August 25, 2008

Yet Another Political-Science Conference Site Comes Under Scrutiny

As the American Political Science Association prepares to meet in Boston this week, a small network of scholars — including a pair of high-profile social conservatives — is circulating a petition asking the association to think carefully about its plans to meet in Toronto next year.

At issue are Canada’s federal and provincial human-rights commissions, which have recently been accused of trampling on free speech. In a decision last May, the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission ordered a right-wing Christian organization to “cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” And Maclean’s, the Canadian newsweekly, was brought before a British Columbia tribunal in June for publishing an allegedly anti-Muslim article; the tribunal has not yet issued a ruling.

The political-science petition, whose initial signers include Robert P. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, and Harvey C. Mansfield, a professor of government at Harvard University, warns that scholars visiting Toronto might face legal jeopardy if they made controversial statements. Scholars should be able to speak about “public policy concerning homosexuality or the character of and proper response to terrorist elements acting in the name of Islam, without fear of legal repercussions of any kind,” the petition reads.

The campaign has the flavor of a boycott. According to a report in the National Post, the petition’s authors plan to distribute buttons at this week’s conference that say “Toronto 2009? Non!”

But the petition itself makes a milder demand. It asks the association to solicit legal advice and to consult with the Canadian government to ensure that scholars’ civil liberties will be protected. “Our petition is simply asking for clarification,” said one of its authors, James R. Stoner, a professor of political science at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, in an interview with The Chronicle today. “We’re asking the APSA to acknowledge that there’s some issue concerning this, and that we can presume that the customary standards of academic freedom will be assured.”

Mr. Stoner speculated that the association’s governing council might refer the matter to an existing committee that has been asked to help scholars cope with homeland-security agencies when they cross the U.S.-Canadian border for next year’s meeting.

The new petition comes just weeks after the association affirmed its plan to meet in New Orleans in 2012. Some activists have objected to that site because of Louisiana’s anti-gay-marriage law, which is more restrictive than similar laws elsewhere. Daniel R. Pinello, a professor of government at the City University of New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice, is continuing to promote a boycott of the 2012 meeting. (Mr. Pinello crossed swords with Mr. Stoner, among others, in a 2003 e-mail debate on politics in the classroom that seems to foreshadow both the Toronto and New Orleans disputes.) —David Glenn

Comments

1. This sounds like an excuse to make a cultural political point, especially by people who don’t agree with equality (including for gays and lesbians), and the protection of minority groups (including from hate speech)…well, if you don’t like Canadian values why not just stay back in the USA? I bet the hotels in Arkansas, Utah, South Dakota, South Carolina and other like-minded states would be happy to host the conference. Canada is a far more conducive place to engage in genuine political debate than the USA, in general. But some people just can’t miss an opportunity to beam out the conservative (US-style) message, can they.

   — Canuck in USA    Aug 25, 04:25 PM    #

2. I am grateful that the APSA has raised this issue. Canada faces a serious threat from the Human Rights Cabal. Thought Crime Laws such as Section 13(1) are being abused to stifle and shape political expression.

   — Blazingcatfur    Aug 25, 05:39 PM    #

3. OK – one point of view. But, Blazingcatfur, isn’t it a little extreme to be suggesting that APSA should cancel straight off, and that Canada should also be deemed a “pariah nation” due to these contested developments (http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/08/do-political-scientists-believe-in-free.html)? Or maybe you just watched Canadian Bacon (with John Candy) and got all pumped up.?

   — Canuck in USA    Aug 25, 06:22 PM    #

4. CANUCK in USA
   I get it. If I don’t agree with your “Canadian values” just stay away. Sounds fair-minded and liberal to me, and it sounds like a place I can stay away from, no problem.
   Thanks

   — T Paine    Aug 25, 06:32 PM    #

5. It’s not a bad idea to get an interpretation on the statute beforehand. Anyone can present a half-baked argumentam ad misericordiam suit. Problem is, the government then pays for the plaintiff, while the defendant is stuck footing the bill for his own lawyer.

