Come with me to a bland room in a law office where a painting of a road with grass growing beside it hangs on the wall, a nod toward the human instinct for beauty.
One one side of a long table placed beneath the artwork is a middle-aged blonde wearing a navy-blue cardigan whose eyes betray fatigue but whose manner conveys sly authority. She is the powerful person in this tableau, but she’s not making a show of it. Her elbows rest on the mahogany-colored tabletop.
Facing her is a man in a suit who is trying to keep his temper. He’s a magazine publisher accused of offending Muslims by printing unflattering cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. “It is disgusting to me,” the man is saying, “that I would have to explain my reasoning to the government.”
You would be forgiven for assuming this room must be in a country such as Egypt, Iran or Russia, where the press is fettered and journalists face prison if they run afoul of government censors. But the scene I just described took place a few days ago in Canada.
The man in the suit is Ezra Levant, who was until recently publisher of a conservative magazine called the Western Standard. And the mild-mannered blonde is Shirlene McGovern, a state inquisitor employed by the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
Each province in Canada has such a body, and the federal government has one, too. These commissions were originally set up to hear human rights complaints not covered by the courts, but in the amoebic way of taxpayer-funded bureaucracies, their function has evolved into something altogether more sinister and parasitical.
One function of Alberta’s HRC is “to promote awareness and appreciation of and respect for the multicultural heritage of Alberta society.” Read that again and you will see how it’s possible for a country with a long tradition of press freedom to become a place where journalists can be forced to explain themselves to the state.
All that’s required is for some citizen to complain that his heritage is unappreciated or disrespected. The cogs of the machine then clank obediently into motion, beginning a slow grinding that costs plaintiffs such as Mr. Levant thousands of dollars in legal fees. For the complainant, it’s all free.
You see, Canada’s “multicultural heritage” is now partly made up of radical Islamists who have proven themselves nimble users of the many avenues for seeking redress of grievance and suppression of criticism made available to them by this liberal Western society. The complaints against Mr. Levant were filed by two such men, one a Saudi-trained imam who has called for Canada to be governed by Shariah law.
In the interrogation room, Officer McGovern is still talking, ever so calmly: “In an investigation interview, I always ask people … in summary fashion, what was your intent and purpose of your article with the cartoon illustrations published on February 27th, 2006?”
“Why is that a relevant question?”
Sounding almost bored, she replies, “Under section 31A, it talks about intention, purpose. We like to get some background as well.”
“You’d like to get some background, or does this determine anything?” Mr. Levant says urgently. “We published what we published. The words and pictures speak for themselves. Are you saying one answer is wrong and one answer is right? Is a certain answer contrary to law?”
“No.”
“So if I were to say, hypothetically, that the purpose was to instill hatred, incite hatred and cause offense, are you saying that’s an acceptable answer?”
“I’d have to look at it in the context of all the information,” Officer McGovern says, “And determine if it was indeed.”
It is a stunning exchange. A system that Mr. Levant calls “part Kafka, part Stalin” is in full flower in Canada, a country that derives its freedoms from the same ancient body of English law that we do. To paraphrase Tony Soprano, here in the U.S. it may be 2008, but up in north, it’s 1984.
Examiner Columnist Meghan Cox Gurdon is a former foreign correspondent and a regular contributor to the books pages of The Wall Street Journal. Her Examiner column appears on Thursdays.
