Stephen Harper OK with Section 13
In his year-end interview with Macleans, our prime minister said he opposes amending the Canadian Human Rights Act at this time.
Q: Will the government amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prevent unwarranted interferences in free expression by human rights commissions?
A: The government has no plans to do so. We’re certainly aware of the issue. My understanding—we’ve been monitoring this closely—I think you’ll actually see there’s been some modification of behaviour on the part of the Canadian human rights commissions. The most egregious cases right now are mostly at the provincial level. And it is a very tricky issue of public policy because obviously, as we’ve seen, some of these powers can be abused. But they do exist for valid reasons, which is obviously to prevent public airwaves from being used to disseminate hate against vulnerable members of our society. That’s a valid objective. It’s probably the case that we haven’t got the balance right, but I’m not sure the government today has any answer on what an appropriate balance would be.
Jay Currie says the Conservative Party “should be ashamed of itself” and advocates Plan “B”—strategic voting aimed at hurting, and perhaps even unseating, the Conservative government. Ezra Levant, by contrast, looks on the bright side and points out that the PM’s implied criticisms of human rights commissions would have been unthinkable a year ago.
No doubt about it, Mr Harper’s comment is disappointing. I fully understand Jay’s frustration and the reasons for his proposal but, for myself, I don’t have the stomach for strategic voting. If I became too disgusted with the Conservatives to vote for them, and did not see an acceptable alternative on the ballot (and I haven’t seen one for many years), I’d just stay home on election day.
On the positive side, Harper’s statement seems to contain an implied threat to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. “The most egregious cases right now are mostly at the provincial level” implicitly recognises that the CHRC has pursued “egregious” cases. “[A]s we’ve seen, some of these powers can be abused”, i.e., the CHRC has sometimes abused its powers.
I admit, however, that I find his parting shot baffling:
It’s probably the case that we haven’t got the balance right, but I’m not sure the government today has any answer on what an appropriate balance would be.
No way is that satisfactory. He thinks the balance isn’t right, but doesn’t know how to fix it. Come on, Mr Harper, you’ve got some smart people working in the Department of Justice. Put them to work: Make it your government’s priority to get the balance right. Don’t just shrug your shoulders and put the issue on the back burner.
The CHRC commissioned an internal review from an independent expert and even he recommended repealing Section 13. In view of that, Harper needs to present a more detailed defence of his view that the Canadian Human Rights Act is acceptable as is.
Ezra stands by his prediction that the law will be changed in 2009. I hope he’s right.
[...] as Caroline Glick says “leaders only learn when we, the people, force them”; Stephen Harper OK with Section 13 …. [...]