...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

The Calgary Herald nails it: High five’s all ‘round at the news that the CHRC has declined to hear the CIC’s complaint against Maclean’s, right? Not so fast, says a wise editorial in the Calgary Herald. The decision doesn’t mean the that the human rights apparatchniks have any intention of folding up their tents. It is merely an indication that they have no taste for a battle with the moneybags behind Maclean’s. How comes? Well, first off,  it wipes away the complainants' financial advantage in that the people they’re hassling can well afford the fight. Second, since the process—years of being strung along with no end in sight; years of struggling under the burden of onerous legal bills—is as much a part of the punishment as the actual punishment, the punishment doesn’t have nearly as much sting when the defendant is rich. Lastly, taking on a high profile complaint at a time when the feds are breathing down their necks would garner them unwanted public scrutiny, and these beetles function much better in the shade, under a rock, where they can get away with—or used to be able to get away with—grinding down the poor and obscure.

Anyway, here’s what the Herald had to say:

So, Maclean's and Mark Steyn walk. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has decided there's not enough evidence to support a complaint from Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, that an article by Steyn was "likely to expose" Muslims to hatred or contempt.

A win for free speech, then?

Yes and no. Yes, in the obvious sense that by declining to prosecute, the CHRC concedes what was published violated no laws.

No, because if you need pockets as long as Maclean's to wring that concession out of them, free speech is only for the rich.

Fact: It costs nothing to complain. Then, if an HRC takes it on, it will be prosecuted on the taxpayers' dollar. It's amazing there aren't more cases like Steyn's. Maclean's, on the other hand, is into this for big bucks, and sadly, there are limits to what even the boldest publishers can afford on a point of principle.

This is how these things work. Let a citizen of modest means utter a politically incorrect thought: He will be crushed, and a precedent thereby created with which to crush others.

But, confronted by strength, (and just now in the CHRC's case by awkward public relations issues,) and they back off.

It is called chill. When a citizen must count the cost of putting his money where his mouth is, he is not free. Ottawa must do the right thing: Defang this censor.

Hear, hear.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:12 | link | comments

Comments: