The Nanaimo Daily News ran an editorial on the Maclean’s case this week.

Steyn responded to the article with some corrections.

But we have our own responses to the Nanaimo editorial.

Words not Actions

Nanaimo states,

…Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, human rights tribunals are for discriminatory actions, not words.

Not true. Numerous cases have gone to tribunals for hate speech and defamation.

It would appear that the CIC is using the tribunals as a last resort: neither libel laws nor hate laws are at work here.

Again, not true. Tribunals are usually a first resort. They are cheaper for both the plaintiff (in legal fees) and the defendant (in damages). The CIC in this case are not even asking for monetary compensation from Maclean’s.

Despite this, Jed Babbin, a Steyn supporter, states in Islam vs. Free Speech,

Fines and other sanctions will be entered against Macleans along with probable injunctions against further “harmful journalism” that offends Muslims. A case may be brought against Steyn himself later.

There are no statute of limitations for hate material that will be in circulation for decades to come.

So when some nut 20 years from now decides to follow through with this statement and attribute his motivations to Steyn’s book,

There is no such thing as innocent Muslims…They must all be killed. All of them.

there really could be more legal fallout in the future.

Open Debate

Nanaimo continues,

The action by the CIC lends some validity to Steyn’s claim that the tribunals are being used to stifle open debate.

To the contrary actually, because the CIC was asking for open debate and only went to the Tribunals when this was rejected.

The CIC might suggest that Macleans has abused its power. Not so. The magazine is going to some lengths to balance Steyn’s views.

Really? We must have missed that front-page episode, as well as the other dozens of articles countering the extreme views expressed by Steyn and others (don’t forget the others) in Maclean’s.

But then again, it is quite possible we missed it, seeing how we canceled our subscriptions to the magazine.

Then What is the Right Way to Make a Point?

Nanaimo:

They may have a point, but they are making it the wrong way.

Other communities have used this exact same avenue for less inflammatory statement, and we do find it strange that such redress would come under opposition when this particular community elects to do it to.

Babbin continues,

[Steyn] could be subjected to fines or other penalties in Canada for exercising his First Amendment rights in the US. And — because American publishers look to Canada for about 10% of their sales — Steyn may, like Ehrenfeld, find publishers unwilling to publish his work.

This is an incredibly positive move, as a community that has been previously marginalized and discouraged from legal recourse to their frustrations in society is going about a response using the proper avenues that have been afforded to them.

Babbin’s conclusion is likely arrived from patterns established from previous Tribunal cases with other communities.

Unless, of course, there are different classes of Canadian citizens, and some Canadians have less rights than others.

Limits to Free Speech, Even for Jihadists

And as for Nanaimo’s title, Even jihadists have the right of free speech, once again, that is simply not true, even though Steyn seems to think that it is.

For example, the Criminal Code states,

Participation in activity of terrorist group

83.18 (1) Every one who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.…

Instructing to carry out activity for terrorist group

83.21 (1) Every person who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any person to carry out any activity for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
[emphasis added]

There are limits to free speech, and rightly so, even in open societies.

In Richard Warman v. Terry Tremaine (yes, a Tribunal case), Michel Douchet stated,

Although freedom of expression is an important fundamental value, we in Canada value just as much the equality rights of all individuals. Equality means a respect for the inherent dignity of all human beings whatever their colour, race, language, sex or religion. Freedom to express one’s idea ceases to be freedom of expression or opinion when it is used to stand in the way of the promotion of equality. Freedom of expression ceases to be a fundamental characteristic of democratic values when it becomes a vehicle for the promotion of hate.

In fact, some of the proposed legislation currently under review by the Government of Canada include:

• amendments to the Criminal Code that would allow the courts to order the deletion of publicly available hate propaganda from computer systems such as an Internet site. Individuals who posted the material would be given the opportunity to convince the court that the material is not hate propaganda. The provision would apply to hate propaganda that is located on Canadian computer systems, regardless of where the owner of the material is located or whether he or she can be identified.
• Criminal Code amendments that would create a new offence of mischief motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin, committed against a place of religious worship or associated religious property. This offence would be subject to a maximum penalty of 10 years when prosecuted on indictment, or to a maximum penalty of eighteen months on summary conviction.
• amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to clarify that the prohibition against spreading repeated hate messages by telephonic communications includes all telecommunications technologies.

