When you hear the word Canada, what comes to mind? Perhaps it is our lush forests, our ever-changing seasons, or our ketchup-flavoured chips! 馃槃 In fact, the legend goes that, in 1535, two Aboriginal youths encountered French explorer, Jacques Cartier. Upon asking them where he was, the boys told him the Iroquois word kanata. The word technically translates to village, but some have taken the name Canada to mean, welcome to our land.
What a lovely origin story, and a name that Canada has lived up to throughout most of its history. Canada has welcomed people from all over the world, and is now home to hundreds of different cultural backgrounds. I myself love Canada for its multiculturalism; I love being exposed to all kinds of different fashion, music, and especially FOOD!! 馃槏
But there is a dark shadow that looms over this country, one that has slowly been inching over the land since the 1990s. You have probably heard of the expression, too much of one thing is never a good thing... In this case, what happens when that "good thing" is the issue of human rights, and Canadians' polite nature is exploited? In the novel Shakedown, Canadian author Ezra Levant explores the issue, as he became a target of this corruption himself.
It should go without saying--this is going to be a very controversial topic. So before we actually get into it, here is a bit of background into one of the main issues of the novel...
You may recall back in 2005, a huge controversy took over the world when some cartoonists in Denmark decided to depict the prophet Muhammad. And in case you are unfamiliar with why that was controversial, it is because according to the Islamic faith, it is considered extremely offensive to depict any of the prophets. It is believed that depicting physical images of them could lead to idolatry, which would draw attention away from their important teachings. Although not a sin, it is considered very offensive and disrespectful to do such a thing. (Granted, I am not a follower of Islam, so if any of that sounds off, please feel free to correct)
But in many countries, just because something is offensive doesn't mean it should be prohibited. Here is where freedom of speech comes into play. There are those who believe (myself included) that people should be responsible for themselves, that people are more than capable of deciding what they wish to expose themselves to. People should also be responsible for themselves with the things they say, meaning that people should be allowed to say whatever they want (but they can still face consequences for doing so).
This is what had happened in the case of Ezra Levant when, in 2006, he chose to republish the cartoons in the magazine, the Western Standard., and he actually faced trial because of it! This book will give us some insight into how such a thing could have happened.
Now that we are all caught up, let's jump into the book!
"On January 11th, 2008, I was summoned to a 90-minute government interrogation."
"I had reprinted Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed to illustrate a news story. I was charged with the offence of 'discrimination' and made to appear before Alberta's Human Rights and Citizenship Commission for questioning."
When questioned about what the "intent" of his article was, Levant was fairly blunt with his answer to the Commission: it was considered newsworthy, and he felt the readers had the right to know what the controversy was about.
Okay, let's actually take a moment to step away and appreciate those collection of words: Human Rights Commission. "Everyone's in favor of human rights, and if there is a commission that's working to promote them, that's a good thing, right?" Perhaps this was the case when the Commission was created a generation ago, for their goal was a very straightforward one: "to offer victims of true discrimination a quick, low-cost means to fight back against bigoted employers, etc." Simply put, when it was first created, the Human Rights Commission was meant to be the middle man in helping the oppressed stand up to their oppressors.
This is the Canadian Human Rights Commission's "vision," as taken from their PDF document:
Again, keep in mind that the HRC was created over 60 years ago, but since then, "the Canada of the 21st century is much more diverse and tolerant." Yet despite the increase in tolerance and decrease in complaints, the HRC has still managed to stay relevant to this day.
For example, "it made a deal with Alberta's Ministry of Advanced Education to publish 60,000 booklets encouraging new immigrants to file complaints." These booklets contained a series of stories with situations that new immigrants could "relate" to. The booklets took every day experiences, such as rude food service or being denied a job position--things that everybody experiences--and tried painting every issue as "racism," etc. Then, of course, where would the newcomers take their complaints to? The Human Rights Commission~
"When the government gets into the civil rights business, we lose track of our responsibilities, as citizens, to build a proper civil society through our own actions."
Now, abusing something positive is one thing... But I was disgusted to learn that Canada's Human Rights Commission intentionally creates cases through the most extreme measures--including posing as neo-Nazis online.
"Government bureaucrats, paid with tax dollars, who are supposed to be promoting human rights, are spending their time becoming members of neo-Nazi websites. Their goal is to persuade Canadian citizens into replying with their own hateful comments." Once those hateful comments were uttered, the HRC could then investigate. Despite it being against the law, it had been ongoing for years.
