The Guy Earle Trial

When people do not respect us we are sharply offended; yet deep down in his private heart no man much respects himself - Mark Twain

I'm not offended by all the dumb blonde jokes because I know I'm not dumb ... and I also know that I'm not blonde -Dolly Parton

Whenever anyone has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that the offense cannot reach it - Rene Descartes

My friends, being offended is one of the outgrowths of multiculturalism - Rush Limbaugh

No man lives without jostling and being jostled; in all ways he has to elbow himself through the world, giving and receiving offence - Thomas Carlyle

Men shrink less from offending one who inspires love than one who inspires fear - Niccolo Machiavelli

Justice consists of doing no one injury, decency in giving no one offense - Marcus Tullius Cicero

In seeking a Canadian community standard based on the average appreciation of art, the Court, in my opinion, is not limited to a settled national consensus. The average in community attitudes is better struck according to the range of exposure that particular art or art forms have had in the localities of Canada where art is exhibited. - Justice Bora Laskin, Canadian criminal cases, 1966, 304.

Earls and barons shall not be amerced except through their peers, and only in accordance with the degree of the offense - Magna Carta, 1215



Tomorrow marks the beginning of the Jewish festival of Passover, and Guy Earle's quest to free himself from the comedy- and wallet-killing bondage of three years of waiting and preparing to go to trial on claims being made against him at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. As time allows, I will attempt to do some reporting on the Lorna Pardy v. Guy Earle HRT hearing this week; and so I thought I might preface this now with some accounting of the interpretive bias I bring to the event, if anyone is interested.

To this untrained legal eye, it seems that what is at issue in the Pardy vs. Earle/Zesty's case (background here and here, and here, and here) are potentially two quite different things: a claim of "discrimination" attending the alleged "jokes"/insults of Guy Earle, and a claim of "discrimination" attending the altercation that followed from the parties' heckling/jokes/insults and that, if the reports we have had so far are correct, turned violent.

Ostensibly, this is a case that turns not on that now-famous part of the "Human Rights" Code that aims to ban "hate speech", but rather on that part that aims to ban discrimination in the provision of a commercial service. I have no idea how previous cases in "human rights" law have played out in determing what qualifies as discrimination in the provision of a service. As far as I can tell, the plaintiff in this case was not refused service at the restaurant in question. Rather, in the perfomance of the service, a comedy "act", she claims to have been treated in a "discriminatory" manner. Now, one might easily ask, as I imagine the defendants will, isn't the very point of comedy to "discriminate" to make jokes? (bad or good, does it matter?) If so, can one make a claim of "discrimination" against a comedy act if one in fact has been the butt of a joke (good or bad)? And, I imagine the Plaintiff will argue in response that the humiliation she received was not part of any legitimate comedy routine: it just wasn't funny (in her eyes).

As for the question of the violence and destruction of property that allegedly flowed from the nasty exchange of words, I have seen it stated, though I don't know how true this is, that the police investigated the matter before declining to lay criminal charges. The question that thus arises: what claim on justice is being made when someone is allowed to pursue a matter outside of the criminal (or regular civil) law, almost as a concession, given that the case does not meet the standard for a criminal charge?

Demo Leaflet #1

Today a Canadian writer is on trial
For writing an 'offensive' magazine article.

Is this the Canada you want? It's your freedom that is under attack

Today, a long established Canadian magazine, Maclean's, is being forced to answer charges that they have exposed Muslims in British Columbia to hatred and contempt, by publishing an article by Mark Steyn.

Maclean's and Steyn thought that in Canada they had a wide-ranging right to free expression. They thought they could publish an article discussing demographic change in Europe, and suggesting that it is not a good thing that Europe is becoming more Islamic.

They are being challenged by Mohammed Elmasry, who claims to speak on behalf of all Muslims in British Columbia. To launch a complaint under British Columbia's Human Rights Code, there is no cost. The BC taxpayer pays for the case against Maclean's; but Maclean's has to pay the full cost of its lawyers.

Maclean's is being attacked, but without the protections of due process that are enjoyed in regular courts of law. A human rights tribunal is more casual, but it can penalize harshly.

If a writer or publisher gets on the wrong side of human rights codes, he can be fined and ordered never again to publish on certain subjects; anyone breaking such a gag order, or refusing to pay a fine, can be found in contempt of court and imprisoned.

