During my regular perusal of Canada’s major dailies, I came across this insightful and commendable piece in today’s National Post.  I say insightful because it was an opinion piece by a former CSIS undercover agent Grant Bristow who investigated and infiltrated the world of hatred and its spread of vile and putrid directives against minorities.  Commendable, not only was it a fair and balanced perspective on the Maclean’s case and human rights commissions but it is an example of a large-scale media outlet–renowned for its conservatives views–providing somewhat of a counterview to its unofficial stance on the abolishment of HRCs.

A couple of choice excerpts:

For years, I saw the impact haters had on Canadian society. I watched as they picked their vulnerable targets, took aim and used evil words to break them down. Sadly, sometimes these evil words and thoughts would lead to evil deeds

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has been at the forefront of the war against hate in this country for decades. I personally believe it played a key role in eviscerating Canadian hate groups in the 1980s and 1990s. It helped shut down vile telephone hate lines and Internet sites that targeted vulnerable minorities

And in closing:

The CHRC is experiencing growing pains — the world is changing, and the commission has to change with it. Growth isn’t always easy. Sometimes it’s messy. But to cut the CHRC off at the knees as it goes through the growth process would be a grave mistake

Irrespective of whether the complaint against Maclean’s proves to be victorious, HRCs do play a vital and pivotal role in preventing and rectifying discrimination and even racist and harmful discourse, that of which is antithetical to Canadian values.

Today is the day Torontonians speak their voices and show their solitude in the rally to repatriate Scarborough born Omar Khadr to Canada. Here is an abbreviated tag line to the event sponsored by the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War, the Canadian Arab Federation, and the Muslim Unity Group.

Tell Stephen Harper:                                                                         
Bring Omar Khadr back to Canada!

Rally & march
Saturday, July 26, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
U.S. Consulate
360 University Avenue
(north of Queen West, east side of University)
TTC: Osgoode or St. Patrick

Canadian citizen Omar Khadr is the only Western national  left in – Guantanamo Bay, and the first child-soldier to be prosecuted in –more than a hundred years. Khadr was only 15 years-old when -he was captured by US forces in Afghanistan and later transported–to the infamous US prison where he has now spent more than a –quarter of his life. Khadr faces trial by US military tribunal in– October 2008.

Recently released video footage reveals the kind of mistreatment that Khadr has experienced in Guantanamo Bay, where the US has been accused of practicing torture on detainees. Other reports show that Khadr was subjected to extreme forms of sleep deprivation, a form of torture, including a practice called the “frequent flyer program” in which he was woken every three hours and moved to a different cell for 24 hours a day over a three-week period.

Worse still, court documents reveal that the Canadian government was aware of the abuse suffered by Khadr at the hands of US authorities yet continued to assure the Canadian public that he was being well treated…

An In Depth Legal Perspective of the Situation

Yes we do realize that from an advertising perspective it would have been more prudent to give advanced notice to potential attendees. However, showing support for this cause is our main concern and surely this will not be the only important step in the repatriation of one of Canada’s own.

With that said, we contemplated formulating some in depth legal analysis of the situation showing the legal (and moral) inconsistencies from the standpoint of the Canadian government, including their controversial interrogatory interjection and the actions brought against them and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In fear of muddling up, what takes years of legal scholarship to accurately formulate, we decided to leave this arduous and painstakingly technical task to the experts. Therefore, we would like to direct your attention to one of Canada’s finest, University of Toronto law professor Audrey Macklin.

She has been a public advocate at the same time a legal scholar in this area.  She has meticulously compiled an Omar Khadr resource page, in a manner unique to the academic elite.  It contains PDF files to all the legal documents and cases and decisions in the US and Canadian jurisdictions.  It also sites relevant cases from the UK and Australia - two nations who ardently demanded the return of their nationals.  This extremely informative page also holds links to advocacy and media publications.

