Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch has responded, at a glacial pace, to one of the most pressing human rights’ issues in Canada (Jennifer Lynch, “Opening Remarks … during a Panel Discussion at the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA) 2009 Annual Conference,” 15 June 2009, excerpts in the National Post here. So now, after many months of public concern, she at last reacts to criticism of the Commission’s use of its mandate, and the implications of this activity for Canadians’ ability to enjoy the right to free expression guaranteed by the Charter. The result is not encouraging.
Rather than dealing with material issues, Lynch’s speech veers between hauteur and smear. Her reaction is a desperate attempt to turn the tables on sincere and responsible critics. The Chief Commissioner’s words pile absurdities upon inversion, and assume a troublingly paranoid cast: she improbably claims that human rights’ advocates’ speech is being “chilled” by a “campaign” aimed at “discrediting Commissions’ processes, professionalism and staff” in a way that has been “at times scary.”
I know better, and I know better from personal experience.
In order to test the standards and professionalism of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, I lodged on behalf of the anti-jihadist website, Point de Bascule, a formal complaint with the CHRC in 2008. Known as the Hayiti Case, the subject was L’Islam ou l’Intégrisme?, the horrendous book written and disseminated on the internet by radical Montreal Salafist Imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti. There, he applied the most virulently hateful language to gays, non-Muslims and women – among others.
According to the Imam’s book (see also PDB’s analysis at article682):
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– Gays and lesbians should be “exterminated in this life”. Gays involved in sodomy must be “beheaded”.
– Infidels generally “live like animals,” “love perversity”, “are our enemies,” and their offspring are the most perverted of children. Male infidels want to “sexually exploit women.” “One of the greatest forms of ignorance and injustice” would be for Muslims to regard infidels as being on the same level as Muslims.
– Christianity is a “religion of lies” responsible for the Western world’s “perversity, corruption and adultery.”
– Jews “spread corruption and chaos on earth.”
– Men are “better” than women, having “a more complete intellect and memory.”
– Muslims in Muslim lands must “humiliate and punish” Christians and Jews; Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others must convert to Islam or “be killed”.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
The CHRC’s performance in this case was characterized from the beginning by a failure to meet the most rudimentary standards of public administration. My complaint, prepared with the assistance of two experienced legal counsel, was met with the most unprofessional dilatoriness that included a failure for months to provide me with a written acknowledgement that I had, indeed, made a complaint. There were clearly limitations on the CHRC’s capacity to communicate in both official languages. And the coordinating of the complaint as between the CHRC person liaising with me, and the Commission’s own professional legal staff, seemed slipshod. This, as they say, was the good news.
Despite all evidence, the CHRC decided not to pursue the complaint. Major media were scandalized to find the CHRC claiming that no case could be made because, as Commission officers put it, the Imam’s words did not seem to promote “hatred” or “contempt” for an “identifiable group”. This may be the first recorded instance in modern Canadian judicial or quasi-judicial history when gays, Jews, women, non-Muslims and Muslim “apostates” failed to be considered “identifiable groups”.
Balanced and responsible media and citizens – none of them recognizably “scary” – were appalled by the CHRC’s behaviour. The crisis of confidence was palpable, as Canadians asked meaningfully about double standards, and whether, say, a priest or rabbi would have got off as lightly for writing things comparable to those published by the Montreal Imam.
Meanwhile, Chief Commissioner Lynch hyperventilates about a “campaign” to “discredit” the Commission. As one who sees a place in Canada for human rights commissions – but never in the managing and suppressing of speech – I cannot help but observe that the CHRC has discredited itself without need of assistance.
As for the Imam, at last report he was as defiant as Ms. Lynch, asserting that he was only ever stating what was in the Qur’an.
Marc Lebuis, CEO, www.Pointdebasculecanada.ca
Other articles covering the subject (some are in French):
Lettre de la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne à Marc Lebuis
