Human rights commissions in the news

To my delight, human rights commissions are moving from the editorial pages to the news pages. That kind of exposure is important in the campaign to denormalize them. The debate in the blogosphere is mature -- and has tired out some people -- but it's just getting revved up in the mainstream media.

Art Spiegelman

Here's a great story in the National Post about Art Spiegelman, the author of the Pulitzer Prize winning Maus graphic novels. Maus was a gripping read; I still remember some of the more haunting panels from it. I was amazed to learn that Spiegelman has been following the war against free speech waged by Canada's human rights commissions. But perhaps I shouldn't be amazed; Spiegelman and I have something in common, in that both of our magazines were kicked off the shelves of Chapter/Indigo for being too politically incorrect. (In the Western Standard's case, right during the chain's "Freedom to Read Week". Nice touch.)

The Western Standard's case and the Maclean's/Mark Steyn case have been big news around the world -- embarrassing news for Canada. How long does that sort of thing go on before our reputation as a liberal democracy is measurably reduced?

Here are some excerpts from that article, written by Joseph Brean:

This week, as the author of the comic-book Holocaust memoir Maus arrives in Toronto for a lecture on free speech and censorship, he thinks the country is still "caught in some kind of PC [politically correct] fever," which is symptomatic of a deeper cultural illness.

"So although I'm categorized as a party line liberal, it's one of the places where I part company with myself," he said.

He has been following, for example, the case of Ezra Levant, whose publication of the Muhammad cartoons in the Western Standard magazine is the subject of a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

Just as he faults Indigo for "assuming they're your parents rather than your service provider," he said all "these attempts at gate-keeping are in the long-term doomed" because of the free-for-all nature of the Internet and public curiosity. The Harper's issue, for example, sold extra well in stores that carried it.

"What I mean is I think that political correctness is a problem. It's not as big a problem, let's say, as racism, but it's a real problem because it does put limits on thought. And certain things have to be thought about, otherwise you're just too open to manipulation and control. And so I grew up as a kind of 1st Amendment [which guarantees freedom of speech] absolutist, child of [Holocaust] survivors who defended the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill., without making me feel that I was somehow being a self-hating Jew," he said.

But doesn't Spiegelman read Warren Kinsella? How dare Spiegelman -- a liberal Jew, a child of Holocaust survivors, dare to speak out for free speech even for those with whom he disagrees? Won't Spiegelman bow down to Kinsella's moral authority as a Nazi-fighter? Doesn't Spiegelman respect the suffering that Kinsella has received at the hands of eight-year-old graffiti scribblers?

I find it impressive that so many advocates for free speech come from so-called victim groups -- Jews, visible minorities, gays. Not because their advocacy has any more authority than a straight WASP's views, but because it shows that they haven't bought into the grievance mentality that the human rights commissions and their courtiers breed, where minorities are taught to think of themselves are perpetually in danger, perpetually victims, perpetually being wronged and in need of government protection.

What a great news story.

Thérèse Boullard

And then there's this delicious report out of Yellowknife, about the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission, featuring a rare and hard-to-get interview with their director, Thérèse Boullard. What are the grave human rights issues that Boullard is dispatched to heal? Has someone been kicked out of their home into the icy winter, because they were Aboriginal -- or because they weren't? Has someone been denied a job with the federal government because they spoke an Aboriginal language and English, but not French? Uh, no. Boullard's team of bureaucrats is focused like a laser on the case of a pizza delivery girl who was offended by some pop songs that were playing in the kitchen of Boston Pizza when she popped by to pick up her pies for delivery.

I have no doubt that the music was vulgar to her tender ears -- if you took the word "sex" out of pop music, you'd decimate the Billboard hit list. And if the music happened to be rap, there's not a lot of songs unmarred by words like "bitches" and "hos". I'm just not sure how the pizza delivery girl's virgin ears, or exquisitely refined musical taste, or Amish religious sensibilities -- whatever grounds she's complaining under -- make this a case for government intervention. If rough language in pop music is now a thought crime, there are a lot more dominoes to fall after Yellowknife's Boston Pizza is ordered to pay $5,000 for the delivery girl's pain and suffering and iPod. Of course, if the pizza cooks are Black, perhaps they'll be next up with a discrimination complaint against Boston Pizza, for ordering them to stop playing rap music that is a deeply entrenched part of the urban Yellowknife culture.

If you think running to the government is a ridiculous solution to not liking the music at work, Boullard will tell you you're wrong. She makes a special point of differentiating between her serious work as the Disc Jockey-General for the Arctic, compared to the unreasonable human rights commission cases in the news these days:

Responding to the recent barrage of criticism, NWT director Thérèse Boullard said, "I think quite often what gets reported on are the more extreme cases. What's not reported on are the thousands of more modest cases. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality, and the human rights commissions are one way of realizing that right," she said.

