"And we have to tell them, you know what, if you're not going to allow us to do that, there will be consequences. You will be taken to the human rights commission, you will be taken to the press council, and you know what? If you manage to get rid of the human rights code provisions [on hate speech], we will then take you to the civil courts system. And you know what? Some judge out there might just think that perhaps it's time to have a tort of group defamation, and you might be liable for a few million dollars." YAHHH!!!
All right, so I made up the scream.
The rest of it is Khurrum Awan at a weekend conference, as quoted in the National Post. He's one of the guys that wants the government to tell Maclean's to run an article by an author of their choosing. When I read his speech above, I thought for sure he was doing a Howard "The Scream" Dean send-up. "You know what?...You know something?...We're not just going to New Hampshire...We're going to South Dakota, and Oregon, and Washington, and Michigan, and then we're going to Washington DC to take back the White House. YAHHH!!!"
If we have to get serious for minute, then it's worth remembering that Khurrum Awan is not one of the complainants against Maclean's. He's on TV and in the papers so much that it's easy to forget that fact (as the Post has). Mohamed Elmasry and Naiyer Habib are the official complainants, not Awan. The Post: "Awan is a recent graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, and one of the main complainants against columnist Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine...[Awan] and his co-plaintiffs are demanding the magazine give Islamist messages space equal to the amount it devoted to Mr. Steyn's work."
No he isn't, and no they aren't. Awan isn't a co-plaintiff of anything. He's just in the papers a lot. The Post has done a hell of job at keeping this issue in the news, but like everyone else they have to be careful and avoid the Kool-Aid. In their June 9th editorial, they referenced Awan as a complainant more than a few times, and didn't mention Elmasry or Habib even once. That's a Kool-Aid alert if ever I saw one.
Awan obviously had an agenda by inserting himself into this complaint, and I don't think it had much to do with "free speech." For him, the issue seems to be more about about punishment for Steyn and Maclean's, and a healthy dose of publicity for himself. Last year, he was just some guy. 6 months later and he's in the papers every other day, and making the rounds on the TV circuit. It'll be interesting to see if he can handle it, but to judge by the speech above, he hasn't yet hired a publicist.
As for the punishment deal, I can't see it as being much else. If, as he says, the human rights code gets ammended, that doesn't mean there's any hope of a civil court telling Maclean's to run an article written by anybody, and a group defamation suit (does that exist?) wouldn't get the presses rolling either. So what's the answer? "A few million dollars."
Funny. This all started with the complainants and their allies claiming they just wanted an open debate. They've received all kinds of press, including a TV showdown with Mark Steyn, but it hasn't been enough. So the quest for an "open debate" continues. If they fail at that altruistic goal, it will now be about boring old cash?
Whatever the case, this is the first time that I have heard someone from the complainants' camp mention the possibility of the human rights commissions being brought to heel.
You know what? That's interesting.
Showing posts with label Maclean's. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maclean's. Show all posts
Monday, June 09, 2008
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Journalism (Room) 101
Mark Steyn's been linking to some pro and con sites regarding the Human Rights Tribunal, and I check in now and then to see what's going on.
I was looking at this article by John Miller, who has a piece on a website called The Canadian Journalism Project. Steyn has him as a journalism professor. As boring and dry as that sounds, I decided to read his bit all the way through.
I've been calling for the mainstream press to get on board against this human rights business for a while. Instead, I get this:
Journalistic opinion is hailing Mark Steyn, of all people, as the new poster child for freedom of expression in Canada.
I beg to differ.
Miller has a problem with Mark Steyn, whose writing he declares both xenophobic and Islamophobic. Miller thinks the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal should take Steyn down a peg or two. This line of Miller's will give you a good first impression. His lectures must be a blast: "That is the law as it stands, and everyone must obey the law."
When I read that note from Squaresville, I sank a little lower into my chair and let my eyes glaze over. From then on, I was on auto-pilot, waiting for the buried lead (cool - I just used some hip journo-speak) to rear its head.
It comes at the end of Miller's essay. After he's done declaring Steyn's article a work of bigotry, Miller gets to the point:
Steyn and Maclean’s also appear to violate a great many of the principles and guidelines for reporting that the CAJ [Canadian Association of Journalists] adopted in 2002. They include (to name only the most obvious ones)...
Horrors! Xenophobia, Islamophobia, and violating the CAJ's principles.
Actually, I figured that's what Miller's problem was. It's not that Steyn's a bigot, it's that Steyn's not a real journalist. He doesn't toe the CAJ line. He shouldn't be playing with Miller's toys. Steyn didn't quote enough sources, or give enough references, or otherwise follow the rules of the CAJ (which is pretty funny, since the CAJ intervened on Maclean's behalf in BC and wants them off the hook, rules are meant for bending, so forth).
Still, let me play devil's advocate. Here's what Miller says, with my comments to follow.
It [Steyn's article] is contrary to the value of keeping the news comprehensive and proportional – specifically by “inflating events for sensation, neglecting others, stereotyping or being disproportionately negative.”
Sounds like how I describe strip clubs to my girlfriend. Still, let's say it's true, that Steyn waxed negative. So what? Where is this mighty book of values kept, and when did it become law? If Steyn is guilty of breaking some sort of ethics, then newspapers can refuse to print him, and Maclean's can stop running his stuff. This does not mean that a government agency has the right to tell Maclean's what to print afterwards (yes, John, Maclean's is the real issue here, no matter how much you want it to be about the xenophobic writer).
It violates the discipline of verification – specifically by not “seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment.”
There's no way Miller can know any of that, unless he was sitting in the room when Steyn wrote the piece, or he broke into Steyn's pad and stole his notes. (Dear Journalism Professor: when you see the words "Newsweek stands by its story," it's because Newsweek knows more about the story than you do, but isn't disclosing the sources). But, again, let's say it's true. Big deal. If John Miller was an editor of a paper and one of his reporters wrote a fabricated story about neo-Nazis, I doubt he'd agree to a human rights commission forcing him to run an essay supportive of neo-Nazis. No, John Miller would use the old "Miller's Magazine regrets the error," run an op-ed berating itself, and that would be that.
And it runs contrary to a journalist’s first obligation to the truth – specifically by neglecting “the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts.”
