Robert Galster News Reporter robert@usnews.com BRITISH Columbia’s Human Rights Tribunal has upheld a Victoria man’s complaint against the North Shore News and its former columnist Doug Collins. Harry Abrams filed the complaint on May 27, 1994, fn it he alleged Collins and the News “published or caused ta be published articles that discriminate against Jewish persons and are Jikely to expose those persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of their race, religion and angestry” contrary to the Human Rights Code. In addition to upholding the complaint, Tom Patch, the tribunal member hearing the complaint, has ordered the News and Collins to pay Abrams $2,000 as compensation for the iniury to his dignity and self-respect. The tribunal also ordered the News to publish a summa- ry of its findings within a week and refrain from publishing statements that “expose or are lixely to expose Jewish persons to hatred or contempt.” Abrams” complaint focused on four columns written by Collins and published in the News in 1994. One of the four, Hellvweod Propaganda, was the subject of an earlier tribunal hearing at the behest of the Canadian les against Ne Victsria man’s complaint over Doug Collins’ columns upheld by human rights ruling In dare 1997, that tribunal's chairman Nitva [ver dismissed the complaint finding that the column in question “did nor itself express hatred or contempt.” At that time, the paper launched the North Shore News Free Speech Defence Fund to ottser the quickly escalating costs of mounting a detence in the proceedings and Jaunch- ing a constitutional challenge of the legislation giving rise to the tribunals. The coral egal costs of the first tribunal exceeded $200,000 while the defence fttnd raised $149,197.69, News publisher Peter Speck said the most recent tribunal constituted the paper being “tried twice for the same thing.” He addeu that the News would be hard-pressed to match the deep pockets of a government agency seemingly set on pursuing the matter until it got its wav. “We don’t have the resources to be taken through anoth- er excruciating court appearance,” said Speck. “And we were going to be tried entil the government got the result it want- ed.” Collins reacted to the decision with his now customary Friday, February 5, 1999 — North Shore News - 3 defiance of the human rights legislation, “It's an outrageous decision and a direct threat to tree dom of the press and freedom of expression.” said Collins. “Its an atrempt te enforce political correctness in’ this province which was the purpose of this legislation (Human Rights Code.” Collins’ assessinent was echoed by several organizations, including the BC Press Council, which issued the following Statement: “The government has no business setting up spe- cial cribunals to tell newspapers what to print, given their role as ‘public watchdogs’ in a tree and democratic society.” Meanwhile, the British Columbia) Human Rights Commission applauded the decision. The commission played an important part in the tibunal hearing, arguing that the complaint had merit and should be upheld. “This decision affirms the notion that the freedom of expression we enjoy comes with responsibility to exercise chat treedam in oa responsible manser,” said the commission’s chief commissioner Marv-Woo Sims. “We do not have the right to yell ‘fire! in a crowded building when there isn'ta fire, and we don’t have the right ta ineite hatred and contempt towards other British Cohumbians.” In a local wwist, North Vancouver resident Lionel Kenner testified at the hearing that as a local resident he saw Collins as the “voice of the neo-nazii movement on the North Shore.” Jewish Congress. NEWS ghoto Terry Peters FORMER News columnist Doug Collins faces a media scrum in the wake of the decision in the first human rights tribunal iaunched against him and the News. ecision ordered published AS part of the B.C. Human Rights tribunal decision, the North Shore News has been ordered to publish the tribunal’s own sum- mary of its findings in one of che newspa- per’s next three issues. The News believes that the tribunal docsn’s have the authority to dictate editorial content ina B.C. newspaper. It’s the first time in Canadian history that any govern- ment agency or court has ordered a newspaper to publish editorial content. In addition, the challenge to the constitutionaliry of the Human Rights Code in this case has yet to be heard. The News sought claritication trom the tribunal ask- ing whether it is ordering publication with the case only half heard. No response had been reecived by press time Thursday. The offending text: “On Feb. 3, 1999 the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal released its decision in Abrams v. North Shove Free Press Led. doing business as Nortis Shore News and Dong Cullins. The Tribunal held chat Harry Abrams’ complaint against Collins and the North Shore Free Press Ltd. (the “North Shore News”) was justified. As part of the remedy for the human rights violation, the Tribunal ordered the North Shore News to publish this summary. “Abrams’ complaint alleged that Collins and the North Shore News violated the Hinman Rights Code by publishing four of Collins’ articles in 1994: 88 “News flash! Daily press discovering free speech” (Jan. 12); @ “Hollywood propaganda” (March 9); @ “Pondering Er better than pandering, folks” (March 23) and @ “Some value freedom of the press, some don’t” (June 26). “Collins and the Nevth