Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Web-exclusive comment

Attacking human rights commissions attacks us all

MUNEEZA SHEIKH , KHURRUM AWAN and DANIEL SIMARD AND NASEEM MITHOOWANI

Special to Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 7:09 PM EDT 22/01/08

Canadians have come to rely on them to assert their basic human rights as employees, as persons living with disabilities, as women, as ethnic and cultural minorities, as gender-orientation minorities and as visible religious minorities, to name only a few. ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. The true Neil-conservative from The West, Canada writes: I read Steyn's article in Macleans, and, to be honest, it wasn't as bad as some of the most offended claimed it was. I know many people of various ethnic and religious backgrounds who hold somewhat similar beliefs to those held by Steyn, and to prevent Steyn from expressing his opinion would conflict with his fundamental right. You four have a right to say whatever the hell you want, and some immam-trained Saudi calling for the elimination of Jews is entitled to his opinion (although I'm not sure if women are afforded such a luxury in nations like Saudi). It's when people of your faith start burning flags and effigies in streets and calling for people like Salman Rushdie to be killed that people from the West start scratching their heads. I'm just glad we are able to, in a Western society, purvey our interests and our opinions on this subject in a diplomatic and reasonable manner; no burnings, no huge, violent, marches in the city streets. Ezra has a right to show the Danish cartoons, because it was so ludicrous for people to be so outraged at such silly things. Can't take a joke? Deal with it. That's why we have The Simpsons; they make fun of everyone, from politicians to religion to various ethnicities to social customs. I just can't wait for a Simpsons episode on this. That being said, there was a South Park episode (which was hysterical) that was based on the whole danish cartoon fiasco. Worth checking out. That is, if it's OK to watch a cartoon that spoofs a cartoon that spoofs religion.
  2. John McCain from Canada writes: The problem is your complaints are without merit and merely represent offended sensibilities. Steyn's article may have offended your group but this does not justify a complaint to the HRC as Steyn probably has offended many of us from time to time. We did not see Newfoundlanders taking Margaret Wente to the HRC for her offensive piece on Newfoundlanders last year now did we. We understand you are young idealistic lawyers in training, but guys you need to pick your battles and this ain't one of them.

    In effect you are wasting the time and money of the Canadian taxpayer and undermining what was once a credible vehicle for average Canadians to turn to when their 'basic' human rights were trampled upon. Yours were not so you now reap what you sew, and question the blow back.
  3. Jerry Cutler from Delta, BC, Canada writes: If I understand the human rights tribunal process correctly, you can, at no cost to yourself, accuse me of almost anything that might be interpreted by an individual or group as offensive.

    Then, at great personal cost, I get to defend myself against these real or imagined charges.

    Doesn't seem entirely fair, somehow.
  4. W M from Canada writes: Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn may be an objectionable buffoons, with double standards a mile wide; but that doesn't make them wrong in every case. Nor does the existence of blitheringly paranoid journalists mean we should give Human Rights Commissions control over what they can say. Moreover, attempting to justify this by referring to “distinguished and legally-trained commissioners” whose “considered judgments can be located on any legal database” is extremely weak. First, all judgements, whether majestic or fatally flawed, can be found in legal data bases, so attempting to make this sound like an endorsement is an attempt to mislead. Furthermore, “legal training” is no guarantee of competence, nor is competence a substitute for due process. Were they to be on the receiving end, I am certain the authors of this letter would (rightly) trash the idea that a court presided over by a “distinguished and legally trained” judge can safely dispose of due process and yet there endorsement of Human Rights Commissions depends on that assumption. I am not advocating completely unfettered speech or a system that puts complaints out of reach of people of modest means; but affordable should not mean cheap and dirty. It should mean a trial in a court of law. Moreover, people who pursue legally baseless allegations should be subject to the possibility of counterclaims and paying a portion of the fees. And, if a government body goes forward on behalf of complainants, it should be liable for fees, if the defendent is exonerated (having such funds come from the budget of the commission that is rendering the judgement would be a bad joke) . In fact, I'm certain the authors of this 'letter' would make all of the above arguments, were the roles reversed. And, quite frankly, that is what makes them appear (to me) more similar to, than different from, Levant and Steyn.
  5. LJ Brody from Canada writes: Well said, too much anti-muslim smear passes too easily into the mainstream media these days. It is unacceptable and must be condemned.
  6. sherry smith from canada, Canada writes: I find that these days are fraught with hate literature, and I wouldn't waste my time listening or reading anything that 'Ezra Levant' says or writes. It's the same for people like Bill OReilly, Rush Limbaugh, Bow tie Carlson, Bush, Cheney, etc. They give the rest of our Society a bad impression the same as the extreme Muslim groups who threaten us. I wish the mainstream good Muslims would join with the good common sense North Americans and speak out against the madness that is going on. It's always the same. A few, always spoil it for the rest of us.
  7. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Steyn is a former deejay with no higher education, people!

    What gives Steyn the right to be an authority on the wide range of matters that he chooses to address? Why don't the media look at his credentials and decide for themselves whether he has the education to be making demographic projections for the world? Why do his media brethren defend him so?

    Mark Steyn -- the man who told us that the Iraq War was over, Bin Laden was dead and Conrad Black should be acquitted.

    If Steyn is attempting to be a prophet of some sort -- he seems to be a pretty bad one.

    If his writings are an attempt at humour perhaps they should be labelled as such so as to not cause misunderstanding among Macleans readers.

    It seems that the authors of this article did attempt to get their own side heard with the editors of Macleans before pursuing this with a Human Rights Commission.

    For years, I read Macleans -- Now, I glance at it occasionally and read The Economist.
  8. Greg Korbee from Netherlands writes: You use the phrase 'visible religious minorities', as if race and religion are somehow conjoined. They're not, except in a few special cases. There are Muslims of every race. If you're going to go down this road, you'll need to distinguish the two concepts. (If the people who criticise Islam also fail to do this, they too are wrong.) Religion is one thing; immigration another; racism something else again. It's intellectually dishonest for people of a worldwide faith to hide behind race. Like any religion, Islam is superstitious nonsense. Islam (and everything religious related to it) is a fair target, as is any religion. Like any religion, Islam belongs in the privacy of the home or place of worship, not in society at large. Islam in particular rejects this notion and tends to be an active political and social force. Any religion that enters the political and social arena is a fair target on political and social grounds. You are instead hiding behind your race/ethnicity and using the organs of justice and free expression to attack social justice and free expression. You are cynically using a public organisation to attack the freedom of expression of a major media outlet in support of your narrow religious interests. These interests are linked to superstitious nonsense and a right-wing political and social ideology. Your suit is an attack on the secular values that underpin our society. It's not right that tax money is being wasted on your zealotry. It's perfectly acceptable in a free society to question why this is possible. The human rights tribunal is there to assist the weak, not adherents of right-wing ideologies who are seeking to suppress organs of freedom of expression.
  9. Michael Addison from Zurich, writes: You do not have a right to not to be offended. Why? because whether offence has been taken is a purely subjective question, beyond rational consideration.

