Well normally a new addition to the short list that is my blogroll doesn’t usually call for a post; what usually happens is that I forget about it (along with my visitors) just moments after the deed is done.

However, like our featured guest in my previous entry, I too get excited and get that all over good feeling when a substantial blog shares a similar philosophy to my own. Sure Ezra and I part ways in our views, he choosing free speech over anything and everything, me focusing on the real issues in question; he being hostile, antagonistic and emotionally-laden and me trying my bestest to be fair, open-minded and unattached, but I’m sure we share the same sensations?

Ok, enough of that and more of the amazing discovery - I would hate to have Ezra show his teeth over me expressing myself (tee-hee).

Serendipitously, like many great discoveries, I stumbled upon this inspirational site called News Hounds. I’m sure I’m not the first to do so, but I haven’t read any Canadian blogs talk about it and it is a perfect talking point for the freedom of expression debate. Basically, you have a group of 7 or 8 like-minded individuals watching Fox News on a regular basis so they can point out the flaws and biases within their reporting. Before I go on speaking on their behalf and further describing what they do, hear is what they have to say about themselves through their manifesto:

For approximately three months, each of us watched FNC conscientiously for five or more hours a week and posted our findings regarding Fox’s self-proclaimed mission of fair and balanced reporting.

Appalled by our results, we, who would not meet in person until months later, banded together in cyberspace in concern and outrage over the failure of American media, and Fox News in particular, to relate the news properly. Rather than serve as the public’s eyes and ears, Fox and other media conglomerates have become echo chambers for the rich and powerful with whom they have become all too cozy. This blog is an attempt to counter that alarming condition. We believe that a viable democracy depends upon viable media.

The Fox News Slut Cartoon (sorry, couldn’t resist)

Essentially they are doing pretty much what many of the far-right bloggers recommended for the Osgoode Four Three. Does it seem to be working? I can’t say for sure but they are definitely having some impact. They certainly don’t have the resources and finances to compete with Fox News, Time Warner and the like but that ain’t stopping them. Their driving force is passion for a cause and good ole fashion hard work and dedication. Maybe the Steyn supporters had somewhat of a feasible solution?

Before leaving this one as a total score for my opponents–by virtue of my balanced and analytical approach–I will say a couple of things with respect to the Maclean’s case in Canada. It is true, undoubtedly, that the Osgoode team would not have received the attention they did if it were not for the complaint. It would have taken them years to come near the level of publicity and access they were granted by the various newspapers that graciously supplied a platform for them to express their views (for the purpose of business of course). But maybe that is just the way it should be…the unheard are just that and to be heard they must do so on an unlevel playing field.

Moreover, unlike the U.S., Canada has unique legislation that unquestionably weighs in on this situation. We have the Multiculturalism Act (1988) and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) which are distinctly Canadian. They recognize legislatively and therefore are a semblance of our societal values; that Canada is a truly diverse nation, one in which we take pride in and make reasonable steps to ensure its presence and unification. In similar form to the way the freespeechers suggest to move elsewhere if minorities and others don’t want a democratic society where freedom of expression is its bedrock, I say the same if you can’t accept the reality of what Canada is. Where does this leave the question of minority concerns with respect to journalism, it’s still unclear, but perhaps the printed press should be held more accountable and have some formal system dealing with these kinds of issues.

On a different note, to lighten up the mood, here’s the News Hound post that caught my eye: Fox News Provides Report on Poor, Victimized, Mark Steyn - And Provides Commentary From A Neo Nazi, Too!. The author and audience see Mark Steyn’s writing for what it is, and the post does a number on Steyn (and neo-nazi) supporter Paul Fromm too.

Here are a couple of musings from the comments section that I got a kick out of:

“Isn’t Steyn living in New Jersey illegally?”

When referring to Steyn’s demographics argument, “Thanks Mark Steyn, that’s just what this world needs…motivation for racist idiots to start a baby making contest.”

And last but not least, “Steyn is Canadian? I thought he was from Australia. And doesn’t he live in Jersey? Or Vermont? I want to see proof of citizenship. As far as anyone knows he was born in Iran. Deport this illegal alien now!”

