|
CPW 4U
|
|
Shakedown Politics ISU
|
|
|
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.
