical liberal or conservative newspapers like the National Post or the Calgary Herald to do the same. Of course those are important. But the editorial column of the Globe and Mail is arguably the least radical piece of opinion real estate in Canadian journalism. The Globe and Mail is the weathervane of the Toronto moderate establishment; when human rights commissions are denounced by them, it's conventional wisdom. The editorial is a landmark; if any Member of Parliament doubted that it was politically safe to -- in the Globe's words -- "rein them in before further damage is done to Canadians' right to free expression", they can point to the Globe's blessing: "a change in their mandates is much needed."

I also notice that the Jewish Tribune, the official newspaper of the B'nai Brith, has reprinted a scathing criticism of human rights commissions (see page 4), written by the Mackenzie Institute's John Thompson.

This is an impressive turn for the B'nai Brith, which has in the past dabbled discreditably in the human rights complaints business. What a smart contrast they make with the Canadian Jewish Congress, which just can't help itself from barrelling down the road of these commissions when the rest of the world is distancing themselves from them. The latest embarrassment from the CJC is their demand that the Ahenakew case be appealled to the Supreme Court. That's not a human rights commission case, but it is a clear case of politically bullying a harmless old coot -- and turning him into a celebrity in the meantime. Talk about doubling down on a losing hand. No wonder the CJC is increasingly finding itself politically marginalized.