    Further, the authors' article in no way addresses the fundamental point raised by Steyn, Levant et al - i.e. the state has no business enquiring into citizens' private thoughts. Considering that the authors' are law students, their inability to grasp this point causes me to question there future as lawyers - unless they choose to practice in quasi-administrative tribunals like Human Rights bodies......
  10. B Mac from Roachvale, Canada writes: 'Even though most of us cannot afford the going price of accessing the civil justice system, we have the comfort of knowing that there exists an affordable avenue for us to assert...'

    You've told on yourselves, right there.

    You want to use the financial leverage of a government agency which was intended to protect us all against legitimate threats to our 'fundamental human rights.' And the object of your leverage seems to be anyone who dares object to your view of how the world should treat you.

    And your adversaries/victims? Oh, they get to defend themselves with their own money.

    And, should your accusations prove groundless, you will stomp out of court, loudly protesting yet another violation of your delicate sensibilities, leaving me, as a tax-payer, and your intended victims, to pay the bill. It may be legal, but it isn't right.

    It's sickening.
  11. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Well said, Sherry Smith!

    I suspect my last comment was edited by the G&M monitors because it was less than flattering to a member of the media. However, I also suspect that if it had been directed towards a politican, they probably would have published it.

    However, think carefully about what purpose a Limbaugh, Steyn, or an O'Reilly, etc. serve when they polarize people into being scared and hateful towards other groups. Why do you think that Fox news goes to such ridiculous extremes to attempt to censor an anti-War Republican?

    These guys might just have been serving someone's interests, eh?

    And meanwhile, the rest of their media brethren were saying, 'OK, nothing happening in Versailles in 2003 that is newsworthy...'

    The Guardian payed closer attention to what was going on than the Canadian media did.
  12. Greg R from Canada writes: Robert Miller: 'What gives Steyn the right to be an authority on the wide range of matters that he chooses to address?'

    The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights, the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and nigh-on a millenium of English Common law to which we are heirs.

    Any other questions?
  13. Greg R from Canada writes: Oh, and Misses & Messrs plaintiffs: I like the attempt to pin the anti-HRT backlash on anti-muslim sentiment. The reason this has caught the public's attention now is because you, the CIC, and Syed Soharwardy have urged the various HRT's to bite off more than they could chew.
    HRT's are long used to harassing and silencing powerless dupes like small-town pastors, local newspapers and loonie-fringe bloggers. Now that they've engaged proceedings against media-savvy and intelligent people with no wish to accede quietly, vast sections of the Canadian public that had never heard of HRT's are discovering how shoddy they really are.
    If the HRT's have shot themselves in the foot by doing this, so have you. Steyn's thesis was that Western society has lost faith in itself, and the moral relativism inherent in the functionaries of multiculturalism are ripe for abuse by politically-motivated Muslims like Mullah Krekar. Your use of the HRT's to silence Steyn and MacLean's demonstrates this thesis far better than Steyn's book ever could have.
  14. Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: Greg R. All of these 'rights' are actually causing a lot of 'wrongs' in our society. People are now 'allowed' to question and bring to court,often at tax payer expenses,the fabric of Canadian culture. What was once a proud Canadian feature in the RCMP uniform,and a custom for years,our RCMP hat,has now been changed to appease other cultures. As a Canadian,I would never think immigrate to another Country,and ask,or demand that they change their culture to suit my former Country. We've had discussions and disputes about Sharia Law,swords in schools,and changes to sporting uniforms. I'd like to think that by expecting conformity to our traditions and customs,isn't considered racism. I would expect the same for myself,if I chose to immigrate to another Country. I wouldn't expect to tell them,because I like and expect all business's to close on Dec.25th,that they need to abide,if that isn't a celebrated day for them. We don't have Sharia law here. We aren't required to 'board up and cover' gym windows because someone is offended by seeing a female in a gym outfit. Why do we,as a host Country,who has welcomed immigrants,be expected to change the fabric of our Country?? You come,you are welcome. But it is YOU that must adapt,as you have entered a new Country,and you should be expected to receive your new Country and it's differences with gratitude and acceptance. Just the very same,as should happen to me if I choose to make another Country my home. Yet Canada,and it's taxpayers often foot the bill,for these 'human rights' and epsecially these' Trudeau' Charter of rights rules. A 'Charter of Rights' sounds so fair and meaningful. But in reality,all it does is give a lot of people the right to walk all over Canadian cultures and customs. Instead,we should have 'Charter of Canadian Expectations '
  15. Robert Nadeau from ORNEX, France writes: I would be intested in reading the comments of the authors on the situation in Saudi Arabia (an oil-rich nation thanks to 'infidel' development and technology, which subsidizes the building of mosques throughout the world) as regards facilities on its turf for the practice of religions other than Islam.
  16. RJ Canuck from Toronto, Canada writes: According to some here, the right of freedom of speech is contingent upon either a university education or having politcally correct opinions. Freedom of speech is just that, the right to speak freely. Those who wish to silence freedom of speech use human rights commissions to attempt and undermine a free press.
  17. James C. from Shenzhen, Guangdong, China writes: 'Unfortunately, this turn of events is all too familiar to the Muslim community. Faith-based arbitration was not a 'problem' until the Muslim community decided to pursue a facility already available to the Christian and Jewish communities. Similarly, funding for religious schools was not a 'problem' until Ontario's Conservative leader John Tory included Islamic schools in his funding proposal.'

