Canada's Human Rights Commissions

It's a tough row to hoe, combating hatred against identifiable minorities, which busies itself to spurring people on, encouraging them to demonstrate suspicion and malice toward others unlike themselves. If a society cannot or will not protect the most vulnerable of its citizens, how then does it fulfill its mandate as a caring and responsible public entity?

If a person of colour, or other visible minority member is refused service, or rental accommodation, or workplace opportunities on the basis of racial discrimination, is this a just society? An inclusive, broadly accepting, fair and just society ensures that all of its citizens have equal opportunity to all the necessities of life as well as equality of treatment in all aspects of civil society.

Hence, the formation, with fully good intent and an eye to the future of social homogeneity, of Canada's Human Rights Commissions. Ah, but Canada is also a country that celebrates freedom. Freedom to believe, to behave, to speak, to publish, to meet, to be themselves. Our fundamental freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are many:

"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association." Aren't we truly fortunate?

We also have equality rights: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

What happens then, when equality rights butt head on against freedom of expression? Well, it depends, one supposes. Freedoms do not come without responsibility, and Canada has laws against spreading hatred and doing potential harm to others; reasonable restraint encumbers freedom. One is never free, in a civil society to do injury to others through mindless expression.

Our hallowed rights cannot be seen to be hollow, but reasonable. And that is precisely why the Canadian Human rights Commission and its provincial sister commissions are obliged to deal with complaints - unless they are "trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith". Entirely reasonable reservations; who could argue with them?

So if, for example, a writer contends that a high birth rate among a segment of a population practising a fundamentalist religion that promotes a high birth rate, could conceivably lead to that particular demographic representing a very high eventual representation within the national population, is that a hateful statement? Or a reasonably accurate one based on observation and fact.

And if an observation is made to the effect that an identifiable religious group seems, on the evidence, to produce a noticeable and fear-inspiring minority of fundamentalist believers who aspire to terror in the name of a religion whose sacred writings appear to encourage just that, is that to be construed as hate-mongering, or a statement of reality?

And if the two above statements are combined, what have we? If you're a reasonable human being, fairly well informed, cognizant of world news, you may recognize that Islam appears to have a problem, and so do we. You may also understand that those who adhere to orthodox forms of religious practise generally view procreation as a vital component of religious adherence.

It's not difficult to extrapolate from there. The end result can be viewed as fearful conjecture, but hardly hate-mongering. Yet the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights commission, while under the constraints of the Commission's mandate, could not hear the case, issued a stern rebuke: "I think one needs to be very careful when one speaks in generalities, that in fact one is speaking factually about all the people in a particular group."

Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall in fact, denounced MacLean's magazine for "promoting societal intolerance" and distributing "destructive, xenophobic opinions". Which, understandably, is her personal and professional opinion. Fascinating that she received a rebuke herself, from a moderate Muslim Canadian leader who felt that her commission had sided with Islamist fundamentalists.

And this, Tarek Fatah feels, is dreadfully wrong. It's not in the best interests of Canada, nor does it do any credit in recognizing the commitment of moderate Muslims to Canadian values, and their steadfast rejection of the traditionalist and fundamentalist values of Islamists among them. From whose ranks rise the very Islamist terrorists destabilizing the world of democracy and secularist states.

The complaint by the Canadian Islamic Congress and affiliated Muslim law students brought into focus a selection of news articles, columns and a book review about Islam and Muslims. Their stance was that these news items amounted to Islamophobia and were meant to foment hatred against Muslims. Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress rejected this point of view outright, claiming there is no racism involved in the reportage in question.

"In the eyes of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the only good Muslim is an Islamist Muslim", he said. "As long as we hate Canada, we will be cared for. As soon as we say Canada is our home and we have to defend her traditions, freedoms and secular democracy, we will be considered as the outside."

Back to you, Barbara Hall.