Barrel Strength

Sometimes I feel my contributions to this blog are nothing but a commentary on the National Post. On the other hand, most of the relevant debate is occurring in its pages, and not elsewhere.

 Yesterday a frequent letter writer to the Post, Mindy Alter, asked the relevant question of the Canadian Jewish Congress in relation to the hate speech provisions of the various Human Rights Acts of Canada and its provinces:

“In other words, it often feels better to do something rather than nothing, even if, in the long run, that something — for example, establishing yourself as the cheerleader for Canada’s thought cops — ends up making the situation much worse. One wonders if the CJC will be able to shake off the effects of this debilitating syndrome before it’s too late.”

Well, today the CJC reveals that it will not be able to.

In a letter written by Rabbi Reuven Bulka and Sylvain Abitbol, the co-chairs of the CJC, state:

“We have always argued that the state plays a fundamental role in protecting vulnerable minorities from hate speech, but there are limits on such strictures. Far from advocating censorship or suppressing free speech, CJC has consistently argued that the state should not have statutory authority to regulate speech that is merely offensive, “politically incorrect,” unpopular, critical or that “hurts feelings.”"

I guess they have not looked at the actual wording of the statutes they support, because statutory authority to regulate speech that is merely offensive, politically incorrect, unpopular , critical or that hurts feelings is precisely their legal effect.

 The language of decisions of the Alberta Human Rights Commission and others on this topic demonstrate that the human rights bureaucracy aims to suppress unpopular speech. Truth or sincerity of belief is no defence. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is no defence. Concerns for freedom of expression do not deter them in the least.

 Look art what these fools propose as the solution:

 ”At the same time, one should not extrapolate from a few isolated cases to argue that human rights commissions in Canada have gone completely off the rails and should be abolished. Perhaps what is needed is a Federal Human rights Ombudsperson with specific legal training in human rights matters. This office could act as a sober second look at any action recommended to go forward.”

Another legal specialist, another priest of the human rights sect, who will now become the control point for Human Rights Commissions. Will there be ten such specialists for every province? Canada is a federal state, and these matters are fully within provincial jurisdiction.
No. What is need is the complete abolition of the right of Human Rights Commissions to investigate speech, in whatever medium it is expressed.