Full Thread: Jim Pankiw (Canada)
View Single Post
Old October 31st, 2008 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

A new low for 'human rights'

Ezra Levant, National Post Published: Friday, October 24, 2008
Related Topics

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) kept its head down during the recent federal election. With no less than four ongoing investigations into its conduct, it wisely stayed beneath the radar. But with the election over, it's back at it, with its most egregious violation of our civil rights yet.

In Saskatchewan, the CHRC is prosecuting a former Member of Parliament for politically incorrect mail that he sent to constituents five years ago.

Jim Pankiw, an MP who served from 1997 to 2004, is on trial for sending out flyers criticizing Indian crime in Saskatchewan. If convicted, Pankiw can face massive fines. He could also face other orders, ranging from a forced apology to a lifetime ban on commenting about aboriginal issues. If Pankiw refuses to comply with such an order, he could serve time in jail.

Aboriginal crime was a big issue for Pankiw's constituents. According to Statistics Canada, aboriginals make up only 9% of Saskatchewan's population, but they are 52% of the province's criminally accused.

Pankiw wanted to get tough on crime; he wanted to abandon aboriginal "sentencing circles," and end racial quotas. His tone was aggressive, but talking tough about crime isn't supposed to be a crime in itself. Whether or not his was the best solution was up to his constituents. That's how a democracy works.

But for CHRC lawyers and bureaucrats to weigh and measure Pankiw's political views is an outrageous incursion into the political affairs of Parliament.

It's unlikely that Pankiw will win, because the CHRC isn't a real court, and real defences don't apply. It's presided over by a non-judge, and the hearing is stacked with every kind of politically correct apparatchik around. Take one of the "experts" relied upon by the CHRC, Derek Smith of Carleton University. As Terry O'Neill reported when

the complaint was filed more than four years ago, Smith found proof of Pankiw's racism in the colour of ink used in the brochures: black and red, on white paper.

Those are "colours very much associated with aboriginal people, for whom four colours have come to be associate with the four cardinal directions and have great spiritual significance," wrote Smith. "One can hardly claim that the symbolism in this pamphlet is not inflammatory." A real judge would laugh that out of court. A real prosecutor would be too embarrassed to run with it.

The suit against Pankiw is clearly unconstitutional. In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that human rights commissions could only pursue "hate" cases against Canadians whose messages were pure evil -- they were explicitly forbidden from touching political speech. Whether or not Pankiw's views on Indian crime are "right" should therefore be up to the voters.

If Pankiw can be prosecuted for spreading "discrimination," every MP is at risk. Not a day goes by when MPs don't offend one group or another. We allow it; we expect it; in fact, we give MPs more freedom than any other Canadians, even exempting their debates from defamation law, on the liberal theory that all ideas should be heard, and in the clash of views, the truth will emerge and the country will be better off. It's called parliamentary privilege, and it goes back centuries. It's one of our ancient civil rights, designed to protect the people's representatives from political interference from the King.

Whether or not Pankiw "wins" his trial is irrelevant. He's already lost, and so have we. The message is loud and clear: The CHRC has ended parliamentary immunity. The fact that it's a right-wing MP first in the dock is no surprise -- the CHRC is led by Jennifer Lynch, a radical feminist who was Joe Clark's chief of staff. It's unlikely that a left-wing MP would ever be punished this way -- 100% of the CHRC's "hate" targets to date have been conservative, white or Christian.

There's nothing surprising in this latest assault on our real civil rights by the rogue CHRC. It has already shown itself contemptuous of freedom of speech and freedom of religions. The only surprise is that the Harper government has let this rogue agency run amok. - Ezra Levant's blog, www.ezralevant.com, is currently the subject of an unrelated CHRC hate speech investigation.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_p...?id=904735&p=2