With the recent decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in the popularly known Maclean’s Magazine case looming in the midst, and with its final pronouncement sure to rehash frenzied and vociferous chatter over human rights commissions and free speech, a legally grounded deconstruction of the dominating media themes is not superfluous.

In fact, much of the rhetoric from Complainants and supporters of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) and Co. has been disregarded as hogwash as a result of heightened sensitivities and ‘leftist-theorizing’. To add some much needed weight on the other side of the fulcrum, Pearl Eliadis, a practicing human rights lawyer has written a timely piece delineating seven misconceptions about these administrative law decision-makers.

A Quick Recap

Before we get there, a quick recap to date.

The now ‘Osgoode Three’, through the CIC, filed three human rights complaints against Maclean’s Magazine focusing on an excerpt published from Mark Steyn’s book America Alone.

All three of the complaints have been heard and decided. The Ontario Human Rights Commission condemned the writings in Maclean’s but failed to give a decision due to lack of jurisdiction. The Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled that the complaint did not reach the level of hatred and contempt contemplated by the Act. And the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint.

Since the BC hearing in June, two of the loudest advocates, Steyn and Levant, have put their blogs on hiatus and correspondingly the blogospheric debates have quelled and media coverage has attenuated through attrition. Now that they are both blogging again, the Eliadis article is a timely counterpoint:

Media Propagated Myths

In what is termed “Seven False Statements about Free Speech and Human Rights”, the article does an excellent job of isolating the arguments and issues of debate and arguing against some of the popularly held views.
In order, she tackles the following media propagated allegations:

1) Free Speech is an Absolute Right
2) Human Rights Laws were not made to Restrict Free Speech
3) Human Rights Laws only apply to Discriminatory Conduct, not Discriminatory Speech
4) Human Rights Laws do not apply to the Media
5) Human Rights Commissions Dispense “Parallel Justice,” “Prosecuting” and “Convicting” People Outside of Normal Legal Channels
6) Human Rights Tribunals are Rabid, out of Control Bastions of Political Correctness with 100% Conviction Rates
7) Free Speech is under Attack by Frivolous, Expensive, Time Consuming Complaints

Accordingly, the answer to the first six statements is false with point number seven being partially true. In responding to the “False Statements” the article covers historical aspects of Anti-Racism laws and Human Rights Commissions and pertinent legislation. It also integrates legal theorizing, case law and discusses the distinction and rationale underpinning the field of administrative law in support of its conclusions.

It also provides a great overview beginning from the period prior to the filing of the complaints till the final hearing in BC. It is a well-reasoned and argued perspective from a former practitioner and student of the academic discipline free of palpably partisan logic (excluding the provocative cover art).

---

Editorial note: We have obtained a pdf copy of the article and will be posted it shortly, hopefully in conjunction with an interview with Pearl Eliadis.