Ezra Levant holds forth on his encounter with an Alberta Human Rights Commission case officer over the complaint lodged against him over his decision to republish the Mohammad cartoons in the now-defunct Western Standard.
Early in her interrogation, she said "I always ask people … what was your intent and purpose of your article?"
It wasn't even a question about what we had published in the magazine. It was a question about my private thoughts. I asked her why my private feelings were of interest to the government. She said, very calmly, that they would be a factor taken into account by the government in determining whether or not I was guilty.
Officer McGovern said it as calmly as if I had asked her what time it was (see the exchange here).
When she's doing government interrogations, she always asks people about their thoughts.
It was so banal, so routine. When she walked in, she seemed happy. With a smile, she reached out her hand to shake mine. I refused — to me, nothing could have been more incongruous. Would I warmly greet a police officer who arrested me as a suspect in a crime? Then why should I do so for a thought crime? This was not normal; I would not normalize it with the pleasantries of polite society.
This was not a high-school debating tournament where Human Rights Officer McGovern and I were equals, enjoying a shared interest in politics and publishing. I was there because I was compelled to be there by the government, and if I answered Officer McGovern's political questions unsatisfactorily, the government could fine me thousands of dollars and order me to publicly apologize for holding the wrong views.
I told her that the complaint process itself was a punishment. Even if I was eventually acquitted, I would still lose — hundreds of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills. That's not an accident, that's one of the tools of these commissions. Every journalist in the country has been taught a lesson: Censor yourself now, or be put through a costly wringer. I said all this and then Officer McGovern replied, "You're entitled to your opinions, that's for sure."
But that's not for sure, is it? We're only entitled to our opinions now if they don't offend some very easily offended people.
For background, Levant was an early supporter of the Reform Party of Canada. The party's early policies, if memory serves me correctly, would have seen human rights commissions eliminated. Certainly a number of Reform supporters have advocated for the abolition of such commissions.
As I understand human rights commissions, someone makes a complaint, there is an attempt to mediate the dispute, and if that is unsuccessful, the case goes to a tribunal (you can see the Alberta HRC's process here). If the tribunal finds for the complainant, a fine can be imposed. To me, it's not sinister to have a case officer ask, in essence, "what were you thinking?"
To put it a bit more technically (after all, Ezra is a lawyer by training), there's the concept of mens rea, which is Latin for the guilty mind. This goes to the whole notion of intent.
While I think Levant is being his usual blustery self in this commentary (to see evidence of that bluster, see these LiveLeak videos; the headline is Fascism in Canada: thought crimes, censorship, persecuting free speech), I am concerned in such cases that a human rights complaint may have been filed to deal with a matter where someone was generally offended rather than suffered actual, specific discrimination.
Refusing someone rental accommodation, a job or a seat in a restaurant -- that's real and specific discrimination.
Running cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad? That might offend some Muslims' sensibilities, but can you draw a direct link between that and an actual act of discrimination, either against an individual or Muslims as a group?
I suspect you can't.
If publication of the cartoons promotes hatred against Muslims, then that should be a Criminal Code matter, not a human rights complaint.
But merely offensive speech should receive the benefit of protection from the Charter of Rights and Freedom's freedom of expression provisions.
Addendum
Here's the relevant section of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act:
Discrimination re publications, notices
3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) the display of a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation displayed to identify facilities customarily used by one gender,
(b) the display or publication by or on behalf of an organization that
(i) is composed exclusively or primarily of persons having the same political or religious beliefs, ancestry or place of origin, and
(ii) is not operated for private profit, of a statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation indicating a purpose or membership qualification of the organization, or
(c) the display or publication of a form of application or an advertisement that may be used, circulated or published pursuant to section 8(2), if the statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation is not derogatory, offensive or otherwise improper.
I don't like the language in 3(1)(a) and (b) because it refers to "classes of persons" and talks of being "likely to expose."
And how does 3(1) square with 3(2), which says how nothing in the section will interfere with the free expression of opinion?
Further to that point, check out these excerpt of a 2002 ruling against Alberta Report following a complaint by Harvey Kane and the Jewish Defence League:
Canada is a multicultural society. Respectful conduct is expected within our society and this includes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, religious beliefs, place of origin, etc. Human rights legislation is one of the legal guarantees of equality and dignity to be accorded to all peoples. This is not a tentative notion or vague public policy. It is basic law.
Mr. Byfield raised his concern about vague laws that undermine the notions of a free society. It is incumbent on all Canadians to exert some effort to learn about and understand the law. This can be done through many means. The Panel strongly suggests that Mr. Byfield, as the editor of the magazine, seek out for himself and his staff the information he needs to satisfy himself that he and his publication will not cross the line between what is tolerated and what is discriminatory communication. Of particular interest is the understanding that discrimination is not about the intention of the publisher (in this case); it is about the impact on the vulnerable group, from their point of view (emphasis mine - BD). There are accessible resources to assist him, including the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, legal counsel and private consultants who offer human rights education.
Wow. So if a particular group thinks it is offended by something, then ipso facto, their human rights have been violated?
Who knew?