Boullard cited many cases, the results of which were small settlements, reinstatements and education programs introduced in the workplace.

"That's the norm. My experience is the most extreme cases get reported and get people questioning the relevance of human rights commissions," said Boullard.

In a way, I agree with Boullard -- we do need to shine more sunlight on the "moderate" cases of jilted pizza delivery girls with a love of opera. You know, the reasonable cases.

But look at the unwitting admission here: that there are indeed unreasonable and "extreme" cases that the commissions seize and run with. Boullard clearly implies that my own case (two years and running now) and Steyn's (a year) are unreasonable and extreme. But that unreasonableness doesn't trouble her -- what troubles her is that the press dares to report on that.

It's always helpful to stop for a moment, when hearing something like that, and imagine it being spoken by a real police officer, instead of a human rights officer. Imagine if someone in the RCMP, or the crown prosecutor's office, were to respond to complaints about police brutality, or about the wrongful conviction of an innocent man, or about abusive, corrupt practises in a police force, by saying "oh, you journalists only focus on the extreme cases", and then tried to switch the subject. Not fixing the problem; just pointing out that most of the time innocent people aren't shot or arrested or convicted.

Real police, who are trusted by the public to wield great power, even the power of violence, are held to very high standards of conduct -- in some jurisdictions, every time a policeman unholsters his sidearm, he must fill out a report. Internal affairs, police commissions and complaints commissions abound. Even Parliament scrutinizes the conduct of the RCMP, as with the recent spate of tasering incidents. We don't slough off the extreme cases, we focus in on them to nip them in the bud, to examine how such violations of our norms could happen, and to change policies and discipline rogue officers. It is impossible to imagine anyone in the real police or prosecution saying "ignore the innocent bystanders we shoot -- look at the crooks we shoot, too!" You get my point; Boullard doesn't.

Shannon Gullberg

That same report tells of a decision rendered by the scholarly Shannon Gullberg of the NWTHRC. Gullberg used to be the Official Languages Commissioner for the NWT, so she's used to operating in an Alice in Wonderland fantasy world, including explaining to Inuit why Ottawa wants them to learn français. According to the same Northern News Service report:

After being injured on the job and receiving total disability, the truck driver appealed the amount of benefits awarded him by the NWT Worker's Compensation Board, claiming the employment insurance (EI) he collected as a seasonal worker from Newfoundland should be included in the calculation.

When the WCB ruled his EI benefits be included on a one-time basis only, the truck driver filed a complaint in 2005 with the NWT Human Rights Commission, claiming, "being a seasonal worker from Newfoundland, with a limited education and limited job opportunities," WCB discriminated against him by excluding his EI benefits based on his social condition.

NWT human rights adjudicator Shannon Gullberg ruled in favour of the driver, writing in her decision that the man belonged to a "socially identifiable group in which social disadvantage and economic disadvantage exist," and, consequently, had been discriminated against.

In other words, a seasonal truck driver's disability pay had to be calculated using his unemployment insurance cheque, not just what he earned on the job that he lost. Gullberg isn't a Worker's Compensation expert -- they have their own tribunals, and can be appealled to a real court. But why would someone bother to appeal a WCB claim to a real court, when Gullberg was there to impose her own jurisdiction on the WCB, and order them to break their own rules, and recognize that Newfoundlanders are a "socially identifiable group in which social disadvantage and economic disadvantage exist"?

I wonder how long it will be until "Newfoundlanders" are "read in" to the Charter as a protected victim group, the same way gays were. If I were a Newfoundlander, I'd be disgusted that, merely by virtue of being from a "disadvantaged" province, I'm now some sub-class, some official victim in need of special group remedies. One day, Danny "Millions" Williams might even use his new Newfoundlandishness in a court case against Ottawa. That's the "social condition" nonsense that the Canadian Human Rights Commission wants to start implementing nation-wide, by the way.

It makes sense, of course. When there are no real cases of discrimination -- the NWTHRC gets less than a complaint a week -- you've got to work hard to keep all fifteen civil servants busy. And if there aren't enough squabbles over the CD changer at Boston Pizza to keep them occupied -- better invent some new grievances, and deem a half-million Newfoundlanders a new victim group.

Michael Noonan

It seems as though the HRCs, coast-to-coast, are starting some sort of PR campaign to fight back against the tidal wave of criticism that has washed over them lately. As far as I'm concerned, the more they speak out, the better. They've inhabited such a strange world -- a world with no diversity of opinion, a world that tolerates no dissent, a world of intellectual mush and sycophantic hangers-on who mutually reinforce their pre-existing biases and eccentricities -- that when they emerge to engage the public, they sound like kooks, divorced from reality. I'm still chuckling at Boullard, investigating the music at a Boston Pizza, while calling other HRC investigations extreme. They just don't get it; it would be entertaining -- unless you happen to be the operator of the Boston Pizza, who will spend $50,000 defending himself, and then $5,000 more in fines when he loses.