   — jruiz    Aug 25, 08:20 PM    #

6. This article is factually incorrect as the complaint against Maclean’s writer Marc Steyn was dismissed on June 28/08. Further, the idea of putting French on a button that references Toronto is risible. One is more likely to hear Mandarin, Punjabi or Italian in Toronto than French and I’m sure that French-speaking Canadians would hoot with laughter at the idea of Toronto as a French-friendly city. Clearly, the authors of this petition don’t understand the difference between Toronto and Montreal and even a respected paper like the Chronicle does not bother to get basic facts right. I am not impressed. Speaking of travel, perhaps Canadians should boycott APSA meetings in the U.S. given that the U.S. has unlawfully detained (Khadr) and deported Canadian citizens (Arar).

   — spitfire    Aug 25, 10:21 PM    #

7. A member of Can. Human Rights Comm. was posting, on one website deemed anti-whatever, (under other name) provocations which were astonishingly anti-Semitic, in order to flash out some potential supporters to these views. The man, Richard Warman, is closely connected to Jewish organisations defending (of course) human rights. See the file at http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/13163/1772
   this is not original source, but you will find it here and find a huge scandal (that was not given practically any coverage in mainstream media, except one journal). I didn’t read that stuff but I know the scandal was ENORMOUS!

   — Michael Pyshnov    Aug 25, 10:35 PM    #

8. Toronto is in the English speaking part of Canada. The button should say Toronto, NO!. The undercurrent of anti-French is typical conservative spin and it makes the campaign undignified and just a hair misleading.

   I’m a liberal person though and I’ll admit these folks may have a point. I agree in general that people should be able to say whatever discriminatory garbage they want to.

   — Karl in Philadelphia    Aug 26, 06:30 AM    #

9. Kudos to APSA. Canada’s Human Rights Commissions are quashing free speech in Canada. They might quash speech some find offensive, but quash they do, with a reported 99% “conviction” rate. Those brought before the court pay their legal defense costs out of their own pockets (ask Ezra Levant (http://www.ezralevant.com/)) but the public funds the accusers. “Maclean’s” simply had enough money to put up a fight; the anti-gay preacher didn’t. Sock it to the poor and vulnerable, Canada!

   As for Khadrs, they’re a lovely bunch (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1639). I’m glad they’re in Canada (and not the US) and expect too many Canadians feel the same way, for the Khadrs make Canada so wonderfully multicultural.

   — Roger Godby    Aug 26, 07:28 AM    #

10. To spitfire [number 6]: The article is not incorrect. On June 28, a federal Canadian human-rights-commission dismissed an action against Steyn and Maclean’s. The British Columbia tribunal is a separate body, and a ruling is still awaited there.

    — David Glenn    Aug 26, 07:58 AM    #

11. Yet another attempt to have “free speech” masquerade for hate-filled, racist-speech. If you think it is okay to express that a certain group of people should be subjected to “mass killing, deportation and forced conversion” (read the article) then we could say that about White-Euro Christians who have done that all over this continent because they actually are guilty of genocide and theft. Whereas, the anti-gay, anti-Muslims extremists are simply projecting. Please, it’s a human right causing suffering if you cannot spew hate speech?

    — Di    Aug 26, 08:16 AM    #

12. “Canada’s Human Rights Commissions are quashing free speech in Canada.” #9
    There is nothing to quash anymore, and for la long time. What remains are a couple of websites that publish provocations.
    You have to know something about political parties (Progressive Conservatives and Reform Party which are now the one) who stood for free speech before elections. Once elected, they conduct a purge and remove from their ranks every person who advocated or may advocate in future the free speech. They do it in the very first week after elections.

    — Michael Pyshnov    Aug 26, 08:55 AM    #

13. New Orleans, Oui! Toronto, Yes! New Orleans is one of the most gay-friendly cities in the country, and as a longterm APSA member I have no worries that authorities in liberty-loving Toronto will be scrutinizing our panel papers.

