The Alberta Human Rights (and Citizenship - BD) Commission has dismissed a complaint against publisher Ezra Levant for reprinting the provocative Danish Muhammad cartoons in his magazine (the now-defunct Western Standard - BD) in 2006.
The complaint was filed by the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities.
Levant, who has characterized the controversy as a free speech issue, said he was pleased with the outcome and pledged to continue fighting against censorship.
My apologies in advance for my Internet illiteracy in being unable to find any "paper" about this on the AHRCC website, but I did find a letter, dated Nov. 27, 2007, from the chief commissioner responding to an Edmonton Journal column on the Levant case.
Does anyone have an update on the very charitable decision by Mr. Levant to sue Syed Soharwardy, the Calgary Imam who also filed then withdrew an HRC complaint against the pugnacious little neo-con publisher?
N-P's coverage
The National Post actually had the story on Wednesday. An excerpt:
In a report on his investigation, which recommended the complaint not be referred for a panel hearing, AHRCC Southern Director Pardeep S. Gundara wrote that the cartoons are "stereotypical, negative and offensive," and they "do reinforce stereotypes," but they were "related to relevant and timely news" and were "not simply gratuitously included."
Yasmeen Nizam, a civil litigation lawyer in Edmonton and an ECMC director, said the Council is "certainly disappointed with the decision."
"Our whole idea was to educate people," she said. "We thought the cartoons did [expose Muslims to hatred], regardless of the context, because if you look at the broader context in a post-9/11 world, Muslims are at a higher risk of being discriminated against."
She said the Council decided to bring a human rights complaint because, unlike criminal hate speech prosecutions, the publisher's intent does not matter.
"We weren't shopping around for any laws. We thought this was a good way to bring our concerns to the attention of the public," she said. "Obviously we didn't want this to continue, so [another goal was] perhaps to discourage people from further maligning our prophet and our religion... We wanted this to have a deterrent effect."
Levant had this to say to the N-P:
"This censor approved what I wrote," he said. "His decision is not that I have freedom of speech. His decision is that I have his approval. I'm not interested in his approval. The only test of free speech is if I can write what he disapproves of with impunity. That's what freedom of speech is, to piss off some second-rate bureaucrat like Pardeep Gundara and know that you have the right to do so, because you're in Canada, not Saudi Arabia."
For some of my deep thoughts on HRC and freedom of expression, see this June 27, 2008 post: The stupid column by Haroon Siddiqui on the Maclean's case. My conclusions:
In a free and democratic society like Canada, can one be critical of some positions held by Muslims without being labelled Islamophobic?
On the flip side, can I criticize Israel without being labelled anti-Semitic?
More generally, can I criticize (insert identifiable group here) without being labelled (epithet here)?
This is a complex, messy area. But in general, I think our society is well-served when we respect both the fundamental freedom of expression that our Charter sets out -- and personally observe the uncodified fundamental principles of decency and respect for others when exercising that freedom.
Use the Criminal Code to restrict truly hateful speech and let human rights commissions stick to their knitting (i.e. dealing with real acts of discrimination, not ruling on speech that is "likely" to cause discrimination - BD).
But if we aim for a society where no one is ever simply offended, then I would argue we've given up on freedom.