It wasn't until March 25th, 2008, that the Human Rights Commission was finally exposed for what it truly was. "Its staff had to admit, under oath, that they routinely went online under false identities to provoke reactions from neo-Nazis." What's worse, the HRC had illegally hacked into a citizen's home internet, in an effort to cover up the identity of their originating, government computers.
It truly does feel like all hope is lost as Levant continues that the Human Rights Commission "possess powers that not even real police forces have." The HRC does not need to obtain a search warrant; if they believe you are guilty of something--game over. You must give up all information and give them access to whatever they want. There have even been cases where, simply upon calling and asking, police have handed over evidence to the HRC without resistance.
One of the biggest threats that Human Rights Commission poses today, is that it infringes on Canadians actual rights and freedoms. Take for example, the second right in the Charter, called freedom of conscience. Similar to freedom of speech, it is "our right to have an opinion or belief that is different from societies beliefs."
But what good is it to have this right, when Section 13, titled Hate Messages, states "it is illegal to say anything over the phone/internet that is 'likely to expose a person to hatred'" ? This is extremely vague wording that anyone could unintentionally become the perpetrator of. For one thing, hatred is an emotion, and we cannot control human nature. People are imperfect and will always be susceptible to hatred--for example, most victims of crime may hate their attacker. They may come to associate their hatred with a certain race, religion, gender, etc.
Yet, for another thing, this Section states that no crime need actually be committed in order to be guilty--in fact, no one even needs to actually be affected by the perpetrator's words at all! "One need only say something that someone feels is likely to arouse hatred in the mind of some unidentified third party." This means that someone can be offended on nobody else's behalf, and you can still be found guilty--of nothing!
And of course it has happened, in both ways that are big and small. You may have even experienced it for yourself online; perhaps you gave a passing comment of "You idiot!" to someone, only to find that your words were worthy of deletion--or maybe you found yourself suspended/banned--all because of someone's sensitivity. In Canada, you can experience more extreme cases. This is a video of Canadian police officers appearing at a woman's house because of comments she had made on Facebook! (She was not arrested, but police did give her a booklet, for "educational purposes")
Of course this book would not be complete without including some ridiculous cases that have actually been presented in front of the Human Rights Commission.
"In 2003, Reverend Stephen Boissoin wrote a lengthy letter to the editor of his hometown paper in which he condemned homosexuality. ... It was a rough piece, rude even," but the paper published it regardless. Afterwards, dozens of readers wrote in their responses as well. "That's how debates about controversial subjects work in a free society: we let ideas rise and fall according to their reception. But one man didn't want a debate--he wanted the government to shut the other side up."
Enter Darren Lund. After reading the reverend's opinion, he decided to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. The panel--a divorce lawyer--ruled that Lund's feelings "'trumped the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter,' and convicted Boissoin of illegal speech." What was more, Reverend Boissoin was ordered to "cease publishing anywhere publicly, in the future, any disparaging remarks about homosexuals." He was also "prohibited from making disparaging remarks, in the future, about Mr. Lund." Even worse, the panel ordered Boissoin to "provide Mr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the paper." In the end, "Reverend Boissoin was ordered to pay Lund $7,000."
Let's take a minute to process all of that. The panel itself recognized that "there was no specific individual who could be compensated, as there was no direct victim who had come forward." Mr. Lund had suffered no "hatred," for he stated himself that he was not gay. Despite this, Reverend Boissoin still had to pay Mr. Lund for the "ridicule and harassment Lund had suffered as a result of Lund's complaint" (not from Boissoin, but from people who didn't agree with Lund), and Boissoin could not say a word against the man who shut him up for no reason then took his money. All because Reverend Boissoin had a different opinion.
This is why Section 13 is so terrifying.
How can one honestly say that this is justice?
Another example: "In 1995, a transgender woman named Kimberly Nixon applied to volunteer as a rape crisis counsellor at the Vancouver Rape Relief centre. VRR turned Nixon down." Naturally, he decided to take his complaint to the Human Rights Commission. "It took more than 5 years for the matter to get to trial--and cost VRR more than $150,000." And Nixon won.
