Addressing the annual gathering of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF) in Calgary, Jason Kenney, a Cabinet member and Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, labelled "dangerous" the "illiberal tactics" employed by some activists in the name of tolerance.
I'd say Mr. Kenney has been listening to Ezra Levant too much recently. The wording is subtle, but given how much of a weasel Kenney has always been, I'm not surprised by it's vagueness.
"There is a large and growing debate about freedom of expression and the role of the human rights commission, and organizations that seek to use these commissions to deal with what they believe constitutes thoughts or opinions reflective of hatred or xenophobia," Mr. Kenney said. "I would also hope that we think long and hard about the central role, the foundational role, of such values as freedom of expression in our constitutional framework, and that we do not lightly undermine those constitutional values in our efforts to combat racism or hatred."
Ah...bingo. There's the tidbit I was looking for. I could have plucked nearly the same quote out of a dozen different places - this is the echo of the classic cry of the loudmouths who complain so vocally about the human rights commissions in Canada - "but I was just expressing an opinion".
Of course, we already know what the Harper Con$ think about such abstract subjects as equality, and accountability.
So, it comes as no surprise that we would hear Jason Kenney standing up and in effect saying that the loudmouths like Boissoin, Steyn or Levant shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. I am really beginning to despise the conservative notion of accountability - it seems more and more to be 'accountability' for everyone except them.
Kenney's comments come in the context of a speech to a group that addresses racism. Of course, we need to recognize that racism is far from the only context under which people can find themselves encountering hostility and bigotry.
While I do not like seeing HRC's being used as a muzzle arbitrarily, I also recognize the need for some kind of due process when these situations arise - and that the standards of evidence and justice applied may use a "weaker" ruler than expected in a more formal courtroom setting. All of these are legitimate as HRC's have limited powers in the first place.
However, I can imagine that sooner or later, the Harper government is going to deliberately disable these organizations to satisfy their squirming base of religious bigots.
7 comments:
Hard to know where to start.
Free speech is either an unequivocal good or it's not and it should be regulated. ANY regulation of free speech in history has led to tyranny, great and small.
Canada is simply witnessing the small version at the moment.
You're on the wrong side of history.
Anonymous,
Apparently you are unfamiliar with legal concepts such as libel, trademark law and copyright - all of which place various forms of limitation on "freedom of speech".
I wouldnt call the powers of HRC's "limited". Not by a long shot. They can impose substantial fines and come up with a plethora of other orders that restrict expression. They can't send you to jail but refuse to obey their orders (as heavy handed as they may be) and you might end up there.
My view is that something as important as expression should ONLY be limited by courts, with proper due process and a high standard of proof. We shouldn't employ an "everything goes" approach to hate speech, but restrictions upon it should be reserved for the very worst offenders--not the relatively mild, innocuous stuff that is genuine political commentary that we've seen from Steyn and Levant.
KC - Fair enough. That's not entirely unreasonable position. However, it's also a little akin to insisting that the courts deal with every traffic ticket issued. While you certainly have a right to appeal to a court, most people don't.
Actually, the freedom is limited and bounded by legislation - the courts are in the position of interpreting that legislation.
Oh yes, and the legislation that underlies the HRC's existence provides for appeal to the courts. (Contrary to popular mythology spawned by Levant, Steyn and their supporters.)
Dear Anonymous Trolls:
My comment policy has been posted before: here
- My blog, my policy. Deal.
Grog,
Your blog. Your Policy. Deal.
That's exactly right.
Macleans' mag. Macleans' policy. Deal.
You can say what ever you want and restrict response to your muck on your site. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
This issue isn't about hate speech. If it was, the Osgoodies would have filed the complaints first (or had them filed by a rep blah blah blah...) And then as a matter of redress they would have demanded space for their response. The fact that they didn't is proof that they aren't offended as much as they are frustrated that they can't have things their way.
Anonymous@1:04:
Comparing this blog, and my comment policy to the situations that have been before the HRC's is utter garbage.
First off, I moderate comments on this blog to keep flame wars and ad-hominem attacks off the space.
Second, where Maclean's is concerned, after reading some of Steyn's xenophobic opinion pieces, I'm not surprised that it's gotten him and his publisher into hot water.
With a national distribution, it was going to annoy somebody sooner or later.
Post a Comment