Additionally, her publications page lists much of her recent academic work, unfortunately however, only a few of her works are downloadable and easily accessed online.  If you’re going to seek out a couple of hard copies, we recommend taking a look at this one: ”Exile on Main Street: Popular Discourse and Legal Manoeuvres Around Citizenship”, in Law Commission of Canada, ed., Law and Citizenship (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006), 22-54.

We’ll keep up with some timely postings on this situation and provide some of our own insights in future posts.  Until then…

In his article titled, Racial bias starts close to home, the Toronto Star’s Royson James gives his two cents on the media’s role in preventing racial bias. 

He begins by reviewing the Star’s week long series on crime and punishment, a rather detailed inquiry and analysis of the racial discrepancies within Canada’s criminal justice system, and noting how studies and reports here and abroad have evidenced racial profiling and discrimination.  Following his somewhat cursory review he concludes that: 

All this provides scientific justification, applied with academic rigour, for claims we are biased. It gives people not predisposed to hate or blame reason to pause. To some, though, it is a red flag

That’s all fine and dandy, but now for his insights.

He self-admits that the media is partly to blame, yet doesn’t stop there:

While we must report the news, and bad news sells, greater care is needed to provide off-setting images of groups that tend to be featured in violent crime and crimes with a high media quotient

His ‘epiphany’ comes next:

If disaffected black youths in socially neglected neighbourhoods play out gang feuds on our streets – events that naturally cause alarm – there must be counter-images, or we will all think “gun violence” when we think “black.”

Hmm, counter-images what a great idea!  No limits on press coverage, topics, reporting etc.  Instead, in effect, he suggests more coverage and more views with greater diversity.  The only problem he hasn’t solved is getting recalcitrant editors to entertain such a deplorable practice.

For all you free speech naysayers out there, this one’s for you.  A quick primer on the devastating effects of media characterizations and their unparalleled ability to influence public perception followed by some “leftist” theorizing. 

When reading, keep in mind that it has never been the position of this site that journalists be censured or expression be impeded; we are more concerned with large-scale media outlets being held more accountable for their pivotal role in society and the power they wield.

(Note:  This site fully supports the right to expression, open and public debate and participation in the marketplace of ideas for all).

A Personal Account of the American Media Shift:  Pre and Post Revolutionary Iran

Professor Flora Keshishian, recent Fulbright Award recipient, is also an Iranian immigrant to America.  In one of her scholarly articles (Keshishian, F.  (2000).  Acculturation, Communication, and the U.S. Media: The Experience of an Iranian Immigrant.  Howard Journal of Communication 11 93-106), she provides a personal perspective on the traumatizing impact of media characterizations and stereotyping.

To keep this brief and to the point I will put context to the excerpts and let Professor Keshishian’s words tell the story.

The time period is the 444 days including and following November 4, 1979, the day of the infamous “hostage crisis” of Americans in Iran, during the unsettled post revolutionary atmosphere.  U.S.-Iran relations instantly deteriorated and the media coverage became fragmented, incomprehensive and ideologically oriented:

…In a manner reminiscent of the experiences of the Japanese Americans in the 1940s, Iranians in the United States became scapegoats and suffered harassment and covert discrimination, mainly because of their national heritage (Ansari)

…Instead of clearly discussing the socio-politico economic forces that lead to the revolution, the U.S. press made the situation in Iran look like a recurrence of a crusader’s war, Islam versus Christianity

 …In and of themselves these images were not problematic because they do respresent parts of Iranian culture.  But the association the American public had made, because of the way the media had presented the images, was problematic.  These negative perceptions were further intensified by references to Iranian leaders as “antimodern,”fundamentalist,” and ‘irrational”; and referred to people in Iran as “religious fanatics,” “leftist-backed,” and “backward.”

 …What was a relatively postiive, though still stereotypical and oversimplified, prerevolution and prehostage image of Iran–hospitality, Persian carpets, oil, caviar–vanished. 

