April 10, 2008
Maclean's Denounced, TTC News Announced, Oil Prices Bounce
In a grudging acknowledgement that Canadians are still entitled to some measure of freedom of speech, the Ontario Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint against Maclean's magazine for articles critical of Islamic fundamentalism, saying the Commission had no jurisdiction over print. However, the Commission—whose members are not required to have training in law, journalism, or, um, anything, really—did say that the articles caused "serious harm" to society with their "destructive, xenophobic opinions." That's nice. The Human Rights Commission is nice. Muslims are nice. It's very nice to live in Ontario.
We could know soon if there's going to be a TTC strike, with the the main union planning to hold a press conference this morning. Mayor David Miller says he will cancel or cut short his planned trade mission to China next week if there is a strike. He was relatively critical of the unions, saying, "We're not in the position to give really generous settlements of collective agreements" before diminishing the impact of his statement by winking at union reps and adding, "If that's OK with you guys."
Ontario is considering a law where drivers caught in possession of illegal firearms would be stripped of their licences and have their cars impounded. On the one hand, if you're carrying an illegal gun around, you probably aren't worried about driving without a licence. On the other, it's better than nothing, but you gotta hope that's not the only thing left in the anti-gun crime toolkit.
The federal Tories have failed in yet another attempt to commit governmental suicide, as the Liberals avoided an election one more time by speaking out against, then voting for, a bill that includes controversial immigration changes. You know, it's hard to imagine any electoral outcome that would see the Liberals being more useless an opposition than they are right now.
Crude oil, gas and heating oil prices all hit record highs yesterday, partly as a result of a collapsing U.S. dollar and partly because of low supplies in the U.S. Time to dig up another twelve zillion acres of Alberta!
Photo by Joelf.
|
The National Post article about the OHRC doesn't mention that Mark Steyn also writes for them.
It seems the National Post doesn't want to come clean with the readers.
But then the CanWest Media people are not very honest with their viewers/ readers.
The present editor of Maclone's, Ken Whyte, is the publishing world's version of a bull mastiff puppy: big and dumb. One needs to look no farther than covers of the magazine since he started. My favourite flub-up was the "Girls Gone Wild," with a drunk twenty-something flashing her boobs. Maclean's later discovered this woman was the victim of a sexual assault. Way to go, tasteless mockery of a once-proud Canadian magazine!
David E: Speaking of CanWest (shudder! great programming people, terrible corporate ethics) have you seen or read "Asper Nation: Canada's Most Dangerous Media Company" by Marc Edge? The title pretty much says it all about Izzy, God rest his soul.
However, the Commission—whose members are not required to have training in law, journalism, or, um, anything, really..."
Wrong. The Human Rights Code says:
27.Appointment
(3) Every person appointed to the Commission shall have knowledge, experience or training with respect to human rights law and issues.
But thanks for perpetuating a right-wing meme as effectively as any highly-trained mainstream journalist. Perhaps you went to the same j-school?
4, nothing in the section you quote requires training in human rights law or anything else. Perhaps you should read it again.
agitpropre - I'm unimpressed with meaningless language that implies professionalism without actually requiring any specific qualifications, beyond what seems to be a common worldview.
Here are the commissioners - decide for yourself.
I don't think Steyn is a NP writer any longer (maybe he wrote something for this dustup, but I think he stopped his association with the Post a while back).
@ Patrick Metzger
-----------------
Thank you for the link to the comissioners. I read their biographies and I'm hard pressed to
understand why Steyn, Levant et al. are saying
that HRCs are prejudiced.
The OHRC sure looks well qualified and I surmise
it's pretty much the same elsewhere.
It helps to remember that the squawkers in this matter are also the ones who complain about activist judges and left media bias. These people believe that only their views matter and the rest of us can all go hang.
So, that's all right then.
Patrick,
Which credentials do you want? There are 13 Commissioners - 7 are lawyers (2 not practicing), the rest (bar one) professionals with related experience.
Or, you could opt for a completely elitist "higly trained professional" model that would effectively bar participation by a huge number of people in the communities human rights commissions serve. Not very fair, I think.
We've already the 'white males rule, OK' model. It doesn't work.
David E nails it.
x by x - consult a lawyer, please. "Shall" in statute law means "you have to do that". Or are you offended that experience and knowledge rank with training? See above, re elitist.
I agree with the article. If Barbara Hall wants to issue opinions, she should hold hearings. No jurisdiction = no hearings = no comment.
BCHRC has jurisdiction over journalism (a good or bad thing depending on point of view) so the opinion issuing from there will at least have the benefit of submissions from both sides.
9, what does "or" mean in statutory language?
agitpropre:
Most members of the communities that doctors serve aren't allowed to be doctors either, but we generally don't have a problem with that.
When a group has the power to make decisions that can ruin people financially and professionally, I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect its members to be "highly trained professionals."
To me, appropriate training would be a demonstrable expertise in constitutional law, not a background in engineering, city politicking, working with disadvantaged youth, or being a chef.
"Most members of the communities that doctors serve aren't allowed to be doctors either, but we generally don't have a problem with that."
Not analagous, sorry. Doctors don't 'represent' their communities, they serve (as you say) them. Commissioners (and similar board members across government/nonprofit/NGO bodies)have a wider role - they advise and represent and serve. That requires a much wider (one might even say diverse)skill set.
Again - if you set the bar (humour) at consitutional law credentials you will do 2 things - exclude non-lawyers ( and make the system more adversarial. That's what lawyers tend to do (by training). But we already know that mediation and negotiation are far more effective for resolving disputes.
'When a group has the power to make decisions that can ruin people financially and professionally, I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect its members to be "highly trained professionals."'
You mean like, say. every elected official on the planet? You want them all to be lawyers? Thanks, but no.
Why are you determined to have your society run by elites? There are places you can go for that, if you wish. But not here, thanks.
x by x: Gosh. You got me. I'm not a lawyer either - but my understanding is that 'or' in this context means 'or'.
Agit -
How can HRC members possibly claim to represent a community which has had no input into their appointment? Talk about elites. Legislators are at least elected, even if the system by which that takes place is imperfect.
HRC members as individuals are entitled to their opinions - they can create websites, write magazine articles, hold protests, lobby their MPs for legislative change. However, given their lack of accountability and qualification to determine what actually constitutes legal speech, there's no way in the world they should be allowed to make any kind of quasi-legal decision on cases like this. In Ontario, apparently even the Commission agrees, although they felt obliged to throw in their two cents nonetheless.
Mark Steyn is an idiot. He's a person who write about population issues without actually using population statistics, or, in the case of total fertility rates, understanding what these figures actually mean. When he's talking (as in America Alone, page 5) about how Serbs tried to "cull" Muslims in Bosnia and suggests that this might be Europe's future, his writing becomes creepy.
Nonetheless. I think that Canadian human rights law, at least as it's currently interpreted and perhaps as it is written, poses too much of a threat to freedom of expression. It certainly shouldn't allow Steyn to keep portraying himself as a victim in article after article in MacLean's.