    — Dave    Aug 26, 08:56 AM    #

14. Free speech? Unpopular speech? Speech that violates the “norms” of society? How unthinkable and how outrageous! What next, the free-flow of ideas in all corners of the world? Religious diversity in Mecca?

    — counter trend    Aug 26, 10:08 AM    #

15. Is it possible that free speech and hate speech are indistinguishable? That’s as ludicrous as the Toronto-aimed “Non.”

    The courts have long-since (shouting “fire” in a crowded theater where there is no fire) made the limits clear. The problem, I would guess, is that people get PC about it, and the next thing you know, you’re thinking about how to say it, rather than what to say, and then about whether to say it at all, now, in this context.

    “Dare I eat a peach?”

    — Dan    Aug 26, 11:34 AM    #

16. To David Glenn: Point taken, as far as it goes. However, much of the vitriol here is expressed against all human rights commissions in Canada, including the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Your article points out that the Canadian H.R. Commission has been implicated by critics and by the petition. Furthermore, neither you nor petitioners explain why the actions of the BC tribunal are relevant in the city of Toronto. In fact, the BC human rights tribunals do not have jurisdiction in Toronto, where the APSA is to be held. Toronto is not in BC. It is in Ontario, which is a different province and a different legal jurisdiction. Therefore, the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission tribunal is relevant to your article and to the issues under discussion. In my view, the fact that you did not include the very important Canadian H.R. ruling in the Steyn case undermines the factual credibility of your piece.

    To Roger Godby: 1) You state that the Khadrs are in Canada. In fact, Omar Khadr is in the U.S. He is a Canadian citizen who has been illegally detailed in Gitmo since the age of 15 in violation of international law. 2) What is your problem with the rest of the Khadr family, some of whom are located in Canada? Don’t like their opinions and their free expression of them? Gee, I guess Canada does allow some freedom of speech and you just don’t want to permit it when people don’t agree with you.

    I notice that you don’t have any rejoinder on Maher Ahar, an innocent Canadian citizen who was deported by the oh-so-free United States to Syria, where he was tortured.

    Do Americans ever consider how they come off when they lecture other democracies? Do Americans not see the hypocrisy of taking others to task about human rights when their own government has admitted to torture, rendition, wiretapping, and illegal detention? Do all of you who support this petition and who claim to support freedom also want the U.S. to abide by the rule of law in its treatment of Canadian citizens, including Omar Khadr?

    If the petitioners are to be judged by the quality of the comments of their supporters, then we liberals have nothing to worry about.

    — spitfire    Aug 26, 12:09 PM    #

17. To #9 & #11: Not stating a position on the larger issue one way or the other, but it’s worth noting that “free speech” as it’s generally used in the US is a distinctly USian legal notion—the freedom of speech amendment (amendment, note!) to the US Constitution is a rarity among the world’s constitutional legal codes, really.

    — ZS    Aug 26, 12:55 PM    #

18. The attack on Mark Steyn and Maclean’s came when Maclean’s excerpted part of Mark Steyn’s book American Alone. Steyn cited the higher birth rates among Moslems as proof that eventually Islam would replace the non-believers of Europe. That’s hate speech? His website recounts his “trial.” http://www.marksteyn.com. Imagine not being accused of saying something “offensive,” and your lawyer is not allowed to mention what you said at the trial, or he will be charged as well.

    Guy Earle, a left-wing comedian, was being heckled during a performance, and his putdown was “offensive” to the heckler. He’s in the dock too.

    A Christian pastor writes a letter to the editor saying he believes the “homosexual agenda” is wicked, and he is ordered to recant his religious beliefs.

    Canadians seem to be free to speak the Leftist agenda. What’s next for Left, reeducation camps?

    — J Madison    Aug 26, 02:01 PM    #

19. It’s also interesting that one of the reasons given for the petition is that Maclean’s and Mark Steyn have been accused of wrongdoing.

