Maclean’s and Steyn were acquitted for political reasons; free speech still does not exist in Canada

Mark Steyn at the Corner explains that the British Columbia human rights commission dismissed the hate-speech charge against him and Maclean’s because Maclean’s had money and lawyers. The hate-speech laws remain in place and will continue to be used against anyone without the means to defend himself. Steyn writes:

Mark Hemingway is right to say that free speech in Canada “does not exist in any meaningful way”. As the British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal’s rambling and incoherent decision makes plain, Maclean’s and I were acquitted of “flagrant Islamophobia” for essentially political reasons—because neither the court nor its travesty of a “human rights” code could withstand the heat of a guilty verdict. Jay Currie puts it well:

The way I read this decision is that it imposes a two part test: a) are your words offensive and hurtful? b) are you a major media organization with deep pockets represented by serious lawyers. If “a” and not “b” you are a hate monger; if “a” and “b” you are engaged in political debate.

Just so. Because we spent a ton of money and had a bigshot Queen’s Counsel and exposed the joke jurisprudence and (at the federal “human rights” commission) systemic corruption, the kangaroo courts decided that discretion was the better part of valor. The Ontario “Human Rights” Commission ruled they weren’t able to prosecute the case because of a technicality—I offered to waive the technicality, but the wimps still bailed out. If you have the wherewithal to stand up to these totalitarian bullies, they stampede for the exits. But, if you’re just an obscure Alberta pastor or a guy with a widely unread website or a fellow who writes a letter to his local newspaper, they’ll destroy your life.

I sympathize with the Canadian Islamic Congress, whose mouthpiece feels that, if the British Columbia pseudo-judges had applied the logic of previous decisions, we’d have been found guilty. He’s right: Under the ludicrous British Columbia “Human Rights” Code, we are guilty. Which is why the Canadian Islamic Congress should appeal, and why I offered on the radio an hour ago to chip in a thousand bucks towards their costs.

Here is the Mark Hemingway post to which Steyn refers:

As you may recall, NR’s own Mark Steyn was the subject of a spurious inquest from the government of British Columbia which shamelessly tried to deny him his freedom of speech. If you want more background, I wrote about the case here.

Well, the charges were dropped today. You can head on over to Steyn’s website for more details, including a PDF of the BC “Human Rights” tribunal’s decision.

The bottom line is that while it’s great Steyn is off the hook, free speech in Canada still does not exist in any meaningful way. It would be fair to say that Steyn and Maclean’s magazine were spared by the bureaucratic star chamber because they were well-known enough to fight back and attract considerable publicity. The next person in Canada who dares to excercise his freedom of speech in a way that attracts the government censors probably won’t be so lucky. And unfortunately, Canada is still rank with Human Rights tribunals acvtively looking for those that express politically incorrect opinions, reprint objectionable Bible verses etc. so they can go about their business of denying free expression.

I agree with Mark Hemingway that “free speech in Canada still does not exist in any meaningful way.” Has this registered with Freedom House, which still categorizes all Western countries as “Free,” even though all Western countries, with the exception of the United States, have totalitarian-style anti-hate-speech codes?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 13, 2008 01:52 AM | Send