Michael Noonan is the latest HRC boss who has decided to bless the public with his deep thoughts. Here he is in today's Halifax Chronicle-Herald:

Human rights commissions are under attack from many corners. The media have been galvanized by a complaint of discrimination involving a columnist with Maclean’s magazine, filed by the Canadian Islamic Congress with the federal human rights commission and two provincial commissions. From the perspective of the media, human rights commissions are out of control and assaulting freedom of speech at every opportunity. A number of public commentaries I have read have used this issue to call for the abolition of human rights commissions. But who ever said freedom of speech meant you could not be held accountable for what you say and how it might impact another person or group?

This smacks of the "blame the victim" mentality all over again. The so-called mainstream media have taken an extreme example and used it to divert public attention from the dirty little secrets hiding under the carpet of Canada’s grand multicultural tapestry.

As Jonathan Kay points out, this is more proof of the folly of allowing radical activists like Noonan -- instead of real judges who are both learned in law and neutral -- tell us what our constitutional rights are. But again, note Noonan distancing himself from the Maclean's case, calling it "extreme" -- the exact words his NWT colleague used. Again, why should we exempt extreme cases from scrutiny? If they are indeed extreme, why are they allowed to proceed?

The real answer, of course, is that the Maclean's case, and my own, are not extreme, given the law. We have violated the thought crime laws, just as much as anyone ever has. That's because the law is so vague -- we both published things that are "likely" -- future tense! -- to "expose" someone to the emotions "hatred or contempt". Truth is not a defence. How on earth could we not be guilty of such a vague offence?

The sheer kookiness of Noonan's comment -- that focusing on the Maclean's case takes the public's eye off the "dirty little secrets" in society -- is a stunning insight into Noonan's upside down world, where censoring the press is legitimate, but defending free speech is "blaming the victim". That doesn't even make any sense. It's so dumb, even the opposite of it is wrong.

But don't let me interrupt the man's self-immolation: 

Freedom of speech is an important hallmark of a liberal democracy, but it is defeated when the means to express opinion is concentrated in the hands of a powerful media elite. If Maclean’s had been willing to present the dissenting view of the Canadian Islamic Congress, there might never have been a complaint in the first place. Billing oneself as Canada’s national magazine would seem to call for a broader expression of opinions.

...Be thankful for the existence of a human rights commission which is here to fight the good fight and ensure that human dignity is always on the public agenda.

Before we delve into the sheer moonbat nuttiness of this, stop for a moment, again, and do the thought exercise of pretending that a real judge said this. Remember, the Maclean's case is still before two HRCs, but here we have the boss of another HRC all but denouncing Maclean's as guilty. It's unthinkable that a real judge would weigh in on a case publicly before that case was heard. Not only would such a judge look like a fool -- after all, he hasn't heard the evidence; the case hasn't even begun yet -- but he is so clearly interfering with the process that has is underway in the other two jurisdictions. But why would that trouble a kangaroo court like Noonan's? And, in a way, Noonan is just saving time. Why bother waiting for the conviction, when we know that Maclean's will be found guilty under the thought crimes provision, as 100% of cases are?

If Noonan were a real judge of a real court, he'd be keelhauled before a judicial council, and disciplined by other judges -- if not outright removed from the bench. Because, like the police, even judges have to answer to a higher panel of oversight. Not the kangaroo courts and Noonan. He's above the law, and we're beneath it.

My favourite paragraph in Noonan's article, though, was his first:

I OFTEN wonder what they were feeling on the day they stood up for their dignity in Sharpeville, South Africa. Black men and women had been under the thumb of institutionalized racism for more than 200 years at the southern tip of the African continent. Where did they find the strength and the courage to face the jackboots of the state on March 21, 1960?

I don't know much about Sharpeville, but I like how Noonan's talking here. He's railing against "the jackboots of the state". But he's so drunk with his own sense of righteousness that he doesn't even realize that it is he who is now wielding the jackboot power of the state.

I know a little bit about South Africa and the end of Apartheid. It happened because of the decision by the white minority to relinquish power. That decision came about because of a relatively free debate -- a debate in which "offensive" ideas, like the equality of all races, was permitted in the main. There was some censorship, of course -- and, of course, that censorship was used by the Apartheid government to muzzle its more rambunctious critics. And that's the point: weak and powerless people often have no other remedy besides free speech. It was the case with the suffragette movement in the 1920s, with the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, and the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa in the 1980s.

Michael Noonan might think he stands alongside the activists who brought down Apartheid in South Africa. But his analog in Apartheid South Africa would not have been a grassroots activist, debating the issues and changing minds one at a time, in the face of great odds and even some danger. He would have been the government censor, stamping out "offensive" ideas like the equality of races, using the power of the state to censor, fine and even imprison. Maclean's magazine does not have the jackboots of the state on. Michael Noonan does.