Shakedown

CPW 4U

Shakedown Politics ISU

6/12/2012

In Ezra Levant’s book, Shakedown, he explains how the Canadian government is undermining democracy in the name of human rights. After publishing some Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohamed, to illustrate a news story in the Western Standard, his paper, he was charged with “discrimination” and was made to appear in front of the Human Rights Commission for a questioning. As a result of this, Levant went on to investigate other cases in which innocent people had their freedoms compromised by bureaucrats presuming to protect Canadian Human Rights. Mark Styne writes in his forward to this book, that the event where Levant was interrogated for the reprinting of the cartoons shows how the Human Rights Commission is losing itself. At one point Levant was asked: “You are entitled to your opinion, that’s for sure.”(ix) He explains that to mean that Canadians are losing their right of free speech; rather they enjoy to be governed by, “government-regulated, government-monitored, and government-approved speech.”(x) After many years of internal chaos within the Canadian Human Right Commissions (CHRC) through Canada and after Levant’s case has been shown throughout Canada and the rest of the world, the commission has been changed into the way that it was meant to work, in its rightful position.

The Human Rights Commission (HRC) would be one of the top contenders for the most atrocious name for a government bureaucracy. We all are in favour of human rights and we have a commission to promote them in Canada but some things have just gone wrong.

 The HRC was created about 50 years ago, “to offer victims of true discrimination, a quick, low cost means to fight back against the bigoted landlords, employers, and store owners.” (5) The point of the HRC was to be an equalizer to help the poor and powerless to stand up to the rich and powerful. The victim wouldn’t need to spend money to hire lawyers and the trials would be relaxed. “The Human Right Commissions were a beautiful idea- that failed.”(7) 40 years ago, when the HRC was needed, Canada had been less of a multicultural country than it is now and prejudice was common. At that time it was doing its job right.

In the 1960s, when the HRC was created it was advocated by the same type of people who were fighting for equality across North America. There were people like Alan Borovoy. He was one of the original creators of the HRC. He was an activist and he realized that the best way to protect anyone’s rights was to protect everyone’s rights. He advocated the HRC to take a leading role on advocating for minorities.  After those times the HRC has changed from fighting for equal rights for individuals to fighting for special rights for groups.  They have lost their way and the people who work them have as well.

Problems arose for the HRC when they started to receive fewer complaints. They decided to promote others to complain more so that they could keep receiving the same amount of funding from the government. The Alberta Human Rights Commission of Canada (AHRCC) experienced a 15% drop in complaints and has therefore slowed down their trials to take a longer amount of time over 382 days per case. They wanted to keep their funding so they stared handing out pamphlets telling people to go and complain. They showed a senseless example how there was a slow waitress to a “black” customer and this was to show to the people what they could complain about. The message being that any complaint however ridicules it is, would be accepted.

It is good to note that the HRC aren’t real courts. Real Canadian courts have been developed over the centuries from the times of the Magna Carta. The reason why the HRC seems so unfair is because its operations violate the most basic principles of natural justice. From the start of the HRC trials the case is stacked against the accused and also the government pays the fees for the so-called victim. The courts don’t even resemble each other. For example in the AHRCC, Diane Colle Vraqurt is on the HRC board and she also is a director of a federal and provincial party. This would never be allowed in a real court. What if one of her opponents has appeared in front of her, do you think there would be a fair trial? In 2008 this exactly happened.

In October 2006 MacLean’s Magazine got pulled in front of the British Columbia Human Rights Commission and Tribunal (BCHRT), for publishing Mark Styne’s article “The Future belongs to Islam”. “The essay was a provocative look at radical Islam - and what it would mean for the West.” (24) When the Canadian Islamic Congress noticed the story 6 months later they didn’t write a letter to the editor rather they gave MacLean’s a Human Rights complaint. MacLean’s eventually won the case in BCHRCT. “MacLean’s was officially acquitted, but it is inaccurate to say that it won. The magazine had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend itself.” (28) What would happen if you ignore a complaint? The HRC possesses powers even police don’t have; they have the right to enter into any workplace as long as it’s relevant to their case. For a police to enter your workplace they need a search warrant but the HRC under Section 22. They can “enter a building or factory, workshop or other premise or places in the province a) to inspect, audit and examine books of account, records, documents; or b) to inspect and view a work, material, machinery, appliance or article found there.” (29) It’s different from legally mandated searched where you need a warrant. This clearly undermines our freedoms.

