skepticlawyer

I’ve been following the case brought by the Ontario-based Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) against Mark Steyn in the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. And as per Pete M’s request, I’m writing a post on it (in the middle of the night because I’m an insomniac). Perhaps, as per John Hasenkam’s comment in response to Pete, I also have problems with my brain stopping thinking…it often doesn’t stop when I want it to do so.

Shortly, a complaint has been brought against Steyn for breaching s 7(1) of the British Columbia Human Rights Code, which is as follows:

7(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.

As the linked CBC Canada report outlines, the complaint pertains to an article entitled “The Future Belongs to Islam” which was published by a Toronto based magazine in October 2006.

Of course, the first thing I wanted to do after reading about this was to read the article itself! Put briefly, its central hypothesis is that Western nations are declining in fertility and population, and do not value their own cultures, religions or achievements any more. By contrast, Islamic nations are increasing in population, and have a strong belief in their own culture and religion. The inference to be drawn from this is that Islam will “take over” the West if the West does not shake itself out of its ennui and fight for its culture.

The CIC complained about the article to the magazine which published the story and asked the magazine for (a) space to publish a response to Steyn’s article and (b) a donation of $10,000 to a multicultural organisation of their choice. The magazine refused these demands. The CIC tried to bring action in Ontario, but were unable to do so because the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, so then brought the complaint anew in British Columbia.

Believe it or not, one keen fellow from the magazine in question has live-blogged the whole proceeding: Day 1, Day 1 (Pt 2), Day 2, Day 3 and Day 4 so far. No post on Day 5 yet (which was the final day of proceedings). And now Day 5, summing up the final arguments.

I do wonder if this kind of a proceeding is in any way productive of a positive outcome. The general consensus seems to be that the complaint lacks merit, the complainants are not representative of the British Columbia Muslim population, there is no evidence of any increase in vilification, hatred or contempt towards Muslims in British Columbia as a result of the article…the whole thing is a bit of a farce really.

Steyn’s article was typically acerbic, to be sure, but it was not actually as offensive as I thought it was going to be. Indeed, I thought its central premise was rather ridiculous: what is the West to do, ban contraception so that women have more babies? Put a limit on the number of children that Muslims can have? Really, in some ways, the article was not worth gratifying with a complaint. If Steyn had suggested Muslims should be forcibly sterilised or Muslims should be sent to gas-chambers, I’d have no problem with a complaint against him: but he didn’t say that.

And in a strange way, the article could even have been seen as a back-handed compliment to Islam, praising the strength of belief of followers and the passion they have in their own culture and religion, as opposed to the apathetic West. Ironically, it reminds me of equivalent opinions I saw expressed by Muslims about the fervour of Christians at the time of the Crusades: half mocking, half admiring. Swings and roundabouts…

The key issue here is the usual balance between freedom of speech and freedom from religious vilification. I can understand how Steyn’s opinions may be hurtful or offensive to some Muslims, but that’s not reason enough to support banning his article. Some opinions I read in the newspaper are offensive to me, but hey, it’s all part of democratic debate. I think a case like this brings into disrepute those instances where people seriously do vilify and discriminate against Muslims.

In conclusion, I am going to quote two passages by Nettle JA from Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284, another case involving allegations of vilification towards Muslims. I think that they sum up the pitfalls of a case such as this quite nicely.

First, at para [36]:

Whether his [Pastor Scot's] statements about the religious beliefs of Muslims were accurate or inaccurate or balanced or unbalanced was incapable of yielding an answer to the question of whether the statements incited hatred or other relevant emotion. Statements about the religious beliefs of a group of persons could be completely false and utterly unbalanced and yet do nothing to incite hatred of those who adhere to those beliefs. At the same time, statements about the religious beliefs of a group of persons could be wholly true and completely balanced and yet be almost certain to incite hatred of the group because of those beliefs. In any event, who is to say what is accurate or balanced about religious beliefs? In point of fact, the most that could ever be said is that a given point of view may diverge to a greater or lesser degree from the mainstream of generally accepted views on the subject. In my view it was calculated to lead to error for a secular tribunal to attempt to assess the theological propriety of what was asserted at the Seminar.

Perhaps the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal should keep this in mind - it appears that the complainants have led evidence as to Steyn’s inaccuracies in the magazine article.

Secondly, at [94] - [96]:

It is not all that long ago that the standards of the hypothetical reasonable person were spoken of in terms of the man on the Clapham omnibus. So long as the population of this country was of predominantly Anglo-Celtic extraction, that was perhaps as apposite here as it was in United Kingdom. But today, as in the United Kingdom, our society is different. It is now a polytopic multicultural society and we recognise, and indeed the Preamble to the Act makes clear, that the standards of reasonable persons are the standards of an open and just multicultural society. Accordingly, where as here the conduct in question consists in the making of statements for a religious purpose, the question of whether it was engaged in reasonably for that purpose must be decided according to whether it would be so regarded by reasonable persons in general judged by the standards of an open and just multicultural society.

Such an assessment may not always be easy. A society which consists of varied cultural groups necessarily has the benefit, and bears the burden, of a plurality of standards. Hence, in this society, to speak of persons in general is to speak of persons who in large part have different standards. And to speak of what is reasonable among them it is to invoke an idea which as between them is to a considerable extent informed by different standards. Nevertheless, experience has taught us that reasonable members of an open and just multicultural society are inclined to agree on the basics.

In my view one is entitled to assume that a fair and just multicultural society is a moderately intelligent society. Its members allow for the possibility that others may be right. Equally, I think, one is entitled to assume that it is a tolerant society. Its members acknowledge that what appears to some as ignorant, misguided or bigoted may sometimes appear to others as inspired. Above all, however, one is entitled to assume that it is a free society and so, therefore, one which insists upon the right of each of its members to seek to persuade others to his or her point of view, even if it is anathema to them. But of course there are limits. Tolerance cuts both ways. Members of a tolerant society are as much entitled to expect tolerance as they are bound to extend it to each other. And, in the scheme of human affairs, tolerance can extend each way only so far. When something goes beyond that boundary an open and just multicultural society will perceive it to be intolerable despite its apparent purpose, and so judge it to be unreasonable for the purpose for which it was said.

It is difficult to weigh up whether a given statement or publication is vilification when there are a plurality of views and a plurality of standards. Sometimes, I think a statement or a publication can go too far, and in that case, the right to be free of vilification will outweigh the right to freedom of speech.

But, in my opinion, a case such as the Steyn case is not really a suitable vehicle for an accurate weighing up of the delicate balance between freedom of speech and freedom from vilification. We’ll watch this space as to the judgment of the Tribunal…

Update

If you are interested in reading more about Catch the Fire, please read SL’s excellent case note on it here. I have also written posts about the case here and here, also discussing Muslim groups such as Hizb-ut Tahrir.

Update II

Have a read of Ken Parish’s excellent post on the issue at Club Troppo here - which, inter alia, deconstructs the analysis of Jack the Insider in The Australian today, and also draws a link between Catch the Fire and Steyn’s case.

Update III

Also have a read of Jim Belshaw’s excellent post on the implications of the Steyn case for bloggers.

[skepticlawyer's take is here; while we write for the same blog, the perspectives are different. Sorry to leave graffiti at the bottom of your post, LE, but this confusion of you for me is getting rather irritating]