Human Wrongs Commissions

It is quickly becoming traditional, when one is about to praise Ezra Levant, to note that he is a self-aggrandizing blowhard. Even the introduction to his book, by fellow traveller Mark Steyn, makes the case. But I’m not inclined today to back into my support for Levant with condemnation.

When Levant was brought before a government bureaucrat to face possible punishment for publishing some cartoons in his magazine, he was asked to explain his motives. Because, you see, for those facing a certain type of justice in Canada these days, thoughts and motivations and associations are of primary importance, more so than any actual harm done. Levant answered, “We published those cartoons for the intention and purpose of exercising our inalienable rights to publish whatever the hell we want, no matter what the hell you think.” Which is good enough for me.

It doesn’t matter if he’s a self-promoter, or a right-wing ideologue or whatever. What matters is that in his book, Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights, which he's in town promoting today, he is raising an issue of grave national importance, and has been nearly alone in doing so. What matters is that he is right.

And it doesn’t matter that his opponents have good intentions. If there’s one constant among those who violate civil rights and suspend freedoms in the conduct of official governmental business, it’s their conviction that the ends justify the means. The threat of terrorism is so great that suspected terrorists should be held without charge and tortured for information, for example, or drug dealers are such a menace to society that warrants should not be required for searches of their property, and guilt need not be proven to justify seizure of their possessions.

The arguments — and let’s assume that they are made in good faith by people who believe they have the best interests of society in mind — often seem compelling at a glance. (If a terrorist might have information that could save a million babies’ lives, would you stop to read him his rights?) Those standing up for civil rights in such cases are considered suspect by virtue of their willingness to defend suspects of the most despicable sort.

But, as Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Defending rights and freedoms — and if such rights and freedoms apply at all, they apply to every member of society — is defending civilization.

Which brings us to Levant, unlikely Defender of Civilization. What is clearly detailed in his book is that so-called “Human Rights Commissions” — there is one for the federal government and one in each province and territory — are the gravest threat to civil liberties (by which I mean “human rights”) functioning in Canada today.

Most of us in the press have had our attention drawn to the wide abuses of power of Human Rights Commissions because of their attempts to enforce limits to freedom of expression. But facing investigation by the Alberta Human Rights commission for offending someone through his magazine (the case was eventually dropped, after Levant spent tens of thousands of dollars defending himself), Levant looked into the whole enterprise of Human Rights Commissions. And what he found is shocking.

As they operate today, Human Rights Commissions function as a parallel legal system, one in which very basic due process rights for the accused do not exist.

The commission serves as counsel for the plaintiff, as investigator and as jury. The accused pays for his own defense, if he can afford to (though many cannot and defend themselves), and is explicitly forbidden from seeking reimbursement in cases where he’s been maliciously and wrongly prosecuted. There is no presumption of innocence. Investigators have broad powers of warrant-less search and seizure. Commissions routinely hold hearings in secret. In most cases, evidence is not turned over to the accused, and at the whim of the commissions, evidence is often not publicly disclosed even after judgment has been rendered. Hearsay evidence is accepted without question. The perceptions and feelings of accusers are given as much weight as the objective facts of the case. All of this is administered by a bunch of political appointees who generally have no constitutional law background (and often no legal background at all), and it all takes place outside the regular criminal and civil court system.

The system itself is offensive to basic principles of justice. Despite the grandiose label of “human rights” under which it is conducted, it pretty much takes a blowtorch to the “Fundamental,” “Legal” and “Democratic” rights guaranteed by and enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and makes a mockery of 400 years of legal protections built up through civil law.

One could go on and on about the absurd judgments this system renders, giving tens of thousands of dollars in awards to plaintiffs who are clearly more in need of psychological help than of justice, and in Shakedown, Levant does. He suggests the wholesale dismantling of the Commissions. And I see no reason to disagree with him. There is no right that cannot be adequately guaranteed by our traditional court system. The well-intentioned attempt to create a quick, hassle-free venue for ensuring victims of prohibited discrimination get justice has created a trail of outrageous injustice. And the very persistence of such a system undermines our entire justice system and makes a mockery of the commitment to human rights they claim to defend. We should dismantle the human-rights commission apparatus, as soon as possible.

And then, before we get on with our traditional opposition to Ezra Levant, we should thank him.