Racist literature about Aboriginals defended by House of Commons as free speech
Racism, ignorance and hate literature being defended by House of Commons lawyers as a politician privilege (see story below).
From CanWest News Service ...
Former MP loses bid to be immune from human rights law
Janice Tibbetts, CanWest News Service - January 24, 2007
OTTAWA - A former Saskatchewan MP, who is accused of racism against aboriginals for a ''householder'' brochure he sent to his constituents, is not exempt from a human rights investigation, says a federal judge.
Jim Pankiw, who was a member of the former Reform and Canadian Alliance parties before he was ousted for his controversial views, unsuccessfully tried to convince a judge that politicians should be able to express their views without being hauled before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Federal Court Judge Francois Lemieux concluded the concept of parliamentary privilege, which has traditionally been used to protect politicians from lawsuits for comments made in the House of Commons, does not extend to handouts distributed by MPs.
''There can be no doubt freedom of expression is the lifeblood or a democratic Constitution such as Canada's,'' wrote Lemieux. ''Having said this, there is always a balance to be achieved because there are limits to free political speech.''
Pankiw took the commission to court after it decided a human rights tribunal could examine nine complaints against him for distributing pamphlets appealing for a halt to ''Indian crime.'' He also condemned ''race-based hiring quotas for Indians'' and a Criminal Code provision that urges judges to use leniency when sentencing aboriginals.
Pankiw, now a Saskatoon chiropractor, said the court decision is a blow to free speech.
''It means that the Canadian Human Rights Commission can censure members of Parliament for speaking their mind about public policy, which means we no longer live in a free country,'' said Pankiw, the former MP for Saskatoon-Humboldt. ''If you can't get elected in and espouse your views, then we don't have free speech, do we? It makes a mockery of our Constitution.''
Pankiw was elected as a Reform Party member in the 1997 and its successor, the Canadian Alliance, in 2000. He joined other dissidents who defected to protest Stockwell Day's leadership, but when Stephen Harper assumed the helm, he did not invite Pankiw back on the grounds he was too confrontational.
The House of Commons, which supported Pankiw in the court challenge, filed an appeal on Friday in the Federal Court of Appeal.
''The question is whether it is appropriate in a democracy for a government agency to be judging the content of what members of Parliament say to their constituents,'' said Steven Chaplin, a lawyer for the House of Commons. ''In our view, the political process should deal with it, that's what elections are all about.''
He noted Pankiw was not re-elected as an independent candidate in the federal elections of 2004 and 2006, when he lost to the Conservatives.
Chaplin said the House of Commons draws the line at the free speech that amounts to criminal hate.
Ailsa Watkinson, one of Pankiw's former constituents who filed a human rights complaint, doesn't buy the argument that politicians should be able to speak their minds and then let the voters decide.
''To have in that position somebody disseminate information and to speak in a way that is promoting hatred, that perpetuates discrimination against a certain group of people, is an abuse of power and privilege,'' said Watkinson, a professor at University of Regina.
Parliamentary privilege has traditionally immunized politicians from lawsuits for comments in the House of Commons. It has also protected them from being called to testify while the House is in session.
There have been numerous attempts over the years to expand the scope of parliamentary privilege.
Lemieux, in his ruling, drew heavily on a 2005 decision in the Supreme Court of Canada which retained a narrow scope for parliamentary privilege in the case of Satnam Vaid and the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Gib Parent.
The House of Commons tried to claim privilege when Vaid tried to take his former boss to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that he was the victim of a racist firing.
CanWest News Service