September 2009
Ezra Levant. Shakedown: How our government is
undermining democracy in the name of human rights. McLelland & Stewart,
Toronto, 2009.
Foreword by Mark Steyn.
Reviewed by Doreen Kimura
Steyn in his foreword perfectly encapsulates the book, “This book is a portrait
of an insane system by a man who has been on the receiving end of it.” The
recent infamous trials of Levant as publisher of the Western Standard, and of
Steyn as contributor to Macleans, proceeded from charges brought by the Canadian
Islamic Congress under Section 13 (Hate messages) of the Canadian Human Rights
Act. Thus, it is an offence to communicate anything that “is likely to expose
a person or persons to hatred or contempt… on the basis of a prohibited ground
of discrimination.” The internet is explicitly included in the prohibition.
This very broad definition of hate speech could, for example, forbid criticism
of either side in a history of most wars (national origin being a “protected”
category). Under this section almost any negative commentary on protected groups
could be construed as illegal. All that is required is that a complaint be
filed.
The
suit against Levant, and his sharp and widely publicized rebuttals, “I want to
lead a fight to take back our real civil rights” made many more people aware of
the blatant suppression of opinion exercised by the Human Rights Commissions (HRCs),
both provincial and federal. The author provides several examples that are both
entertaining and horrifying. I give briefly just one much publicized example: A
minister of a church in Alberta wrote a letter to his local newspaper strongly
condemning homosexuality on moral and religious grounds. A complaint against him
(by an avowedly heterosexual man) was lodged with the Alberta HRC for hate
speech.
Five painful years later, the Reverend was found by AHRC to have broken the law.
He was ordered to pay his complainant thousands of dollars. Most worrying of all
was the ruling that he “cease publishing… disparaging remarks about gays and
homosexuals.” We infer that, for AHRC, gay rights trump religious rights, and
that censoring speech is okay. To their credit, a large gay rights lobby group
refused to benefit financially from the decision, arguing that it was
unacceptable censorship.
HRCs have come to embody the Canadian trait of politically correct
self-righteousness, gone berserk. Although perhaps originally intended to be
mediation mechanisms, HRCs now frequently encourage claimants in their sense of
grievance, no matter how irrational or nonsensical the claim, making human
rights offices a self-perpetuating industry. Even Alan Borovoy, who helped draft
the original legislation, has strongly opposed its use in muzzling speech.
The
rise of similar so-called human rights tribunals in Canadian universities and
the “culture of comfort”2 in academia in the early 90s, will be
recalled by most members of our Society (SAFS), as providing a strong impetus
for the formation of our organization. Along with others we have criticized the
practices of HRCs. (see www.safs.ca, Issues). Levant’s book has pointed relevance to our mission.
The
fact that HRC tribunals do not have to abide by the principles of law that guide
the regular courts, and that there is no appeal within the HRC system,
overwhelmingly favours either conviction, or submission to intimidation by
anyone named in a suit under the HRCs.
Some may say that since both Levant and Macleans/ Steyn were exonerated, the
system works. But Levant points out that both cases were exceptions in HRC
history; and that even when you “win”, you lose. It costs nothing (except
to taxpayers) for any loose cannon with an imagined grievance to bring a charge
against a person or a group. But the defendant at the very least incurs
punishing legal expenses (Levant reports his as over $100,000). A convicted
defendant may also be required to pay a fine and/or a recompense and may have
heavy constraints placed on future activities. All this, remember, due to an
opinion spoken or written, not a threat or any other hostile act. Most
individuals or small corporations cannot afford this, so the mere possibility of
a suit is intimidating.
This book is easy reading. It is well organized and the message is clear and
well argued. It will of course be seen as biased, and it is. Levant takes a
strong unequivocal stand in favour of freedom of speech and freedom of the
press, as superceding any opposing claim to be free from offence, “…having a
government agency so powerful… is a much more troubling danger than the odd
vicious comment…”. SAFS members will surely share that “bias”, but I recommend
the book to others as well. People who believe that there should be legal
limitations on “offensive” speech need to think seriously about the repressive
repercussions.
Levant suggests that the best solution might be scrapping the Canadian Human
Rights Act and provincial counterparts altogether as doing more harm than good.
A growing number of Canadians at the very least want to have Section 13
rescinded. Even if you don’t agree with him that there is little or no
systematic discrimination in Canada today, one must ask whether whatever
discrimination remains could possibly justify the oppressive, costly and
punitive system we have allowed to develop under human rights legislation.
Doreen Kimura is founding president of SAFS.
Review written for SAFS Newsletter.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
