Wild About Writing

I wrote a few days ago that purveyors of extreme views should be judged by their words, rather than be squelched by repressive acts of censorship. “Distasteful words are best fought by reason, not repression,” I wrote.

My reference was to a book by Ross Thatcher, Final Appeal, in which he argues he’s innocent of the killing of his ex-wife, JoAnn Wilson. The Saskatchwan government, I believe, will be guilty of interference in his civil rights if it uses a new law to strip him of income from sale of the book.

With that background, I’m pleased with the report that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has found that the Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That’s because the Charter guarantees Canadians’ rights to “the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.”

Section 13 undid all that, so it’s to be hoped that the Tribunal’s decision will be taken as precedent by the courts.

The National Post has a full report here. I find it interesting that almost a day later, there’s been no mention of the decision on the web sites of either the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star.

The news is cheering to right wing bloggers such as Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.

Levant, more than any other commentator, has crusaded against Canada’s hate laws ever since being hammered by the Human Rights Commission for publishing the Danish cartoons about Mohammed in the magazine he used to publish.

Levant describes his ordeal in Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights (McClelland and Stewart).

I don’t count myself among these right wing zealots. But I do agree with them that Human Rights Commissions have gone far beyond their origjnal purpose. They need to be curbed of their reckless attacks on free speech.

It’s worth remembering that the Human Rights commissions came into being to protect individuals against discrimination in employment and housing. That’s a worthwhile purpose. From there to censoring freedom of expression is a long ride down the proverbial slippery slope.

In the 1960s, the Act was extended to combat racist telephone hotlines. In 2001, the entire Internet was dumped into their domain. The result is that every blogger, including this one, writes at the risk of being penalized by these outfits.

There’s a familiar pattern among the special interest pleaders who want new laws to deal with old problems. Pornography crusaders are never sastisfied that obscenity is illegal under the Criminal Code. They want more and stiffer laws.

So it is with those who would slap hate embargoes on purveyors of unconventional views. These laws are particularly popular with extremist religious factions, such as the fundamentalist Muslims who organized riots to protest the freedom of expression of the Danish paper that first published the famous cartoons.

The repeal of Section 13 was recommended last year in an independent review conducted by University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon. The Liberal MP, Keith Martin, has urged the scrapping of the section.

Perhaps now that the Human Rights Tribunal itself has spoken out, we may soon see the last days of this invidious legislation.