Human Rights

Prime Minister Stephen Harper may have been conspicuous by his absence at the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games in Beijing but his much-touted stand on human rights and freedom needs closer inspection. Where, for instance, was he on March 29, 2008?

One of the basic human rights we in this country used to enjoy was the freedom of expression. We all knew that you could not slander or libel anyone but beyond that, we were free to express opinions and hold debates, even write articles and letters to the editors of our local papers without worrying about serious consequences. One might expect the next-door neighbour to take one to task over an opinion, but following a lively discussion, that was the end of the matter. Not so anymore.

It is sad enough that our own Provincial Prime Minister is standing behind the Ontario Human Rights tribunal system, but one can see where this Liberal politician is lining up behind the Conservative leader of our country. Perhaps it was a remnant of our British and French heritages that stood for the rights that worked their way into the various Charters of Rights and Freedoms around the world, but the current leaning over backwards by both Liberals and Conservatives is eroding those freedoms.

On March 29, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the United Nations took a mortal blow. That section of the charter that guarantees freedom of expression came under fire by an amendment that effectively muzzled that very freedom. Led by the Organization of Islamic Conference, representing 57 Islamic States, the amendment now requires that the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to report on the ‘abuse’ of the freedom of expression. One cannot, for instance, make statements about Sharia law if one disagrees with the stoning of people for adultery, the hanging of men because they are gay or the practice of forcing young girls into polygamous marriages.

If abuse of the freedom of expression infringed on anyone’s freedom of religion, it would be within the scope of the Special Rapporteur of Freedom of Religion, not freedom of expression. “Instead of promoting freedom of expression, the Special Rapporteur would be policing its exercise . . .” said our Canadian representative.

To our credit, Canada fought against this amendment. Standing with Canada were India, Brazil, Bolivia, Guatemala, the European Union, the United Kingdom (speaking for Australia and the United States) and Switzerland. However, when it came time to vote on this amendment to the Charter, Canada, whose Prime Minister is known for his forthright stance on such matters, did not vote! We abstained! As did all the others, who it seems, did not want to be on the record as voting against the OIC.

This attitude seems to fall in line with the Sri Lankan delegate who summed up his reasons for supporting the amendment thus: “If we regulate certain things, ‘minimally’ we may be able to prevent them from being enacted violently on the streets of our towns and cities.” What he was saying was do not exercise your right to freedom of expression because your opponents may become violent. This chipping away at the UN Charter was foreseen by the previous Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and he must surely be saddened by this amendment that will, given the OIC agenda, destroy the Charter and eventually the UN itself.

Back home in Ontario, our leader is walking down the same path laid out by the Sir Lankan delegate. The support of the government, the people we elected, for the current Ontario Human Rights tribunal system falls into the same appeasement fallacy as did the UN amendment. We have thrown out the old Canadian justice system in favour of one that flies in the face of all we used to hold dear in our charter of freedoms. There are no rules of evidence; no presumption of innocence; no right to confront or cross-examine an accuser; no right to appeal. Is this the way of the New Canada?

Sadly, it seems that religious beliefs are behind the current problems with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Whereas spirituality ought to be an uplifting human experience, it is being used to repress people and their expressions of thought and reason. The fundamentalists in all religions are dragging society backwards. Members of religious organizations who tolerate the extremists in their cult are no better than those who follow the Sri Lankan philosophy of appeasement in the hope of peaceful coexistence. You cannot appease a fanatic.

It is time that we stopped and re-assessed our beliefs and understanding of the word ‘freedom’. That the Freedom of Expression has come under fire all the way from the United Nations to our own Ontario Human Rights system should give us pause. Not going to China and supporting the tribunal system are not good enough, Prime Ministers: tell us what you really believe about freedom and democracy before you ask us to vote for you again.

And don’t worry – I will not be offended by what you say and haul you before a Human Rights tribunal. I promise to honour your freedom of expression. It is, after all, a Human Right.