Is the Manitoba Human Rights Commission a waste of time and money?

B'nai Brith Accused Of Hate Speech
Body Accuses Manitoba Rrights Commission Of Withholding Facts
Joseph Brean
National Post
August 29, 2008
Page A6

B'nai Brith Canada revealed yesterday it is the defendant in a hate speech case at the Manitoba Human Rights Commission that is based on anonymous and vague accusations of Islamophobia and has taken nearly five years to investigate.

"The [Manitoba] Human Rights Commission itself is supposed to be promoting human rights, but in our view in this process it's violating some pretty basic rights: a secret proceeding, a faceless accuser, failure to disclose documents. These are basic procedural rights that are being violated," said David Matas, a prominent human rights lawyer and senior legal counsel to B'nai Brith.

The Jewish human rights group has long been co-operative with and supportive of Canada's human rights commissions, but has recently called for reform to prevent their hijacking as a political platform. This is the first and only time it has been named as a respondent in a hate speech case.

At issue is a conference B'nai Brith sponsored at Winnipeg's city hall in October, 2003, for first responders to acts of terrorism, such as police, firefighters or paramedics.

A central topic was Islamic terrorism, and the presenter was the Higgins Counterterrorism Research Center, a consultancy based in Arlington, Virginia.

B'nai Brith had a representative there, but did not attend all the sessions, and although it was not publicly advertised, there was no formal security to keep people out.

Four months later, a complaint was filed with the MHRC by Shahina Siddiqui, the Winnipeg-based executive director of the Islamic Social Services Association of the United States and Canada, and a member of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Her complaint alleged a violation of section 18 of the Manitoba Human Rights Act, which prohibits statements that "incite, advocate or counsel discrimination."

"Based on comments from some in attendance that the presentation was biased against Muslims, I conclude that the content of the seminar presented a negative prejudice about Muslims in terms of being probable terrorists. This prejudiced picture would encourage and support racial profiling by first responders and law-enforcement agencies dealing with possible terrorist incidents," the complaint reads.

Ms. Siddiqui did not respond to messages left yesterday at her office and home.

She did not attend the conference, and B'nai Brith has not been told the identities of her informant or informants.

In the ensuing investigation, Mr. Matas said the MHRC provided B'nai Brith with more specific information about "some of the things that might have been said," although not direct quotations or even complete sentences. He did not disclose them, but described them as "a word or two taken out of context."

He said their own investigations failed to turn up anyone who remembered hearing anything discriminatory.

"Who knows? If we had a legitimate complaint where we actually had a whole sentence and we knew who said it and we knew who complained, who knows? Maybe there's something there. Hard to say. It's just shadow boxing in the current context," he said.

In a submission sent today to Richard Moon, a law professor conducting a review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission's hate speech mandate, Mr. Matas said this case has led to violations of the right to full disclosure of evidence, and to face one's accuser.

"We know who's repeating the rumour, but that's all," he said. "We shouldn't be left with 'Somebody heard something' and we've got to answer what they heard."

This year, with the case apparently stalled after four years, the MHRC appointed an independent expert to make a determination on the case, which will inform its decision whether to reject it or send it for a tribunal hearing. Despite repeated requests, Mr. Matas said the MHRC refused to identify that expert.

Patricia Knipe, communications director of MHRC, said all will be revealed in a forthcoming investigation report.

She said investigations usually take nine or 10 months, but can be longer due to complexity of issues or failure of parties to co-operate. Five years is unusual, she said.

She said the MHRC "works within the legislation the government has. So we don't really have an opinion on whether it's good or bad or indifferent. "We just follow the code as it is legislated now," she said, adding that there are "safeguards all along the way."

"I've read all the articles about the situations and what is being said across the country [about human rights complaints and free speech], and I think everyone has to work out their own solution," she said.

Ezra Levant, a blogger who leads the campaign against human rights commissions, said in an e-mail that B'nai Brith, which has intervened to support hate speech laws in other cases, "has been a party to some of the grossest violations in due process themselves."

"All I can say is: What goes around comes around," he wrote. "It's a bit rich for [B'nai Brith] to discover their love of natural justice now."

jbrean@nationalpost.com