Um, sources please? Again, there's no way he can know any of that. He's making it up. He has no clue what sources Steyn and Maclean's looked at two years ago, and which ones they found credible or not. Earlier in his piece, Miller says that he spent a few minutes Googling Steyn's subject, and he found entirely different facts and arguments. No surprise. That's why there's dozens of books on the Kennedy assassination. Nobody agrees on anything. But does the good professor really believe that this means Maclean's should be found guilty of promoting hatred in British Columbia?
Other specific claims in the article are questionable. For example, Steyn states that high birthrates in Muslim countries “will give tiny Yemen a higher population than vast empty Russia” by mid-century. Yemen’s population in 2007 was 22 million, and Russia’s was 141 million. Barring some historic collapse of the Russian population, Yemen is not going to overtake it by 2050.
Note the key words. Questionable. Barring. Not exactly a damning assessment of Steyn's article. If something is questionable, then it is possible. I also like the "barring some historic collapse" bit. Okay, but what if the collapse happens? One, Yemen would be pretty crowded, and two, Miller's argument would cave in.
Indeed, one is tempted by this evidence to conclude that Steyn’s article was not journalism at all, but a “polemic” – which my dictionary defines as a selective attack.
Damn, a journalism prof that has to look up "polemic." I hope he paused for irony when he saw what it meant. Miller's whole article reads like a polemic - a very selective attack against the xenophobic, Islamophobic writings of Mark Steyn.
Let's be real. Miller kicks off his piece by calling Steyn's work xenophobic and Islamophobic, and uses exactly one source to back up the bigotry claims (a year-old book review; the rest is just his opinion). Tsk, tsk. He then Googles some of his own facts, cherry picks the good ones, and uses them to refute Steyn's piece. In essence, he did to Steyn what he says Steyn did to the world.
You know what? That's exactly what he should do. That's called arguing. Anyone can do it, and Miller just did. Asking the state to step in and shut Steyn up because he doesn't follow the rules of the BCHRT or the CAJ is chicken, and it's a crock.
What is it with the guys in the writing game that don't see the writing on the wall? It might be Steyn today, but later on it could be some CAJ member's career on the line. It wouldn't help the reporter to know that a journalism professor, John Miller, once told the human rights commission that a lack of references should be a factor in judging someone as a promoter of hate speech.
I was looking at this article by John Miller, who has a piece on a website called The Canadian Journalism Project. Steyn has him as a journalism professor. As boring and dry as that sounds, I decided to read his bit all the way through.
I've been calling for the mainstream press to get on board against this human rights business for a while. Instead, I get this:
Journalistic opinion is hailing Mark Steyn, of all people, as the new poster child for freedom of expression in Canada.
I beg to differ.
Miller has a problem with Mark Steyn, whose writing he declares both xenophobic and Islamophobic. Miller thinks the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal should take Steyn down a peg or two. This line of Miller's will give you a good first impression. His lectures must be a blast: "That is the law as it stands, and everyone must obey the law."
When I read that note from Squaresville, I sank a little lower into my chair and let my eyes glaze over. From then on, I was on auto-pilot, waiting for the buried lead (cool - I just used some hip journo-speak) to rear its head.
It comes at the end of Miller's essay. After he's done declaring Steyn's article a work of bigotry, Miller gets to the point:
Steyn and Maclean’s also appear to violate a great many of the principles and guidelines for reporting that the CAJ [Canadian Association of Journalists] adopted in 2002. They include (to name only the most obvious ones)...
Horrors! Xenophobia, Islamophobia, and violating the CAJ's principles.
Actually, I figured that's what Miller's problem was. It's not that Steyn's a bigot, it's that Steyn's not a real journalist. He doesn't toe the CAJ line. He shouldn't be playing with Miller's toys. Steyn didn't quote enough sources, or give enough references, or otherwise follow the rules of the CAJ (which is pretty funny, since the CAJ intervened on Maclean's behalf in BC and wants them off the hook, rules are meant for bending, so forth).
Still, let me play devil's advocate. Here's what Miller says, with my comments to follow.
It [Steyn's article] is contrary to the value of keeping the news comprehensive and proportional – specifically by “inflating events for sensation, neglecting others, stereotyping or being disproportionately negative.”
Sounds like how I describe strip clubs to my girlfriend. Still, let's say it's true, that Steyn waxed negative. So what? Where is this mighty book of values kept, and when did it become law? If Steyn is guilty of breaking some sort of ethics, then newspapers can refuse to print him, and Maclean's can stop running his stuff. This does not mean that a government agency has the right to tell Maclean's what to print afterwards (yes, John, Maclean's is the real issue here, no matter how much you want it to be about the xenophobic writer).
It violates the discipline of verification – specifically by not “seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment.”
There's no way Miller can know any of that, unless he was sitting in the room when Steyn wrote the piece, or he broke into Steyn's pad and stole his notes. (Dear Journalism Professor: when you see the words "Newsweek stands by its story," it's because Newsweek knows more about the story than you do, but isn't disclosing the sources). But, again, let's say it's true. Big deal. If John Miller was an editor of a paper and one of his reporters wrote a fabricated story about neo-Nazis, I doubt he'd agree to a human rights commission forcing him to run an essay supportive of neo-Nazis. No, John Miller would use the old "Miller's Magazine regrets the error," run an op-ed berating itself, and that would be that.
And it runs contrary to a journalist’s first obligation to the truth – specifically by neglecting “the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts.”
Um, sources please? Again, there's no way he can know any of that. He's making it up. He has no clue what sources Steyn and Maclean's looked at two years ago, and which ones they found credible or not. Earlier in his piece, Miller says that he spent a few minutes Googling Steyn's subject, and he found entirely different facts and arguments. No surprise. That's why there's dozens of books on the Kennedy assassination. Nobody agrees on anything. But does the good professor really believe that this means Maclean's should be found guilty of promoting hatred in British Columbia?
Other specific claims in the article are questionable. For example, Steyn states that high birthrates in Muslim countries “will give tiny Yemen a higher population than vast empty Russia” by mid-century. Yemen’s population in 2007 was 22 million, and Russia’s was 141 million. Barring some historic collapse of the Russian population, Yemen is not going to overtake it by 2050.
Note the key words. Questionable. Barring. Not exactly a damning assessment of Steyn's article. If something is questionable, then it is possible. I also like the "barring some historic collapse" bit. Okay, but what if the collapse happens? One, Yemen would be pretty crowded, and two, Miller's argument would cave in.