…During the hostage period, I heard stories about Iranian immigrants who had been attacked–a woman who had been raped and, in another incident, a few men who had been beaten in a bar–because they were Iranian

…These incidents affected me to a point where I no longer felt comfortable identifying myself as Iranian, and I was not alone in feeling this way.  According to Ansari (1988), “the anti-Iranian reaction was so widespread that it forced Iranian Americans to misrepresent their ethnic identity”

Just Another Example of Hurt Feelings?

The preceding historical reflection is not assumed to be a novel, mind-blowing description of an unexplored sociological phenomenon.  Surely it will be dismissed as one of the costs of living in a free and democratic society.  However, in my view, it was worthy of a post if not for the fact of its educational value, then for the mere purpose of re-publicizing a point of view that is far too often left out.

Most importantly, however, it is a documented account of the American media’s recurring practice of vilification. As a result, individuals residing within American borders are absorbing the adverse effects of the U.S. government’s severed diplomatic relations with a foreign nation and actions unrelated to them.  Flowing from this media offensive is a degraded quality of life, marginalization, discrimination and, at times, a threat to the security of the person for residents of the same ethnic background as the enemy state. 

The press, no doubt, have an incredibly important role to play and expression, debate, discussion and the exchange of ideas are indeed the cornerstones of a functional democracy.  With that said, I have yet to witness any tool or profession that is immune from misuse, abuse and the potential to run awry.  All our rights and freedoms, some of which are arguably more sacred than expression (life, liberty and security of the person) have at times been attenuated for the benefit of the people. However, It is only when the restraints and restrictions are tugging at the coat tails of the aristocracy that they become a problem.

Everything and everyone needs checks and balances, and in absence of them, not imposition, there then becomes an increased risk for totalitarianism.

Judically Sanctioned DNA Sampling

For sex crimes, kidnapping and murder, a DNA sample is required upon conviction although not always demanded.  For crimes, such as criminal mischief, robbery and assault, the decision is left to the discretion of the judge.

The Star analysis of the Canadian Police Information Centre data revealed that “32.5 per cent of those required to provide DNA samples were non-white, even though non-whites make up only 16.7 per cent of those with criminal records.”

When examining the data between paired samples, the analysis found that ”comparing the same kinds of criminal records still shows a difference between whites and non-whites. For example, of people who have a criminal record for violence, 10.5 per cent of non-whites had DNA taken versus 6.1 per cent of whites.”

The literature on racism, which has been actively discussed throughout this site and explained in this post, can account for this discrepancy accordingly.  When left at the hands of the judges, a bias towards non-whites would be extremely difficult to observe based on individual cases as ordering a DNA sample can be strongly justified in any instance for the sake of public safety.

Thus, although judges presumably hold strong egalitarian values and notions of justice and equality, they may without their knowledge harbour racist or (negative) stereotypical thoughts towards non-whites which would result in prejudiced decision making and conduct in seemingly ambiguous situations. 

Irrespective of the precise rationale underpinning these differences, this data provides more than anecdotal evidence that differential treatment does exist within Canada’s justice system.

The similarities between the Abrams case and CIC v. Maclean’s are plentiful.  And it doesn’t require an astute legal mind to reconcile the two.

Their are, however, key points so critical and germane to the current dispute between the opposing camps that they must be highlighted and not overlooked.

1.  The Tribunal in particular and the expert witnesses recognized that the articles taken as a collection was a major contributing factor to the racist discourse.

2. Blatant overt statements are not necessary to promulgate discriminatory thought; the tone, specious arguments, playing on stereotypes and faulty analogies are powerful tools that masquerade racist ideology.

Moving Beyond the Debate of Freedom of Expression and Other Obfuscations

Putting aside this ostensible debate between free speech and the right not to be a offended, a clever ploy by the writers and publishers who are disseminating the discriminatory messages, and stepping away from the appropriateness of human rights commissions as a legal forum to advance such claims (another tactic), there is much to take away from the Abrams case and the multitude of academic literature in related domains.

Mr. Abrams, with no doubt support from the intervener on his behalf B’nai Brith, had the benefit of a litany of expert witnesses to deconstruct the articles and explain their effects.