    ----------

    what is it that these people dont understand? canada was founded by two nations - the french and the british. the roman catholic school system is protected in the constitution, seen as a historical compromise to french canadians at the time the country was formed. other religious school settings do not deserve public funding: 1. they dont have any constitutional protection, and 2. their numbers do not warrant public funding. the existence of catholic schools is unlikely to change since amending the constitution is not easy, and there are significant numbers of children attending these catholic schools daily.

    further, if every group begins getting their own schools, the public school system will simply fall apart.

    unfortunately for those wanting faith based schools centred on islam, you are out of luck.

    finally, canada has really lost its way, and that fact can be attributed largely to this so-called 'multi-cultural country' experiment that in my opinion is a huge failure. our country's roots are in british, french, and to a lesser degree native canadian cultures. lets celebrate that, remember it, and be proud of it.
  18. Marcella x from Canada writes: The problem, you say is 'is not the human rights commissions or the human rights codes they uphold. The 'problem' as some choose to see it — is that the Muslim community in Canada is actually using them for their intended purposes.' No, actually the problem is that Muslims have been using legal means to shut down the slightest critisicm of their oh-so-easily-offended-religion everywhere in the world. And while you boys may be so poor that you need taxpayer funded persecution of non-Muslims to further the cause of your ideology, Saudi Arabian dollars have been buying lawyers, media, and whatever else it takes to try to shut down any attempt point out that Islam is associated with fanaticism and violence to a far greater extent than any other ideology or religion in today's world. Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are the test cases for muslim's ability to use Western institutions to shut down criticism. How telling it is that anywhere in the the world where the religion you champion actually dominates, ideas such as free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and human rights are laughed at as naive notions of those 'democractic western fools'. Well, not all of us are fools or blind to the consequence of caving in to the easily offended. Our parents and grandparent fought in two world wars so that we would not be controlled by totalitarian freedom-repressing ideologies.
  19. Dave Jensan from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Michael Addison from Zurich, writes: You do not have a right to not to be offended. Why? because whether offence has been taken is a purely subjective question, beyond rational consideration.

    Further, the authors' article in no way addresses the fundamental point raised by Steyn, Levant et al - i.e. the state has no business enquiring into citizens' private thoughts. Considering that the authors' are law students, their inability to grasp this point causes me to question there future as lawyers - unless they choose to practice in quasi-administrative tribunals like Human Rights bodies...... '

    Quasi-adminstrative tribunals are where the most competent lawyers practice. Judges are over socialized right wingers, who have no legal competency and are not subject to review. Human rights commissions may cost the taxpayer dearly, but for the calibur of legal minds who preside on these tribunals its well worth it, you cant put a price on freedom.
  20. Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: Just the fact that Canada is being 'dictated' by other Countries beliefs,in itself should be a problem.
    When does Canada start standing up for it's own morals,beliefs,and traditions?
    Why do immigrants want to challenge this?
    Why?
    Because it's so easy to do.
    It's in our Charter,and almost everyone from any other Country knows that Canada is the 'door-mat' Country.
    You can challenge laws,beliefs,traditions,and most likely you will even have the tax payer pay for it.
    It's a Trudeau legacy.
    A 'feel good' initiative that costs us millions and chip away at our our identity as a Country.
  21. Globefollower From Canada from Canada writes: We need institutions that allow Canadians to air and even settle their grievances in a peaceful and non-violent manner. Human Rights Tribunals allow for that, in a way that is public, transparent and requires participants to submit to the will but not the tyranny of the majority. It is a difficult balancing act, but a necessary and apparently thankless task at the very core of just and peaceful society. Not everyone will be happy with their decisions, but such is the nature of any third party dispute resolution process. They deserve our support, and our vigilance.

    MacLeans, on the other hand, likes to run and support sensationalist cover stories to sell magazines. While not as worthy of our support, it also merits our vigilance.
  22. Second Samuel from Ontario, Canada writes: HRTs are indeed Kangaroo courts meant to enforce political correctness and silence freedom of speech. Thankfully some Canadians (including many here) see what games is afoot with HRTs. Canadian fought two world wars for our freedoms and now tin pot bureaucrats within our own country are taking those same freedoms away - and leaving us tax payers to foot the bill for spurious complaints, such as this one.

    As a devote Christian, I am often offended by the mean-spirited and wrong things the media says about Christianity; however I respect their right to their opinion and would not dream of trying to silence them, no matter how offended I might be at times. I live in a wonderful country that has free speech and that is part of the price of living in a democracy: people are allowed to say things that offend you. It is not up to HRTs to tell us what we are allowed to think and say because some people are 'offended'. My grandfather and so many others did not take part in the D-Day landing for Canada to come to this!
  23. Mary O'Hara from Canada writes: I have no grievance with individual muslims, who in my encounter with them seem to be regular people like myself, with the same concerns and hopes.

    But the ideology of Islam frightens me profoundly, as it is one that has become associated with irrational violence, extreme discrimination against women and non-muslims, and which has created miserable societies everyone in the world where it holds sway. Yet it is an aggressively expansionist ideology that now is using oil dollars to finance a legal jihad against anyone that would point out its shortcomings.

    I challenge people here to Google the term 'legal jihad'. It refers to the systematic use of Western legal institutions to shut down any criticism of Islam and promote an Islamic agenda. It has been very sucessful in England and much of Europe, and is being used in the US. This is what has been done here to. The well meaning Western ideals of 'human rights' have been used to try to silence those who point out the intolerance and hypocrisy that Islam brings.

    I suggest to the authors of this opinion piece that rather than alienate Canadians further by trying to shut down our free speech, they should be looking into their own systems of belief and seeing why it is that Muslims are not finding Canada as welcoming as they would like.

    We do not want Sharia even in the slight bit here, we do not want women to be treated as second class citizens, we do not want 'no go' areas where non-muslims are not welcome, we do not want the baggage of violence and intolerance that comes with this religion.

    Millions upon millions of immigrants have come to Canada and found it a welcome place and thrived. But they did so by integrating and participating in this society, not seeking to to promote and defend ideas from the 'old country'.
  24. Yussi M from Canada writes:
    Nancy Wilson,

    That's because Canada of today is not the same as Canada of the past. We made the switch to multiculturalism.

    'As a Canadian,I would never think immigrate to another Country,and ask,or demand that they change their culture to suit my former Country.'

    -If it were a traditionally unicultural country, that would be wrong. But Canada is not unicultural - we are the world's first officially multicultural country and that creates a host of issues and problems that don't exist elsewhere.

    What some people miss is that the 'other', Non-Western cultures cannot just be reduce to folklore: dances and clothes (even that is under attack: some Western culture-Canadians try to impose their customs on Muslim women, which is both racist and sexist). Cultures come with value systems. You can't have a multicultural country with a uniquely Western understanding of freedom of speech. That implicilty says 'Western culture is more superior'. How will Muslims who grow up in Canada under such principle feel about their own culture?