Indeed, one is tempted by this evidence to conclude that Steyn’s article was not journalism at all, but a “polemic” – which my dictionary defines as a selective attack.
Damn, a journalism prof that has to look up "polemic." I hope he paused for irony when he saw what it meant. Miller's whole article reads like a polemic - a very selective attack against the xenophobic, Islamophobic writings of Mark Steyn.
Let's be real. Miller kicks off his piece by calling Steyn's work xenophobic and Islamophobic, and uses exactly one source to back up the bigotry claims (a year-old book review; the rest is just his opinion). Tsk, tsk. He then Googles some of his own facts, cherry picks the good ones, and uses them to refute Steyn's piece. In essence, he did to Steyn what he says Steyn did to the world.
You know what? That's exactly what he should do. That's called arguing. Anyone can do it, and Miller just did. Asking the state to step in and shut Steyn up because he doesn't follow the rules of the BCHRT or the CAJ is chicken, and it's a crock.
What is it with the guys in the writing game that don't see the writing on the wall? It might be Steyn today, but later on it could be some CAJ member's career on the line. It wouldn't help the reporter to know that a journalism professor, John Miller, once told the human rights commission that a lack of references should be a factor in judging someone as a promoter of hate speech.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Worse By the Minute
I just took a peek at Andrew Coyne's live-blog from the Maclean's/British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal hearing. It's in its fourth day, and the news gets more bizarre by the minute.
For a Canadian, it makes for pretty depressing stuff. I don't know if I should keep reading it in order to stay up-to-date on what's going on, or if I should try to ignore it until the weekend so I don't get too bummed out.
Turns out, there's no stenographer in the hearing room, and they've been having trouble with their microphones. In other words, there might be no official record of what's going on in there. That leaves us with reporter Andrew Coyne, trying his best to record what he sees and hears.
Right now, the complainant (Naiyer Habib) is reading blog posts that he got from the internet. The posts reference Steyn's article, and they go on to make all kinds of bigoted slurs against Muslims. This, the complainant argues, shows that Steyn's article incites bigotry in British Columbia. Trouble is, the two blogs are from outside the country. One's in the US, the other's in Belgium.
The tribunal, though it doesn't have any jurisdiction over the internet and doesn't know who wrote the blogs, has declared that the blogs are valid as evidence (though - and there's a lot of the word "though" when discussing this stuff - the tribunal has no rules of evidence to weigh the evidence against).
These internet posts could have been written by anybody. Could have been the guy sitting next to you on the bus, or some guy killing time in the South Pole. Nobody knows. But they're deemed valid to show that Steyn's work is against the human rights code of British Columbia, and that his work incites hatred in the province. What they're saying is, Steyn and Maclean's must pay because someone, somewhere, is a bigot.
In passing, Andrew Coyne makes a brief comment in the middle of his live-blog. It won't make any headlines, and barely anybody will notice it. He makes the comment while reporting on the racist posts that the complainant is reading aloud. For me, Coyne's aside is the most important statement to come out of the hearing:
It occurs to me: I hope the BC Human Rights code makes exception for reports of their own proceedings. Otherwise I’m in trouble, since the code makes no allowance for reporting on a matter of public interest…
Read that comment again. This is a Canadian journalist, who has written hundreds of articles and columns over his career. And today, he is nervous that quotation marks around bigoted slurs will not protect him from litigation. I will bet you anything that he never thought he'd make that comment in his lifetime. He should never have had to. To use his words, it should never have occurred to him.
That's what I mean when I say, "The accusation is the conviction. The process is the punishment." A conviction isn't necessary, because the fear of accusation is enough to get people to censor themselves. Never mind shutting up the bloggers. From the look of Coyne's comment, this hearing has already placed the germ of fear and silence into the heads of the mainstream press.
For a Canadian, it makes for pretty depressing stuff. I don't know if I should keep reading it in order to stay up-to-date on what's going on, or if I should try to ignore it until the weekend so I don't get too bummed out.
Turns out, there's no stenographer in the hearing room, and they've been having trouble with their microphones. In other words, there might be no official record of what's going on in there. That leaves us with reporter Andrew Coyne, trying his best to record what he sees and hears.
Right now, the complainant (Naiyer Habib) is reading blog posts that he got from the internet. The posts reference Steyn's article, and they go on to make all kinds of bigoted slurs against Muslims. This, the complainant argues, shows that Steyn's article incites bigotry in British Columbia. Trouble is, the two blogs are from outside the country. One's in the US, the other's in Belgium.
The tribunal, though it doesn't have any jurisdiction over the internet and doesn't know who wrote the blogs, has declared that the blogs are valid as evidence (though - and there's a lot of the word "though" when discussing this stuff - the tribunal has no rules of evidence to weigh the evidence against).
These internet posts could have been written by anybody. Could have been the guy sitting next to you on the bus, or some guy killing time in the South Pole. Nobody knows. But they're deemed valid to show that Steyn's work is against the human rights code of British Columbia, and that his work incites hatred in the province. What they're saying is, Steyn and Maclean's must pay because someone, somewhere, is a bigot.
In passing, Andrew Coyne makes a brief comment in the middle of his live-blog. It won't make any headlines, and barely anybody will notice it. He makes the comment while reporting on the racist posts that the complainant is reading aloud. For me, Coyne's aside is the most important statement to come out of the hearing:
It occurs to me: I hope the BC Human Rights code makes exception for reports of their own proceedings. Otherwise I’m in trouble, since the code makes no allowance for reporting on a matter of public interest…
Read that comment again. This is a Canadian journalist, who has written hundreds of articles and columns over his career. And today, he is nervous that quotation marks around bigoted slurs will not protect him from litigation. I will bet you anything that he never thought he'd make that comment in his lifetime. He should never have had to. To use his words, it should never have occurred to him.
That's what I mean when I say, "The accusation is the conviction. The process is the punishment." A conviction isn't necessary, because the fear of accusation is enough to get people to censor themselves. Never mind shutting up the bloggers. From the look of Coyne's comment, this hearing has already placed the germ of fear and silence into the heads of the mainstream press.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Keep Talking
I had an interesting chat with a buddy of mine tonight. We batted around the hockey playoffs for a while, I asked him how business was going, he asked me the same. Then he told me that he'd checked out my blog and he was curious about this "human rights stuff."
