The case involving Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine that is to be heard by the human rights tribunal dismays me on several levels.
It is a splendid example of a government agency that has run amok and is operating far outside its legal mandate and most likely beyond the pale of the Canadian Constitution. The original purpose of the human rights commissions (I believe that there is one in each province) was to provide protection for minorities against discrination and harassment as well as to provide a mechanism for dealing with hate crimes in forums such as the Internet. This seemed harmless enough, but the human rights commissions have expanded their activities far beyond these goals. They have become in effect a mechanism for silencing anyone whose opinion does not happen to agree with the current social and political orthodoxy in Canada. This is exactly what is happening with Steyn and Macleans.
This is alarming (or ought to be to any thinking individual) for three reasons. First, the effect of the human rights industry has been to silence debate in Canada on a range of issues: employment equity, immigration, multiculturalism, crime in large urban centres, and others. It has accomplished this, because many individuals rightly fear to voice their opinions for fear of being publicly dragged through the mud by the human rights bandwagon. Second, all of this has been accomplished outside of the regular courts and without the safeguards that they provide to the defendant. Human rights proceedings are conducted, quite literally, before a tribunal accountable to no one and from which there is no appeal. They are Canada's version of King Charles' Star Chamber. It's unsurprising, therefore, that defendants are invariably found "guilty." If one wanted an example of how easily we can lose our liberties, this is a good one. Third, all this shows the extent to which even the Canadian federal and provincial governments are afraid to oppose "human rights groups" even when there might be good reason to question the direction of policy. Do we want or need Muslim sharia law in Canada? Absolutely not. But you would have a hard time finding a public figure to say so clearly. Do we want or need publicly funded education for every religious sect? Again, no. And again, few would publicly say so.
I would like to believe that Steyn and Canada' leading news magazine could beat an attempt by four Muslim law students to silence them on the topic of Islam, but I would not bet the farm on it.
