More on the Canadian bullying of Mark Steyn: how dare he tell the truth! "Canada's Thought Police," from the New York Post (thanks to all who sent this in):
December 16, 2007 -- Celebrated author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian judicial panels on charges linked to his book “America Alone."The book, a No. 1 bestseller in Canada, argues that Western nations are succumbing to an Islamist imperialist threat. The fact that charges based on it are proceeding apace proves his point.
Steyn, who won the 2006 Eric Breindel Journalism Award (co-sponsored by The Post and its parent, News Corp), writes for dozens of publications on several continents. After the Canadian general-interest magazine Maclean's reprinted a chapter from the book, five Muslim law-school students, acting through the auspices of the Canadian Islamic Congress, demanded that the magazine be punished for spreading “hatred and contempt" for Muslims.
The plaintiffs allege that Maclean's advocated, among other things, the notion that Islamic culture is incompatible with Canada's liberalized, Western civilization. They insist such a notion is untrue and, in effect, want opinions like that banned from publication.
Two separate panels, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, have agreed to hear the case. These bodies are empowered to hear and rule on cases of purported “hate speech."
Of course, a ban on opinions - even disagreeable ones - is the very antithesis of the Western tradition of free speech and freedom of the press.
Of course.
Ironically, they are proving Mr Steyn correct.
"These bodies are empowered to hear and rule on cases of purported “hate speech." "
Does the Qur'an qualify?
Mark Steyn come on down to the US.
When free speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have free speech... raising the likelihood that a different "communication medium" will be selected the future
With no animosity at all, and as an American actress having many colleagues and friends who are homosexuals, I would like to remind those who ascribe to an activist Gay Agenda, that followers of that agenda used these same Canadian "rights" tribunals to silence and punish a man whose bumper sticker they found offensive and one who took out a newspaper ad quoting Leviticus. They have hauled before them landlords and home schoolers too.
This is the Hell to where the punishment of speech and thought lead. The sword you wield against those with whom you disagree and whom you wish to silence will now be thrust at Mr. Steyn and similar journalists/authors. Someday this precedent may allow the advocates of Sharia to wield that sword to silence you, stop your lifestyle or even stop your life.
When "liberation" movements whether gay, feminist or racial use tribunals to censor others they invariably end up the antithesis to "liberation" itself.
Muslims at The Guardian have been posting the Runnymede Trust Islamophobia criteria for over a year now to silence any critics of Islam. They don't plan on fighting the war of ideas through debate. And the Left just can't wait to reeducate all the racist Islamophobes out there.
Knowing something is going to happen and then seeing it happen isn't all it's cracked up to be by some people.
As usual, the Islamaniacs set their infidel lapdogs on the attack for them. Good dhimmis!
As far back as 1984 in Canada a teacher was prosecuted and convicted of denial of the Holocaust. These laws were passed without apparent dissent. I even believe that these laws were passed with much fanfare and support. After all we cannot allow contrary opinions no matter how looney they might be. These laws seem to have grown from a desire to make amends for not stopping Hitler in 1938.
Now Canada is reaping the whirlwind from a bad set of laws. Repeal this hate-speech nonsense.
It's your Canada, and right now, your Canada is too close for comfort to my USA.
This psuedo court may have bitten off more than it can chew. Going after the unknown odd-bod is one thing, going after a respected journalist is another, especially one as focused as Steyn.
Once again -- does every single mention of a problem in Canada have to attract idiots from the US spouting off about this huge problem on their northern border? Grow up and check out your own backyard, Pelayo.
1. The US has done more to enable international Islamism than any other country on the planet over the past seven years, through the Bush government's deep links with the Saudis.
2. The biggest, most radical enclave of Islamism in North America is in the Detroit area.
3. You're worried about Canada being too close to the US right now? I'm worried about Berkeley being too close to Canada.
4. We've at least got a federal government in Canada willing to take on Islamist thugs. Our PM called the Saudis "barbaric" in regard to the recent lashing sentence for the rape victim. Yours just expressed surprise.
Clean up your own house first before worrying about pernicious influences creeping in from your neighbor's place.