    Not convicted; accused. Thanks to RICO, of course, the distinction is becoming a bit blurred in this country. Is that an excuse?

    — Dan    Aug 26, 02:33 PM    #

20. To #16, re: the Khadr family.

    First off, there’s one big flaw in your commentary. The poster to whom you were replying is not trying to silence the Khadr family. In fact, I’d be willing to wager that he feels the more they talk, the more they hang themselves with their own words. So your “point,” such as it was, is moot.

    Second, I think it’s a pity if you have bought into all the Poor Little Khadr Boys stuff. If you did any research at all on the family (and were capable of objectivity), you would conclude that the Khadrs are not the kind of people who contribute anything to free society. They loathe Canada, loathe the U.S., have close ties to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and the women in the family have said they agree with the Taliban’s philosophy and their way of punishing people, logic dictating that if you see a gay man hanging from a post in the street, you won’t dare be gay yourself. They have lived off our dime while loathing everything about us and our country.

    Shut them up? No way! In fact, give them a bigger microphone! Even my most repulsively liberal friends don’t have much to say when the Khadrs speak openly.

    As for the APSA: thank you! I hope this will get enough attention that it will cause more people to pay attention to the censorship that happens in Canada. Sadly, I can’t see people left of centre caring much, since the only people being sued and harrassed are the people whose opinions the left don’t agree with anyway. Those right of centre wouldn’t press these kinds of ridiculous charges and make these nutty accusatoins because the right, quite frankly, would rather give ‘em enough rope.

    — Linda G    Aug 26, 04:48 PM    #

21. Re #21. If by “moot”, you mean debatable, then you will have the meaning of “moot” correctly.

    If the poster wanted the Khadrs to be free to speak, then fine. They are free to speak in Canada so where is the suppression of free speech rights? I am not sure what that has to do with the illegal actions of the U.S. government in detaining Omar Khadr. While you purport to be worried about free speech, you are apparently not the least concerned about a 15 year old who was thrown into Gitmo and mistreated in violation of international law. Should the Khadrs be deprived of basic civil rights because of their views? How does this square with your concerns about free expression? The Khadrs are hardly on the left and, in fact, I am not disputing their right to free speech, as long as they do not yell “fire” in a crowded theatre; most legal systems, including the U.S. system, recognize reasonable limits on speech that directly results in physical harm to others (among other limits).

    The idea that people will be “sued and harassed” by human rights commissions in Canada shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of how these institutions function and of what the law actually says. But, other than accusing me (groundlessly) of only favouring free speech for lefties, petition supporters are unable to cite one actual example of an infringement of academic freedom by a human rights tribunal. The idea that petitioners would request that “local authorities” in Canada (is that the Ontario government or the federal government or, as some have suggested, the city of Toronto?) would exempt anyone from criminal or civil law is ludicrous. Or, is it the position of the petition supporters that there should be one law for people who live in Canada and another for Americans and APSA members who are visiting?

    Again, I notice that you do not mention the illegal practices of the U.S. government in its suppression of age old freedoms such as the right to a speedy trial or the right to hear the evidence against the accused. But, I guess that’s small beer compared to your free speech right to condemn homosexuals. If this is what the U.S. constitution and American liberty has come to mean, then, honestly, we are indeed in the post-American era. You cannot expect to receive a shred of respect from other democracies when you hector them in this way.

    — spitfire    Aug 26, 06:55 PM    #

22. “petition supporters are unable to cite one actual example of an infringement of academic freedom by a human rights tribunal.”
    True. Thse tribunals are about supression of speech by threat to property.
    One can be fined into silence. Or out of business.
    As far as free speech giving me the right to condemn homosexuals or anyone else: well of course it does. I condemn whatever I want. I condemn you, spitfire. See? It didn’t hurt.

