Monday, February 4, 2008

Globe and Mail comes out against the thought police

Given that the Western Standard/Levant and Maclean’s/Steyn human rights "cases" have been before the HRCs for weeks you’d have thought that by now all of the major media players (excepting the CBC of course) would have come out swinging in favour of freedom of expression. After all, it’s their freedom to publish that’s being directly attacked in both instances.

Maybe now they've really started to wake up. Here’s a Globe and Mail editorial today :

... perhaps even understandable that Muslim organizations.... would file complaints with human-rights commissions, if only for the publicity. Less clear is why those commissions would take seriously, even for a moment, the notion that privately owned publications do not have the right to offend or that they are required to give equal space to both sides of every issue.

Neither Maclean's nor the Western Standard published materials that incited violence or other injustices against Muslims. They did not violate anyone's human rights. Recognizing this, the commissions should have immediately identified the cases brought to them as nuisance complaints and dismissed them. That they have not done so suggests a change in their mandates is much needed.

Better late than never. The much needed change in mandate suggested by Keith Martin last week could use some strong editorial support too.



hunter said...

I'm amazed that this is from the Globe and Mail, they have been hitting the Conservatives everyday with negative articles. Is this posted on the net, and if so, are comments allowed? I can't find it, but my search skills are not that great.

Anonymous said...

I wonder; perhaps the G&M has taken it's sweet time to wade into this debate because they wanted to come out with a guarded response? Or perhaps they just assumed Levant was a member of the 'far-right' who could safely be ignored?

Who knows?

JR said...

Hunter, At the Globe the editorial is behind this subscriber firewall.

Griff, Exactly. Who knows why they're so slow to decide that a fundamental freedom is something they should be vigorously defending?