Eminent scholars and professionals on racism, journalism and linguistics submitted in depth analyses and gave testimony to the effect that the subtle tactics employed in the articles may not be perceived as discriminatory to the average reader but in fact are full of pejoratives and discriminatory language.

Further, it was well noted that the consistent dissemination of these discriminatory themes to the local community through newspaper publications will effectively transmit these messages in a covert form.

The larger academic community has shed light in this area through numerous empirical studies in various fields.  Very recently, and highlighted on this site, the ‘turban effect’ was explained to be an implicit and nonconscious bias that many individuals hold without their knowledge against people of the Muslim faith.  The head researcher attributed this phenomenon to on one-sided media portrayals.

Additionally, a vast majority of psychological studies have noted that consisted exposure and priming of derogatory images, words, thoughts and expressions when paired with a specific group can cause the mind to nonconsciously associate these negative thoughts with the targeted population.

When an individual is consistently digesting material that couples a group (Muslims) with a negative association such as Islamist, terrorist, fundamentalist etc., then that individual’s mind will be trained to nonconsciously hold a negative association towards that group - even if the intent is not to portray ‘all’ Muslims in this light.  This effect is heightened and exacerbated through stereotypes. This is the type of mental programming that the press can impose when circulating persistently negative topical portrayals.

And the list of relevant academic research goes on… 

Another Example of a Community’s Concerns Being Disregarded by Maclean’s Editor Kenneth Whyte

Many critics have advocated for a resolution outside government intervention between Maclean’s and the CIC and Muslim community.  According to the CIC and its advocates this position was simply not feasible for numerous reasons, many of which were outside their control.  

Other minority organizations have had similar experiences with editors and publishers.  The situtation described below is an example of a minority organization trying to resolve a concern they had with one sided portrayals and being pushed aside by current Maclean’s editor-in-chief Kenneth Whyte. 

Around the time of the new millennium, The National Post’s Diane Francis openly admitted to being on an anti-immigration ‘crusade’ with particular reference to the Chinese boat people who began arriving in British Columbia in 1999.

In her writings she attacked Canada’s immigration and refugee policies, and the immigration minister for a malfunctioning refugee system.

To do this she resorted to innuendo, relevance, misleading statements, ridicule and hyperboles.

Her misguided articles did not go unnoticed.  The Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigrant Settlement organized a seminar specifically addressing Francis’s biased columns.

During this period the Canadian Council of Refugees was performing a media watch about the arrival of the Chinese refugees and it was the National Post that contained the strongest anti-immigration perspective.  They then wrote to Kenneth Whyte, then Post editor-in-chief, in protest about the disproportionate amount of negative news stories and commentaries concerning refugees and immigrants in Canada.

The Post’s lawyer replied with a letter stating:

The menacing tone of your letter and its slanderous allegations cannot form the basis of any constructive discourse between your Association and the newspaper.

Subsequent letters and emails to the editor and Diane Francis were simply ignored.

No human rights commission, no attempted “censuring” of free speech and no resolve.  The immigrant community bearing the adverse effects of this one-sided media portrayal was left with the insurmountable task of fending themselves from the attack of this media conglomerate.

Conclusion

The power of the press is a well documented phenomenon capable of infecting our institutions, government, education and social climate with very harmful views.  In the present CIC v. Maclean’s case the Respondents and several right-wing and some left-leaning journalists have failed to acknowledge that their is a problem and shifted the debate to one between free speech, hurt feelings and human rights commissions.

If it wasn’t for the fact that the CIC’s complaint is in effect waged against a profession and the very same journalists, pusblishers and editors being scrutinized for their abuse of powers, this would be somewhat surprising in view of all the research and documented complaints providing evidence to the contrary.

A review of human rights commissions and their powers may very well be in order but that is an issue distinct from the fact that large scale media organizations are imputing messages to the population at large through their one-sided portrayals and vitriolic commentary.

