Why is CBC promoting hatred against whites in Canada?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/dear-qallunaat-white-people-inuit-sandra-inutiq-1.5020210
Request for Criminal Hate Speech Investigation Regarding Statements Published by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Action
- I, George Hutcheson, have submitted a request to police to investigate statements published by the CBC. The statements, originally authored by Ms. Sandra Inutiq in her February 17, 2019 op-ed “Dear Qallunaat (white people)” (“the article”), I feel, have likely breached section 319(2) of the Criminal Code by amounting to a willful promotion of hatred against European Canadians.
Parties
- The criminal complaint is against the author of the article, Sandra Inutiq. It is believed she is a resident of Iqaluit, Nunavut.
- I am the sole petitioner and am based in Toronto, Ontario. I am an advocate for intellectual diversity in academia and the political interests of European Canadians. Separately, I manage an organization called Students for Western Civilisation.
- The complaint has been filed with the RCMP.
Why I Have Filed This Complaint
- Numerous of the article’s published statements rise to the level of “hatred” as defined in Supreme Court and other venues’ jurisprudence. For instance, they include highly charged accusations against an identifiable group for both controlling financial systems and dominating social services (R. v. Andrews, [1990] 3 SCR 000); for being discriminatory and prejudiced and engaging in a conspiracy against other groups (R. v. Harding, 1998 CanLII 18857 (ON SC)); for being materialistic, power-hungry and manipulative (Keegstra); for controlling the nation’s financial, educational, and media institutions (Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor); and for being morally deficient compared to other groups (Nealy v. Johnston (1989), 10 CHRR D/6450).
- The law states that, like all Canadians, European Canadians have the right to be free from public vilification and hateful and malicious expression aimed to injure their dignity, identity, and feeling of self-respect. The Supreme Court has acknowledged the importance of self- identity and group dignity, noting specifically “that one’s concept of self may in large part be a function of membership in a particular cultural group.” The legitimacy of ingroup self- interest has also been recognized by Canada’s father of multiculturalism, the late Pierre Trudeau, when he wrote that “English Canadians” should be able to “protect and realize their own special ethnic qualities” and could even do so “within [a] framework of regional and local autonomy.”
Relevant Statutory and Case Law
- Wilful Promotion of Hatred. Section 319(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction
- “Hatred.” The Supreme Court in Keegstra v. R (1990) stated that “‘hatred’ in section 319 “connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.” As the Court added, such an emotion, “if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to illtreatment on the basis of group affiliation.”
A Partial Summary of the CBC’s Published Statements which Promote Hatred, Vilification and Detestation
- Attacks on European Canadians’ Self-Worth and Dignity; Claims of their Moral Inferiority, etc.
- European Canadians never “admit to making mistakes or being wrong” and lack a sufficiently “deep[] level of consciousness and willingness… [to change.]”
- European Canadians must “[s]top talking over Inuit, cutting people off or finishing sentences for people…” and “fill every silent moment with incessant talk… [they must] [s]hut up and listen.” European Canadians are “arrogant” and mentally fragile (“natives do so much to protect white fragility”).
- “[R]acism against white people does not exist.” European Canadians shouldn’t be allowed to “be the one to judge whether an act is racist, culturally insensitive or appropriate.” But “[a]ll white people are racist.” Those who are sure that they are not racist are mistaken: “One is not exempt from racism because they are simply ‘a good person.’”
- European Canadians must generally “exclude[]” themselves from “mainly Inuit or Inuit- spaces” or, at the very least, “not talk[]” in them while present. They can be only a “visitor” in native land and cannot be a “voice for Inuit.” “There are daily flights going south… [y]ou are welcome to leave.”
- These attacks are elevated by the article’s highly aggressive and confrontational tone e.g. addressing European Canadians directly (“Dear white people”); the use of the preposition “you” throughout, and the use of exclamation marks (“let that sink in!”).
2. Conspiratorial-Sounding Claims of European Canadians as an Oppressive and Powerful Menace in Canadian Society, etc.
- The article appears to willfully promote a conspiracy theory that there is, as it says, a “system” which European Canadians fully control and surreptitiously use to their own selfish political and financial ends. According to the article, this “system”, , is apparently guided by and based on “white supremacy”—that is, it’s a system where whites seek to reign supreme over non-whites.
