Human Rights Regression
By Jonathan D. Strong
Since the end of the Second World War, much of Western Civilization
took it for granted that the progress and triumph of human rights,
freedom, and liberal democracy would continue in perpetuity. Of
course, there were setbacks as communist insurgencies and revolution
snuffed out the lights of liberty in various places round the globe,
but the hope of freedom always reappeared in places like Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, Tiananmen Square, Poland, and most recently in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
And despite the success that liberal democracy has experienced since
the collapse of the Soviet Union, the possibility of Western concepts
of freedoms no longer progressing, but in fact, regressing, is now
more of a possibility than perhaps since Hitler's rise to power in the
1930's. What we may be witnessing today is not progress but regress
in terms of our rights and freedoms.
In Britain, councils have ruled that images of Piglet from "Winnie the
Pooh" must not be displayed because it causes offence to Muslims.
Most newspapers and magazines refused to publish the infamous "Danish
Cartoons" of Mohammed despite them being a legitimate news story
because of the riots they resulted in around the world. The editors
that did were castigated and in the case of Canadian editor, Ezra
Levant, hauled before a "Human Rights Tribunal" after a complaint was
filed against him by an imam in Calgary, Alberta.
Indeed, the West has changed and is changing more and quickly. The
West, as part of its openness and inclusiveness, has received millions
of Muslim immigrants from all over the globe and it is now affecting
our culture in ways we never dreamt. Mohammed is now the second most
popular name for boys in London, England and will soon be number one.
Canadian author Mark Steyn has warned in his book, American Alone,
that the West faces major civilizational threats from a combination of
it's declining birth rate and an influx of Muslim immigrants, many of
whom do not share Western values, and some of whom are violently
opposed to Western values. Like Mr. Levant, Steyn too has been
summoned to appear before the British Columbia Human Rights Commission
(HRC) to answer before the thought police for ****tions of his book
that were published in Maclean's magazine (Canada's largest weekly
news magazine).
Mr. Steyn is being sued by three Islamic individuals who happen to be
graduates from Canada's most prestigious law school, Osgoode Hall at
York University in Toronto.
"Complaints were submitted to Human Rights Commissions in B.C. and
Ontario on the grounds that "the article subjects Canadian Muslims to
hatred and contempt," according to a Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC)
press release. In the release, the CIC labels Steyn's article as
"flagrantly Islamophobic."(link)
The students contend that Steyn's article, and Maclean's decision to
publish it, will lead to hatred and contempt towards Muslims and the
religion of Islam. More broadly, they are saying that Islam is not in
conflict with democracy or western values, and to prove their point,
they are suing to prevent Mark Steyn from exercising his right of free
speech.
While I am just a blogger, a peon, while aspiring and dreaming of
being a columnist like Steyn, I am by trade an attorney at law, and am
thus genuinely appalled by the actions of these law students. Their
actions show either a complete absence of knowledge of Canadian and
British common law history, or a flagrant opposition and antagonism to
this history by their method of attack.
It is obvious that they realize that their case would be viewed as
frivolous by any court worth it's weight in salt, and as a result,
their choice of venue is a quasi-judicial body for tattle-tales whose
cases don't meet muster according to real legal standards. Quasi-
courts, like Human Rights Commissions, have only quasi-legitimacy at
best. Their creation may have been well intentioned: to prevent
injustice in housing and employment in the 1960's and 1970's as non-
white immigrants first began to immigrant to Canada in noticeable
numbers outside urban areas. However, good intentions can often lead
to disastrous results.
These HRCs are dangerous (and illegitimate) because they defy hundreds
of years of British legal tradition and history. The British legacy
of the rule of law is one of the greatest legacies of British culture
in all of history. Around the world in former colonies and
protectorates, the traditions that stem from British courts often
continue today even if those nations no longer consider themselves as
part of the Commonwealth. The defiance of history observed by the
HRCs and plaintiffs against Steyn are exemplified by a brief review of
the time tested legal principles of standing, evidence, and damages.
The legal concept of standing requires an individual to show they have
a personal interest in the case in question. American, Canadian, and
British courts prevent third party standing in most incidents because
such a plaintiff cannot prove a wrong has been committed against
them. This prevents and individual from bringing a generalized
complaint before the court. The HRC's have no requirement for
standing. So anyone, can sue for any reason, whether or not they have
been offended, discriminated against, humiliated, or if nothing
happened to them at all.
There are also no rules of evidence. There is no "proof" required,
and hearsay abounds within a HRC trial. The lack of evidentiary rules
makes most lawyers cringe. Everything, including the kitchen sink,
can be included in a complaint for the HRC to examine without any fact
finding, witnesses, or proof. The HRC members will then determine
what is admissible, im****tant, and "true", which commonly means
everything alleged.
Finally, damages are not required to be proven or quantified. Any
civil suit in a "real" court requires damages to be proven so that a
settlement or judgment can be reached after the evidence is weighed.
The plaintiff must prove to the court and/or jury that the wrong has
resulted in an injury or damages to their person, reputation, etc.
HRCs don't require such finicky items like "real" damages. A
complaint is proof in itself for damages.
If it was not so frightening and dangerous to our foundation of laws
and values, the suit against Steyn would be comical. The students
have essentially proven Steyn's thesis correct simply by filing their
suit. Steyn's book claims that the Western world will look radically
different because of the dramatic increase in the Islamic population
which will change our civilization's values. Why? Because Islamic
law does not recognize freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the
equality of women, or freedom of the press. As it happens, Steyn is
now being sued by Muslims for exercising his right of freedom of
speech and freedom of the press.
It appears that these law students have not even considered the
chilling effect their case will have on free speech or the freedom of
the press. There is no right to be free from offence in the Canadian
Charter of Rights, in the American Constitution and Bill of Rights, or
in all of British legal tradition.
Even if Steyn's words are everything that these students say they are
(which I disagree with strongly), that is even more reason that they
are deserving of protection. Offensive speech and political speech
require the most vigilant protection of all. Stifling offensive
speech is perhaps the greatest danger. Consider that professing
liberal democratic views and pro-Jewish words in Nazi Germany would
have been deemed very offensive by, perhaps, a majority of the
population at the time. In the West, you have the right to be an
idiot just as you have the right to be a genius. There is no
obligation or right for the state to intervene to prevent you from
saying idiotic things, so long as they are not endanger public safety
(i.e., yelling "fire" in a theatre) libellous, slanderous, defamatory,
or advocate violence.
Steyn does not advocate violence or hatred, he writes to warn the west
of the danger that looms because of an ideology that opposes to the
values the West has held dear for hundreds of years: freedom of
speech, equality of op****tunity, the rule of law, freedom of assembly,
and freedom of religion. Steyn's book has warned us of the threats to
our Western values, the law suit against him exemplifies that the
threat is real and immediate.
Jonathan D. Strong is proprietor of The Strong Conservative.
|
