« Calling Bluffs
When do you give up? »

Reply from an M.P.

25th February 2008, 11:31 pm

ninagrewal1.jpg

As you know I sent an e-mail to Nina Grewal (my M.P.) a few weeks ago in regards to the “case” against Ezra Levant before the Alberta Human Rights Commission (you can read my reaction to it here).  A similar case is currently proceeding against Mark Steyn.  A few weeks later I sent a follow up e-mail (just in case my first one got lost in the ether).

Greetings; I would just like to inquire as to what your progress on the matter in the attached e-mail has been.Also.  I noticed the other day that your colleague Mr. Keith Martin has entered a private members motion: M-446 — January 30, 2008 — Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) — That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act. I was wondering where you stood on this.  While I believe that the Human Rights Act is important, I could not figure out the purpose behind subsection 13, especially after finding out that a single person brought up nearly all the cases in which it was the primary issue.I look forward to your input on this.

Noah D. Arney

Just the other day I received a letter from my M.P.  I assumed it would be one of her mailings which I receive regularly, but in fact she had taken the time to send me a letter rather than an e-mail in response to my questions.  As I posted the original e-mail to her, I also am attaching a transcript of her letter.

6 February 2008

 Noah Arney

(Address removed)

Dear Mr. Arney:

Thank you very much for your recent correspondence concerning complaints before Canadian human rights commissions.

In recent weeks I have read several news articles expressing concern over the decisions of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and several of its provincial counterparts to proceed with complaints against Macleans Magazine and Ezra Levant and the Western Standard.  In the Macleans case the Canadian Islamic Congress alleges that an article published last year, excerpted from Mark Steyn’s book America Alone, “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and Islamophobia.”  In the other case, the Alberta Human Rights Commission is considering whether or not to proceed with a complaint over a decision by Mr. Levant to publish the infamous Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.

The federal and provincial governments established human rights commissions in the 1960s and 1970s to investigate complaints of discrimination.  In the case of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Act sets out the commission’s responsibilities.  Complaints may relate to employment, or to the provision of goods, services, facilities and accommodation that are customarily available to the general public.  Complaints of discrimination may be made based on race, national and ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.  The commission also has a statutory responsibility to foster public understanding and recognition of the principles of the Act.

I believe there is still a very important role to be played by human rights commissions.  There are, however, areas where reform may be required; specifically the willingness of commissions to consider questions relating to freedom of speech.  I am worried that by censoring one kind of expression, it will be easier to start censoring others.

I feel it may be appropriate at this time for the Minister of Justice to undertake a broad review of the Canadian Human Rights Act including those sections of the Act dealing with the Human Rights Commission.  A fundamental review by Parliament is needed to ensure that the commission remains true to the intentions of Parliamentarians.

As for Mr. Martin’s private member’s motion, M-446, repealing section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act, it was just recently tabled and will not be up for debate in the near future.  Enacted in 1977, the original purpose of s. 13 was to deal with “telephone hate lines.”  The legislation was extended in 2001 to cover hate messaging on the Internet (s. 13(2)).

Section 13 provides:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

I can assure you that when this motion comes before the House of Commons for debate, I will follow it closely and will arrive at a position at that time after careful considering on the arguments for and against its implementation.

Thank you again for writing to me and expressing your views on this important matter.

Sincerely yours,

Nina Grewal

Member of Parliament

Fleetwood-Port Kells

 

Well.  That was a bit long, but important it.  It’s good to remember that our MPs are just as interested in these matters as we are.  Also, Ms. Grewal is wonderful.  Thank you.

Category: News and Politics  ·  Comment (RSS)  ·  Trackback

13 Comments

  1. Jim R:

    Geez Noah, It was good she responded, finally, to your email. However, he letter read more like a boiler-plate political response prepared for the flood of other emails like yours coming in.

    I read it as “well gee, I really really like HRCs and don’t understand what all the fuss is about exactly, but after reading other articles and inputs from real leaders, I guess it is my duty to myself and my job, to weakly support those who think a ‘look’ at it may be good enough to stop these emails from pouring into my office. They could potentially put my future at risk if I am wrong about my ‘feelings’ for those sweet innocent sensitive citizens that feel they need the an HRC to correct hurt feeling from not others not as sensitive, and who are otherwise totally helpless to help themselves”

    26 February 2008, 5:12 pm

  2. Jim R:

    That should be “…citizens that feel’they need an HRC to correct hurt feelings from others not as sensitive as they should be, and who without HRCs would be totally helpless to defend themselves with counter argument.”

    26 February 2008, 5:19 pm

  3. Noah:

    Thanks Jim. I was about to say that was a very cynical response, but the I realized that your cynicism is well placed. Your right, she didn’t say much, but the most important part for me was knowing that she was following the issue, and that she didn’t have a knee jerk reaction to it either way. I like it when my representative listens to all the sides before coming out for one.

    At the same time though, I understand the cynicism. I had hoped for a bit more of a commitment from her. We’ll see what happens when the motion hits the House.

    Our representatives can say what they want, but what matters is how they vote.

    26 February 2008, 7:42 pm

  4. Victor:

    The biggest problem with the section that describes discrimination is that it includes religion. This is the only thing in the line up (age, sex, country of origin, colour, etc) that involves a personal choice to engage in a bronze age system of beliefs that have no evidence to support them. Why the hell should someone have their irrational ‘beliefs’ protected in any way, or given any special status? Does this mean that we cannot critique someone who believes that is their ‘human right’ to marry their cousins, cut off the hands of thieves, have sex with young boys, or stone adulterers to death? Any person who ‘believes’ stuff like this needs to be made a fool of, and the more publicly, the better. It is only because of religious criticism that western civilization managed to advance out of the dark ages that religion imposed upon it. There is a process that most people are familiar with, it’s called “learning”– we are now learning that certain things that were created for the better good were created less than perfect, and as such we can learn from our mistakes and make corrections where necessary. This is one of those times where we need to learn from our mistakes, and make the necessary changes.