    Freedom to offend other culture is a freedom to incite conflict and create divisions in a multicultural society. Do we really want that in Canada?
  25. M P from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Jerry Cutler from Delta, BC, Canada writes: If I understand the human rights tribunal process correctly, you can, at no cost to yourself, accuse me of almost anything that might be interpreted by an individual or group as offensive.' This sort of captures the flaw. A Human Rights Commission, just like an Employment Standards Commission etc., is obliged to investigate every complaint it receives. Otherwise, how can the Commission determine if a violation occurs or not? If I lay a complaint against my employer that he didn't pay me my statutory holiday pay, someone needs to investigate whether that occurred or not-right? But, there is no recourse for that employer if the complaint was a nuisance complaint, or the receiver of a human rights complaint that was vexacious and spurious, or indeed someone who has been charged with a crime and had to hire a lawyer to defend himself only to have a judge throw out the charges because the police were incompentent, or the forensics incompetent (Dr. Smith anyone??). The law doesn't award costs to the receiver of nuisance or spurious complaints, or bad police work, or bad forensics work. The only recourse you have is through the civil courts, again incurring costs of your own. There's flaws everywhere for those who are wrongly accused. It seems to me that a balance could be in clear cases of malicious intent, a commission could impose some sort of fine to act as a deterrent against nuisance complaints. However, that could serve as a barrier to laying a complaint for those who are really vulnerable and in need of help but might not do so because it might cost them if the decision doesn't go in their favour. So I guess it's complicated. And that's democracy folks. It's complicated and messy....
  26. R M from Canada writes: Nancy Wilaon calls Human Rights Tribunals 'A 'feel good' initiative that costs us millions and chip away at our our identity as a Country.' Good point, Nancy. Without these Tribunals Canadian identify would still be based on bigoted sterotypes that lead to discrimination of all forms. Something to aspire to maintain? On the contrary, tribunals accurately reflect Canadian identity and values, at least my Canadian values, of being a tolerant nation that doesn't want the power of the majority to engage in practices, intentionally or otherwise, that exclude some members of society. If you do not like a canada that is based on tolerance and inclusiveness, then perhaps it is you who should be leaving.
  27. Stand up for Social Justice The Canadian Way from Canada writes: Human rights, what exactly are human rights? Wars for resources, wars in the name of religion. Man has learned nothing from the past and I believe that nothing will change until there is nothing or no one left. People need to stop spreading hate, stop exploiting, stop dividing people into groups. It is a very sad world we live in.
  28. don masters from United Kingdom writes: In country after country across the west, Muslims are using the tools of liberal democracy to undermine liberal democracy and push their own frequently illiberal agenda. Here, they're using our own human rights ideas to undermine free speech and our ability to criticize Islam. It's hard to believe that these authors would support human rights commissions if those commissions were being used--as they eventually will be--to suppress sharia law and and militant Islam. After all, they only seem to like free speech when it doesn't include the freedom to criticize Islam.
  29. Shocked and appalled from Maritimes, Canada writes: I'm no fan of Ezra Levant, but I find the law students' argument to be disingenuous on several levels. They state that it is prohibitively expensive for ordinary citizens to access the courts, but do not state that if you desire legal representation to fight a charge brought by the Tribunal, you must pay for it yourself. Even if the complaint is frivolous and without merit, it costs the complainant nothing. They state that Canadians of all walks of life have come to rely on Tribunals as employees. This isn't about somebody suffering from being fired or being subjected to a poisoned work environment because of his or her faith - that is a perfectly legitimate use of Human Rights Tribunals. This isn't even about hate speech, unless the term 'hate speech' can now be construed so broadly as to now mean 'offensive speech', which are two different things. I would rather be offended by people (even if I consider them idiots) than live in a country where The Central Scrutinizer analyzes our words and thoughts to ensure that they won't offend anyone.
  30. Anuradha Bose from ottawa, writes: May I remind the 4 authors that some Muslim organisations spoke very forcefully against 'faith-based arbitration as well-so your paranoia is unjustified.
  31. deliciously uncanadian from Canada writes: Curiously, Steyn is before this court for quoting radical Mullah Krekar.

    Can a non-Muslim quote a Muslim, or does he/she have to sanitize their sentence first?

    Second Samuel: If this attempt of gaining partisan advantage through the courts is successful, perhaps you should start a campaign of cleansing our press from anti-Christian bias? No use hanging on to old ideals of free speech if everybody else has moved on.
  32. M Lafrance from Ottawa, Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, to sum up your post, you do not believe we have the right to voice our opinion on any subject unless we have a particular background and level of education, and only then can we express our self if that opinion conforms to a particular point of view that does not cause even the slightest level of offence, correct? Or simply, you don't believe in the freedom of speech (or just don't know what it is).
  33. Boreal Moose from Canada writes: Dave Jensan from Ottawa - I agree with you, but that means hurting anyone's feelings using free thought and speach would be unfettered. You would have to scrap hate literature laws, for the degree to which people are hurt by offensive material is subjective.

    David Ahenakew would be the case in point. He did not falsely allege the holocaust never happened, nor did he attempt to instigate another. He stated that he thought it was a good thing that it had happened. A truly revolting sentiment. But your argument would suggest that he should not be prosecuted for hate speach nor lose his job.....if its all a matter of perceived insult.
  34. M Lafrance from Ottawa, Canada writes: The CIC did not negotiate for space for a response. They demanded a full page with complete editorial control. Negotiating is different from dictating the terms.
  35. Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: Nancy Wilson highlights certain frustrations. Why is Canada always apologizing for itself? We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, plus a Human Rights Commission … add a slew of pandering politicians (who are usually trained as lawyers) to the mix: together, they insist minority opinions be foisted on all. We are infinitely divisible according to their legal, therefore necessarily 'adversarial', structures. The 4 male law students hanker for Sharia arbitration, insisting its denial is a form of muslim-bashing. Homa Arjomand, co-ordinator of the no-sharia campaign, argued that Islamic law is inherently discriminatory and accords fewer rights to women in matters of divorce, inheritance and alimony. 'We want the same laws to apply to us as to other Canadian women,' said the Canadian Council of Muslim Women who opposed Sharia law. The grand mufti of Marseilles, Soheib Bencheikh, rebuked Ontario's sharia plan, saying: 'It's illogical to apply today the precepts conceived [in tribal, patriarchal societies] to safeguard the interests of yesterday.' Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress opposed the introduction of Sharia, favouring the separation of religion and state in Canada. Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, supported Sharia. The Muslim community in Ontario was divided by internal disagreement on this issue. Will some law students in the future use a government-funded cudgel to beat down dissenting opinion in their own religious community, while blaming Canadians for the fall-out? They also claim that religious school funding became a problem when John Tory included Islamic schools in his proposal. Many Canadians think it is foolhardy to overlay religious divisions on children while expecting them to function in a pluralistic society. Either you want to be part of the mainstream –or separate and distinct from it while retaining the right to dictate to it. That’s unworkable.
  36. Peter Lucas from langley, Canada writes: The basic right is the freedom to speak freely. HRC's are trampling this basic right in a miguided fruitless attempt to get people to speak nicely to and about each other. Civilityis not a right.
  37. R Swift from Canada writes: Mohamed Elmasry is the chairman of the Canadian Islamic conference, which has co-sponsored this human rights complaint. He believes all Israeli adults are legitimate targets for terrorists. And he's complaining about a magazine article that hurts Muslim's feelings. This is the double standard that makes this complaint so ludicrous.
  38. lynn H from Canada writes: The Human rights commissions were never meant to be censors on free expression, debate or freedom of the press. They have overstepped their bounds and need to be reigned in. 'As Alan Borovoy, the general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association — and one of the architects of modern Canadian human rights law — wrote last year, “during the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech.” Censoring debates was “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions.”'............and don't play the victim/race card. I don't care who your identifiable group is. No group should be allowed to take away Canadians basic rights simply because are thin skinned and perpetually offended.
  39. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: LJ Brody from Canada writes: Well said, too much anti-muslim smear passes too easily into the mainstream media these days. It is unacceptable and must be condemned.