My friend stays up to date on things, so I asked him if he'd heard anything about the Mark Steyn/Maclean's deal. He told me he hadn't, but that he'd seen something in the Globe about the human rights issue sometime after reading my blog.
He said, "So give this stuff to me in a nutshell. Sounds like Communist Russia or something."
I found that interesting. My friend and I are fairly opposite on the political side of things. I lean more right, he leans more left. I was wondering how he was going to view the Canadian human rights issue. Then it occurred to me that this stuff isn't about right or left. For people that are immersed in the internet, the world is all right and left. For people like my friend, life is just life, and it becomes left or right on election day.
See, my buddy's just some guy. He doesn't scour the news for political conspiracies. Like most Canadians, before tonight he had no idea that there's a human rights commission in every province, or even what they're for. So when I told him about the stuff going on now, he was a bit incredulous.
I explained things further, and the further I went, the more he said, "Jesus. What?"
We talked about the bar owner in Burlington that got screwed for not letting a guy smoke dope on his porch, and we talked about the free speech stuff, and we talked about the dude in Vancouver that wants BDSM to be called a "sexual orientation," so much so that he's using it in a discrimination complaint against the cops.
The more we talked, the more my buddy didn't quite believe me. He said, "So...it's like civil suits or something? Like, they can award punitive damages."
And I said, "No, as far as I can tell, they award all kinds of damages, but they're careful not to call them 'punitive.' They're called 'remedies.'"
To which my friend replied, "Huh." Then he asked who Mark Steyn is and what all that was about. Again, he laughed and said he wanted it in a nutshell.
"Well," I said, "it's like this. Mark Steyn wrote a book and said the Muslim population is growing faster than the rest of the population, and by such-and-such a time, they'll be a big political force in whatever European country. Maybe Sharia law and whatever. He also quoted some imam guy that says Muslims will "breed like mosquitoes." Maclean's ran an excerpt of the book. So this guy filed a human rights complaint against him and Maclean's in Ontario, BC, and with the Feds. He wants the commissions to force Maclean's to print an essay written by a writer of their choosing, and they want it to be a cover story."
My buddy said, "What?"
But the 'what' wasn't for anything Steyn had written, but for the fact that someone was trying to tell Maclean's what to print.
And again, it hit me: my buddy's just some guy. He might be left, he might be right, but he's still Canadian, and these complaints struck him as incredibly un-Canadian. Before calling me, he probably thought he had nothing to fear by writing or saying any damn thing he wanted. Now I was telling him the opposite. That's a tough thing to hear when you're not ready for it. In a way, it's life changing.
I told him that I knew these commissions were a bad thing because last week I sat down to write something...and I paused.
That is the first time in my life as a Canadian citizen that I have ever thought twice about saying what's on my mind for fear of getting in trouble for it. First time ever. The words of the commissions were going through my head: "likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt."
Okay. So tell me what "likely" means. Or "contempt."
I think the blog was about gay marriage. I'm not against it, but I'm not for it. I think it needs time to sink in, and that it shouldn't be rushed. The reason I paused is I suddenly thought, "Could someone spin this as me "likely to expose someone to contempt?'"
Couldn't they do that to anything you or I write?
That's what I don't get about the weirdos that say, "But no one's been convicted of a speech complaint yet, not unless they're a neo-Nazi." That isn't the point. Fact is, the more you learn about these commissions, the more you learn how easy it is to drag someone through the mud for saying something, even if the complainant doesn't see it through to the end. The fear of accusation is enough to frighten and silence people. But then, I guess that's their whole point, too.
I told my buddy about this. I told him that I didn't want to write political blogs all the time, because I don't want to be seen as some political crank. That's why I mix it up, so my friends don't get bored. But once in a while, politics is fun to write about. Yet now I was nervous. Could I write about these commissions, or should I just ease off in case someone decided to screw me over?
My buddy's just some guy. He had one thing to say:
"Keep talking about it."
My friend stays up to date on things, so I asked him if he'd heard anything about the Mark Steyn/Maclean's deal. He told me he hadn't, but that he'd seen something in the Globe about the human rights issue sometime after reading my blog.
He said, "So give this stuff to me in a nutshell. Sounds like Communist Russia or something."
I found that interesting. My friend and I are fairly opposite on the political side of things. I lean more right, he leans more left. I was wondering how he was going to view the Canadian human rights issue. Then it occurred to me that this stuff isn't about right or left. For people that are immersed in the internet, the world is all right and left. For people like my friend, life is just life, and it becomes left or right on election day.
See, my buddy's just some guy. He doesn't scour the news for political conspiracies. Like most Canadians, before tonight he had no idea that there's a human rights commission in every province, or even what they're for. So when I told him about the stuff going on now, he was a bit incredulous.
I explained things further, and the further I went, the more he said, "Jesus. What?"
We talked about the bar owner in Burlington that got screwed for not letting a guy smoke dope on his porch, and we talked about the free speech stuff, and we talked about the dude in Vancouver that wants BDSM to be called a "sexual orientation," so much so that he's using it in a discrimination complaint against the cops.
The more we talked, the more my buddy didn't quite believe me. He said, "So...it's like civil suits or something? Like, they can award punitive damages."
And I said, "No, as far as I can tell, they award all kinds of damages, but they're careful not to call them 'punitive.' They're called 'remedies.'"
To which my friend replied, "Huh." Then he asked who Mark Steyn is and what all that was about. Again, he laughed and said he wanted it in a nutshell.
"Well," I said, "it's like this. Mark Steyn wrote a book and said the Muslim population is growing faster than the rest of the population, and by such-and-such a time, they'll be a big political force in whatever European country. Maybe Sharia law and whatever. He also quoted some imam guy that says Muslims will "breed like mosquitoes." Maclean's ran an excerpt of the book. So this guy filed a human rights complaint against him and Maclean's in Ontario, BC, and with the Feds. He wants the commissions to force Maclean's to print an essay written by a writer of their choosing, and they want it to be a cover story."
My buddy said, "What?"
But the 'what' wasn't for anything Steyn had written, but for the fact that someone was trying to tell Maclean's what to print.
