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.
July 21st, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Hi! I’m Harry Abrams, the complainant in the case cited above.
Couple of points.
B’nai Brith intervened in my action, not CJC.
“Discriminatory thoughts” per above are not actionable.
Yes this substantially about whether “coded language” is actionable, but it has to be in the context of a definite pattern of what is obviously invective as opposed to fair comment.
The distinction between what is reasonable comment as opposed to hateful invective was substantially explored in CJC V. Collins/NSN, but the Tribunal decision was that not enough evidence was demonstrated to cross the line. The CJC complaint was based upon a single article. “Swindler’s List.”
My complaint was upheld, because a substantial pattern of invective was established.
July 21st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Hi Mr. Abrams,
Glad to have you weigh in on this discussion. Thanks for the correction.
In the CIC v. Maclean’s case we feel that the Complainant has established that there was a definite pattern of obviously invective commentary. This was accomplished through the documentation of nearly 20 articles published by Maclean’s in a two and a half year span containing similar themes and tone.
Moreover, a fair comment defence, in our opinion, will not normally be present in a collection of derogatory opinion pieces with no counterview.
July 21st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Yeah I agree, the CBC’s bias against anything christian/conservative/american is deplorable. The state should jump in and stop the CBC from saying anything that could be interpreted as an innuendo against the aforementioned groups.
you guys are a joke and a half.
when faced with the simple and obvious fact that your tactics are destroying our free speech tradition, you simply label “free speech” as an obfuscation and move on.
oh, and btw, you know what drives “hatred and contempt” towards muslim? it’s very surprising. it’s the terrorism that some muslims commit in the name of islam. shocking, I know. perhaps you would support that the media be prevented from reporting on such activities, because it would cause some towards “hatred and contempt”?
when muslims demonstrate publicly and violently because of cartoons, they are breeding hatred and contempt for themselves.
when muslims try to shut down and hijack the editorial content of a magazine, they are breeding hatred and contempt for themselves.
sorry, this is reality, but go ahead and dismiss as just another “obfuscation”. i cant wait to see a world where the state will be perusing media looking for “innuendos” and “coded language” to see if somebody’s feelings will get hurt. should be awesome.
oh yeah, and when your boss El-masry writes an oped suggesting that Mugabe is the cream of the crop, he’s creating hatred and contempt for himself, and for the CIC.
btw, i loved this bit:
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.
no sh!t sherlock. talk about projection. listen to what the CIC has to say about jews (all targets for terrorism). clean up your own house and then come to lecture others.
July 21st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Jerome Bastien:
This site has no recognized institutional, organizational or political affilliations.
Taking the indefensible position that all you have said is accurate, we don’t recognize anything that you wrote as justifying Macleans’ practice of publishing opinion pieces with no counter-view that potentially harm and negatively impact the lives of approximately 800,000 Muslim Canadians.
You criticize the use of the word obfuscation as a superficial misrepresentation of reality yet you resort back to the “hurt feelings” defence and “move on”.
Above all, that series was created in order to look past and isolate the important debates surrounding the CIC v. Maclean’s case and focus on the serious problems with Canada’s media conglomerates and their one-sided portrayals of vulnerable communities.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Admin:
Please let me know what of my above post is inaccurate so that we may test your assertion : “Taking the indefensible position that all you have said is accurate.”
I dont write to justify Macleans’ practice of anything. If you wish to criticize Macleans’, I will applaud you in your exercise of freedom of speech. In fact, this blog is an exercise in freedom of speech for which you should be congratulated. I may not agree with you, but thats not the point.
I note however, that you offer no counter-view in your criticism of Macleans - geez, should we get the Courts to weigh in?
The only legitimate action that can be taken against Macleans is to criticize it. Any action like a human rights complaint will always be taken by a large swath of the canadian population as an affront to our liberal traditions of free speech and will be fought tooth and nail.
BTW, there will always be idiots who judge people by their belonging in some minority group - you cant legislate stupidity out of existence. When you try, the cure is worse than the disease.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
Jerome Sebastien:
You conclude by making the ad hominen argument attacking Dr. Elmasry for views you attribute to him and suggest that nothing should be done about the problem until an internal cleansing within his organization is conducted.
Yet the major premise of your argument is that it is Muslims–all outside of Canada besides the Complainants themselves–not the media (or anything else) that is driving the root of hatred and contempt towards Muslims. Therefore, your premise and conclusion are contradictory.
Furthermore, you make the assumption that Elmasry’s views as seen through his opinion pieces, obviously deplorable to yours, are of an extreme minority and that they expose the Muslim community to hatred and contempt.
Lastly, the CIC has an excellent working relationship with many members of the Jewish community. For example, in their last public fundraising dinner the keynote speaker was of the Jewish faith. The out of context remarks that you reference with respect to Elmasry are not indicative of the views of the CIC.
Thanks for your comments; we will be happy to respond to any new insights or thoughts on this topic.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:30 am
Congratulations on your site. I’m on the other side from you, but there is so much offensive, splenetic bile on so many sites on both sides that any civil and reasoned contributions are a plus in my book. Whatever the reasons for your anonymity, I hope you will try and keep the tone at a level that would make your grandmother proud. Otherwise, down you will spiral.
A comment on the “turban effect” and other academic studies pointing to purported “systematic” stereotyping or racism. This is leftist scholarship at its worst, designed to delegitimize opposition through the “r” word. I live in a city with a significant visible Muslim population that appears to be doing well and that, despite issues on the edge like youth gangs, is certainly contributing to the quality of life. I am completely unaware of any complaints that they are being discriminated against in housing, employment, education or that they or their kids are being rejected socially. I know of no calls for expulsion or exempting them from immigration outside of the looney, frothing blogosphere. As with many observant Jews, any lack of full social integration seems to come more from their choices than rejection. The concerns about Islamist activism are almost entirely political and legal and they are not figments of anybody’s imagination or derived from grandad’s prejudices. Challenge away if you will, but please stop with the Jim Crow analogies.
Also, again exempting the fringe, most arguments against immigration are perfectly legitimate, just wrong. They are timeless and have been used many times before against many different peoples since the 19th century. They are much better challenged head on and respectfully than dismissed as the ravings of yahoos. Plus it isn’t all or nothing. Immigration is almost always a middle to long term boon but it can change the social scene abruptly and there are all kinds of issues relating to pace, concentration, extended family unification, social support, etc. that only a fool would suggest should be unlimited or ignored in immigration policy. No Canadian should be shouted down on them.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Peter:
Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the congratulatory words. Also, nice to see you leave a well written, thought out response.
I assure you the tone of this site will not exceed that of a PG movie.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Your blog is interesting!
Keep up the good work!