Birju Dattani, Canada’s newly appointed Human Rights Commissioner, and the first Muslim to hold that post, is being accused of harbouring antisemitic views.
Among the claims made, it’s been asserted that he shared an article likening the plight of current-day Palestinians to prisoners in the Warsaw Ghetto during the Second World War.
He spoke on a panel alongside a member of an Islamic fundamentalist group that wants Israel destroyed.
And in 2015, following a speech to the Muslim Research Forum, he wrote that terrorism “is a rational and well‑calculated strategy that is pursued with surprisingly high success rates.”
This piece is not an investigation into the truth of those allegations. It appears many of the posts he wrote have since been deleted.
Rather it is an examination of the bureaucratic muddling that preceded his appointment.
When Dattani was being considered, it appears he gave the Privy Council Office one or more aliases he used online. The Privy Council Office is the federal staff agency that advises the cabinet on pending appointments, among other duties.
But the Privy Council Office admits it didn’t follow up those aliases to see what Dattani had been saying. Neither was the matter referred to the various security agencies for vetting. CSIS and the RCMP were left in the dark.
Again, it appears that the Privy Council Office did not conduct a background search using open sources on the internet, something that should be standard practice.
Nor did the agency advise the justice minister’s office or the prime minister’s office about the concerns being raised about Dattani.
The Privy Council Office now says the whole thing was due to an administrative “oversight,” and an independent inquiry has been set up to determine whether, or to what extent, the allegations against Dattani are true.
He is due to take up his five-year appointment on Aug. 8, a date that might have to be pushed back if the inquiry takes longer.
Meanwhile, the Privy Council Office has apologized and announced that a more rigorous screening process is being developed.
What are we to make of this shambles? The role of Human Rights Commissioner is both one of the most important, and one of the most delicate, in our country’s public life.
The new Online Harms Act, currently before Parliament, gives the commissioner far-ranging new powers to investigate complaints.
Among these powers, the commissioner can look into online posts to determine if they are “hateful,” and where he deems it appropriate, pass these on to the Human Rights Tribunal for action. The tribunal in turn is empowered to award settlements of up to $20,000 if a finding of hateful speech is made.
Given the sweeping, yet often vague nature of the language used in the bill around terms such as “hate” and “harm,” there is a vast amount of room for personal judgement here.
For that reason it is essential that whatever enquiries are conducted be fair and impartial, and more than that, are seen to be fair and impartial.
Given the controversy surrounding Dattani, can he fill that role?
He might simply be the victim of poorly chosen words, some spoken years ago when he was a graduate student.
He has said some of the material he posted did not reflect his own opinion.
Yet it’s hard to see a good outcome here. If the inquiry vindicates him, there will be anger in the Jewish community.
But likewise, if the decision is made to rescind his appointment, there will be anger in the Muslim community.
Either way, a mere apology isn’t sufficient. Heads should roll in the Privy Council Office for such grievous mishandling of a sensitive appointment.
>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