    — T Paine    Aug 26, 09:32 PM    #

23. So, it seems the right wing religious conservative fascists from the USA have outed themselves. They want the right to condemn whoever they so choose to target, with the implicit idea behind this all that everyone should be the same as them. Heaven. And when a shred of the USA (APSA) travels (in this case to TO), why not use it as a vehicle to eagerly condemn others who dare to operate by different principles. Legitimate concerns about the tribunals are worth venting, but T Paine et al want far more than to incrementally work through, and live in, the shades of gray that shape modern life in most countries. Given them an inch and they’ll take 1.609344 km.

    — Canuck in USA    Aug 26, 10:24 PM    #

24. M. Canuck (24 int. al.), back in the 70s or maybe early 80s, H M Canadian Government and the United States. Government both decided and decreed about the same time that our respective countries should adopt the metric system. Canadians dutifully obeyed. But Americans either ignored our government, or told them to go to hell. And when they put metric distance signs on major interstate highways, some of us came along and painted over them with green paint. We still use miles, inches, pounds, and feet. And we dont tolerate anybody telling us what we can say. If we want to disparage homosexuals, heterosexuals, liberals, conservatives, moderates …. we can. We can express contempt for anybody and everybody. Nobody in the United States has a constitutional right to not be offended. And I’ll split all the infinitives I please. There is a charm to your country and countrymen. But we value being free more than we value being nice. Especially more than we value compulsory niceness.

    — Joseph F Foster    Aug 27, 08:15 AM    #

25. Canuck in 24,

    In what Orwellian universe is it “fascist” to oppose the attempts of government to suppress liberty (specifically, freedom of speech)? Learn the meaning of words before you use them.

    These commissions are not jackbooted thugs beating up dissidents, but they nonetheless suppress speech through the threat of legal action and financial ruin. Sadly, there are already indications that this mindset is moving south of the border: according to the NY Times, left wing activists were planning on sending letters to 10,000 donors to conservative causes warning them that they might face legal action if they donate money, and the Obama campaign has contacted the Justice Department in an attempt to suppress an anti-Obama ad put out by a 527.

    Of course, the principal question, which remains unanswered, is why, exactly, the American Political Science Association is meeting in Canada.

    — Scott    Aug 27, 02:26 PM    #

26. Another thought from Canada.

    I am of the opinion that APSA should move the conference.

    The danger in the case of the APSA members is that if they engage in a discussion in Canada and put forward a topic for debate that some individual doesn’t like, a caretaker, a waiter, someone passing in the hallway at the hotel or convention hall for example; that caretaker can lodge an arbitrary complaint to a Human Rights Tribunal and have the APSA member brought forward to answer for her political thoughts in connection with the discussion. The complainant’s costs are paid by the Tribunal and the APSA member would bear his own costs. The Tribunal has the power to levy fines and heavy awards in favor of the complainants, and has done so.

    An example might involve a discussion on gay marriage. If I happened to be hide-bound against gay marriage but entered into a debate in an effort to gather points to help change my mind, I could be taken to the Tribunal if I stated a negative opening position.

    Upon examination, if my thoughts were deemed pure, what I said in a discussion or in a paper might receive Tribunal blessing, but also it might not.

    People pulled into this have said it’s worse than a limit on freedom of expression – it’s a test of what’s in your mind – a limit on freedom of thought. You can be arbitrarily called forward to explain your thoughts to a government official.

    Is it common and ubiquitous, no it’s not, but the process is being encouraged and misused by a handful of regular complainants. That handful targeted, among others, journalist Mark Steyn and McLeans Magazine who although eventually absolved, needed to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and months of time, to defend themselves. And, as noted, it’s not just one Tribunal, each Province has one along with the Federal government and you can be called to answer to any one or all of them in sequence.

    The APSA petitioners are asking for clarification and it may not be enough, because even with government assurances delegates may, in fact, not be able to find protection from ill-motivated complainants.

    So, the APSA people and other potential conventioneers travelling to Canada need to be well aware of the danger and if a few large international gatherings are publicly cancelled it will be a service to Canadians because at the moment there is no political will directed to other than tightening this Draconian noose.

