The Machiavellian Aspect of Canada’s Human Rights Tribunals

One of Machiavelli’s tips for rulers was to occasionally purge an official for corruption. This was to be done without particular regard to the actual wrongdoing of the official – both to keep the rest of the officials aware that their position was vulnerable and to create a clean public image for the government.

Canada’s Human Rights Tribunals are in part something very similar – a racial Machiavellianism. Instead of a government, it is a racial group which is motivated to cleanse its image. The racial group is Canadians of european decent. George Jonas wrote in Beethoven’s Mask that just as Jews finally got to be white people after World War II, white people became the new Jews. In Canada this claim shows true – and not entirely true – in the actions of our Human Rights Tribunals. This is the experience of  Ezra Levant, who is Jewish, with the federal tribunal:

Today I received news that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has acquitted me of a section 13 “hate speech” complaint.

This was a perfect scientific experiment. You see, I had republished, word for word, the very same “hate speech” that Rev. Stephen Boissoin had published six years ago in Alberta. Rev. Boissoin was found by both the Alberta HRC and the CHRC to be guilty of hate speech.

So I controlled all the variables but one.

I published the exact same words Rev. Boissoin used.

I published the words in the exact same jurisdiction that Rev. Boissoin did — in Alberta.

And a complaint was brought against me, just as it was against Rev. Boissoin.

Only one thing was different. Rev. Boissoin is Christian. I’m Jewish.

In the entire history of section 13, stretching back to 1977, not one single Jew, Muslim or gay has been taken before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by the CHRC.

Not one.

Gentle reader, do you really think that not one single Jew has uttered hate speech in 31 years? I’ll answer that for you: I published hate speech on my own web — I published Rev. Boissoin’s comments. I know that’s hate speech, because both the Alberta HRC and the CHRC said so.

Do you really think that not a single Muslim radical, or Sikh radical, or Tamil radical, has uttered hate speech in 31 years?

Don’t be ridiculous. But… 100% of the CHRC’s targets have been white, Christian or conservative.

And, of course, the conviction rate before the tribunal has been 100%.

This is not the rule of law. This is not a real court.

The CHRC’s letter came up with a pretend excuse. I was let go because, they said, I had the “goal of furthering a public debate”.

Of course, that’s exactly the goal Rev. Boissoin had. And Lynch convicted him.

In fact, anyone who publishes any political or religious statement, especially one that is dissident or offensive, is obviously trying to have a “debate”.

But only Jews like me are allowed to have such debates.

Here’s the text again. It’s legal for a Jew like me to publish it. It’s illegal for a Christian like Rev. Boissoin to publish it. That’s sick… (link)

Ezra argues that the speech rulings of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the CHRC) are exclusively directed at Christians and white people, and that is the reason he was not prosecuted. There are three other aspects to this – three other reasons Ezra Levant was not censored for printing the words that led the CHRC to rule against Boissoin and the provincial Alberta commission to permanently ban Boissoin from speaking “disparagingly” of homosexuals by private email or acticle or from a church pulpit, to pay the complaintant $5000 in damages, and to publicly apologize for what he had written. The first is simply that Levant is well known and popular and would damage the public image of the CHRC. The other two hinge on the reason the CHRC gave for pardoning Levant – that the words were not his so that there was no “intent” on his part to disparage homosexuals, but that he was “furthering a public debate.”

Article 13 of the CHRC code basically states that speech is unlawful if it “exposes or is likely to expose” a particular group to contempt or hatred. It’s obvious that it makes no difference whether a person means what they say in this. Levant’s intent was given as a reason this time but the reason is not intent, but identity. Ezra argues that it is about identity in that the commissions intentionally target white Christians out of bigotry towards them. But if the motivation of the tribunals is to forestall the spread of group discrimination it makes perfect sense to target whichever group is percieved to have the most power. That would be the majority. That would be the white Christian Boissoin and not Ezra Levant. The commissioners are thinking of people in racial and religious categories and are treating them as members of groups rather than as individuals – and yet this cannot fully explain why Levant gets a pass here, for his identity does not make a difference in influencing the group percieved by the commissioners as having power.

The final reason for this is also one of identity. It’s not that Ezra isn’t a white Christian and so his position is not one of power. Even if he were not well known, his words would have as much power over others as Boissoin’s. It’s not that Ezra isn’t a white Christian and so the commissioners can have no animus against him because this does not explain why the Alberta government supported the actions of the Alberta HRC against Boissoin as well. It is both that Ezra is not a white Christian and that the words he reprinted were not his and so there is no way for him to symbolize White Homophobia. As a Jew, he cannot be a scapegoat for white people as a group and because the article was not his own, he cannot symbolize homophobia and the purging of it from that group. It has been remarked that the fact that this happened with the support of the government in conservative Alberta shows how far Canada has breached it’s commitment to freedom of speech. The truth is that this happened in Alberta precisely because it has a reputation as very conservative with the connotations of white bigotry and homophobia that go along with that. Alberta’s reputation has the most to gain through the racial Machiavellianism of a public scapegoating of an individual “white” through what amounts to a show trial in order to show that Alberta as a whole rejects the particular ill of racism or homophobia which that individual symbolizes. A reputedly conservative province in a supposedly free country has prejudiced the rights of an individual whose ideas are associated with conservativism to the extent that EGALE – a gay rights organization – has spoken out against it, saying that attacking Boissoin’s rights are ultimately a threat to all individual rights. There is little reason to think that the Stelmach government is motivated by bigotry against white Christians. Instead it is the racial Machiavellianism of our day that makes Alberta the likeliest of places for this to happen.

This isn’t to say that this is the articulate logic of the Stelmach government or of the commissioners. To credit them with understanding this part of the spirit of our times and of intentionally acting on it would be both too cruel and too kind.


One Response to “The Machiavellian Aspect of Canada’s Human Rights Tribunals”

  1. An Opinion Unfirmed « The General Wolfe Says:

    […] Red Tory supports my thoughts on the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. I think that a kind of Racial Machiavellianism is part of why and how they have been operating. Just as the Carleton kids arguably don’t […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: