"Canada's human rights tribunals, once tools for fighting racism and discrimination, have been transformed into a politically correct shakedown racket." Indeed.
By Ezra Levant in the National Post (thanks to all who sent this in):
The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) is taking Maclean's magazine to a human rights commission. Its crime? Refusing the CIC's absurd demand that Maclean's print a five-page letter to the editor in response to an article the CIC didn't like.It may shock those who do not follow human rights law in Canada, but Maclean's will probably lose.
Forcing editors to publish rambling letters is not a human right in Canada. But that's not how the CIC worded their complaint, filed with the B.C., Ontario and federal human rights commissions. Maclean's is "flagrantly Islamophobic" and "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt" according to a CIC statement. "I felt personally victimized," said Khurrum Awan at the CIC's recent press conference. All this because Maclean's dared to run a column discussing the demographic rise of Islam in the West.
It's a new strategy for the CIC, which in the past has tried unsuccessfully to sue news media it disagreed with -- including the National Post -- using Canada's defamation laws. But Canada's civil courts aren't the best tool for that sort of bullying. In a defamation lawsuit, the CIC would have to hire its own lawyers, follow the rules of court and prove that it suffered real damages -- and the newspapers would have truth and fair comment as defences. Launching a nuisance suit against Maclean's would result in an embarrassing loss for the CIC, a court order to pay the magazine's legal fees and it would deepen the CIC's reputation as a group of radicals who don't understand Canadian values. (Three years ago, Mohamed Elmasry, the CIC's Egyptian-born president, declared that every adult Jew in Israel is a legitimate target for terrorists).
So civil lawsuits won't work. Criminal charges are a non-starter, too: Canada's hate-speech laws are reserved for extreme acts of incitement, and charges can only be laid with the approval of the justice minister. And in criminal court, the accused must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No chance there.
That's why human rights commissions are the perfect instrument for the CIC. The CIC doesn't even have to hire a lawyer: Once the complaint has been accepted by the commissions, taxpayers' dollars and government lawyers are used to pursue the matter. Maclean's, on the other hand, will have to hire its own lawyers with its own money. Rules of court don't apply. Normal rules of evidence don't apply. The commissions are not neutral; they're filled with activists, many of whom aren't even lawyers and do not understand the free-speech safeguards contained in our constitution.
And the punishments that these commissions can order are bizarre. Besides fines to the government and payments to complainants, defendants can be forced to "apologize" for having unacceptable political or religious opinions.
Read it all.
"Maclean's is "flagrantly Islamophobic" and "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt" according to a CIC statement."
....seems to me someone should be listening to the speeches given by Islamic leaders and Islamic clerics (both in Canada and abroad)....it is wise to listen to the real hate and contempt as delivered by the Muslims...
...it is wise to know your enemy...
...it is wise to ban Muslim Immigration...
Anti-racism, anti-discrimination and human rights, used as tools for creating a fascist state.
I saw that coming a mile off, since their power to destroy lives, is so great. If all one has to say is one mildly racist thing, to lose one's job, one's marriage, one's money and basically one's entire life - Then there is a serious problem here and an obvious abuse of power that needs to be curtailed.
To paraphrase Lenin: "We will destroy the infidels with the non-sharia laws they created and cherish".
"So civil lawsuits won't work. Criminal charges are a non-starter, too: Canada's hate-speech laws are reserved for extreme acts of incitement, and charges can only be laid with the approval of the justice minister. And in criminal court, the accused must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
....get rid of the problem...Ban Muslim Immigration...
From the very article criticizing the HRC, the author says this:
"It's odd: Mohamed Elmasry, an apologist for Islamo-fascism,...
uh oh, will the National Post and Ezra Levant now be on the receiving end of a Human Rights Complaint for spreading hatred? Yikes.
BRAVO, Maclean's and NP. STAND UP TO BULLIES and petty tyrants, of course. DO TAKE avenues of appeal. If I were a stone's throw away, in Canada, I would seeth with rage and holler in protest. As it is, I'm glad to have this forum to express my sympathy and solidarity with freedom-loving Canadians.
Thanks, John C. Nice change from the usual round of Canuck-bashing!