OutOfAqaba,
The US has no law or case history where someone can be prosecuted criminally for insulting anything. Having an unpopular belief is not a crime down here. Canada and Europe have the laws that will be used against the populace. The US has none of these anti-free speech laws.
The US does have hate crime laws, but those laws are only used as penalty enhancements for actual physical crimes.
Please excuse my insult, but I live in the part of the US where there is only one mosque in a hundred mile radius, and I prefer to keep it that way. I have only seen one Muslim woman who was dressed in Muslim garb and that was about two years ago at WalMart.
Pelayo; you're barking up the wrong tree on this Steyn/McLeans vs HRC issue. BOTH HRC's are Provincial bodies not Federal; the equivalent to a US State justicial organization. Just to be perfectly clear, the lawsuits have NOTHING really to do with "Canada", the country.
Pelayo; you're barking up the wrong tree on this Steyn/McLeans vs HRC issue. BOTH HRC's are Provincial bodies not Federal; the equivalent to a US State justicial organization. Just to be perfectly clear, the lawsuits have NOTHING really to do with "Canada", the country.
Sorry 'bout the dble post...HUGE delay in loading...? Xmas rush hour?
DaninVan,
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal appears to me to be a state body, but the Canadian Human Rights Commission has a name that makes it look like a Canadian federal body.
I'll add this: I cannot think of a state in the US where this kind of judicial review could take place. A lawsuit could have to be filed ala CAIR vs Anti-CAIR, but that is in civil court. Y'all know how far CAIR went with their suit. The US has a federal civil rights commission, but someone would have to show that they have been harmed in some way, physically or financially. Someone can claim emotional stress, but without a bill from a mental health professional, it won't get very far.
American hate speech laws are mostly found in universities and on the workplace. The legal trend seems to be away from what are obviously unconstitutional laws, at least in the recent university speech cases I've seen. If you can't talk about race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin it's probably better just to sew your mouth shut. It's the only way to be sure.
Yo Palayo where ya live dude? Sounds like the place for me and my family. Oh, are Catholics seen as cool in your parts?;)
But seriously, a court that handles hate speech? Fortunately in the States the forces who would wish to inflict this type of abomination on this country have been stymied. Well, except in Philadelphia apparently.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316939,00.html
Never give liberals a small opening to control speech, they'll bust through it like Barry Bonds on steroids. I'm going to assume that it's about as easy in Canada to rid one's self of a government entity as it is here in the US.(damn near impossible) But this is one time to go for broke and end such an abomination. I understand they were created under good pretenses but it's bad enough the muslims are using the normal court system to try and quiet dissent, now they're using your Human Rights courts to further stymie free speech. God I hope we never have to fight that particular battle down here. Bad enough the way it is now. Canadians, fellow anti-jihadists, you have my sympathy and the best of luck to you all and Mr. Steyn.
these two bodies do serve a good purpose when it comes to defending the disabled recently there was a case of the B.C. human rights Council when they ruled in favor of a blind man and his guide dog when they were banned from riding in a taxi that was owned by a Muslim unfortunately with their mandate it can be misused and is misused right now I have a complaint I am filing with them over a job where the employer was not willing to make a reasonable accommodation for my disability [I am in a wheelchair] for cases like mine they do serve a purpose unfortunately groups like the Canadian Islamic Congress can and do miss use the human rights act the thing to do would be to file a complaint with the Council about the Koran being hate speech the only problem I can see is that the Islamic conference thing the same thing
What is particularly outragious and offensive about this--that ISLAM is spared criticism or critical examination, while CHRISTIANITY has no reciprocal protections. You are prosecuted for quoting Leviticus or St. Paul--that's hate speech--yet Islam's texts and tenets are legally protected under the chilling effect of what are nothing more than disguised anti-blasphemy laws--OUTRAGIOUS!
Given the deepening chill in the air of public discourse, Canadians, I'd say you're already well
on the "one true path" to dhimmitude--can you say, "Yes, Effendi"?
Oops, left out creed and religion.
