I want to clear a few things up here, but before I do that, I should make it clear that I think that both Canada's Hate Crimes laws and Human Rights tribunals are pretty much a bad bad ideas, that I do not support them.

But the distinction is important. The Criminal Code does indeed make hate speech a crime; there have been very few prosecutions under it, and the results of those prosecutions have been such that subsequently very few prosecutions have been brought. (Incidentally, such prosecutions are at the discretion of the Crown, and cannot be brought by individuals or groups.) The first problem is that convictions are exceedingly difficult to get (we still do have a court system that is if anything generally less political and allied with the Executive than in the US, though still rather conservative). The worse problem is linked with this: a court trial gives the hate-monger a massively bigger megaphone-- the Ernst Zundel trial proved that, with the media repeating the ludicrous defence claims at face value.

But that is beside the point, because the Human Rights tribunals are a different kettle of fish entirely. (Full disclosure: I have a personal acquaintance with Mr. Levant, and rather strong opinions about his character and conduct; also, I myself have been involved with several matters before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal.) Basically, they mostly deal with housing, employment, etc. issues, the US has pretty much the same sort of thing under different names. In fact the complaint against Mr. Levant was not actually about hate speech per se, which is as I said a criminal matter, though in effect that is how it is working out. The Human Rights Commissions do not in fact deal with things like hurt feelings, but real actual substantive losses.

First of all, yes, the tribunals do have a rather minimal power to fine, but mostly, by design, in theory anyway, their biggest sanction is to drag ugly conduct into the light of day (ugly conduct, that is, by all parties). In practice, this has not worked out so well, because like every government bureaucracy, they move at a glacial pace. Levant's case being a case in point; the complaint is at least a couple of years old.

But the proceedings are not quite as Levant portrays them. First of all, the process is pretty much entirely pro se; lawyers are typically not involved, and really aren't much help. This is why I have been involved: any disgruntled former employee or tenant can file a complaint (hand-scrawled on the form, said hand-scrawling being something that Mr. Levant for some reason feels is highly pertinent; well, he is a bigoted asshole after all).

When the tribunal gets around to it, it investigates, with a view to either dismissal or mediation (which is the stage that Mr. Levant is currently in) or failing that, moving to a full hearing. He was dealing with an investigator, not the tribunal itself. He in fact did not have to meet with her at all. Generally, this meeting (I have been through several) is held at your office and at your convenience; you are not dragged in anywhere, unless you want to grandstand, and once again, do not have to participate. Generally, it is in your interest to do so, because the vast majority of complaints are wound up at this stage.

So no, this is not some sort of secret star-chamber hearing, it is a meeting with an investigator/mediator who is trying to figure out what is going on. And just like a meeting with an insurance adjuster or a tax auditor or yes, even a police detective, a request to bring an audience and tape the proceedings and so on would likely be met with some resistance. In fact it seems to me that the investigator was bending over backwards to be accommodating.

Based on my experience, I would expect that, outside of Mr. Levant's grandstanding, the whole matter would have been dismissed at this point. If it goes forward, under current practise, precedent, regulation, and legislation, the whole thing will wash out pretty quickly. And I don't think that Mr. Levant has in any way been hurt by it; on the contrary, he rather looks like the cat that swallowed the canary at this point.

Something that as a Canadian (and incidentally, also a dual citizen American) I have to explain once in a while: the US was founded on the principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" Canada was founded on the principles of "Peace, Order, and Good Government," which what you see working here. While as an American I actually share the maximalist position on free-speech, and think my other country is a bit wrong-headed on this issues, I do not take it as a given that those who do not share this approach are necessarily on a slippery slope to tyranny. Maybe they are just seeking a reasonable balance (which is why the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is such a boring read), exercised in a thoughtful, reasonable and accommodating manner.

One of the differences between the US and Canada is that in the US pretty much everything seems to get politicized. Everything from extraordinarily gerrymandered electoral divisions to municipal corrupt municipal commissions seem omnipresent, and simply would not be tolerated in Canada. Given that background and political culture, I think that the US as every right to deeply fear such things as Human Rights Commissions. I too have read the history of HUAC.