Whenever I hear 'human rights' nowadays I get the creeps. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. These 'human rights' organizations are deeply infiltrated by agenda driven red-green commie shysters. Those of us who have kept a close watch on recent events, when Gitmo inmates are released (like today in the UK or recently in Germany) and when one then watches the inevitable media-circus, where commie-agit props (sic) use the moment to spew bile against the US and BUSH (I'm am by no means a fan) but from Australia (Hicks) to Europe and from the US (Lynne Stewart) to the 4 released jihadists in the UK today, the insane trio of red-green-brown enablers uses these events to declare that Islamic terrorists can do no wrong, that Gitmo inmates have somehow been wronged, that Bush is the most evil creature on earth for torturing these poor bastards in his legal 'black hole' in camp Delta. I spit on these fools, these fanatical enablers of jihad terror and their misguided zealotry to falsely portray genocidal jihad freaks as some kind of 'freedom fighters'. These people are traitors to our society and must be dealt with. But as we can see, we are hardly making inroads. If anything, in the words of Brigitte Gabriel, political correctness is killing us.We are in a bad way.
"Racist" or "islamophobe" is the absolute worst, most-feared, horrific thing a person can be labelled these days. If you are a "racist" or "islamophobe" you are lower that a pedophile, murderer or rapist!
When I have been exposed to Islamisists, I have just told them that I don't like Pedophiles. It's funny because pedophiles aren't liked in prison either. Whenever I have been asked by muslims about my pedophile statement, I simply tell them that Mohammed practiced pedophlia. Generally I never hear again about the muslims. Suits me fine!
The complaint that I'm an Islamophobe because I don't like pedophiles falls on deaf ears!
"uh oh, will the National Post and Ezra Levant now be on the receiving end of a Human Rights Complaint for spreading hatred? Yikes."
Posted by: USorThem
Levant and the Western Standard have already been taken to the HRC over publishing the Mo Cartoons.
The Western Standard print edition has shut down.
Thanks, Canadians, for sacrifices in both World Wars, Korea, and Afghanistan.
Maclean's should use this as an opportunity. Agree to publish the rambling five page letter from the Canadian Islamic Congress on the condition that the CIC will drop the case and refrain from any future action.
Then dedicate the entire issue with the letter to Muslim intolerance of free spreech. Along with the Muslim letter, publish factual responses by Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, and others. Also include reprints of the Danish cartoons and an expose by Barbara Ehrenfeld of Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz' and other Muslim's actions to suppress the free press.
This Canadian has just gone on-line and subscribed to Maclean's. Screw you Human Rights Commission. Mark Steyn's book will be coming out in paperback in a couple of weeks and I'll buy that too. When I've finished reading it, I have a mind to mail it to the Commission - not that I expect them to read it.
It is time for these Jihadists on this entire continent to be deported to the countries that only permit Muslim observance. They would certainly be happier under Sharia law, and proof of that is their incessant complaints about the western life style. Why ever did they come here....as if we didn't know. They obviously have no place in any free, democratic society for they spend all their time attempting to silence free speech and freedom of religion.
I find with horror, that I am having great difficulty maintaining a "Christian" attitude toward these people!
The law school students who made the complaint make their case in today's Post--and not very well, one might add: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=184732
From the link provided by scaramouoche above;
"This issue isn't about attacking journalists or stifling free expression. It's about ensuring that our media outlets provide a forum for open debate and argument."
Oh, so why did you file with the Human Rights Commission if it's not about stifling free expression, i.e. the Steyn Article? So it appears it also about 'getting even', to spank a publisher and the author, isn't that right?, because Maclean's Magazine would not agree to your 5 page propaganda retort, which by the way is not a right.
So, the bar has been raised in the Muslim view, for anyone speaking out about what Muslim Jihadists are telling the west, no matter how hateful that message is, Muslims want the 'right' to counter, in the same publication, that reported the news in the first place.
May we remind you Muslims, you have many avenues to free speech of your own, without ramming it down a publishers throat in some threatening way.
Your hurt feelings, and attempts to control the media, are not what the HRCs are for.
For these Muslims who believe in revenge, using western laws and facilities against anyone with opposing views, perhaps Macleans and Steyn should take the Koran to the HRC. Lord knows there is no lack of bigotry, racism and threats to kafir in that.
As I see it MacLean's has two good options -- hire a really good lawyer and move the whole case to civil court under a harrassment suit or some such thing. Option 1 is pretty good, but expensive, time consuming, and likely to just make everyone involved very frustrated.
Option 2 is to capitulate but roll with the blow, and keep the ball in your own court: Don't apologize but offer to print the 5-page ramble. What they needn't say is that the 5-page ramble won't be the last that gets printed...
I suggest a good 5-page rejoinder matching it word-for-word, by someone with a gift for cutting through Islamist BS. Someone like, oh, maybe Robert Spencer. Take it apart like you did with the Islamispeace campaign, Robs. Send them a note today offering to go this route. Who needs these long, drawn out tribunals in front of activists with no understanding of civil rights and freedoms when they can let it play out in public? I say let the CIC publicly embarrass themselves, if that's what they really want.