In this province's oppressive nanny state, we still have the right to free speech -- so long as what you're saying is rubber-stamped by OHRC "commissar" (Steyn's word, not mine) Barbara Hall.The author of the above article suggests that the committees could still be used to "mediate in cases where people are refused accommodation...". But can we really rely on a mediation of an establishment where the rules of evidence don't apply, where implied grievances take precedence over facts, where the defendant is presumed guilty until found innocent? Can we really expect their mediation to be fair and unbiased?
Last year Hall commented on a Maclean's article by Steyn, "The future belongs to Islam." Responding to a complaint by the Canadian Islamic Congress, Hall stated, correctly, the OHRC has no jurisdiction to hear the case. Then she went on to condemn Steyn and Maclean's for Islamophobia.
Steyn was as scathing as ever when he spoke to a committee on government agencies here on Monday.
He described some recent ludicrous OHRC rulings as, "incompatible with a free society."
Of course he is right. And once you allow the Halls of the world to define the limits of freedom of speech, you are heading down a slippery slope. It is vigourous debate that makes a free and civilized society, not timid censorship.
And the other way around - if we're talking about real discrimination, not mere hurt feelings, why can't such a case be mediated in the court of law? I'm not saying that our courts are perfect, but, compared to the "human rights" commissions, the courts are far more unbiased, and offer far more respect to one's right to a fair trial.