|
Just about the only defenders of the "human rights" racket these days, other than those either currently or formerly on the payroll, are Bernie Farber and the Canadian Jewish Congress. So this letter by Mr Farber in The Toronto Star represents a small shift:
Steyn's observations are not actionable under the law and the complaints against them fall outside the mandate of human rights commissions. Borovoy ignores the salient passages of the Supreme Court of Canada's 1990 decision in the John Ross Taylor case... The court noted that "hatred or contempt" refers "only to unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification."
The commission's investigation of Steyn shows it has lost sight of the legislation's original purpose and the narrow fence it establishes against truly discriminatory speech. Such speech violates core Canadian values and has been upheld as a reasonable limitation of free expression precisely because of that incompatibility.
So by all means, let's tweak the law to eliminate some of its discretionary elements. Amendments could call for an ombudsperson to adjudicate objectively if the complaints meet the high threshold for action, or cost consequences for applicants who bring frivolous complaints.
Hmm. So The Globe And Mail, Maclean's, The National Post, Dr Keith Martin, the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada and the head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association are in favour of abolishing Section 13. And the racket's last friend, the CJC, is now in favour of a "tweak" of Section 13.
So the only defenders of the present system are those either currently or formerly on the payroll plus Warren Kinsella and the old Jew-hater Elmasry. In the space of four months, the status quo has become indefensible. Great work, Barbara Hall and Jennifer Lynch!
|