There have been cases when businesses had been ordered to pay victims for “harassment or discrimination” but really they were committing nothing. A girl who worked in McDonalds got a skin problem and couldn’t go along what McDonald’s hygiene policy. McDonalds gave her two and a half years of disability leave to figure out a solution because she could not work with their policy. She couldn’t do any jobs so they fired her.  She brought them to the BHRCT who ordered MacDonald to pay “$23000 for lost income and an additional $25000 for her dignity and self-respect.”(55) Since life wasn’t fair they made up stories to make themselves look like greater victim even if in the beginning they were being helped by their original employers.

We know that freedom of conscience is one of our foundations. It is our right to have an opinion or belief that is different form societies views no matter what it is. It is closely related to freedom of speech. They are important and were placed near the begging of our Chartered Rights and Freedoms in Section 2. “2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association.”(75) Each of these freedoms is under attack by the HRC, which has started to regulate what speech and conduct are.

The CHRC gets its powers from the Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977. Part of Section 13 bill is called Hate Messages. It makes it illegal to say anything over the phone lines or internet that “is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of [his group status.]”(75) This means that if the HRC bureaucrats decide that what you have said incites hate, you are guilty to them. This bill seeks to regulate the content of peoples mind. For example hating the hockey team, Toronto Maple leafs would be illegal according to this bill a crime. This is against our most basic human rights especially when we find out that some of the HRC employees are doing the opposite of what this bill is. It was uncovered that many HRC employees were going on neo-Nazis websites and promoting the haters to go and organize rallies and be dangerous. This shows the absurdness of the HRC.

When the CHRCs started to get a reputation of “eroding the right of speech and religion, they started attracting the attention of radical Muslims.”(112) Levant calls it “soft jihad” which means when radical Muslims use liberal, western laws to make law fare. Levant was the first target of the Islamic law fare at the HRC. “In February 2006, the Western Standard Magazine of which I (Levant) was then the publisher reprinted the Danish cartons of Muhammad as a news item, to show our readers what all the fuss was about. Immediately, both the magazine and I (Levant) were hit with a human rights complaint.”(112) Syed Soharwardy is the president of the Islamic Congress of Canada. In his complaint he states the Koran as a legal basis and he claims that he was a direct decedent of Mohamed. “He publicly called for the replacement of Canada’s secular government with sharia law. In other words he wants to replace our constitution with the Koran- just like in Saudi Arabia.”(114) This shows how much a a radical he is. Mohamed Elmsry is also a radical Muslim who as well is known as anti-Jewish and anti-christens and he sent a complaint about Levant to the OHRC, BCHRT, and CHRC.

