Two parties comment on human rights legislation

Here is an e-mail I received from an Albertan who canvassed the Alberta Liberal Party about the Alberta human rights commission and my case. The whole letter is very strong; here are some excerpts:

The Alberta Liberal Party supports Mr. Levant’s freedom to express his opinions and to maintain, what the American Supreme Court termed, “the marketplace of ideas”.  If citizens and publishers don’t maintain the limits of their freedoms it would bring about a chill in fundamental freedoms which could adversely affect all Canadians.  The Alberta Liberal Party shares the opinion expressed in Ross v. New Brunswick School District No.15; when discussing the importance and limits of expression, Justice La Forest opined in s. 2(b):

“…[freedom of expression] is not restricted to views shared or accepted by the majority, nor to truthful opinions.  Rather, freedom of expression serves to protect the right of the minority to express its view, however unpopular such views may be…”

It's an impressive reply for a number of reasons and, along with Keith Martin, it's a welcome sign that some Liberals remember that their party name means "freedom".

• I've been a life-long conservative, but the Liberal Party doesn't shy away from explicitly mentioning me and my case by name, and acknowledging my rights.
• The reference to the "marketplace of ideas" is wonderful -- and the fact that a Canadian Liberal felt comfortable acknowledging that that phrase was used by the U.S. Supreme Court shows an extra degree of confidence.
• The reference to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Ross case not only shows research and sophistication, but boldness again -- that the Liberals would protect "unpopular" views.

Compare this bold, principled statement by the Alberta Liberals with what Al Siebring says is a document of

The document looks real enough to me, though the source of it and the date of it aren't clear. I think that any Tory MP who followed the memo's instructions to speak in empty banalities would frustrate reporters and constituents alike. I grant that is sometimes the point in a disciplined caucus that wants to choose its controversies carefully. But any MP who shifted away from the thought crime issue to the exemption of Indian reserves would just come across as an evasive politician.

Here is the meat of the memo regarding the thought crime provisions, with my comments interspersed:

"The Government of Canada is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights."

That's a nice cliche. But how about the human rights of free speech and fair legal processes?

"Canada's record on human rights is second to none. It is a record for which all Canadians can be proud."

This may be true in some cases, but it's manifestly not true in terms of dissident or politically incorrect speech. Can Canadians really be proud that their tax dollars are going to the prosecution of journalists, at the behest of illiberal Muslim radicals?

"Our government is currently taking steps to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act... Repealing section 67 is a prioriy for the government at this time..."

That's the section that exempts Indian reserves from the Act. Fair enough. But if the Act is fair game for amendments, why can't section 13 be amended, too? Does the author of these talking points really think that such a simple "bait and switch" would baffle a reporter or a constituent? 

"The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are independent agencies that administer the Canadian Human Rights Act, according to procedures specified by the law, without interference from the government."

Actually the Justice Minister regularly appoints commissioners to the CHRC -- slowly replacing the existing bureaucrats who run the place with those of his own choosing. What are the criteria he is using for those appointments? Does he just rubber-stamp the leftist/activist names put forward by the career civil servants? Or do they -- perish the thought -- actually reflect the Conservative government's philosophy?

And, as to the "procedures specified by law", how about the Charter of Rights and other Canadian laws guaranteeing free speech and due process? And how about the clearly corrupted "procedures" of the commission, which is acting in collusion with a former staffer who has become the single most prolific complainant under section 13?

"The Department of Justice continues to monitor the Commission and Tribunal to ensure that our human rights system remains effective."

Really? What kind of "monitoring" is going on? The former Liberal government subjected the federal commission to an inspection by the Auditor General, who gave the commission a failing grade. What is this government doing? Other than being wilfully blind to clear abuses of the system?

I say again I don't know who wrote these empty talking points, or when. But when every medium in the country, from the Globe and Mail to the Toronto Star to the National Post, are united in calling for an amendment of section 13, surely a little bit of political courage can be expected from a government calling itself Conservative.

I've had enough contact with various MPs and staff in Ottawa to know that these talking points do not reflect the whole picture of the government's thinking. At least I hope they don't. I have one talking point of my own that I'd send over:

"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack o­n our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." -- Stephen Harper, B.C. Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999

If the Liberal Party of Alberta can use the words "marketplace of ideas" and "freedom", surely the party that once had the courage to abolish the offensive Court Challenges Program can find the moxy to do no more than amend section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act while it's amending section 67.