And again, it hit me: my buddy's just some guy. He might be left, he might be right, but he's still Canadian, and these complaints struck him as incredibly un-Canadian. Before calling me, he probably thought he had nothing to fear by writing or saying any damn thing he wanted. Now I was telling him the opposite. That's a tough thing to hear when you're not ready for it. In a way, it's life changing.
I told him that I knew these commissions were a bad thing because last week I sat down to write something...and I paused.
That is the first time in my life as a Canadian citizen that I have ever thought twice about saying what's on my mind for fear of getting in trouble for it. First time ever. The words of the commissions were going through my head: "likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt."
Okay. So tell me what "likely" means. Or "contempt."
I think the blog was about gay marriage. I'm not against it, but I'm not for it. I think it needs time to sink in, and that it shouldn't be rushed. The reason I paused is I suddenly thought, "Could someone spin this as me "likely to expose someone to contempt?'"
Couldn't they do that to anything you or I write?
That's what I don't get about the weirdos that say, "But no one's been convicted of a speech complaint yet, not unless they're a neo-Nazi." That isn't the point. Fact is, the more you learn about these commissions, the more you learn how easy it is to drag someone through the mud for saying something, even if the complainant doesn't see it through to the end. The fear of accusation is enough to frighten and silence people. But then, I guess that's their whole point, too.
I told my buddy about this. I told him that I didn't want to write political blogs all the time, because I don't want to be seen as some political crank. That's why I mix it up, so my friends don't get bored. But once in a while, politics is fun to write about. Yet now I was nervous. Could I write about these commissions, or should I just ease off in case someone decided to screw me over?
My buddy's just some guy. He had one thing to say:
"Keep talking about it."
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Debating Steyn
Last night, I watched Mark Steyn's debate with the Osgoode Hall law students, and it went about the way I thought it would go: Steyn quoted a lot of stats to back him up, the students quoted his writing which they say is Islamophobic, and once in a while Steve Paikin told them to quiet down and play nice.
On the facts, I think Steyn is correct: a government agency should not be telling a writer or a magazine what to write, or what not to write. If someone finds a piece of writing offensive, then they should write their own stuff. Prefer TV? There's You Tube. Radio? Blog Talk.
The students have it that Maclean's is playing unfairly because they won't publish an article by a writer of the students' choosing. But the students' rules are unfair in the extreme: the editors of Maclean's will not be allowed to edit the piece in any way beyond a spellcheck. What's more, if Maclean's does not run the piece, then the students vow to take them to the government's Human Right Commissions who will force the magazine to print it.
That stinks. Anyone who doesn't see that it stinks is a fool. Think about the precedent that would set: print this, or else the government will get involved, and they'll tell you to print it.
One thing that struck me about last night's debate was how naive the students are. When one of them said Maclean's has a huge readership, and Steyn told them that they have a website, the students scoffed. Their point is, Maclean's is a magazine and a website doesn't hold up, so Maclean's must publish the piece.
Well, that's not the way the publishing world works. I wish it did. I would like nothing better than to tell editors that they must run a piece of my writing. But those aren't the rules I was raised on. I was brought up to believe that you have to write something worthy of printing in order to find it in a magazine, and even then, you might not get between the covers.
Editors worry about newsworthiness, and the bottom line. Now and then they even care about the quality of writing. They also worry about their reputations. Maclean's might have a big readership now, but imagine that readership if people knew that Maclean's was a mouthpiece for special interest groups. An unedited opinion piece is not an article, it's an advertisement.
Another thing that struck me is that these students weren't true "students" from the old days. All right, they're law students, so that makes them automatically suspicious. But still, whatever happened to not ratting on anybody? "Print this or I'll tell teacher." Lame. Their legal bills would have been better spent on hiring a name writer, having them write a piece, and submitting it to Maclean's. The mag would have printed it, of that I am pretty sure: Mark Steyn (name writer) against so-and-so (name writer). Now it's gone too far. The students have painted Maclean's into a corner, and there's nothing the magazine can do but say no to anything with the students' fingerprints on it.
The students have elevated the maxim of human rights to its logical conclusion: all the world's a court, and those of us in it merely defendants. Give this man a job, or I'll tell the government. Give this lady wheelchair access, or I'll tell the government. Don't talk mean to minorities, or I'll tell the government. Be nice to women, or I'll tell the government. Print this article, or I'll tell the government.
We're teaching our kids to become sissies and tattle-tales. I don't know what kind of impact that's going to have later on in life, but it's got to have some ramifications. I don't think they'll be good ones.
I was looking at Mark Steyn's blog, and he had this to say in a post-game write up:
I'll bet the students don't hate Steyn now after having met him. They disagree with him, but they don't hate him. I also think it very telling that after meeting someone whom they call Islamophobic, they hang around the set to have a chat. If you truly hated someone and thought they hated you because they're a bigot, would you chat them up and tell them they're mildly funny?
And that's why we don't need the government in our lives, telling us what to write and how behave. We can take care of ourselves, thank you very much.
I know it's hard work, but if you want to write, then write. If you want to meet people on TV and debate them, then work your ass off for a year and get on the program. Lately, I've been reading a lot of people saying that Steyn is a high school drop out and an ex-DJ. That sounds a lot like sour grapes to me. Since when was a high school diploma or any vocational background a prerequisite for writing? I don't know what people think writers do for money until they become full-time writers, but I can assure them it isn't writing. Writing doesn't pay jack until you get syndicated. Until then, being a DJ is as good a job as any.
I think the high-school-drop-out stuff is jealousy, pure and simple. You're not getting published, but Steyn is? Sorry, it means he's a better writer than you, and he's had some luck to go with it. Tough.
If the students had worked as hard on their writing as they have on these complaints, they'd be in print now. They claim that filing these complaints was the only way to get on TV. They said last night, "If we didn't complain, we wouldn't be on this show."
Really? Is this the only option you had, to open the Pandora's Box of government and let the suits fly? Or was this simply the easier, new Canadian way?
Tell us, but do it in writing.
On the facts, I think Steyn is correct: a government agency should not be telling a writer or a magazine what to write, or what not to write. If someone finds a piece of writing offensive, then they should write their own stuff. Prefer TV? There's You Tube. Radio? Blog Talk.