    Then condemn them all you want but there should never be a recourse such as this. There already exists legislation against hate laws. This kind of litigation undermines a principal of democracy which is freedom of speech.
  40. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: It's disguisting how people from countries with no human rights are abusing our using our (flawed) human rights system to destroy our own country. When is the average Canadian going to take their head out of the sand and stand up for real Canadian values like free speech.
  41. David Wood from Cornwall, Canada writes: One of those 'ideas' that have served us well in maintaining freedom is the separation of church and state. It has kept those of a majority belief from overwhelming and subjucating the thoughts and expression of minorities. We have, as a result, the freedom of thought and conscience that is envied the world over. The value of debate without fear of reprisal is fundamental to that freedom. The Human Rights Tribunals, in my opinion, err when they begin to give special considerations to any group, minority or majority, as it pertains to limiting debate or expression of thought. I am greatly concerned when this institution is pressured by any sort of political correctness ideology to restrict, control and even take punitive action against a person or group solely on the grounds that the expression of thought offends the sensibilities of any faith group, gender group or ideological movement. Unless the expression is flaggrently calling for harm and hatred to others, the tribunals need to be more concerned with protecting those fundimental freedoms of thought and expression than defending interest groups against public scrutiny.
  42. Leslie Tobias from Toronto, Canada writes: The Human Rights Commission in today's society seems only to defend the ones that Canadians are afraid of. There was a time we did not tolerate hate in our society. With so much on 'visible minority' 'religious freedom' and secular - we lost our humanity. We are afraid to stand for the rights we created in western societies. We poke fun at everybody. Islam seems to fear everyone. We go with it because it is convenient. We have jobs, money, house, car, etc. Demoracy is here - wrong - demoracy is gone. We have become a totaltarian society. We harass the outspoke and protect the oppressor. Islam is a religion & political way of life for muslin countries. They come here and demand we change to suit them. They complain they can't find jobs in their profession, yet they still come here. They come because we are a free socity. They come because we grant them the 'right' to live without fear. They come from to have all the good we try to hold. Now we have the opposite effect. We are afraid. Our democracy is out the door. We fight their wars in Iraq, Afganstanan other other muslin countries. Let these people fight their own. We should not die to protect their religious view. We fight for their freedom. They come here and take away our freedom. Visible Minitoriy what that. I can pass for many cultures. Visible Minority is an discriminatory world. It is misleading. Immigrants today do better than other group of immigrants of the 50's 6o's. Human Rights Commission does not represent the mandate it once held.
  43. David N from Toronto, Canada writes: Jerry Cutler from Delta, BC, Canada writes: If I understand the human rights tribunal process correctly, you can, at no cost to yourself, accuse me of almost anything that might be interpreted by an individual or group as offensive.

    Mr Cutler, you clearly do not understand the rights tribunal process. You should do some research before expressing your opinion, regardless of your right to hold it.
  44. Jan Burton from Toronto, Canada writes: Gentlemen, I fail to see how not being offended is 'the most fundamental of our rights.' If that's your premise then no wonder you're running into such opposition. I'm offended by different views everyday. In response I either present a rebuttal or I stop listening.

    While I'm no fan of a paranoid rants of right-wing commentators, your abuse of HRT's does far more damage to the image of Muslims in this country than anything Mark Steyn could ever write!
  45. M. Welch from Canada writes: Reading two articles, one by Ezra Levant, (a lawyer not a deejay as someone posted) and one by several law students condemning that article and then 20 some comments has left me with these thoughts.

    What is Canadian culture? It is indeed a mosaic and it is continually changing. Expecting immigrants to conform to this nebulous culture is ridiculous. They are a valid part of that culture and will contribute to it whether native Canadians like it or not. Contribute being a key word.

    But the discussion is not about culture, it is about our basic legal rights of freedom of expression vs human rights to religious practice and protection of that right.

    When our practice of freedom of expression violates the rights of religious practice then ideally the Human Rights Commissions have a place. But publishing a cartoon or writing a book does not really violate the rights of religious practice. Muslims are free to practice their religion within the country.

    Personally, I don't believe public funding should be used to facilitate the religious practice of Islam anymore than it should be used for any other religion.

    I agree with the poster from the Netherlands who thinks religion is superstition and should be separated from ethnicity and race. As a secular person I am constantly offended by religious people who claim that without religion there is no morality.

    The practice of any religion should be tolerated but that does not mean it should be imposed on the greater society or funded by public money. Tolerated yes but not protected from any possible slight or offense in the form of cartoons, books, or other publications.
  46. Eye Sore from Dog Pound, Alberta, Canada writes: On 25 May 1998 - almost a decade ago - a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, convened to hear a complaint sworn against Ernst Zundel, delivered a written decision that in essence concluded that 'Truth is no defense' - that, in effect, the truth of any material posted on the Zundel website was totally irrelevant in the ruling to be handed down against Zundel in the course of the hearing. Here's a very telling excerpt, which begins with the affirmation that human rights rulings are mostly concerned with effect rather than intent, that:

    '. . . consistent with a focus on effect rather than intent, it is the effect of the message on the recipient, and ultimately on the person or group vilified, that is the focus of the analysis. The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient. The objective truth of the statement is ultimately of no consequence if the subjective interpretation, by virtue of tone, social context and medium is one which 'arouses unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification'. Therefore, in our view, whether the message is true or not is immaterial. Whether it is perceived to be true or credible may very well add to its impact, but its actual basis in truth is outside the scope of this inquiry.'

    While personally unhappy over this ruling, I have to think the old Hitler sympathizer would've been 'at home' with its Orwellian and totalitarian spirit, as well as those who spent 20 years of public money, a lot of 'em Jewish of course, goading Zundel to the last ditch.