As a newbie on the blog scene I’d like to give some recognition and show our gratitude to Law is Cool for showing some support and sending traffic this way.

They are one of the few blogs to provide a balanced and comprehensive report on the CIC v. Maclean’s situation and present objective posts on a myriad of other issues.

Those bunch of quirky law students are doing a great job!

This second installment will focus primarily on past jurisprudence.  In particular, nearly 10 years back a strikingly analogous case was decided by the BC Tribunal, Abrams v. North Shore Press.

Summary of Facts

In the winter of 1993-94, the complainant, Harry Abrams an active member of the Jewish community in Victoria, began reading a ‘new’ newspaper, The Daily Victorian.  He became concerned about columns written by Doug Collins that he felt contained race-baiting themes that villified Jews. 

He subsequently discovered that these columns were syndicated versions of columns that appeared in the North Shore Newspaper which had a larger reach to communities across from Vancouver on the North Shore of Burrard Inlet.

Mr. Abrams then proceeded to file a human rights complaint under s. 7 of the BC Code. In particular, he alleged “that the continual barrage of articles written by Mr. Doug Collins promoting his views on Holocaust revisionism and Jewish conspiracies, have a cumulative affect [sic] of promoting hatred and contempt towards Jewish people.”  (Note: Although the columns were the work of one author, the complaint was filed against the organization; all articles in question can be found at the appendix of the decision linked above).

Arguments and Evidence

The Respondent failed to present any evidence on the issue of s. 7.  Their defense focused on the constitutionality of the provision which the British Columbia Supreme Court subsequently ruled was a matter to be decided by the Tribunal (Note: This issue is more complex than presented but outside the parameters of this particular post).

The Complainant relied on a number of articles, many of which were not part of the original complaint.  The Tribunal found that individually they were not helpful, only when taken in context as evidence with the other articles published. 

Expert Testimony

Dr. Frances Henry, a highly regarded professional in race relations and discrimination qualified to provide an opinion on anti-Semitism in society, and on the identification and effect of anti-Semitic propaganda reported in the Canadian media.

She expressly noted that the more serious forms of racism are those that are hidden in popular culture, such as in the words, images and descriptions used by media writers.

Techniques utilized in the reviewed articles were that of trivialization, indirect racism (i.e. not denying the holocaust, rather, stating that the numbers are greatly exaggerated), playing on popular stereotypes.

Her conclusions are as follows: 

…it is my opinion that any reasonable person would perceive discriminatory and biased ideas and statements in the four articles written by Doug Collins.  Although he does not make overtly anti-Semitic statements, the tone of the articles reveals little regard for Jewish people of their history.  Mr. Collins perpetuates the stereotypes against Jews especially those which allege widespread power and influence.

Dr. Barbara Harris is a professor of linguistics who applied a process known as discourse analysis to the four articles.  This technique looks at language in its interactional phase between a writer and a reader.

Her analysis concludes:

In short, these four articles are full of pejorative and derogatory language, and the rhetoric depends on devices intended to put the author in good light … expressed through faulty analogy, specious arguments and undocumented ‘facts’.  To the uncritical reader, they would undoubtedly say that Jews are powerful, vindictive, and hypocritical in upholding the historicity of an event the magnitude of which Collins and his fellows deny.

Another key factor considered during the decision making process was the fact of the vulnerability of the group being written about and the historical discrimination it has endured.

Additionally, it was made clear by several of the expert witnesses that print media and local newspapers are major transmitters of society’s standards, myths and images and that the media has the power to promulgate messages to effectively transmit discriminatory message in a covert form.

Decision

As the written decision by the Tribunal was brief and succinct, the whole decision is reproduced below:

Individually, and taken out of context, each of the four columns at issue might not convey messages that meet the high threshold that is necessary to be considered hatred or contempt within the meaning of s. 7(1)(b) of the Code.  However, collectively they do.  They repeatedly reinforce some of the most virulent forms of anti-Semitism.  They convey the message that Jews, individually and collectively, are selfish, greedy and manipulative; that they have conspired to control government institutions and the media; and they use that control to perpetuate inflated figures concerning the victimization of Jews during the Holocaust and to persecute anyone who speaks out against them.