Here's what Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code says (the federal law, Section 13, is almost identical):

(1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons."

Read that carefully; how many writers do you know who might have exposed some religion, say, to the mere likelihood of someone's contempt? Isn't questioning religion, and the politics that go with it, the very basis of a free and democratic society, even for those of us who value faith?

A writer doesn't actually have to harm anyone to be told to shut up on a given topic for life; merely writing in a way that is "likely" to expose someone to hate or contempt, even if what you say is true, can get you silenced. Who decides what is "likely"? Some master of futurism? No such person exists; it's simply bureaucrats and possibly judges who decide.

The Problem

While our courts have tried to give a strict definition to the kind of writing "likely to expose a person or a group... to hatred or contempt", we have to ask if anyone can really be in a position to make such judgment. Doesn't such a law inherently politicize our judges and bureaucrats? All writers are critical of one thing or another. So doesn't such a law require a code of political correctness for judges to know which kind of critical writing is socially acceptable and which not? In fact, this is what we see happening in the actual application of the "human rights" laws. Certain groups in Canada are more protected than others, which has angered many.

Still, our governments have decided that in a multicultural society, there is too much risk of conflict and there have to be laws drawing a line between what people can and cannot say. And we are not just talking about the ordinary limits already covered by criminal and civil law, like the laws against hate speech and defamation. "Human rights" law targets speech more broadly.

Maybe you don't know any writers; maybe you don't care that it is no longer possible for writers in Canada to think freely without fearing that they are going to get on the wrong side of bureaucrats.

But even if you don't know any writers, and never speak in public, these "human rights" codes affect you. Any fears or limits that are put on what any of us can publicly debate in regard to the relationships of individuals and groups, but especially in regard to our ethical or religious beliefs, can greatly limit what kind of cultural evolution we will have. Our thinking and social development can become frozen in codes of politically-correct speech.

And a society that does not evolve through internal debate is at risk of ripping itself apart under the pressure of the resentments that develop in any relationship. Resentment is an inevitable part of life; it is the job of the writer to mediate this, so that we may have a way to talk through our problems instead of hiding from them, so that hidden problems don't one day rear up and bite us in the collective buttocks.

The function of the writer is under attack in Canada, because we have bought into the vain idea that we can somehow avoid conflict. We are told that we can bring all kinds of cultures into Canada and as long as everyone tones things down, peace and harmony will prevail. But, reality isn't like that. We have a moral and ethical obligation to interact with people, to come to terms over our differences, and thus develop the forms of reciprocity that can keep our society functioning. This sometimes takes blunt talk, occasionally even signs of contempt, and sometimes even signs of hate. Some difficult problems can only be addressed when we are capable of imagining the worst that humans can do to each other.

It is true that hateful writers can help cause evil; but resentment is inevitable and we only overcome it through the freedom to express and work through it, in free and open public debate. Freedom of expression is key to helping us defer actual violence. Violent talk is not a great thing, but it's often better than no talk. Ultimately, it is violent acts that must be punished, not the expression of feelings or thoughts.

What YOU can do:

Whether or not you know or like Mark Steyn's writing, whether or not you know or like the political activities of Mohammed Elmasry, is not the question we're raising today.

The question is whether we will continue to allow anyone's freedom to read, write, talk, or protest, to be limited by our present human rights codes.

We have to inform ourselves about how the human rights acts in Canada have been functioning. There is much discussion of this on the internet, at blogs like Free Mark Steyn!

The blog ezralevant.com tells the story of that writer's experience with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, and his ongoing, often startling, revelations into the abuses of the "human rights" bureaucracies in Canada.

We urge you to learn about what is going on and to write or call your provincial and federal politicians, asking for a serious review of the human rights acts, especially as they relate to our fundamental human right and need to express ourselves, however we see fit.

Demo Leaflet #2

What the Public is Saying about the "Human Rights" Trial of Mark Steyn and Maclean's

Slogans collected by the Covenant Zone blog,

from its readers, for a

Demonstration

AGAINST Section 7 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code, and Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act;

AND, on Behalf of Mark Steyn's freedom to write, and Maclean's freedom to publish, whatever they see fit, even when it comes to discussing the relationship of Islam and the West.

