How disappointing…CHRC has no balls (edited)
So the National (edit: I thought it was the British Columbia HRC, but I believe I was wrong) Human Rights Commission drops the complaint against Maclean’s magazine (emphasis mine):
TORONTO, June 26 /CNW/ - Maclean’s magazine is pleased that the Canadian
Human Rights Commission has dismissed the complaint brought against it by the
Canadian Islamic Congress. The decision is in keeping with our long-standing
position that the article in question, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” an
excerpt from Mark Steyn’s best-selling book America Alone, was a worthy piece
of commentary on important geopolitical issues, entirely within the bounds of
normal journalistic practice.
Though gratified by the decision, Maclean’s continues to assert that no
human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the
mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial
decisions of the nation’s media. And we continue to have grave concerns about
a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be
pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same
complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to
say nothing of the inconvenience. We enthusiastically support those
parliamentarians who are calling for legislative review of the commissions
with regard to speech issues.
Mark Steyn, the author of the article, expressed his disappointment at the decision.
I am disappointed, too. I was looking forward to another rant about the issue. Well, I guess there’s still hope that the national human rights commission rules against them? I hope? I mean, just think of the satirical pieces it would invoke…
The problem is that, on the surface, this ruling seems to be a victory for free speech in Canada, whereas, in reality, it’s a defeat. It gives credibility to the proponents of these “kangaroo courts” and legitimizes the trend in censorship of free speech. This ruling will be used as a talking point for those who consider censorship of “hate speech” to be a good idea. The next unjustified complaint that goes before the commission may be ruled in the plaintiffs favor, with this ruling being used as a way to tell the people that the system works, and if the HRC’s rule against a plaintiff it must mean they were really guilty. Unfortunately, that’s faulty logic which many people will buy into.
Hat tip to Small Dead Animals.