Shore News chose not to present evidence to the Tribunal or to participate in the hearing. The deputy Chief Commissioner of the B.C. Human Rights Commission presented evidence in sup- port of Abrams. B'Nai Brith Canada and the Attorney General of B.C. also participated. All of the evidence before the Tribunal supported Abrams’ allegation that Collins and the North Shore News violate the Code. “The Tribunal found that the columns are likely to expose Jewish persons to hatred or contempt because of their race, religion or ancestry contrary to section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code. That section prohibits, among, other things, the publication of any statement “that is likely to expose a person or a group of persons to hatred or contempt” based on certain listed grounds of discrimination. Those grounds are race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age. “The Tribunal ordered Collins and the North Shore News to cease publishing statements that expose or are likely to expose Jewish persons to hatred or contempt and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contra- vention of the Code. “The Tribunal also ordered that Collins and the Worth Shore News pay $2,000 to Abrams as compensa- tion for the injury they have caused to his dignity and self-respect. In determining whether the columns violated section 7(1)(b), the Tribunal applied a nwo-part test: @ First, would a reasonable and informed person under- stand the message as expressing hatred or contempt? B Second, is the likely effect of the publication to make it more acceptable for others to manifest hatred or con- See Rights page § NEWS ANALYSIS Ruling torpedoes ».C.’s free press Timothy Renshaw Managing Editor IF you don’t succeed: try, try again. In B.C. that’s the modus cperandi of the province's human rights comnts: sion. ‘Target for today was Doug Collins and the North Shore News. Those who put much stock in the workings of human rights commissions will see Wedneadav’s decision as a direer hit. After all it upheld a complaint fodged against the News and Collins by Harry Abrany. The complaint alleged that tour Collins columas published five years ago in the News violated the province’s Human Rights Code by exposing Jewish persons to hatred and contempt, But those who pur more stake in democratic principles will know that the B.C. Human Rights Commission, like other such commissions across the land, is an arm of the government charged with cultivating the New Age vie- tim industry. They will also know that che decision is another extremely dis- turbing sign on the road to state intervention in the tree marketplace of ideas, For example, the tribunal concluded that individually “and raken out of context” the columns at issue don’t violate the code, but somehow collective- ly they do. That reasoning is all part of the elastic human rights business. If vou are selective in what you choose to excerpt from any body of written work the conclusions you can come up with are wide open. You can as News lawyer David Sutherland said, “make Snow White out to be Beelzebub.” The latest tribunal also claimed the right to reinterpret the already foguv Human Rights Code so that one tribunal's interpretation of the code doesn’t necessarily bind another to that interpretation. in other words: reinterpret it as needed. And, as part of the aibunal’s remedy, the News has been ordered tro pub- lish government-dictated content — this even though the challenge to the constitutionality of the human rights legislation has yet to be heard. We there- tore have a government-decreed remedy betore the case has been completed. And the Human Rights Code provides no authority for a tribunal to demand that a newspaper publish its findings. The summary is published in today’s News under protest. In addition, the tribunal ordered that die News and Collins cease to pub- lish statements “thar ... are likely to expose Jewish persons to hatred and con- tempt... ” Who decides what is “likely” to expose anyone to hatred or contempt? In case you are confused, the government will be glad to fill in the blanks for vou, “As media libel lawyer Roger McConchie has noted in the past, the sections of B.C.’s Human Rights Code at issue here are designed to prosecute “speech that is not criminal.” As to the human sights process itself, it is from the outset hopelessly weighed against the targets of complaints and ponderously slow. Tribunal defendants, for example, have no recourse to traditional legal avenues of defence such as truth and fair comment. And complainants in any human rights tribunal are automatically eligible for legal aid to fund their cases. Complainant Abrams took full advantage of that taxpayer largesse. The News had no such option. Its five-year human rights battic has cost the News well over $200,600 and has held the Sword of Damocles over the newspaper for that entire time. There is also no restriction on the number of times a human rights defen- dant can be tried on the same charge. The News chose to walk out of the most recent human rights show trial because the newspaper was, in effect, being retried on the same charge that it had successfully defended itse}f against during a five-week hearing in 1997, B.C.’s taxpayer-funded human rights machinery is designed to wear down the target to the point where it no longer has the will or the resources to defend itself. Special interest pressure groups won this round. Democracy lost.