- The system apparently “rewards white people with [] privileges…”, while it provides only “so- called rights” to native Canadians and “relegate[s]” them to “lackluster employment and equity programs…”. This ‘system-for-whites-only’ also “tells you (natives) in many ways your life is not worth anything or very little.”
- Further, this system is apparently based on exploitation. For instance, the article states that. whites, or more specifically, white “men with white heads”, arrive daily to Nunavut by the “planeload[]” to “exploit and then move on to the next per diem.” European Canadians, Inutiq claims, are “miserable people” and only interested in the region for the “economic opportunity.”
- Arguments to the contrary, the article claims, are simply covert attempts to “sanction[] racism” and carry out a “subtext… that any efforts to reverse systemic discrimination and racism should be avoided… and “exclude[] Inuit concerns and maintains the very system that oppresses Inuit.”
The CBC’s Statements Create an Atmosphere of Hatred and Potential Violence against European Canadians
- It must be emphasized how highly charged these accusations are. Along with many other non-European Canadians, such statements make natives feel that European Canadians are the source of any social ills they may have and negative disparities they experience. The idea being promoted is, but for European Canadians, their lives would be better. Such a message works to foster an atmosphere that encourages and legitimizes hatred and violence in the form of righteous rage, street justice, ‘taking back what’s yours’, etc.1 Meanwhile, the dominant position and reach of the CBC furthers such an atmosphere and legitimizes the message in the minds of readers who may otherwise dismiss them. Considering the CBC has not removed these statements, the injury is still ongoing.
- Even people with positions in respected institutions in Canada and elsewhere have promoted the legitimization of committing violence against individuals they perceive as racist.
- Certain segments of the European Canadian population are particularly vulnerable to such attacks. They include those who refuse to yield to the kinds of changes the article appears to demand—e.g. “Once you recognize [the system of white supremacy], you have the ability to reflect and learn”; “[y]ou have a responsibility to take responsibility for that”, etc—and who reject the form of politics espoused in the article and to become an “ally” to Ms. Inutiq’s cause (her words).
- This would also include, for instance, those who base their policy preferences out of, what British journalist David Goodheart and others say, a sense of ingroup self-interest (rather than outgroup racial animus). As he writes, it “may be clannish and insular, but it is not the same as irrational hatred, fear or contempt for another group—the normal definition of racism.” 3 Author and Duke Political Science professor Ashley Jardina also distinguishes between outgroup white racial animus and white ingroup self-interest.4The CBC Ombudsman recently responded to a complaint about the article, exonerating the CBC almost entirely vis-Ã -vis its own journalistic standards. In response to the reasons proffered for the exoneration, it must be pointed out that hate speech is generally not made neutral or palatable, for instance, by the speaker’s claim that he or she is offering a mere opinion or unique perspective. This includes situations where the speaker claims that certain statements and words were based on self-righteous, justifiable anger or were simply not intended to offend or vilify (especially when the speaker uses them outside their commonly understood, dictionary meaning and fails to acknowledge as much).
1. One recent survey from the U.S. found that 40 percent of respondents of various racial backgrounds felt it was to “hateful” to say “all whites are racist.” Another 50 percent said it was “offensive.” See here, page 17.2 See attached copy of tweets from University of New Brunswick professor Matthew Sears wherein he advises students to physically assault people he or they perceive as “Nazis”; Kathleen Joyce, Fox News, Ex-professor accused of hitting Trump supporters with bike lock at ‘free speech’ rally in Berkeley gets probation, (August 9, 2018); Mitch McKinley, Law Enforcement Today, Professor: “I am Antifa.” Talks about attacking President Trump, killing Christians (August 23, 2019)3 David Goodhart, Financial Times, White self-interest is not the same thing as racism (March 2, 2017).4 Isaac Chotiner, New Yorker, The Disturbing, Surprisingly Complex Relationship Between White Identity Politics and Racism (January 19, 2019). (“For people high on white identity, opposition to immigration doesn’t necessarily come as a result of disliking Latinos. It is rooted in something different, which is that they think immigration is threatening American culture, but a particular flavor of American culture, one which is defined by Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage, which is very much defined by whiteness. Somebody might just be opposed to immigration because they dislike Latinos. But there’s a different component to this that’s going on in the minds of a lot of white people.”); Also see, Ross Douthat, New York Times, Four things that are not white nationalism (September 4, 2019) (“It is not white nationalism to recognize limiting principles on liberal universalism, and a justifiable role for particularity — ethnic, cultural, religious — in many political arrangements.”) 
No comments:
Post a Comment