    I agree with writer 26 that there is a similar subtle drift south to the US. America, with its strong founding principles, is the world’s buffer against this sort of thing and any nascent move away from that is troubling.

    — JI    Aug 27, 04:35 PM    #

27. RE: #24: “But we value being free more than we value being nice. Especially more than we value compulsory niceness.”

    I couldn’t agree with you more, Mr. Foster! Americans don’t listen to anybody! That is why there are more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 4, 000 Americans dead due to the war in Iraq. All because your current administration was looking for the infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction and to spread democracy and freedom throughout the Middle East. It didn’t hurt that the US was able to get their hands on their oil either, did it?

    It’s interesting, but I often find it amusing when people are forever viewing things from a “right” or “left” perspective. Why aren’t things ever seen as simply good or bad? I personally like progression, as change is inevitable, yet at the same time, there is no freedom without rules.

    And as a Torontonian, I am perplexed as to why such issues wouldn’t be supported for the APSA. I’m not too familiar with the Association, but they appear to be one that offers comprehensive studies rather than fear-filled opinions. I feel their topics, yet controversial, would provide an excellent opportunity to open up discussion on such topics. I can only assume that our federal government fear the debate might act as a springboard for hate-speech…? Unfortunately, it’s a Conservative minority government, and hopefully, that may change this fall.

    — North Yorker    Aug 27, 04:48 PM    #

28. “It didn’t hurt that the US was able to get their hands on their oil either, did it?”
    I read Iraq has an $80 billion ‘monitary surplus’ because we took their the oil. And the Saudis are poor because we took their oil, too. And this is why gas is so cheap now.
    Am I getting all this stuff right, North Yorker?
    America, land of the free. I wish sometimes we were the rascals you (and we) say we are.

    — T Paine    Aug 27, 06:01 PM    #

29. T Paine,

    I have long said I would vote for any presidential candidate who vowed, once elected, to behave exactly as so many in the rest of the world claim we do. Why would I do this? Simply for the entertainment value to be had watching the rest of the world soil themselves in response.

    — Scott    Aug 28, 12:57 AM    #

30. You read correctly T. Paine. By year’s end, Iraq will have $80 billion dollars in oil revenue. If they’re lucky, Iraq will be able to spend it on restructuring the country once the illegal US occupation ends and the 5 millions Iraqi refugees will be able to come back.

    However, I don’t see the average Iraqi getting the job to reconstruct his own country. I’m sure with all the other contracts that Halliburton and KBR have there, they’ll privatize every bit of construction while they’re there. It’s what’s been happening for the past five years, I don’t see why it would change. Having said that, perhaps my friend’s in-laws’s family who live there can aslo ask the Iraq oil investors for the $10,000.00 ransom they had to pay to get their son back from his kidnappers? Sadly, it’s become the norm when so many people who are unable to find employment.

    Ironically, the world oil situation has a lot to do with the “Enron Loophole”. The Hypothetical Product Value, or the “hpv” is what’s responsible for driving up the price of gas. Again, the current US administration is accountable for this.

    — North Yorker    Aug 28, 12:38 PM    #

31. Dear N. Yorker,
    I don’t know where to begin. I can say with some certainty that I didn’t kidnap anyone. But you are correct; as soon as the “illegal occupation” ends things are likely to return to their peaceful pre-war status in the Fertile Crescent. I don’t know what the Enron loophole is but I’m sure that it explains the high price of petrol, and that the USA is the root cause of the problem.

    If I envy one thing you have, N. Yr, it’s that you have (I’m guessing) a lifestyle and socio-economic situation indistinguishable from mine, yet you have someone else (me) to blame for all the world’s problems! What a cool setup! We have some groups down here that enjoy this same lucky position, as you may have heard. Nothing wrong with them is their fault. Either.

    — T Paine    Aug 28, 06:16 PM    #

Previous: Federal Spending on Academic Research Continued Downward Trend in 2007
Next: Fiscal Crisis Leads Berkeley's Student Newspaper to Cut Publication and Staff