Many believe him to be a free speech saviour, many more see him as a spicy, flavourful and pesky advocate for nearly everything that is strictly conservative, yet others see his views as downright deplorable and as an individual in disrepute for the way he conducts himself.  If you have been keeping abreast of the discussions on this site and the national debate on freedom of expression I’m sure you have a hunch of who I’m talking about, that’s right, our wily and outspoken friend Ezra Levant.

Now let me tell you what he isn’t, it’s simple, he is neither fair nor genuine.

In his latest entry he haphazardly attempts to support his belief that human rights commissions are biased and arbitrary and unavailable to members of the Christian community (what he is really suggesting is that are only accessible by Jews, Muslims and other vulnerable groups).  The example he opines upon is thus: A gentleman has filed a human rights complaint against a tv personality and Showcase TV (supporting this event) for flying a plane pulling a banner with the words “Jesus Sucks”.  For the full account of the story see here.

Here is Ezra’s view on the merits of this claim:

Hotz precisely meets the test of Canada’s hate speech laws: what he did was “likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt”. That’s the wording in the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Alberta code, the B.C. code and other provincial HRCs. If Hotz was a skinhead, and the banner said “Jews suck”, he’d already have had a human rights officer at his  door, and probably a policeman, too.

First off, Dean Skoreyko, the individual championing this complaint, admitted to submitting this statement to the B.C. Tribunal:  “my Christian beliefs and upbringing were publicly ridiculed.” So, he alleges public ridicule and essentially what really boils down to hurt feelings, yet Ezra, who we must remember holds a law degree from the University of Alberta, states that he “precisely meets the test…what he did was likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.” A self-admitted complaint of public ridicule, yet Ezra strongly suggests it fits the bill.  And accordingly, if this complaint gets dismissed, Ezra sees this “as proof that the HRCs are biased and arbitrary, and that they believe in the Animal Farm Credo that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”  Clearly this is a spurious argument.

And if that’s not quite enough, according to the The Vancouver Sun, Mr. Skoreyko “filed the complaint because he wanted to make the point that the human-rights system applies double standards.” What happened to all that talk about wasting tax payers money Ezra?

Pushing that aside, is it true that his legally trained mind cannot discern the difference between a statement such as “Jesus sucks” and a compilation of invective articles?  Let’s say that message reached the entire world, is telling the world that “Jesus sucks” going to make anyone dislike Christians?  Even if one takes this to be true, why would it expose Christians to hatred or contempt, if anything people might feel sorry for them for having a less than adequate symbolic leader (or sucky if you will). 

Now if a publisher establishes a pattern of print articles that use inflammatory, stereotypical and racialized terminology when referring to members of a faith community, and suggest that these members are growing in numbers through high birthrates with the specific intent of taking over our institutions, I think it is fair to say societal sentiment would tend to gravitate towards contempt for members of the group in question.

Should either of these situations require state intervention?  Maybe…maybe not, but there is a difference. Are human rights commissions in need of a massive overhaul? Again, another distinct question more than worthy of discussion and debate. 

Moreover, as Ezra is fully aware of B.C. legislation and jurisprudence he knows that a factor of consideration in claims of this nature is the question of the vulnerability of the group being written about and the historical discrimination it has endured.  He should equally beware, that this is also a factor in the analysis of constitutional cases regarding s. 15 of the Charter.  He clearly fails to give this any mention, let alone importance in his analysis. 

And lastly, Ezra bespeaks of a political motif through the “law-fare” epithet, in that Muslims are waging a soft-jihad with the help of the state by advancing complaints through human rights commissions to further their fascist aspirations.  This assertion is made irrespective of the insurmountable documentation showing that discrimination to Canada’s minorities is a pressing concern; albeit an occasionally over-exaggerated and superfluous claim. Yet he is clearly political in his quest to abolish human rights commissions so that public disseminators may pronounce as they wish with no accountability.

By no means does this site view itself as a guardian or protector of the frequently tarnished reputation of Islam.  With that said, we recently came a across this shockingly disturbing Islamophobic blog.  Here is a snapshot of the profile page:

Profile

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!