What would happen if a person charged with murder ended up before a tax court judge?
No doubt it would have many repercussions -- a review of how prisoners are handled in the court house, most likely, and certainly the accused would be sent back to await trial before a criminal court.
It is unlikely that the judge would issue a ruling saying: "I have not heard any evidence, but the accused sure looks guilty -- and there are a lot of other killers out there just like him."
But that is just what happened this week in Ontario.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission issued a statement saying it did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with complaints alleging that Maclean's magazine had violated the rights of Muslims with an article entitled The future belongs to Islam. The Ontario Human Rights Code does not give the commission power to deal with complaints about the content of magazine articles.
That is where the commission should have stopped, having determined it did not have legislative authority to act.
Instead, the commission went on to criticize what Maclean's had published, including 22 articles that were complained about by the Canadian Islamic Congress and a group of law students.
Once it had overstepped its jurisdiction, the commission took out an even broader brush and painted unidentified "other media outlets," saying it had serious concerns about the content of articles concerning Muslims and the media's contribution "to the dissemination of destructive, xenophobic opinions."
The statement said: "This type of media coverage has been identified as contributing to Islamophobia and promoting societal intolerance towards Muslim, Arab and South Asian Canadians. The commission recognizes and understands the serious harm that such writings cause, both to the targeted communities and society as a whole."
The statement said the Maclean's article, "and others like it," are examples of the increasing prevalence of Islamophobic attitudes in society that make Muslims increasingly the target of intolerance.
The commission offered no proof of this. How could it? It never heard any evidence of any kind about the Maclean's articles, let alone even looking at any articles from "other media outlets," or the impact they may have had.
The commission seemingly did not see the glaring contradiction in generalizing about the supposed conduct of a broad group which it accused of, well, generalizing about the supposed conduct of a broad group.
The complaint concerned Maclean's material, including writing by columnist Mark Steyn.
Steyn's book, America Alone, refers to Europe as Eurabia and argues that the growing numbers of Muslims there threaten western democracies.
Steyn is a gifted writer who expresses his thought in persuasive prose -- probably the reason his critics dislike him so much.
In my opinion, he is an alarmist who argues that creeping Islamism is endangering western society. I doubt I have ever agreed with a single sentence he has written.
But I would never suggest he should not write it. And I read him regularly because you cannot have an informed opinion about anything unless your know all sides.
Vigorous public debate can be a messy affair, but it has a way of finding truths and righting wrongs.
But a surprising number of people are not very comfortable with it. Media outlets hear regularly from groups claiming they have been unfairly portrayed.
At the Free Press, we listen to such groups. We are not perfect, and we admit our mistakes. But it is common for such groups to make broad generalizations that are not based on facts. Instead, they are based on general feelings about coverage, perceptions and misconceptions. The discussion often changes when we ask for details.
I shudder to think what would happen if any group that claimed it was unfairly portrayed could avail itself of the powers of a human rights body, which could then publicly condemn a media outlet without hearing any evidence.
That seems unlikely to happen in Manitoba. The Manitoba Human Rights Code prohibits publishing, broadcasting, circulating or publicly displaying any statement that discriminates, indicates an intention to discriminate, or "incites, advocates or counsels discrimination." That would require specific proof that any media outlet had promoted discrimination by saying, for example, "Don't rent to green people."
But other human rights codes are more generally written. Maclean's is still in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the B.C. Human Rights Commission over the same articles. The Canadian code has a vague prohibition against communications that may expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.
And, despite what the Ontario law may say, the Ontario Human Rights Commission signalled this week's blast against the media will not be its last.
It said it has a "broader role in addressing the tension and conflict that such writings cause in the community and the impact that they have on the groups that are being singled out." Its future work "will include taking a leadership role in fostering constructive debate and dialogue among concerned individuals and organizations regarding the issues raised by Islamophobia in the media and the ways in which the Commission, the media and others can begin to address them."
I am hoping the commission comes up with some details first.
bob.cox@freepress.mb.ca
PREVIOUS