The publication of these messages in a community newspaper that is delivered to almost every home in the community is likely to increase the risk to Jewish people of being exposed to hatred and contempt because of their race, religion or ancestry.  Mr. Collins expresses hatred or contempt indirectly and subtly.  He does not overtly incite hateful or contemptuous expressions.  However, he reinforces negative stereotypes of the Jews that have been promulgated for centuries.  Further, publication of these ideas in a credible newspaper increases the likelihood that others will manifest hateful and contemptuous views in a more directly harmful manner.

I find that the four columns, which were written by Doug Collins and published by the North Shore News, and which were the basis for this complaint, are likely to expose Jewish persons to hatred or contempt because of their race, religion or ancestry contrary to s. 7(1)(b) of the Code.

As the decision in the highly publicized and controversial Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) v. Maclean’s BC Human Rights Tribunal case is due to be rendered any time now, I thought it would be fitting to preview some of the issues germane to litigation under section 7(1)(b) of the BC Human Rights Code and to counter some of the baseless attacks on human rights commissions generally.

If you’re looking for misinformed rhetorical diatribes and miscontrued rantings on these topics (and most likely others) please peruse these sites here, here, here, here, here, and here.  I am referring to the type of far right thought that attempts to befuddle the public and gain political support through chicanery and subterfuge whilst keeping clear of the real problem(s) in question. 

For a more factual and less partisan perspective read on…

The central focus of this ‘rant’ will revolve around the powers of human rights tribunals (for the sake of clarity and consistency human rights tribunals and commissions will now be referred to collectively as HRCs).  In particular, the powers that mandate HRCs to curb discriminatory publications and their remedial effects (also known by its critics as its egregious ability to “censure free speech” ), and the judicial support and affirmation of its objectives specific to discriminatory publications.

The infamous referential epithet ”kangaroo court” has been used to discredit HRCs, including their powers, capabilities, processes and staff.  The fulminating critics explicitly emphasize that issues so fundamental and pivotal to Canada’s liberal democracy, such as laws censuring free speech, should be left to our ‘real courts’ and judicial system.

What often gets left out are some of the critical facts and points of law necessary to substantiate such a dysfunctional portrait of HRCs.

First, Human Rights Codes are drafted by parliament, in the same fashion and manner as other laws that are litigated through Canada’s civil and criminal courts.  Tribunals are simply applying the law according to their respective Codes through the powers downloaded to them by government and parliament.

Second, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has explicitly endorsed HRCs as a better way to combat hate propaganda and discriminatory publications:

…human rights statutes are pointed to as being a less severe and more effective response than the criminal law.  Such statutes not only subject the disseminator of hate propaganda to reduced stigma and punishment, but also take a less confrontational approach to the suppression of such expression.  This conciliatory tack is said to be preferable to penal sanction because an incentive is offered the disseminator to cooperate with human rights tribunals and thus to amend his or her conduct (R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697).

Third, in the now famous Taylor case (Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892) the SCC upheld the constitutionality of s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which makes it unlawful to publish material that is likely to expose a group to hatred or contempt.  Essentially identical to s. 7(1)(b) of the BC Code, the provision the CIC filed its complaint under.

Although this provision has withstood a consitutional challenge, the respondents and their supporters have declared their desire for the CIC v. Maclean’s case to be granted leave to appeal to a ‘real court’ and, if necessary, to the highest court in Canada.

All the while, they have argued that HRCs were formulated to safeguard discriminatory practices in employment and landlord/tenant disputes and should not be used against private, media corporations.  To strengthen this claim, they have garnered support from civil libertarian and one of the pioneering advocates for human rights tribunals, Alan Borovoy.

