|
Okay, even the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission's designated whitewasher has come out in favour of abolishing Section 13, the thought-police provision of the Human Rights Act. He is the latest addition to a long list, including Dr Keith Martin, Canada's two national newspapers, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the CanCon literary left at PEN Canada, and 99.5 per cent of delegates to the Conservative Party convention.
But the fact remains that only Parliament can repeal Section 13, and they seem in no hurry to do so. Yesterday, CFRB's Brian Lilley spoke to the Justice Minister and Attorney-General of Canada, Rob Nicholson:
The minister would not directly answer whether he supported Professor Moon's recommendation to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
He said: "Well, we're going to have a very careful look at Professor Moon's recommendations. It just came out today and it's fairly extensive."
He said he still hopes the Justice Committee will take it up.
"With the report just being released today I think its important that we have a very careful look at it."
As Justice Minister he said he gets lots of input on changes to various laws: drug laws, changes to criminal justice act, auto theft, identity theft. "It's very difficult to get any changes through Parliament."
With the greatest respect to a Minister of the Crown, this is why people despise politicians. Earlier this month, Mr Nicholson was one of that 99.5 per cent of Tory delegates that voted to repeal Section 13. Did his vote mean what it appears to mean in plain English? Or was he just fearful of sticking out as one of the 0.5 per cent of dissenters? Or has he got some nuanced-up-the-wazoo John Kerry I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it thing going on? The Attorney-General gives the impression, as was said of the British Tories in the twilight of the Major years, of being in office but not in power.
But one thing seems clear. He's in no hurry. And Jennifer Lynch, QC, the CHRC honcho reduced to touting her "human rights" regime's ties to Cameroon, wants to sit on the report until next summer, by which time she's hoping Bernie Farber and the remaining three or four defenders of Section 13 will have had a quite word in the right ears and any plans to scrap the thought-crimes law can be quietly mothballed.
Jay Currie has two options: a three-line bill, or Plan B. Mr Nicholson doesn't sound as if he's planning any three-line bills. (You can help him get the lead out of his equivocating pants by calling this toll-free number.)
We've only got this far because of the sustained pressure on the "human rights" racketeers. In a characteristically thoughtful post, Deborah Gyapong notices that Professor Moon does not object to government censorship in principle, only in practice:
"My position, which differs from quite a few people, is that it's not practical to deal with what one might generously describe as group defamation or stereotyping through censorship. It's just not a viable option. There's too much of it, and it's so pervasive within our public discourse that any kind of censorship is just overwhelming," Prof. Moon said in an interview. "I've tried to connect what we restrict to violence."
You can see what he means. When it was just Lucy Warman chastising basement Nazis for fun and profit, the racket was manageable. But now that the Muslims want a slice of the action and are using the CHRC's joke jurisprudence ("hallmarks of hate") to sue big-time magazines and newspapers, the whole system's become unworkable. Whatever words he chooses in public, Professor Moon understands that ahistorical nitwits like Jennifer Lynch, hack bureaucrats like Shirlene McGovern and fantasist undercover Nazis like Dean Steacy can't withstand the glare of publicity. But, if you could find a model of censorship that was "practical", he would be unlikely to object to it.
I imagine in the next six months he will be bombarded by all manner of proposed fixes, so that what Jennifer Lynch presents to Parliament will be long and boring and messy and complicated, but, underneath all the PC bromides, will protect the thought-police and advance its agenda.
That's why Parliament should act now. Section 13 has no defenders, other than those (like Bernie Farber) living high off the "human rights" hog. There is no political price to pay for repealing it. Michael Ignatieff might say he feels differently, but all his celebrity friends - Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis - are on the "free speech" side of this issue, and a few of them might point out that, if anybody cares to trawl the BBC archives for all those interviews with dissidents Iggy hosted in the Eighties and Nineties, that's the side he used to be on, too.
Right now, it's Keith Martin, Professor Moon, The Globe & Mail, The National Post, PEN Canada, the Canadian Association of Journalists, Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins, Noam Chomsky and 99.5 per cent of the Conservative Party vs Jennifer Lynch, Bernie Farber and Lucy Warman. I like those odds. Let's bring it on.
|
