Ken Whyte discusses his interview with the Prime Minister

Late last night I gave my thoughts about the interview Ken Whyte, the Publisher and Editor of Maclean's, had with Prime Minister Stephen Harper about human rights commissions.

Judging by the comments my blog has received, the sentiment of my readers is that I am too optimistic; they're focused on the PM's statement that he "no plans" to reform section 13, the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Here's Ken Whyte's reflections on the PM's comments, just posted to Maclean's website -- Whyte himself was interviewed. Some excerpts (I've put some of my favourite parts in bold):

On being voted journalist of the year:

A. It’s gratifying that some of my colleagues have recognized that Maclean’s is doing well and I want to congratulate everyone at the magazine on a great year but, really, we won this thing because of the Human Rights Commissions. We spent a good part of 2009 defending ourselves against a campaign by a handful of Muslim activists to have our journalism branded hateful and racist. We stood up to their complaints and defended ourselves—and, in particular, an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s bestselling book America Alone—and in doing so we attracted the support of a lot of smart and energetic bloggers. These bloggers, long before the mainstream media, recognized the complaints as a politically-motivated threat to free expression and open journalistic inquiry. They threw their weight behind me in this poll and put me over the top and I want to return the favor by dedicating this honor to them.

Q. To the blogosphere?
A. To that particular part of the blogosphere that got engaged in these human rights complaints. I can’t name them all but individuals like Ezra Levant, Jay Currie, Kathy Shaidle, among others, discovered and disseminated a lot of alarming information about the operations of human rights commissions and the decisions of their tribunals. The debate got pretty messy on both sides as it went along, but these people prodded the newspapers and the public to question the advisability of allowing unaccountable, politicized, and rather slipshod commissions to interfere with one of our most precious liberties. Along with Mark Steyn, who wrote a lot about the case, they did a great service to Canadian journalism in 2009. I’m deeply grateful for their support—it was shaping up as a lonely fight until the bloggers got involved. They’re the ones who really deserve this award so I consider myself to be accepting it on their behalf.

Q. In your interview with the Prime Minister in this week’s Maclean’s, he says that his government will not be moving to rewrite the section of the Canadian Human Right’s Act that interferes with free speech. Were you disappointed by that?
A. Disappointed but not surprised. I’ve never expected a political solution to this, and even if Harper were to act, the real problems are the provincial commissions which are a lot more activist on speech issues than the federal commission, and the chances of getting them all to change their ways–especially when some, like Ontario, are looking to expand their influence–are remote. I think our only hope is a legal solution.

Q. What would that look like?
A. That would require someone who loses before a human rights commission appealing the matter to a real court and ultimately the Supreme Court. I’m told by our lawyers that, despite our vindication by the BC commission, we could still mount a constitutional challenge in that province that would have a high likelihood of success. The problem is that it would cost us several hundred thousand dollars, at a minimum, and we’ve already spent that much defending ourselves against three complaints in separate jurisdictions–all brought by the same complainant–and it’s difficult to make a case for spending that kind of money in this economic environment. But the matter is not dead yet.