It is their view that combatting racist speech is not within the purview of HRCs.  The Codes, laws and mandates should not evolve, they should be stagnant.  They scoff at the notion that Human Rights Codes should move beyond their initially intended purpose (30 plus years ago) into areas that may require attention in the present context.

Now the ubiquitous hypocrisy from the right-wing…

They expect HRCs to stay true to the initial intent of its crafters (the type of prescient foresight the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not even hold) yet they hope to re-challenge the validity of discriminatory publication provisions in the BC courts and perhaps again in the SCC.

To put it simply, in their view the consitutionality of s. 13 of the CHRC may change over two decades to fit the present political climate–one created by their own media campaigning–but the purpose of HRCs must stay frozen and not intrude in areas where discrimination may exist but was not initially recognized.

Thus, when trying to protect the vulnerable and marginalized we must not venture into unchartered waters, but to ensure the status quo we must re-try and scrutinize any laws to the contrary.

Legal Means are Somehow a Disservice

In the latest attack on the far-right’s official Islamic target, public face of the Canadian Islamic Congress Mohammad Elmasry, Rory Leishman, freelance writer for the London Free Press touts the oft too cited fallacy that it is Muslim representatives (Elmasry in particular) who use legitimate legal means to combat ill-will against their community who are disservicing Canadian Muslims and not the hodge-podge of conservative writers.

Ironically, it is not I, Mansur, Steyn or the editors of Maclean’s who are ill-serving Canadian Muslims. It is Muslim leaders like Elmasry. By using rights tribunals to intimidate and silence critics, these authoritarian Muslims are undermining the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

In the quote above, I included his added obfuscation and conflation of the real issue at hand–Islamophobia–with his ostensible fear of the abolishment of fundamental freedoms for all and the improper use of human rights tribunals - perhaps some of the attack dogs will learn a thing or two about appropriate journalistic practice.

But before we delve in and deconstruct Leishman’s palpably misconstrued defensive-offense, let’s take a brief glance at the background of Mr. Leishman.

Who is this Leishman Fellow?

Hmm…according to his own webpage, he is a “member and director of Civitas, a non-partisan, national association of conservative academics, journalists and political activists.”

Pointing out the hypocrisy in this one is all too easy. The fact that he has been singled out as a homophobic writer, coupled with his long list of conservative supportive insights is as far as I will take this one; no need to unravel anymore layers, indeed, I am now totally convinced his organization is non-partisan in their writing and activism.

Besides, since when was activism and writing ever politically oriented anyway?

Let’s Be Clear Here

Getting back to the real issue (again, for most of you neo-conservative writers and bloggers it would be a good time to take out your pads and take note of this), in Leishman’s ‘opinion,’ by trying to shield himself and his community from the inflammatory and vitriolic commentary which constitutes Islamophobia, it is Elmasry who is doing more harm to his community than the very writers creating the anti-Islamic climate.

Therefore, the persons trying to prevent what translates into insidious, overt but more often covert forms of discrimination are more dangerous than the individuals unleashing the fury.

Let’s be clear here, this is no question of the chicken and the egg, Islamophobia and virulent rhetoric precipitated defensive attempts such as Elmasry’s by a long-shot.

Furthermore, Islamophobia and the solutions to its dissemination through Canada’s media network should be seen as distinct from issues of fundamental freedoms as the two are not necessarily conjunctive.

If not for the fact that this is a legally sanctioned route, provided by the state to curb discrimination in specific spheres, then for the fact that, according to the far-right, Muslims don’t have a firm understanding of the culture and historic traditions of a true democracy and are simply using services provided to the entire Canadian population.

They can’t be both ignorant, unalterable aliens invading our state and at the same time expected to comprehend this version of democracy, with deep historic roots that allows freedom of speech to trump the livelihood and equal treatment of minority communities within this great nation.

This is not the first and certainly won’t be the last time that minority populations feel denigrated by media characterizations and portrayals; the issue isn’t and never was about censuring free speech, it is about not being disadvantaged and targeted by racialized discourse.