Of course the worst "protected classes" are creed and religion. That's all human thought depending on how you define terms. And you know how they plan on defining terms when it comes to speaking about Islam... Islam can take a mostly beneficial legal regime - protecting free exercise of religion - and turn it into slow cultural suicide by applying it to speech. There are no subjects where Islam won't rule. It's a totality according to them.
The term "protected class" will be instrumental in the move to sharia. The dhimma and civil rights terminology, like their use of the term "oppression," (anything standing in the way of theocracy and sharia) allows Islam to make a 1,400 year regression seem like seamless progressive multiculturalism.
I understand what you are saying grizlybear. Here in the states the process would be to file a grievance with the EEOC (Equal Employment Oppotunity Commission), then it would go to the courts. The problem as I see is that the Human Rights court is given the mandate to deal with hate speech. I personally have problems with special courts, except when convened under strict guidelines and temporary. Maybe having new laws to limit the scope of the courts to remove hate speech except when proven to have caused a crime. Not when "hate speech" is the "crime." That's what has my panties in a knot. I utterly hate the idea of limiting free speech. The "Truthers" are a prime example. Even thought they are misquided, they have the right to say that which they want, within reason of course. No calling out fire in a theater, etc. Being Catholic, no big fan of the KKK, but they have the right to spew the garbage they do. I by no means intend my previous comment to be an indictment against Canadians, just the folly of legislating speech. A common fight both in the North and the South. Good luck in your endeavor grizlybear.
Kevin, I live along Interstate 40 between Nashville and the North Carolina state line, in a town with a Catholic School (K through 8) and large Catholic church.
There is a small town in southern Middle Tennessee called Loretto, it was founded by German Catholic immigrants.
http://www.ci.loretto.tn.us/
Thank God for the Bill of Rights enshrined in the Constitution of the United States!
Naturally I was in jest Pelayo. And a little bit jealous. Our next move won't be North, West, or East, but South. Back home to Texas where we know who the lunatics are.;)
Amen, John C. All the more reason to fight like starved junkyard dogs over a sliver of rancid meat. Ask for no quarter, give none.
Give me a break, Pelayo! Yes, these so-called human rights commissions in Canada are a blot on our country. But they don't do anything different than your ACLU does on a weekly basis. If anything, the ACLU is far worse, as it has far more resources with which to harry people in the US legal system, which is much more punitive and costly than the Canadian one.
These human rights commissions in Canada are also seen pretty much universally as a fringe joke, and complaints to them generally go nowhere. Like the one launched against the Western Standard in Alberta for printing the motoons a couple of years ago. The ACLU, on the other hand, has massive support in the US via the nutroots and Dhimmicratic Party.
Again, you're living in a glass house. Stop throwing stones.
That this would happen - that writers will not be able to write freely, thus compromising, if not destroying the quintessentail value of Western civilisation, was obvious from the time of the Rushdie affair.
We are paying the price of "tolerance", and will continue to do as long as Muslims are in significant numbers in the West - which means in practical terms, the destruction of Western civilisation.
Posted by OutOfAqaba:
"These human rights commissions in Canada are also seen pretty much universally as a fringe joke, and complaints to them generally go nowhere. Like the one launched against the Western Standard in Alberta for printing the motoons a couple of years ago."
The Western Standard case is yet to be heard in 2008.
Ezra Levant himself talks about that case and the Steyn and Maclean's case here:
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2007/12/elmasry-vs-stey.html#comments
Also, there is a link to the Muslims hand scrawled written complaint and also the western Standard's response. Interesting reading.
In part, Ezra says:
"Speaking of which, the Western Standard's own human rights hearing is finally coming up, nearly two years after we published the Danish cartoons and were first hit with the complaints. We don't have an exact date yet, but the formal "investigation" meeting will be in January. Though we ceased publishing the magazine, we are still a corporate entity, and it's important to me that we see this human rights challenge through."
"For your info, here's the hand-scratched complaint against us, and here's our reply. The whole thing feels like justice on the streets of Sudan or Saudi Arabia, more than Canada. I'm sure liberals who fight for the separation of church and state will be speaking out about this human rights complaint any moment now, as vociferously as if the Bishop of Toronto had taken a gay rights magazine to court."