The effective use of Tribunals in the past have demonstrated their usefulness in stemming the tide of hatred in Canada, and they are not likely to go anywhere any time soon.

If Steyn supporters want to lobby government, they should probably focus on these three legislative changes rather than the Tribunals.

They’ll probably have more success, and look a lot less silly when their campaign fails miserably.

Full text of the Nanaimo editorial follows.

Even jihadists have the right of free speech

Nanaimo Daily News. Nanaimo, B.C.: Jan 7, 2008. pg. A.10

Copyright Southam Publications Inc. Jan 7, 2008

There’s nothing like our fascination in the West with the hazy lines between war, terrorism and Islam to stir up controversy.

At the centre of what is turning into a very Canadian issue about free speech and our views on Islam is Maclean’s magazine. On Oct. 6, 2006, columnist Mark Steyn wrote a piece titled ‘The Future Belongs to Islam,’ which only in the last week gained any notice. The piece is excerpted from his book, America Alone.

The rather boring piece, which reads half like Steyn talking to himself and half like he’s trying to show us how smart he is, got the attention of Canadian Muslims for stating that a wave of “hot for jihad” Muslim youth are about to emerge as a global force.

What has happened in the first two weeks of 2008 is that the Canadian Islamic Congress has gone about as far as they can go without filing a writ in a court somewhere. Claiming that the article misrepresents the reality of what is happening in the world of Islam, and unhappy with the response from Macleans, they have gone to the Canadian and B.C. human rights commissions.

While Macleans ran 27 letters and has been preparing a rebuttal to Steyn’s piece, where the magazine and the CIC apparently parted ways was with the CIC’s demand that the rebuttal be featured on the cover.

So the question is now one of free speech. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Steyn’s opinions about the future of Islam and the West, the question now turns to whether the state should have any control over a publication that contains disagreeable views.

The idea is rather distasteful to anyone, and no doubt most Muslims would also agree. And what the law calls “most right- thinking people” would say that there are better means of countering what may be considered wrong or offensive messages.

While the courts are not open to the CIC in this case, it’s important to note that Macleans acted swiftly to air out their concerns. They are not admitting they did anything wrong, but they seem to be going a long way, perhaps further than they are obligated to, in order to give the CIC its say.

While the CIC may be right, that Steyn misrepresents Islam, there can be question of any group using a government arm outside the of courts to subject any media to scrutiny. In reality, it’s not likely to go far since the CIC is going to have a very difficult time demonstrating that Macleans has breached anybody’s rights. As observed by Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, human rights tribunals are for discriminatory actions, not words.

It would appear that the CIC is using the tribunals as a last resort: neither libel laws nor hate laws are at work here. If they were, Steyn and Macleans would not be finding themselves at the centre of an issue about free speech. The action by the CIC lends some validity to Steyn’s claim that the tribunals are being used to stifle open debate.

The CIC might suggest that Macleans has abused its power. Not so. The magazine is going to some lengths to balance Steyn’s views.

The demands of the CIC boil down to an issue for all of us: to be able to hold and express opinions free of intervention from the state. Macleans may be owned by Quebecor, but even the largest media companies have a right to express their own views, as odious as they may be. Even in that context, it is in the interests of media companies to give writers like Steyn freedom to speak, short of defamation.

Interestingly, it is the extreme side of Islam that has been using digital technology to make itself felt, and the CIC may be responding in part to just how effective that campaign has been. One could conclude from Steyn’s piece that “hot for jihad” Muslim youths are linked up via computer.

While that may be true in some parts of the world, the CIC may be disturbed at the imputation that good Canadian Muslim families may be keyboarding their way into overthrowing the West.

They may have a point, but they are making it the wrong way.

Credit: The Daily News

Comments for this piece have been opened up by request of a reader, but if abuses reoccur as in the past, comments will be closed again.