    Now others are caught in the cross-hairs of the old Truth Is No Defense brigades. Later on, it maybe you, gentle reader.
  47. Keira P from Toronto, Canada writes: While bureaucrats may not always be entitled to their entitlements, are Canadians not entitled to their opinions? No matter your legal training and expertise, who has the absolute right to rule on correct opinion? If the article did not violate any rules of law, what exactly is the legality of the complaint?
  48. robert quinn from Japan writes: Encouraging posts. Don't let these righteous sentiments languish on a message board, though. Launch a missive at the responsible parties. All the HRC's have websites and addresses. Ezra Levant's inquisitor is one Charlene McGovern--c/o Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, Southern Regional Office, Suite 310 525-11 Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, T2R OC9. There's also a Northern Regional Office. I'm afraid I don't know which office is committing this gross assault on free speech. It doesn't matter. Offend everyone with a smoking letter. It really does feel good to do good. Let all these 'Human Rights Officers' and their bureaucratic handlers know how you feel having appointed busybodies demanding you justify your thoughts or opinions. And on your dime. Meddling swine.
  49. Juan Valdez from Canada writes: I never knew as much as when I first graduated from university and only later did I realize how little I really knew. These four naive graduates seem to be a prime example of that. 'Look at us! Aren't we daring to take this on? We'll show the world!' Unfortunately, they do not realize they are being used by the muslim congress and that this in the end will be damaging to their careers. They are correct in that muslims have learned to use the very tenets of our democracy against us to undermine the freedoms we have. Why do they work so hard to destroy the very thing that made them come here? Or was the plan all along to destroy the fabric of our Canadian democracy little by little, to the point where muslims, as seems to be the case in the UK, are calling the tunes even in areas such as foreign policy? Why do the muslims not understand that Canadians will not stand for this kind of continuous onslaught against our democracy and that actions such as these are turning more Canadians against them? Finally Canadians are waking up!
  50. Paul Hume from oakville, Canada writes: My generation really needs to grow some thicker skin. All this talk about rights, and what is owed to people really sickens me. What about duties? What do we owe society? Instead of taking, taking, taking, I want to see people give back. Especially people who come immigrate here from a less 'free' countries/societies. Geez, if I was to get in a huff everytime I saw something that could be considered offensive I probably wouldn't leave the house. Maybe we need a right to offend, clear all this up quickly, maybe even a duty to offend....like some of my favourite comedians.
  51. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: We will freeze any criticism with the threat of litigation. If you shed light on our agenda we will force you to self censor or tie you up at great expense to the taxpayer and yourself. We are so happy that the HRC supports our abuse of women because it is our religion to do so

    Human Rights Commision should have been assembled when there was a need. If going after Ezra Levant and Mark Stein because you do not like what they say is supported by any branch of any gov't then by gor you can have the country.
  52. Pro Canada from Canada writes: o, from what I gather about their complaint against mccleans, i think it is a baseless and should be thrown out
  53. Jan Burton from Toronto, Canada writes: Marcella x: 'How telling it is that anywhere in the the world where the religion you champion actually dominates, ideas such as free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and human rights are laughed at as naive notions of those 'democractic western fools'.'

    Needs to be repeated.

    Many of these easily-offended Muslims would not even consider upholding anyone else's 'right' to not be offended if the rest of us were a minority in a Muslim country.
  54. Allan McElroy from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Let's have a look at a fundamental law that might be the best litmus test; our libel laws. Let's also look at the law that is to protect against 'promoting hatred towards an identifiable group' which implies characterisation of the entire group in question. Steyn used readily available facts to support a thesis of his. He seems to have reached a reasonable conclusion (although I hope he's wrong in it) but it is a theory all the same; he doesn't smear Islam in general, but accurately reports things done in it's name by extremists. Every fact I saw seemed accurate to me, and does therefore not 'promote hatred to an identifiable group', nor is it libel. Levant merely reported what was one of the biggest news stories of the day, and gave his opinion not of all Muslims, but of the reaction to the cartoons. His opinion wasn't favourable but then neither is mine, and again he didn't promote hatred, nor did he libel. He did express anger at the murders going on by the extremists, but what's wrong with that? There are two questions to ask; 1) did Steyn or Levant promote hatred as we see it in the laws of Canada? and 2) Were Steyn or Levant inaccurate in what they said? If yes to either, pursue it in a court of law (I'm sure financial support can be found). If no to both questions, then shut up.
  55. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: I would agree with the writers, except for one extremely important detail that they neglected to mention -- the Human Rights Commissions do not operate under the same rules as the Courts. As Mr. Levant mentioned in his article, the HRC practice a perverse type of reverse onus, where anyone accused is presumed guilty. In addition, the rules regarding evidence are reputedly extremely scant compared to the Courts. This seems like a travesty, given that the Courts have been designed to ensure that the maximum fairness is afforded all parties. The fact that the authors, lawyers all, neglected to mention this important fact speaks ill of their intent.

    I do agree that the Courts have their fair share of problems, but moving problems to a quasi-judicial court and relaxing all the rules that keep the Courts fair should not be the answer.

    There is also the key fact of whether the government should have the right to make the airing of any opinion illegal / punishable. While there needs to be certain limitations on free speech (one should not be allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre), prohibiting certain ideological beliefs smacks of latent fascism to me.

    I think it was a prominent civil rights activist in the US who said it best when he said (paraphrased) 'I may fight what you say with every breath in my body, but I will fight for your right to say it with every breath as well.'
  56. David Simon from Canada writes: 'Attacking human rights commissions attacks us all'.

    What's wrong with verbally attacking us all?
  57. Dorothy Cummings from Toronto, Canada writes: Oh cry me a river. For at least two hundred years people in British North America/Canada (to say nothing of the USA) have been spreading lies and slander about Roman Catholics. Until rather recently, it was said that Catholics had 'so many children' because the pope wanted them to take over the world for him. And not a day goes by that someone doesn't use the abusive priest scandals to flog believing Roman Catholics. Anti-Catholic remarks are preserved in such Canadian literary works as 'Lives of Girls and Women' (Alice Munroe) and 'Our Lady of the Lost and Found' (Diane Schoemperlen). And, incidentally, there are STILL 'Orange Day' parades in Ontario on July 12, celebrating the slaughter of Irish Catholics at the Battle of the Boyne and the preservation of the British throne for a Protestant (even if Dutch). ...Nevertheless, Catholics do not seek to shut down freedom of speech in this country. They know very well that doing so would lead to their own suppression. After all, the Knights of Columbus in B.C. have been dragged before a tribunal merely for refusing to rent out their hall for a gay wedding. (Frankly, I don't know a single Catholic who would choose to be married in a boring old KofC hall, but there it was.) Catholics live with the spectre of gay rights activists deciding to settle old scores (like the ancient and once universal belief that marriage can only be between a woman and a man) through the HRCs...People say and write nasty things about religious minorities? Welcome to the reality of Catholics and of Protestant evangelicals in Canada. We learned to lump it. Now it's your turn.
  58. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Both this article, Lavant's article and many of the comments they generate here seem little more than a collection of emotional reactions with very little substance.