The students have it that Maclean's is playing unfairly because they won't publish an article by a writer of the students' choosing. But the students' rules are unfair in the extreme: the editors of Maclean's will not be allowed to edit the piece in any way beyond a spellcheck. What's more, if Maclean's does not run the piece, then the students vow to take them to the government's Human Right Commissions who will force the magazine to print it.
That stinks. Anyone who doesn't see that it stinks is a fool. Think about the precedent that would set: print this, or else the government will get involved, and they'll tell you to print it.
One thing that struck me about last night's debate was how naive the students are. When one of them said Maclean's has a huge readership, and Steyn told them that they have a website, the students scoffed. Their point is, Maclean's is a magazine and a website doesn't hold up, so Maclean's must publish the piece.
Well, that's not the way the publishing world works. I wish it did. I would like nothing better than to tell editors that they must run a piece of my writing. But those aren't the rules I was raised on. I was brought up to believe that you have to write something worthy of printing in order to find it in a magazine, and even then, you might not get between the covers.
Editors worry about newsworthiness, and the bottom line. Now and then they even care about the quality of writing. They also worry about their reputations. Maclean's might have a big readership now, but imagine that readership if people knew that Maclean's was a mouthpiece for special interest groups. An unedited opinion piece is not an article, it's an advertisement.
Another thing that struck me is that these students weren't true "students" from the old days. All right, they're law students, so that makes them automatically suspicious. But still, whatever happened to not ratting on anybody? "Print this or I'll tell teacher." Lame. Their legal bills would have been better spent on hiring a name writer, having them write a piece, and submitting it to Maclean's. The mag would have printed it, of that I am pretty sure: Mark Steyn (name writer) against so-and-so (name writer). Now it's gone too far. The students have painted Maclean's into a corner, and there's nothing the magazine can do but say no to anything with the students' fingerprints on it.
The students have elevated the maxim of human rights to its logical conclusion: all the world's a court, and those of us in it merely defendants. Give this man a job, or I'll tell the government. Give this lady wheelchair access, or I'll tell the government. Don't talk mean to minorities, or I'll tell the government. Be nice to women, or I'll tell the government. Print this article, or I'll tell the government.
We're teaching our kids to become sissies and tattle-tales. I don't know what kind of impact that's going to have later on in life, but it's got to have some ramifications. I don't think they'll be good ones.
I was looking at Mark Steyn's blog, and he had this to say in a post-game write up:
We didn't go for dinner, but we did have a relatively pleasant conversation after the broadcast that I thought was much more productive than the show. Khurrum was a bit chippy but the two ladies, Muneeza Sheikh and Naseem Mithoowani, are rather cute, even when they're damning me as a racist and hater. (Years ago, the BBC used to keep putting me up against humourless Marxist feminists only to find that on air I'd go all sweet on them and just make goo-goo eyes.) One confessed to finding me "mildly funny", which I took as a tremendous compliment until she remarked that she found "Little Mosque On The Prairie" funnier. Evidently by "mildly funny", she sets the bar down at world-champion limbo level. Heigh-ho.That rings true. I once wrote that all of the people that say they "hate" George Bush don't really hate him. They hate his ideals, but they don't hate the man. Unfortunately, they can't draw that distinction. Over dinner, the people that hate Bush would have a pleasant enough time. I've had drinks with people that I previously despised, only to find that while I don't agree with them, I can still carry on a decent conversation with them across the bar.
I'll bet the students don't hate Steyn now after having met him. They disagree with him, but they don't hate him. I also think it very telling that after meeting someone whom they call Islamophobic, they hang around the set to have a chat. If you truly hated someone and thought they hated you because they're a bigot, would you chat them up and tell them they're mildly funny?
And that's why we don't need the government in our lives, telling us what to write and how behave. We can take care of ourselves, thank you very much.
I know it's hard work, but if you want to write, then write. If you want to meet people on TV and debate them, then work your ass off for a year and get on the program. Lately, I've been reading a lot of people saying that Steyn is a high school drop out and an ex-DJ. That sounds a lot like sour grapes to me. Since when was a high school diploma or any vocational background a prerequisite for writing? I don't know what people think writers do for money until they become full-time writers, but I can assure them it isn't writing. Writing doesn't pay jack until you get syndicated. Until then, being a DJ is as good a job as any.
I think the high-school-drop-out stuff is jealousy, pure and simple. You're not getting published, but Steyn is? Sorry, it means he's a better writer than you, and he's had some luck to go with it. Tough.
If the students had worked as hard on their writing as they have on these complaints, they'd be in print now. They claim that filing these complaints was the only way to get on TV. They said last night, "If we didn't complain, we wouldn't be on this show."
Really? Is this the only option you had, to open the Pandora's Box of government and let the suits fly? Or was this simply the easier, new Canadian way?
Tell us, but do it in writing.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Pot Calls the Kettle Red
The Canadian Human Rights Commission might be interested in defamation suits involving religion and hatred...but Canada isn't?
In a strange twist of fate, Canada joined England, France, and other European countries in voting against a UN resolution brought by the UN Human Rights Council. EU officials were wary of allowing more wide ranging religious anti-defamation laws in case they curbed free speech. Sound familiar?
In any event, the resolution passed 21-10, without Canada's blessing. As the Washington Post reports:
So which is it, Canada?
In a strange twist of fate, Canada joined England, France, and other European countries in voting against a UN resolution brought by the UN Human Rights Council. EU officials were wary of allowing more wide ranging religious anti-defamation laws in case they curbed free speech. Sound familiar?
In any event, the resolution passed 21-10, without Canada's blessing. As the Washington Post reports:
The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."This comes on the heels of the latest round in the Canadian Human Rights hearing, where Marc Lemire is accused of having racist and xenophobic ideas on his website. Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine will be facing their own human rights complaint later in the year, for allegedly insulting Islamic people.
Although the text refers frequently to protecting all religions, the only religion specified as being attacked is Islam, to which eight paragraphs refer.
Speaking for the EU, Slovenian Ambassador Andrej Logar said the 27-nation body was committed to tolerance, nondiscrimination and freedom of religion. But instead of a one-sided approach, it would be better to engage in dialogue with mutual respect.
The resolution "urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred. It also urges states to adopt laws that would protect against hatred and discrimination stemming from religious defamation.
So which is it, Canada?
