Catching up on missed stories: my debate with Pearl Eliadis
I took a couple of weeks off after our new baby arrived, and it's still tough to grab an hour to do a good blog post. Of course there is news every day about Canada's corrupt and abusive human rights commissions, but the two weeks I was off blogging seemed to be a particularly newsy time. I still want to take a proper run at Jennifer Lynch's stunning confession that she has 1,200 files on her enemies. Not only is that politically scandalous -- shades of McCarthy and Nixon -- but I believe it is also illegal, and I'll make my case to that effect when I can clear some time.
In the meantime, I'm going to try to post some quick entries that I missed. I'll start out with a debate I had with Pearl Eliadis, a former Ontario Human Rights Commission director, in the letters pages of the National Post. I'll provide the links to the Post's website, but for convenience I'll also reprint the letters in full below:
There is simply no excuse for the media continuing to mislead the Canadian public on the hate speech debate. The Post repeats the "100% conviction" figure to describe what happens to hate speech complaints. Leaving aside the mendacious use of the term "conviction" -- which only applies to criminals and not to administrative proceedings of this kind -- the reality is different.
Of 66 complaints filed and accepted under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act since 2001, only one-quarter have been brought forward to a tribunal and been upheld. And all have been against extremist white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups.
The claim of 100% conviction is absurd. In recent memory we all know that the complaint against Rogers (in the Maclean's/ Mark Steyn matter) was dismissed, even though one author tried to turn it into a chronicle of a conviction foretold. And after that, a much-publicized stunt complaint from Quebec by a blogger was also dismissed -- without even an investigation.
But there is more. The Post continues to complain that "offensive" speech is outlawed. The opposite is true: According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the subjective test of being offended is not the benchmark.
There are good ideas for reforming human right commissions in Canada. These ideas have been around for more than 10 years, with proposals by the commissions themselves. Most recently, Mark Freiman, in his trenchant critique of Ezra Levant's Shakedown in The Literary Review of Canada, has referred to some of these ideas. They are worth listening to.
Pearl Eliadis, human rights lawyer, Montreal.
I love that signature: "human rights lawyer", like it's some attempt at a professional designation or other status. Good for Eliadis for still brazening it out, I guess -- most HRC employees are ducking for cover these days, too embarrassed to be identified. Don't take my word for it -- ask chief commissar Lynch! Of course, my own favourite new appellation is "human rights activist", something that, when Michael Coren first described me that way on his show, shocked me to hear it. But if censors like Eliadis can call themselves "human rights lawyers" while they're destroying human rights like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, you're damned straight I can call myself a human rights activist for actually standing up for civil liberties against the massive police powers of the state that Eliadis, Lynch and company represent. Anyways, here's my rebuttal:
Re: Understanding The Hate-Speech Debate, letter to the editor, June 19.
Letter-writer Pearl Eliadis, a former employee of a human rights commission, is entitled to her own opinions, but she's not entitled to her own facts.
Ms. Eliadis denies that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has a 100% conviction rate for hate speech prosecutions. But it's true: Since the law was enacted in 1977, not a single person has ever been acquitted by the tribunal that hears the cases. That's not surprising, given that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act does not allow truth or fair comment as a defence.
In the 32 years the law has been used, only one prosecution has ever failed: the ridiculous case of beachesboy@aol.com vs. drumsaremybeat@aol.com.Seriously, that's what the case was called -- one Internet nickname complained about what another nickname said on an Internet chat site. The CHRC subpoenaed AOL to find out who drumsaremybeat@aol.com was and narrowed it down to someone living at the home of Ronald and Heather Fleming in Edmonton. But the CHRC refused to tell the Flemings who beachesboy@aol.com was.
drumsaremybeat@aol.com -- whether or not it was one of the Flemings -- wasn't convicted that day. But he wasn't acquitted, either. The CHRC forgot to bring any witnesses or the mystery complainant, beachesboy@aol.com. So after asking the security guard to look around the lobby for someone looking like a beach boy, the tribunal just cancelled the whole gong show. That's not an acquittal -- that's just incompetence. Other than that, every single person who the CHRC has prosecuted has been convicted. Not even North Korea can boast a 100% conviction rate.
Ezra Levant, Calgary.
As you can see, I forgot to add the "human rights activist" title after my name! Here's Eliadis's reply:
Re: The Hate-Speech Debate (II), letter to the editor, June 23.
Letter-writer Ezra Levant can't have it both ways. When he was targeted by human rights complaints, he (and others like him) protested that his "conviction" was a certainty, even though the complaint was only at the preliminary screening stage. At that stage, however, the statistic I quoted ( "Understanding the hate speech debate, letter, June 19") -- which is publicly available at page 24 of the Special Report to Parliament-- is nowhere near 100%. In fact, only one-quarter of cases get through.
What Mr. Levant now does is to change footing, by blurring the preliminary screening phase and the tribunal phase. Once a case gets that far, very few complainants lose--not because the fix is in, but because commissions screen aggressively. The numbers speak for themselves: For example, in Quebec, roughly 1,500 human rights cases are filed each year and about 750 are investigated. Of those, about 95% are bounced before getting anywhere near a tribunal.
Mr. Levant is right to point out that the success rates are high among the very few that do get to tribunal. Continuing the Quebec example, the rates hover in the 90% range for all cases --but the point is that it is 90% of less than 5%. To go on about "100% rates" when what we are talking about is "100%" of such tiny numbers is stunningly disingenuous.
Pearl Eliadis, Montreal.
I see she no longer calls herselt a human rights lawyer -- or the Post no longer went along with her conceit. Anyways, here's my final word on the matter:
Re: Hate-Speech Debate (III), letter to the editor, June 25.
Former HRC-employee Pearl Eliadis says we shouldn't be worried about the Canadian Human Rights Commission's 100% conviction rate for censorship prosecutions, because the CHRC doesn't prosecute every complaint it receives. Of course it doesn't -- it would need a much larger budget to prosecute everyone on its list of enemies. According to CHRC boss Jennifer Lynch, that's 1,200 files.
Ms. Eliadis says that for every victim the CHRC formally prosecutes, many more are investigated without a formal hearing. I know all about that: I was investigated for 900 days by 15 bureaucrats and lawyers at Alberta's HRC because of some cartoons in a magazine I published. In the end, the HRC didn't formally prosecute me, but taxpayers spent $500,000 on that witch hunt and I was stuck with my own $100,000 legal bill.
Recently, the CHRC targeted Father Alphonse de Valk, an elderly Toronto priest. He didn't have his day in kangaroo court -- but he was put through the ringer by the CHRC all the same. As he struggles to pay off his $20,000 legal bill, I doubt he feels good that he wasn't formally "prosecuted" -- merely harassed for two years by a human rights commission that doesn't give a damn about human rights like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Ezra Levant, Calgary.
Blogrolls