NOTE: some comments refer to what Dean Stacey, of the Canadian Human Rights Commission said while giving testimony to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
---------------------------------------------

Free speech: NOT just an American concept/ It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. Welcome to the HRC/ Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. The HRC welcomes you to the beginning of the end of your lives!/ Advice from the HRC: "To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing."/ It's the end of our freedom as we know it!/ Guilty until proven innocent/

You are Mark Steyn! More speech, not less/ Talk isn't cheap anymore/ Free speech means speaking the unspeakable or it means nothing at all/ Someone please tell me what to think. I went to a Canadian university/

But 2+2 Does Equal 4/ Stalinist show trial/ True + Free + Fair = Hate/ Commission Wrongs don't make Human Rights/ Our Canada includes the right to intellectual thought and speech/ Today they've come for Mark Steyn. Next time it may be for YOU/ Canadian HRCs believe: "Freedom of Speech is an American concept"/ Are we still free to say "No" to the HRC?/

And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? - John Milton/

I bear witness that there is no truth but in freedom and Steyn is a prophet/ Socialists stifling free expression of thought inside the Human Rights Tribunal/ "Because it is my bloody right to do so!" - Ezra Levant/ Kangaroo Court now in Session/ Stop Fascist Star Chambers/

Once were Nazi fighters/ Canada: the True North Strong and Regulated/ First they came for Steyn.../ Make Speech not War, man/ His Words, My Rights/ Free is a four letter word/ Silence says Nothing/ Free Speech, no human rights leech/ Inquisitions were for the Middle Ages/ Democracy not dogma/

Who's really on trial here?/ Human Rights Commissions: You pay us to shut you up/ Human Rights Commissions: We tell you what (not) to think/ Human Rights Commissions: We know what's bad for you/ Free Steyn, Free Speech, Free Canada/

Mark Steyn hates me; do you see me complaining?/ Free Speech is the FUNDAMENTAL human right/ Stifling one Steyn at a time/ Free Speech: Use it or Lose it/ I am Mark Steyn, when I'm told I am worth half the value of a man/ Canada? Or 1930s Germany?/ Free Mark Steyn, Free Us, Free You/

"I am Spartacus"/ My grandad died for freedom of speech in 1940/ Dieppe: did they die in vain?/ When you silence one of us, ten will arise to take his place/ I can't be there in person, but my spirit and voice will be marching besides all of you/ No, I am Spartacus/ HRCs: Orwell screwed up the year/ We Are Mark Steyn/ Keep your bureaucrats off our thoughts/ Keep your thought police out of my head. I will say whatever I damn well please/

You can get more loot with a CHRC complaint than you can with a gun and a smile/ 1984 was meant to be a nightmare, not a social plan/ Free Speech is also a Canadian right/ Ban Star Chambers/ "Tie that kangaroo (court) down, Steyn"/ Separate Mosque and State!/ Free Elmasry!/ Mark Steyn improved my understanding

Free Mark Steyn! Demonstration Update

We few, We happy few, or maybe more (we will see) are still planning on demonstrating against the existence of Section 7 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code, and the almost identical Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, when the Maclean's-Mark Steyn trial begins tomorrow morning.

We still plan to meet at 8 AM outside the Provincial Court House at 800 Hornby Vancouver. Please join us if you can.

We have a few things to work out in regard to printing up leaflets. Hopefully we will have copy up here soon and anyone can print out some for themselves.

The ridiculously broadly-worded piece of legislation that is now being used to outlaw political speech

Mohammed Elmasry is trying to silence Mark Steyn under Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code

Also, don't miss the fact that Steyn, via his publisher, can be effectively banned for life from writing on the relationship between Islam and the West:

Remedies
37.
(1) If the member or panel designated to hear a complaint determines that the complaint is not justified, the member or panel must dismiss the complaint
(2) If the member or panel determines that the complaint is justified, the member or panel
(a) must order the person that contravened this Code to cease the contravention and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention,

Maybe you think the BC Human Rights Code needs to be changed to make it clear that unelected bureaucrats have no business passing judgment on our free political, or any other, speech. Maybe you think the criminal code provisions against hate crimes, and the due process of criminal law (unlike the operations of the Human Rights Tribunal), is the only law we need in this regard. Well, why not write Gordon Campbell, the Premier of BC, and let him know: premier@gov.bc.ca

Or, write your MLA

Even if you're not resident in BC, write Premier Campbell. Sometimes one has the impression he is more impressed by what Americans, Asians, and Europeans think of us, than of what we provincials think.