Sunday, March 23, 2008
A Modest Response
I received an interesting letter vis-a-vis my take on the CHRC. It reads thus:
The Levant case has nothing to do with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Is it asking too much that you guys do your basic homework?My response is as follows:
Never mind. Even Steyn thinks that Section 13 of the CHRA applied to the Levant case. -- Dr. Dawg
Dear Dr. Dawg,
re: "Canadian Human Rights Commission"
You're absolutely right. I have fallen into the trap of lumping them together over the past couple of months. To be honest, I can't keep track of who is complaining to whom, and who is hearing which case against which person. It changes from week to week and province to province.
Let's be more specific: the group hearing the Steyn deal is the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The British Columbia Human Rights Commission dropped the proceeding (at least, last I heard). The group that questioned Ezra Levant on You Tube is the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
This is painful stuff for the writer and the reader. Example: "The CHRC could have gone on sailing into the next century, punishing Canadians for speaking their minds, except for three things:
"Steyn [Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ontario Human Rights Commission, not the Alberta Human Rights Commission, and no longer the BC Human Rights Commission], Levant [only the Alberta Human Rights Commission, but not the other ones], Maclean's [lumped in with Steyn and, I think, no longer under the BC Human Rights Commission (if they ever were) but I could be wrong]."
All that for the names of two people and one magazine?
To satisfy everyone, I think we should use Canadian human rights commission(s), (note the parentheses and small caps). "Canadian" in this case doesn't imply the actual Canadian Human Rights Commission, only that the commission(s) are geographically located in Canada. This will make it much simpler for everyone, rather than having to scroll the Rolodex to see which principal's office a person has been called to.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The Slow Death of Freedom in Canada
Well, it looks like I screwed up the other day by saying that Mark Steyn was going to be tossed in front of "the three - yes, three - human rights commissions in Canada." What I should have said was, "Three of Canada's innumerable human rights commissions."
I'm a Canadian citizen, and I don't even know how many human rights commissions there are in the country. Steyn and Maclean's are apparently being star chambered by BC, Ontario, and the Feds. Now it's Ezra Levant's turn.
Ezra Levant
Levant is the former publisher of the out-of-print Western Standard. In February, 2006, the Standard re-printed the Danish Mohammed cartoons that sent Muslims into a tizzy. The Standard was attempting to show that free speech trumped everything else. For papers and magazines around the world to not re-print the newsmaking images would only show that violence and death threats could control the media.
Unfortunately, Levant was wrong. Not for re-printing the images, but in thinking that freedom of speech mattered a whit in Canada. Because two days ago, Levant found himself in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The Calgary Herald (which didn't re-print the cartoons even though they're the crux of the complain against Levant; must have been an oversight) reports that Syed Soharwardy, the President of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, filed the complaint.
Alberta has a human rights commission? News to me. I didn't even know Ontario had one until Steyn got himself in trouble with the Canadian Islamic Congress. And lucky for him that he did. The Congress sounds like a bunch of nice guys compared to the "Supreme Council."
The Herald reports, "Levant, the magazine's former publisher, will be on the hot seat [Thursday] in Calgary during a commission investigation - a process he calls an "interrogation" - in which he'll be questioned extensively about the publication of the cartoons."
What Levant did is not a crime. Yet. But he still must hire a lawyer and go before these Orwellian magistrates and defend himself. You might be interested to know that Soharwardy does not have to appear during Levant's "questioning," and so Levant is not entitled to face his accuser.
Now, if you've read this far, think about what I've just told you. A magazine publisher is being accused of printing cartoons. He has to take a day away from his family. He has to shell out for a lawyer. He must appear before a commission that will question him "extensively" about the cartoons' publication. And that sound you hear from the Globe and Mail, the CBC, CTV, and the Toronto Star is...crickets.
The journalists in Canada are a joke. They're the first ones to scream about the (now shown to be fictitious) freedom of the press, yet when one of their own is tossed before a Kangaroo Court, you hear nary a whisper.
I'd love to see the Q&A between Levant and the Alberta Human Rights Commission:
HRC: Why did you print the cartoons?
Levant: Because every news outlet in the world was reporting riots. We thought readers should see what caused it all, and no one else in Canada was printing them.
HRC: But if no one else was printing them, why did you think you could?
Levant: Because they're cartoons.
HRC: No, they're offensive.
Levant: But they're cartoons.
HRC: No, Daffy Duck is a cartoon. You could have printed the Daffy Duck ones.
Levant: But Daffy didn't start any riots.
HRC: Exactly.
Levant: What?
Canada is playing a very dangerous game with this human rights business. We have now exposed ourselves for what we are: a de facto totalitarian state.
When a writer (Steyn) can be brought before a commission for what he writes, and when a publisher (Levant) can be brought before another commission for printing cartoons, you realize that the American framers were on to something: to have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you need to write it down in plain, simple language. Canada's convoluted "constitution" is worth about as much as toilet paper when it comes to the freedoms that most Canadians think they have.
Here's what Jefferson and the boys put their names to:
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of speech. Comma. Freedom of the press. And that's that. No need for long preamble or clarification. Print the thing, and let debate and discourse sort it out.
Notice that the framers put this amendment as numero uno. In Canada, these freedoms come dead last.
Levant Photo: National Post
I'm a Canadian citizen, and I don't even know how many human rights commissions there are in the country. Steyn and Maclean's are apparently being star chambered by BC, Ontario, and the Feds. Now it's Ezra Levant's turn.
Ezra Levant
Levant is the former publisher of the out-of-print Western Standard. In February, 2006, the Standard re-printed the Danish Mohammed cartoons that sent Muslims into a tizzy. The Standard was attempting to show that free speech trumped everything else. For papers and magazines around the world to not re-print the newsmaking images would only show that violence and death threats could control the media.Unfortunately, Levant was wrong. Not for re-printing the images, but in thinking that freedom of speech mattered a whit in Canada. Because two days ago, Levant found himself in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The Calgary Herald (which didn't re-print the cartoons even though they're the crux of the complain against Levant; must have been an oversight) reports that Syed Soharwardy, the President of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, filed the complaint.
Alberta has a human rights commission? News to me. I didn't even know Ontario had one until Steyn got himself in trouble with the Canadian Islamic Congress. And lucky for him that he did. The Congress sounds like a bunch of nice guys compared to the "Supreme Council."