The panel ruled that the survivors' experiences "were not particularly persuasive." (For anyone who is not aware, some survivors experience PTSD, and even the sight of a man, or someone who appears masculine, can trigger memories for them) "The actions of VRR impacted the dignity of Nixon and denied her the opportunity to participate fully and freely in life." They ruled that Nixon was already the member of a marginalized group, and this trumped VRR's pledge to help survivors. "They ordered VRR to immediately start allowing transgender women to work at the centre." Thankfully, VRR went to appeal the case, and a decade later, they won.
Again, let's take all of that into account. A biological male decided that his need to be validated as a woman was more important than the actual rights of sexual assault survivors. He did not respect any of the women's feelings/experiences, or their right to associate with who they wanted to. Keep in mind, this was not a matter of employment--Nixon volunteered.
So who would one argue was truly discriminated against?
The last example is one that includes a fast-food giant that we are all familiar with: McDonald's! 馃い "Beena Datt was a McDonald's employee who claimed she'd developed a skin condition that prevented her from washing her hands in compliance with McDonald's hygiene policy." When Datt first brought up her condition to her employer, McDonald's gave her 2 months of paid disability leave. She returned to work, only to find her hands hurting again. And again, McDonald's gave Datt paid leave. In total, after 2 and 1/2 years of paid disability leave, and two more failed attempts at returning to work, McDonald's finally decided to let Datt go.
We already know what Datt decided to do.
The Human Rights Commission ruled that "there was no evidence to support whether Datt could function at McDonald's if she washed her hands less often." Despite McDonald's stating that food safety, and therefore hygiene, are of the utmost importance in the restaurant business, and that there were no positions at the chain that did not involve handling food, the panel still ordered McDonald's to pay Datt $50,000+. Even worse, they also ordered McDonald's to "cease the discriminatory conduct, and refrain from committing the same contravention." This means that, should another stubborn employee refuse to comply with safety standards, McDonald's cannot do anything. Employees could potentially go to the bathroom, return to work with unwashed hands, and continue to handle food.
Already we should be able to recognize why this is a huge problem, and why it infringes on actual rights. The link between safe food and proper hygiene is undisputed. We simply cannot have one without the other; it is why countless countries have Health And Food Safety Regulations! I have worked in the food industry myself, as a delicatessen clerk, slicing meat and cheese. Not only did we always wash our hands, but we also wore disposable gloves, changed gloves anytime we handled a new food item, wore hairnets, did not wear any jewelry, kept food items separate from one another, and washed the food slicers every other hour. What would happen if a customer contracted an illness, or worse an incurable disease, from a filthy employee?
All in the name of "discrimination"--because an employee could not be bothered to wash their hands, or look for another job.
So, all in all, what did I take away from all of this?
Well, personally I found this secret reality to be terrifying--because I have experienced it for myself. No, I have not appeared in front of the Human Rights Commission (yet 馃槄), but again, going back to online environments, situations like the above are happening more and more frequently. I have experienced being a social pariah, I have been "mobbed" by hundreds of people, received death threats, had comments deleted, banned from communities--all because I had a controversial opinion, or hurt someone's feelings. Most of this, mind you, occurred during the time when COVID was prominent (remember the "misinformation" bullcrap? 馃檮), a time when it was essential to have discussion. Nowadays, who is to say I won't face a future punishment, such as a hearing from the Human Rights Commission?
So what can be done about any of this injustice? Well, quite frankly, nothing 馃槄 It is difficult to dismantle establishments that receive hundreds of millions of our taxpaying money, and unfortunately the world is abundant with hurt, miserable, sensitive people... But education is key. If we are educated about our rights and freedoms, and if we know what options we have available to us, we stand a chance in fighting these panels of bureaucrats. Who knows? Perhaps with enough injustice, the world may begin to take notice of quiet lil' Canada, and finally hold them responsible for their crimes.
I was born and raised in Canada; I am the third generation of my family to live here. My own children will be the fourth. So please do not misinterpret this post. I love Canada, and I am blessed to live in a country that is abundant with fresh water, tasty food, beautiful people and landscapes... But this does not mean that I do not also recognize the dark side of Canada. I recognize the future we could be leaving behind for my children, I recognize the chain of events that could lead to something worse, and I don't want that for them... For anyone! There is nothing wrong with demanding better, not only from our government, but from each other and ourselves. I want Canada to stay Canada!