Stephen Harper: "everyone has concerns" about HRCs violating freedom of speech

My friend Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury brings to our attention Prime Minister Stephen Harper discussing Canada’s human rights commissions. CFRB’s Brian Lilley deserves credit for being the first journalist in the Parliamentary Press Gallery to put the question to the PM. (Really, shame on the rest of the PPG for their inactivity on this file, and kudos to Lilley.)

Here’s the audio clip. And here’s a transcript:

In terms of the free speech issues and some of the activities of human rights commissions, I think that everyone has had some concerns about this. This is a complicated area of law, balancing what most people understand to mean by free speech with obvious desire to not have speech that would be intended to incite hatred towards particular groups or individuals. I think some of the most egregious cases, if you actually look at this, are in provincial human rights commissions and obviously, you know I can't control or comment on that. I think there has been some - I think the Canadian human rights commission has been moderating some of what - some of its practices a little bit recently to respond to some of these concerns and I hope that will continue.

Let’s look at that line by line:

In terms of the free speech issues and some of the activities of human rights commissions, I think that everyone has had some concerns about this.

Stop and think about how incredible those last ten words are. The Prime Minister has declared that the activities of human rights commissions are a threat to free speech. And he acknowledges that it’s not even a subject of debate – “everyone” agrees.

My friends, when the Prime Minister says that human rights commissions are a “concern”, that’s what we call denormalization. Because human rights commissions aren’t normal. They’re not Canadian. It’s encouraging to hear the Prime Minister say so publicly, too.

This is a complicated area of law, balancing what most people understand to mean by free speech with obvious desire to not have speech that would be intended to incite hatred towards particular groups or individuals.

It is a complicated area of law, precisely because it’s so inconsistent. It’s complicated, because it’s incoherent; it’s whimsical; the exact same words are considered legal or illegal, depending on who says them, and depending on who the “offended” party is. It’s complicated because it’s junk law. It’s not really even law – it’s anti-Christian, anti-conservative bigotry dressed up as law.

Look at the PM’s choice in words. He talks about an “obvious desire” not to have hate speech. No-one could disagree with that desire. But a “desire” is not the same thing as a legal right. The proper Canadian remedy to hateful speech is more speech; peer pressure and social shunning; political action. Not government censorship.

I think some of the most egregious cases, if you actually look at this, are in provincial human rights commissions and obviously, you know I can't control or comment on that.

This is partly true. The worst HRC in the country is the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. They’re the fools who had a full-blown, five-day show trial of Maclean’s magazine for publishing a book excerpt by Mark Steyn; they’re the fascists who are actually going to have a hearing about whether a comedian’s response to hecklers was “discriminatory”.

The anti-Christian bigots at Alberta’s HRC are probably a close second, especially with their vicious attacks on Rev. Stephen Boissoin. And Ontario’s HRC, under the guidance of Barbara Hall – who wants to see the number of complaints “spike” – is likely to get a lot worse, too.

Those abusive, bigoted HRCs are the responsibility of Premiers Campbell, Stelmach and McGuinty. But the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is the responsibility of Prime Minister Harper, can match those provincial HRCs for their bigotry. And the CHRC is simply unmatched in terms of its own corruption.

For example, none of the provincial HRCs are under criminal investigation by the RCMP. Harper’s CHRC is.

None of the provincial HRCs are under investigation by the Privacy Commissioner for a breach of the law. Harper’s CHRC is.

None of the provincial HRCs, as far as I know, have hired a corrupt ex-cop who was drummed out of the police force for illegal conduct. Harper’s CHRC has.

None of the provincial HRCs, as far as I know, use taxpayers’ money to pay staff to join neo-Nazi groups, and publish filthy anti-Black, anti-gay and anti-Semitic bigotry like the CHRC has. Examples include:

• Jewish cabinet ministers like Irwin Cotler are “scum”
• Gays are “sexual deviants” who are a “cancer” on society
• The Jewish youth group, Hillel, is a depraved organization
• White police should be loyal to “their race”, and a whites-only city should be established.

Every single one of those statements was published online by the CHRC, or by Richard Warman, the CHRC’s chief complainant, as part of his “human rights” work. Literally hundreds of such bigoted remarks are made – and the CHRC continues the practice. I simply don’t believe that the Prime Minister knows about that, for if he did I don’t think his remarks would have been as restrained as they were. (Frankly, I don’t think Jennifer Lynch would still be drawing a fat government salary if he did.)

I think there has been some - I think the Canadian human rights commission has been moderating some of what - some of its practices a little bit recently to respond to some of these concerns and I hope that will continue.

The PM says he thinks the CHRC is “moderating” their more abusive behavior. I understand that, earlier this year, Jennifer Lynch told the PMO that she was going to drop the case against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s, and that she hoped such forbearance would buy her some immunity from political accountability. And, as the political heat increased on the CHRC, they did indeed suddenly dismiss the hate speech charges against a seventy-something Catholic priest in Toronto, who had already been forced to spend $20,000 in legal fees defending himself against Jennifer Lynch’s anti-Christian bigotry. (Incredibly, the investigator in that case was the CHRC’s corrupt ex-cop, Sandy Kozak.)

But the CHRC has, in fact, not changed its stripes. It continues to prosecute Richard Warman’s corrupt cases; it continues to violate norms of natural justice and fair play. Even the lawyers at the Department of Justice list a half dozen examples of the CHRC’s ongoing corruption.

But still, the PM acknowledges that the CHRC’s practices are inappropriate, and that he “hopes” they are reformed. Again, that’s a recognition that there is need for reform – a sea change from the government’s talking points, just four months ago, that everything was fine.

So let’s sum up the importance of this news:

1. A member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery finally asked the Prime Minister a question about human rights commissions.
2. The Prime Minister answered – acknowledging that “everyone knows” HRCs are a threat to free speech.
3. The PM accurately said much of the problems are with provincial HRCs, but he also said he’s concerned with the CHRC, and “hopes” their abuses will ease.

This is not a satisfactory conclusion to this issue. But it’s a conclusion to the first part of the two-step campaign for reform. When the Prime Minister acknowledges so boldly the rot in the system, it’s safe to say HRCs have been properly denormalized in Canada.

So now the second phase of the campaign for reform can ramp up. We need to more properly brief our MPs – especially the dozens of new MPs on the Hill – about the true depth of the problem with the CHRC. It seems to me that the PM was unaware of the depth of the rot, or – like me, a year ago – had trouble believing that it could be so corrupt.

So we need to provide calm, properly documented information to the MPs – and even to the PM.

And then we must press them for change.

It’s not sufficient for Lynch to drop a few of the higher-profile cases of censorship, so that she can continue persecuting her lower-profile cases. That double standard is a form of corruption in itself.

We must remove the legislative authority from Lynch and her mob, permanently, and for everyone – not just for sympathetic victims like Mark Steyn, but for even odious victims of the CHRC. If the rule of law can be enjoyed by even accused murderers, surely it can be enjoyed by citizens with politically incorrect opinions.

I an incredibly heartened by the PM’s remarks. They are a breakthrough. Now, at least, we’re having a discussion. Let’s keep up our end of the discussion ensuring that the PM and his team knows just how bad Lynch’s CHRC is – everything from the RCMP investigation to their serial online neo-Nazi bigotry.

And, now that the Conservatives are no longer in jeopardy of an imminent election, let’s press them to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act – or to abolish the obsolete, fascist law altogether.

P.S. Why not drop the PM a line by e-mail? Give him encouragement, and let him know this is an important, non-partisan issue, an issue about our basic Charter rights. His staff will notice 100 e-mails on the subject. Let’s send him 1,000 today.