The Danish cartoons were published by Jyllands Posten, a newspaper, which was trying to make a point of the westerns fear of insulting Islam. There were 12 cartoons quotes they were published in 2005, but only got into the news a year later when Danish Imams went on a tour to drum Muslims anger against Denmark. They took these cartons along with 3 of their own which were discriminatory and very inappropriate. These cartoons started riots in Syria and Iran. Over 100 people died in the response to the cartoons, the media covered the riots but didn’t show the original cartoons because of the “so called” respect for Islam. When Levant and his editor Kevin Libbin, were deciding to print the cartoons they were sure the media had already printed it in Canada. They were wrong, when they realized that they were one of the first to start printing them. When Levant received Soharwardy complaint he describes it as, “a mishmash of personal braggadocio, Islamic supremacism, and plain old whining- all written in surprisingly broken English for someone who had been living in Canada for twenty years.”(136)  Levant wrote him a letter back that explained that he had the right to publish the cartoons. For about eight months the HRC did not bother him. After eight months Levant received a plea bargain that he should pay a couple thousand dollars to Soharwardy and publish an apology and they would stop the case. Levant replied he would continue fighting until he would win. Four months after that he received a notification that he would be subject to a human rights interrogation. His lawyer, Tom Ross, spent weeks negotiating the terms with the HRC. The meeting was on January 11, 2008, and the commissioner’s name was Shirley McGovern. The whole encounter was to be video recorded. She started her interrogation and after a while Levant got ahead of her. He was firing her questions on the rights that they had and explain how stupid the whole system was. After the interrogation Levant posted clips of his interrogation on YouTube and his videos went viral after a week. He got over 400000 views on his videos. Levant recalls that without the internet he would not have gotten far with his case. He had been receiving donations tough PayPal and received enough money to cover all his expenses. After 10 days his interrogator McGovern quit his case and Soharwardy was put to shame and dropped out as well three weeks later. He also left a half million dollars cost for the Canadian taxpayers to pay. Levant incurred $100000 worth of expenses which he paid off with the donations he received. Levant was the one supposed to be “wronged”; McGovern and Soharwardy instead were the ones who were cast down.

After what had happened in 2008, more Canadians were asking about CHRC and questioning its existence at all. Levant wanted to do something about it and he told is followers the internet that he had made a small plan for changes at HRC. Denormalize the commission and press legislatures to act. The first political persona was Keith Martin, an MP from Vancouver Island and he introduced a private members bill to Parliament Order. It read, “That in the opinion of the House, sub-section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the act.”(160) After this thousands of emails and letter were sent to many MPs through the country to do something. The editorial, Globe and Mail wrote that editorial condemning HRC and praising MacLean’s, Levant and Martin. PEN Canada, the high-minded literacy organization dedicated to freedom of speech also condemned the HRC. 2 months after the interrogation, Rick Mercer made one of his famous rants on CBC about how the HRC is undermining Canadians freedoms. At the end of the month most papers had come out against HRC. In March 2008 the HRC case of Waren v. Lewit had resumed and this time it would be very open because of the new interest in HRC. This case would be the first HRC defendant to get a chance to fight back fairly and at the end of the trial the HRC didn’t know what to do and they lost the case.

HRC compromise a threat to our civil liberties. Canada is a supremely tolerant and multicultural country. “Today’s human rights activists who use government agencies to punish political opponents or to act out radical experiment aren’t needed anymore.”(175) We need to go back and think about the difference between real rights (property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion) and not fake right by the HRC (made up right not to be offended).  Canadian judges should be leading this charge against HRC because Canadians have a lot of respect for the judicial system because it fair. We need to remind ourselves what our real values are, western values such as the rule of law, tolerance for a diversity of opinions, and freedom of speech and religion. We need to tell people of what is happening and then get politicians involved. Many politicians from different parties have come forward to support a reform in HRC. In November 2008, the Conservative Party had a convention in Winnipeg and voted to repeal Section 13 of the CHRA. It was a sign that the federal government had noticed the issue and that they are considering making changes. There are 2 ways to repeal the bill, to prune, or to weed it. Pruning would be to put them back it its right place and weed would to abolish hem completely. Levant concludes his book that he urges the readers of his book to fight with him and that the fight should be in the court of public opinion, court of law, and in the Parliament.

The book which is written by Levant expresses a lot of information to us, Canadian’s, who had not known of the HRC actions. This book is very useful it provides the reader of the whole HRC scenario, using many examples that have occurred throughout Canada: “As a result of my experience, I [Levant] began investigating other cases in which innocent people had their freedoms comprised by bureaucrats presuming to protect Canadian rights.”(2) Levant writes in his witty way to the readers, of his dealings with the CHRC’s. In my opinion every Canadian should read this book to have a basic grasp of the HRC’s actions throughout Canada and hope that the laws have changed.