The Herald reports, "Levant, the magazine's former publisher, will be on the hot seat [Thursday] in Calgary during a commission investigation - a process he calls an "interrogation" - in which he'll be questioned extensively about the publication of the cartoons."
What Levant did is not a crime. Yet. But he still must hire a lawyer and go before these Orwellian magistrates and defend himself. You might be interested to know that Soharwardy does not have to appear during Levant's "questioning," and so Levant is not entitled to face his accuser.
Now, if you've read this far, think about what I've just told you. A magazine publisher is being accused of printing cartoons. He has to take a day away from his family. He has to shell out for a lawyer. He must appear before a commission that will question him "extensively" about the cartoons' publication. And that sound you hear from the Globe and Mail, the CBC, CTV, and the Toronto Star is...crickets.
The journalists in Canada are a joke. They're the first ones to scream about the (now shown to be fictitious) freedom of the press, yet when one of their own is tossed before a Kangaroo Court, you hear nary a whisper.
I'd love to see the Q&A between Levant and the Alberta Human Rights Commission:
HRC: Why did you print the cartoons?
Levant: Because every news outlet in the world was reporting riots. We thought readers should see what caused it all, and no one else in Canada was printing them.
HRC: But if no one else was printing them, why did you think you could?
Levant: Because they're cartoons.
HRC: No, they're offensive.
Levant: But they're cartoons.
HRC: No, Daffy Duck is a cartoon. You could have printed the Daffy Duck ones.
Levant: But Daffy didn't start any riots.
HRC: Exactly.
Levant: What?
Canada is playing a very dangerous game with this human rights business. We have now exposed ourselves for what we are: a de facto totalitarian state.
When a writer (Steyn) can be brought before a commission for what he writes, and when a publisher (Levant) can be brought before another commission for printing cartoons, you realize that the American framers were on to something: to have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you need to write it down in plain, simple language. Canada's convoluted "constitution" is worth about as much as toilet paper when it comes to the freedoms that most Canadians think they have.
Here's what Jefferson and the boys put their names to:
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Freedom of speech. Comma. Freedom of the press. And that's that. No need for long preamble or clarification. Print the thing, and let debate and discourse sort it out.
Notice that the framers put this amendment as numero uno. In Canada, these freedoms come dead last.
Levant Photo: National Post
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Mark Steyn - Not Alone for Long
I thought this whole deal between Mark Steyn and the Canadian Human Rights Commission would eventually just go away. Like a fool, I thought the Canadian Islamic Congress would rattle some sabers, get their names in the papers, and that would be that.
The short story of this sordid affair is that Maclean's ran an excerpt of Steyn's book, America Alone. In it, Steyn says that the demographics of the world are swinging the jihadists' way. He goes on to quote a European imam, who says that Muslims are breeding like "mosquitos."
So who gets nailed for hate speech? No, not the man who made the mosquito remark, but Mark Steyn. Quotation marks are apparently no defense, and students should bear this in mind the next time they do a history essay on Hitler.
The CIC apparently told Maclean's that they wanted to run a rebuttal of Steyn's piece. However, they wanted to control the art that went with it and they told Maclean's that it had to be a cover story.
As any neophyte writer knows, you're not going to get very far telling an editor that your piece must appear on their cover. Even submitting an essay with a title on it shows you to be an amateur. It's editors that make the headlines. So telling an editor, "You will run my piece, you will not edit it, it will be on the cover, and we will give you the art," is a quick way to be told to go screw yourself.
Which is the way it should be. You want to be a writer and play the game? Then get on the field and play it. But don't try to strongarm any publication with accusations of racism and "human rights" violations.
Yes, that's right. Maclean's is included in the -- insult? indictment? charge? -- and they are going to be trussed up and tossed before the three - yes, three - human rights commissions in Canada (BC, Ontario, and the big dog Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is apparently around in case the provincial ones fumble).
But what about freedom of speech? Phah! Here's Terry Downey, a former "human rights" investigator:
"We need to make sure that folks are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of who it is , whether it's Maclean's or anybody...People have a right to freedom of expression but that has some restrictions on it. You just can't offend people based on their religion or color or things like that." -- Reuters.
The most terrifying part of that statement is "...things like that."
Well, what things exactly?
If you're a Canadian and you don't think this impacts your life, you're wrong. The next time you write anything - a blog, a letter, an email - you could be committing a human rights violation. Get in line behind Steyn and find out just how far your freedoms take you before the thought police give you a lesson in Canadian liberties.
The short story of this sordid affair is that Maclean's ran an excerpt of Steyn's book, America Alone. In it, Steyn says that the demographics of the world are swinging the jihadists' way. He goes on to quote a European imam, who says that Muslims are breeding like "mosquitos."
So who gets nailed for hate speech? No, not the man who made the mosquito remark, but Mark Steyn. Quotation marks are apparently no defense, and students should bear this in mind the next time they do a history essay on Hitler.
The CIC apparently told Maclean's that they wanted to run a rebuttal of Steyn's piece. However, they wanted to control the art that went with it and they told Maclean's that it had to be a cover story.
As any neophyte writer knows, you're not going to get very far telling an editor that your piece must appear on their cover. Even submitting an essay with a title on it shows you to be an amateur. It's editors that make the headlines. So telling an editor, "You will run my piece, you will not edit it, it will be on the cover, and we will give you the art," is a quick way to be told to go screw yourself.
Which is the way it should be. You want to be a writer and play the game? Then get on the field and play it. But don't try to strongarm any publication with accusations of racism and "human rights" violations.
Yes, that's right. Maclean's is included in the -- insult? indictment? charge? -- and they are going to be trussed up and tossed before the three - yes, three - human rights commissions in Canada (BC, Ontario, and the big dog Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is apparently around in case the provincial ones fumble).
But what about freedom of speech? Phah! Here's Terry Downey, a former "human rights" investigator:
"We need to make sure that folks are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of who it is , whether it's Maclean's or anybody...People have a right to freedom of expression but that has some restrictions on it. You just can't offend people based on their religion or color or things like that." -- Reuters.
The most terrifying part of that statement is "...things like that."
Well, what things exactly?
If you're a Canadian and you don't think this impacts your life, you're wrong. The next time you write anything - a blog, a letter, an email - you could be committing a human rights violation. Get in line behind Steyn and find out just how far your freedoms take you before the thought police give you a lesson in Canadian liberties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)