    The only justified complaint I've seen in the last two days is that the cost to the defendant isn't covered when the that of the complainee is. This simply doesn't make sense in a system that should assume innocence before guilt.

    At first I was impressed by the level headed and logical approach to this article. Then I read the last couple paragraphs and that feeling evaporated as they waded into the exact kind of name calling and emotional bigotry being displayed by Lavant and others.
  59. NR Connor from TO, Canada writes: The political leadership of provincial and federal governments have allowed a situation to develop where Human Rights Commissions have veered from their original mission of addressing individual cases of specific discriminatory ACTS.

    The commissions have launched into the territory of monitoring (by their lights) discriminatory ATTITUDES, and a range of expression that falls short of criminal hate-incitement.

    The former real work of the commissions was important and useful, but evidently not as exciting or appealing as the latter involvements. This has probably developed in part because of government appointing high profile, 'eminent' crusaders as commissioners. Such people have shown an inclination to tribunal activism which has brought us to the trouble we have today.

    At the very least, governments should fund both sides of a HRC case until the outcome is decided, then let the loser pay.
  60. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Globefollower From Canada from Canada writes: '...We need institutions that allow Canadians to air and even settle their grievances in a peaceful and non-violent manner. Human Rights Tribunals allow for that, in a way that is public, transparent and requires participants to submit to the will but not the tyranny of the majority...'

    Agreed, but this only works on a level playing field. The process needs to be free for both sides for this to be the case. Otherwise you slant the system in favour of the complainee, which could easily result in specious claims intended to cause harm to the defendant, regardless of the truth of the accusation.

    Other than that though I personally consider this a much better route for civil disagreement than the highly polarlized court system.
  61. bruce reid from toronto, Canada writes: The 4 authors claim that they only launched their complaint after Maclean's 'refused to negotiate space for a response' to Mark Steyn's story.

    That is an outright lie.

    Margaret Wente said it best in her Dec. 6 column:

    '
    It's not as if Mr. Steyn had the last word. The magazine ran pages of angry reader mail in reaction to his article. Editor Ken Whyte even met the offended law students to find out what would satisfy them. They wanted a five-page article, written by an author of their choice, to run without any editing, and art-directed by themselves. He said no.
    '
  62. Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: We have courts for complaints. So sue MacLeans Magazine in court. 99.9% of the peole in Canada can accept criticism. That's what makes Canada great.
  63. Nancy Wilcox from Canada writes: I too agree with Second Samuel. It is preverse to see the HRC take on a complaint of this nature, when the countries they come from view free speech as a Western ideology. Instead, these countries are always willing to publish hatred towards anything that is not Muslim or follow Islam values. Furthermore, people in Muslim countries who are Jewish, Hindu, or Christian are subject to discrimination on a daily basis to the point where laws are used to keep them oppressed. It is only in these Muslim countries that you find that all citizens are subjected to the control of Islam leaders, and if one broke a law, even a small one such as not praying 5 times a day or a woman in public without a male escort, the punishment is always harsh. These Muslims who are using the HRC to stop critics of Islam under the defense of hatred, have no courage to openly debate with Canadians. They only use this avenue because any of their arguments would fall apart in a heart beat by just looking at cases and evidence of horrendous human right abuses in Muslim countries. I bet if I went to any one of the Muslim countries openly displaying my Christian cross, holding a bible wearing a mini-skirt, a see-through top, and taking pictures - I be thrown in jail and probably would never get a trial because they would have beaten me to death. So much for democracy in Muslim countries.
  64. Ely Sbrozzi from Toronto, writes: Perhaps our 'legal' authors would benefit from reading 'A Man for all Seasons'?

    Margaret More: Father, that man's bad.
    Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
    William Roper: There is: God's law.
    Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.

    Taking offence to an opinion is no more a human right issue than it is illegal.

    I cannot believe that as a Canadian that I have opened my doors to the world to feast on our freedoms and now they complain about the bounty that I serve.
  65. Alberto Bayo from Canada writes: Sheikh, Awan, Simard, and Mithoowani are all jerks for taking something so trivial to the 'Human Rights Commission', but just like Ezra Levant, in Canada, they're able to be the best jerks they can be.
  66. I Am from Canada writes: Human Rights Commissions would appear to be a good thing - if they didn't practice tokenism. The percentage of complaints Human Rights Commissions actually investigate is small. The percentage of claims that are actually won by the complainants is even smaller. These Human Rights Commissions, like the Complaints Department in hospitals or the College of Physicians and Surgeons, are there for show. Their purpose is to erect a facade so that justice appears to be done and democracy appears to be working - but justice is rarely done and democracy isn't working. The large majority who go through the arduous process of registering a formal complaint with a Human Rights Commission only get pain added to injury and insult added to pain. Ask a Human Rights Commission for some rights and the average Canadian gets a right hook to the ear; then a left cross to the mouth in the first round; and then they are finished off with a right upper cut to the nose, a right cross to the mouth and a left hook to the ear in the second round.
  67. Barney Panofsky from Vancouver, Canada writes: Seems like we can expect more of this unless there is government action very soon.
    It's time to review this whole process of making a complaint. It also seems that the agents administering this government body need better guidlines.
    It is time for the federal government to step in and bring some common sense to this situation.
    They did the right thing last month ensuring medical isotopes were made available.
  68. Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: The struggle that I have with this issue is not speech vs. religion or anything like that. I have trouble with the turn towards a 'court' that ignores the traditions of due process, facing your accuser and other centuries old legal traditions that we inherited from Britain. These courts function more along the lines of the continental system which does not regard individual human rights important. Instead, the collective mentality reigns and we have seen how the individual gets trampled by the collective rights of others, even if the 'collective' is a 'minority' (btw, aren't we all minorities now?).

    The arguments these kids make are the same kind of impassioned, short-sighted ones that I might have made when I was at university. They are not tempered by history, experience or concern for the good of the individual in our nation. I think this case, against a publication of long-standing high quality, practically a Canadian institution, demonstrates the limitations and fatal flaws of the HRC in any jurisdiction across Canada.

    If there is a problem of access due to cost in our legal system, then let's fix that, not give more power to closed systems like the HRC's.
  69. The Prytanis from Ottawa, Canada writes: Hurt feelings do not constitute 'harm' under the law. Or, they ought not. One of our politicians needs to stand up and, appropriately enough, speak out, and say: 'Hearing opinions that you find offensive is a consequence of living with free speech. You can not have free speech without offence. Offense, and bruised feelings, and egos are therefore off the table as a complaint of any kind. I am introducing a private member's bill to that effect.'
  70. Michael Tripper from Vancouver, Canada writes: In my opinion the biggest problem here is that we have grown adults who cannot control their own emotions and are seeking the power of the state to calm themselves.

