Has Freedom Of The Press Died In Canada?
By now most of you have heard of the Mark Steyn trial at the hands of one of the so-called Canadian Human Rights tribunals for allegedly writing columns that were critical of the Muslims. From NROs Mark Hemingway:
issue is a cover story National Review’s own Mark Steyn wrote for the Canadian newsweekly Maclean’s, titled “The Future Belongs to Islam.” An excerpt from Steyn’s bestselling book America Alone, the article highlighted the fact that demographic trends suggest that Muslims may well become a majority in much of Europe and that this obviously represents a threat to Europe as we know it. A few Muslim law students objected to the article and filed multiple complaints with Canada’s national and provincial “human rights” tribunals and presto! Steyn’s opinion and Maclean’s right to print it have now been effectively criminalized.
The fact that a few fringe Muslims have reacted to Steyn’s article by invoking a once-obscure Canadian bureaucratic process to hold hostage the rights of all Canadians only goes to prove that Steyn needs to be heard, more than ever.
The Canadian Supreme court in a previous case has effectively given the human rights commissions carte banche to conduct their investigations however they choose.
Supreme Court of Canada split 4-3 on a decision that declared that section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act did not violate the charter of rights, and it remains constitutional. Oh sure, the justices in favor made grumblings about applying a high standard when enforcing the Human Rights Act, but despite their admonition, the general interpretation by the human-rights commissions is that they now have free rein to regulate the media. The slippery slope has been a toboggan ride to hell ever since.
This comment by one of the human rights agents says all that needs to be said about the commissions concern about protecting the rights of the people.
‘Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” —Canadian “Human Rights” Investigator Dean Steacy, responding to the question “What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?”
In summary
What this means is that everyone in Canada now has fundamental freedoms, provided they’re not in conflict with whatever specious definition of “human rights” the CHRC chooses to apply. The threshold for conviction set by the Human Rights Act is incredibly low, because its highly subjective language means that “likely to cause contempt” is as good as a preponderance of evidence establishing guilt. There’s also the matter of the commission’s tribunals, which — unlike legal proceedings — are largely administrative in nature, so there’s little in the way of formal rules of evidence or procedure. There are few things in life more terrifying than being dragged into court knowing ahead of time that truth isn’t necessarily a defense and that the judge is winging it.
nunez
AndyinPhoenix
QueenZel
ellinas
thetodd
robert108
Wing Chun Geologist
dougee