In 1977, the Canadian Human Rights Commission was founded “to investigate and try to settle complaints of discrimination in employment and in the provision of services within federal jurisdiction.” While this mandate was vague from the outset, even the CHRC’s founders admit that the organization was never meant to regulate speech — its mission was primarily to investigate discrimination in employment and housing practices where the federal government had purview.

Within two years, the CHRC was pursuing charges against white supremacist John Taylor Ross for spreading anti-Semitic messages. Ross’s case ended up before the Canadian Supreme Court in 1990.

While the Canadian Charter of Rights guarantees “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication,” the court ruled against Ross, empowering the CHRC to regulate speech.

Since then, the CHRC and its counterparts at the provincial level have become politically correct star chambers.

In 1995, the Vancouver Human Rights Commission ruled against a women’s center that didn’t want a transsexual rape-crisis counselor. In 1999, a printer in Ontario was fined $5,000 for refusing service to a pro-pedophilia group. In 1998, pastor Stephen Boissoin was ordered by the Alberta Human Rights Commission not to express his views on homosexuality in any public forum. In 2002, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon StarPhoenix to pay $1,500 to three complainants for running an ad that quoted Bible verses.

Two years ago, the Vancouver Human Rights Commission made international headlines when it brought charges against journalist Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine. A few radical Muslims complained when the magazine excerpted a chapter on Islamization from Steyn’s best-selling book “America Alone.”

As if policing speech weren’t bad enough, the deck is stacked in Canada’s human rights tribunals. Since these tribunals are basically administrative hearings, there are no formal rules of evidence and procedure that one would expect in a courtroom.

Further, the state pays for the prosecution, while the defendant incurs all legal fees. Steyn and Maclean’s legal defense cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, even though the charges were dismissed. In the cases brought before national human rights commission that go to full adjudication, the CHRC has an incredible 100 percent conviction rate.

Not surprisingly, Levant has also been brought up on “human rights” charges. Levant edited a publication that ran the Danish Muhammad cartoons — the epitome of the free-speech debate — and was dragooned. The charges were dropped, but Levant still ran up a six-figure legal bill.

Since then, Levant has written a book condemning the commissions, “Shakedown,” and is otherwise speaking up for free speech. This appears to be his real crime, as opposed to the recent and spurious libel charges.

Those charges amount to discussing serious evidence showing Vigna might have covered up the fact that the CHRC is coordinating with one of its former investigators, Richard Warman, to troll for new complaints to bring before the commission. That Warman is profiting by getting favorable decisions from his former employer is indisputable. Another matter deemed libelous was Levant posting a YouTube clip from a “Seinfeld” episode on his blog to mock CHRC’s Giacomo Vigna.

Asked about the importance of free speech, Dean Steacy, one of the CHRC’s lead investigators, actually said, “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”

Perhaps it’s time for prominent American leaders to loudly exercise their God-given, unalienable rights to let our northern neighbors know free speech shouldn’t stop at the border.

Mark Hemingway is an editorial page staff writer for The Examiner. He can be reached at [email protected].