    You're offended? Get a grip, grow up and start wondering what sort of religious leaders keep their adherents in such an adolescent frame of mind.

    The issue with this so-called human rights complaint is that it is based upon a fiction - there is no such thing as Allah, Mohammed was just a another tribal leader who beguiled his followers.

    Being able to claim rights above freedom of speech based upon fiction is a grave error.

    Freedom of religion means freedom from religion and being able to ridicule and harshly criticize any belief system where there is no evidence for it's own existence is a fundamental right that must never be weakened to appease hurt feelings.
  71. deliciously uncanadian from Canada writes: Phil King writes 'At the very least, governments should fund both sides of a HRC case until the outcome is decided, then let the loser pay. '

    Good point. But...

    The HRC was intended to protect individuals: Employees against racist employers, tenants against landlords etc. People that possibly won't be able to pay if they loose. This obviously doesn't apply to the well-funded pressure groups hiding behind these four complainants.

    In accepting these cases, the HRC has waded into public policy debate and made themselves the ultimate arbiter. It can only serve to discredit them.
  72. Spencer Henderson from Toronto, Canada writes: I think these complainants have exposed something about Canadian society that we all wish we could ignore. Islamophobia is real, and has no place in a multicultural, tolerant society such as our own. Instead of getting upset that someone has called us on it, let's work towards a solution. Consider the following extracts from an article that appeared in Macleans, (publication after the complainants launched their human rights complaints) 'Anti-Muslim sentiment is strong enough that instances of hate crimes against Muslims are up significantly, at least according to a recent report from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Commissioner Barb Hall cited 'an enormous increase' in these types of attacks....' 'Sometimes when we look at what causes hate-motivated crimes to occur, it's definitely a reaction to things that are reported in the media or get attention,' says Det.-Sgt. Steve Irwin, head of the Hate Crimes Unit with the Toronto police.... 'And why Muslims? One reason is simple demographics: between 1991 and 2001, when the last statistics were available, Canada's Muslim population doubled, making Islam the fifth biggest religious faith in the country and the second biggest in every major Canadian city save for Vancouver.....' 'Then there's fear. 'If it weren't for Islam, this wouldn't be a debate,' says professor Peter Beyer, who teaches classics and religious studies at the University of Ottawa. 'This is part of that post-9/11 anxiety that reflects itself in certain groups much more than others....' 'The preoccupation with Islam, Beyer says, has effectively dragged other religions into the fray. 'The incidents that involve Muslims and Islam are the core ones without which the other ones wouldn't be nearly the hot-button issue that they might be.' Take away Islam, Beyer suggests, and suddenly those grocery aisles stocked with matzos don't seem to be as big a deal....'
  73. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: >> Similarly, funding for religious schools was not a 'problem' until Ontario's Conservative leader John Tory included Islamic schools in his funding proposal.

    They do have a point here. The Ontario Liberals masterfully sensed this, and played to the crowd.
  74. Paul Sweeney from Canada writes: I don't think there is a human right to be published in McCleans.

    Multiculural apologists seem to think that Canada needs to respect 'cultures' which don't value democracy or equality for women and so on.

    Multiculuralism must be constrained by the principles in the constituion.

    So, if your culture treats women as chattel then it ought not to be given sanction under the guise or 'multiculuralism.'

    Multiculuralism is not a licence for any doctrine whatever.

    Cultures which treat their women as chattel are inferior and they ought to be colonized and transformed by those with better principles (such as the ones embedded in our constitution).
  75. M Nolz from Toronto, Canada writes: I would propose that those who take offense at the concept of freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of the press, return to the country from where they came, which in all likelihood does not have freedom of thought, freedom of speech nor freedom of the press.

    It is obvious that some people do not understand what it means to live in a democracy (and civilized society, yeah, call me a bigot but I'm not the one rioting in the streets/killing over a silly cartoon). Sorry, did my thoughts/opinions offend someone? Here's a tissue.
  76. J Lufty from Canada writes: The sooner so-called 'Human Rights' commissions are disbanded, the better. Even the original framers of the legislation are appalled at how the concept has been basterdized. It is also interesting how the G&M has chosen to 'fully moderate' (i.e., fully censor) THIS part of the discussion but did not do so for Levants portion. How typically fascist of the G&M.
  77. John Cassidy from Rockwood, Canada writes: to suggest this has anything to do with attacking Human Rights Commissions per se is ludicrous... they have a purpose...unfortunately. they should not be used as a publicity stunt for the merely frustrated...
  78. Juan Valasquez from Scarborough, Canada writes: Juan Valdez: I agree that Canadian have and are waking up to the farce that is the HRC. Unfortunately Canadians are timid and trusting people, hence the popularity of the Liberal party. We will never stand up for our beliefs for fear of the 'race' card, even though Islam is not a race. Before you know it, this once great country will be in tatters, and we'll all have hyphenated names.
    Juan Valasquez - Ibn Al- Saladin
  79. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: It is encouraging to see that the majority of the comments here reflect a strong leaning toward free speech.

    Racism is a major social problem. It should be confronted head on. But launching an assault on freedom of speech and press through flawed legal infrastructure is absolutely the wrong way to go about.

    The complainants are doing more harm to their cause than good, which makes this doubly a tragedy.
  80. an astute commenter from Canada writes: As has been said, you do NOT have a right not to be offended, and using the Human Rights Commission as a vehicle for intimidation demeans it and is nothing more than a blatant attempt to stifle free speech for the rest of us. Mr. Steyn has a right to his opinion, and has a right to express it, your opinion not withstanding. GROW UP!!
  81. Wasabi Jones from Canada writes: Good luck getting hired at a law firm, complainants!
  82. mel wilde from kelowna b.c., Canada writes: When the Human rights commissions guarantee a process of natural justice in thier proceeding then I will begin to listen to them.
    Th HRC track record speaks for itself and is a sad smear on freedom in Canada.
    What started out as a way to protect individuals at work and doing business has evolved into a weapon for extremist crusaders. Canadians have a right to demand 'due process' when they are accused of anything.
    The writers of todays article need to spend some time learning ethical
    standards and the basics of the process of Natural Justice in any judicial system.
  83. C K from Peterborough, Canada writes: Read WM's comments above. They are exactly on-point.
  84. David Linton from Canada writes: Freedom to offend other culture is a freedom to incite conflict and create divisions in a multicultural society. Do we really want that in Canada?

    YES