    27 February 2008, 5:16 pm

  5. Noah:

    Personally I think that discriminating against someone because they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn is as wrong as discriminating against them because they happen to be a different skin colour, or happen to be in love with someone of the same sex as they are.

    Being human is all about choices. If someone chooses a choice that we may not consider to be rational, that’s still their choice, and as long as it does not hurt anyone it should be fine. Of course this gets us into the definition of hurt, but I think we can all agree that having sex with young boys and believing that Aliens created the world and are in a conspiracy with the British Royal Family are on two very different levels.

    27 February 2008, 7:37 pm

  6. Victor:

    Nobody is telling anybody to discriminate. The point is that something that is a choice (like religion) and something that you have no choice in (sex, when/where you were born, race) are two totally different fruit, and it is ludicrous to suggest that these two different fruit deserve equal recognition. You can change your religion at the drop of a hat. You can’t change your race. Religion is dogma. Sex is not. Religion is arrogant ignorance. Your place of birth is a stone cold fact. If you think that these things are equal, then you need to do a little bit of reading. People are entitled to their ridiculous belief systems– but that also entitles them to open ridicule. Catholicism and Islam both call for the death of homosexuals in their holy books. This fact alone classifies both the bible and the koran as hate literature, according to the charter itself. As such, these books need to be removed from our shelves and the authors brought before the commission to answer for their crimes. These tomes have instigated rape, looting, torture, slavery, and murder throughout our history — and still do today. So remind me again, how is it that the modern ‘humanitarian’ can sit by and ignore this history of mayhem and suggest that discriminating against someone because they believe that ‘adulteresses’ should be stoned to death by a mob while they are buried in the sand up to their shoulders is equivalent to discriminating against someone because they are 65 years old?

    27 February 2008, 11:40 pm

  7. Noah:

    I don’t know. I think that discrimination against people for anything from the colour of their skin to the colour of their t-shirt is wrong. I don’t know about enshrined in law, but I still feel it is wrong, regardless of what the government might say.

    “These tomes have instigated rape, looting, torture, slavery, and murder throughout our history — and still do today” Though that is true, it is also true that the same acts have been instigated by every single form of government, religion, and philosophical concept ever thought up. The problem isn’t the religion or the system of government or thought, the problem is people. Whatever type of system (religious, governmental, or social) that is set up, there is a very high likelihood of it being misused.

    I don’t know about the “bible and the Koran as hate literature”, but I would be wary of censoring any book from the Koran to Mein Kampf.

    I agree with you though, that all belief systems (or political systems for that mater) should be open to criticism.

    28 February 2008, 5:04 am

  8. Ed:

    I can tell, that , sex ,is victors religion
    and i bet he takes it at the drop of a hat.

    28 February 2008, 6:09 am

  9. Victor:

    Ed, thanks for that insightful reply, with its unique use of commas. I, look, forward, to, reading, more, of, what, you, have, to, say. I take it you are trying to sound like William Shatner?
    Noah, I agree 100% that it’s people that are the problem– but you need to be able to criticize the intent/instigation for their deeds. The religious texts are quite clear on what to do with homosexuals/sinners/witches/apostates/thieves etc. Already the HRC has landed a hate speech decision against the pastor that ran the bits from Leviticus that appeared in a (Calgary was it?) newspaper because it might incite people to perform hateful acts/deeds towards homosexuals. This decision essentially states that the bible is hate literature. In this case, it IS the religion that is the problem, because it states, clear as day, that homosexuals are abhorrent in the eyes of god and should be thrown in the fire. The Koran quite explicitly tells its followers what to do with apostates– kill them. There is no ‘misunderstanding’ the texts– the fundamentalist has his instructions from god himself. To say that it’s not the religion, it’s the people who believe it, is denying the facts.

    28 February 2008, 11:21 pm

  10. Ed:

    Victor ? What other voices do you hear when you
    READ words ?
    Religion ! may not be your biggest problem

    29 February 2008, 6:20 am

  11. victor:

    Eddie: Syntax seems to be yours….

    Bottom line is thus: you are entitled to your ridiculous belief(s), but they convey no special status nor are they above critique. For example, the Sikh fellow who says that the Highway Traffic Act violates his rights to freely practice his religion when it requires him to wear a helmet when riding his motorcycle: Too f**king bad. One law for all, no exceptions, especially for supposedly ‘religious’ reasons. The very fact that the HRC is seeing this case is a slap in the face to every reasonable citizen of this country. He should be told that sure, go ahead and ride your motorcycle without a helmet, if that is what your so-called ‘god’ intended for you– but you have to pay the fines when you get caught, because that’s the law of the land, and that law applies to all. What a joke.

    29 February 2008, 2:21 pm

  12. Noah:

    You bring up the HRC’s cases, but as you can probably tell by my blog I feel that the HRC has overstepped it’s bounds by becoming a censor.

    The ability to question and critique is, I feel, a central right to a democratic country.

    And Ed. You’re cut off. If you can’t engage in civilized discourse with someone you disagree with then you won’t be posting on this blog.

    29 February 2008, 3:15 pm

  13. Victor:

    I’m right there with you on that one.

    29 February 2008, 11:55 pm

Leave a comment