Both these Muslim cases put before the HRCs are based upon "hurt feelings", not hate, for which one Margaret Wente, in the Globe and Mail on Dec 6, 2007, said:
"Darn those feelings. They can make you feel so bad. If feelings were facts, no one in Canada would be allowed to state a controversial opinion."
Ain't that the truth!
We must wish them all well in this fight against "freedom of expression and association", which is entrenched in Canada's Bill of Rights and Freedoms.
I have a sense that the value of this thread will deteriorate rapidly.
CapitalistGig; if you're serious about protecting this Judeo-Christian society then you're going to have to accept that a large portion of society is not yet convinced of the threat, and IF you want THEM onside you'll need to first accept that you're not going to have a meeting of the minds on all issues.
Alienating your potential allies isn't going to do it. Imnodhimmi had a perfectly valid question, in this first decade of the 21st.
I am now backing Mark Steyn for American anti-Dhimmi of the year based on this story.
I can easily overlook the fact that he is Canadian. His message, like Robert's, is way too important to ignore.
Outofaqaba and Pelayo, I have to agree with some of what both of you have stated, even though they are adversarial to each other.
I have argued in the past on the western standard about freedom of speech and the Holocaust denial case you have mentioned. I truly believe this case was a serious blow to freedom of speech and was a step towards thought control. I do not agree with anything that Zundel preached, but I do believe in his right to say it.
Now the Canadian Human rights tribunals are a sick joke plaguing Canadians. They have turned into kangaroo courts that carry out frivolous cases against good people like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant of the Western Standard news paper. The difference here is that almost every case the human rights tribunals rule against, do get overruled in the Canadian Supreme Court. The right to free speech is for the most part still protected by the higher courts, though not universally. Even the Zundel case if I'm correct was overturned by the Supreme court, but as that was so unpopular he was deported to Germany on a separate immigration issue where he was subsequently crucified by the Germans. In Germany the national guilt that still exists makes it completely impossible to even bring up the topic it seems.
As for the ACLU I have to agree with Outofaqaba on this one. The ACLU is a rogue organization that unlike our Human Rights Tribunals actually has real teeth as opposed to being a nuisance. The ACLU has enabled an awful lot of freedoms' enemies within your own borders, and it truly needs to be put into its place, of course that is unlikely.
I hope the defense in this trial is smart enough to go after the principal litigators, the CIC, a very strong advocate of Sharia Law in Canada with a lot of their own indiscretions. For example, on their current site, they are marketing a T-shirt accusing the Canadian military of being engaged in Empire-building
Their president has been caught making statements to the effect that all Israelis are legitimate targets. At their recent "strategy meeting" one of their short-term goals was Rejecting media-imposed calls for Muslim "extremist/moderate" discourse.
Ahhhh, I get it now. The HRC's in Canada are like the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the US.
I found this article on the Candian islamic Congress website and it actually mocks William Sampson who was Tortured in a saudi jail , the CIC also defends Saudi Arabia by a subtle inference that the Writer of the story in a new papers is a "Islamophobe" trying to blame islam for what the saudis do.
http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/ar/Report_on_Macleans_Journalism.pdf
Pelayo (and Kevin); my humblest apologies! You were correct re the "Canadian Human Rights Commission" . I had previously read two articles on the McLean's suit and both had identified the HRC's as being from B.C. and Ontario; my mistake in believing ANYTHING I read in the news. (I'm assuming the "Ontario" ref. was due to the National Capital, Ottawa, being IN Ontario)
Yes, the "Canadian Human Rights Commission" is the Gov't of Canada. Now I'm REALLY bummed out...
www.chrc-ccdp.ca/default-en.asp
"Mark Steyn come on down to the US."
Mark Steyn already lives in the US.
The koran is hate speech.
BAN THE KORAN!
Don't sweat it DaninVan. You have the HRC, we have the ACLU. We both have our dhimmi's in disguise.
Canadian Thought Police Update
Why Leftists can't be trusted with responsibility, sharp objects, or defending freedom:
Censorship In The Name Of 'Human Rights'
Freedom of speech, and of the press, and religion, all of which are called "fundamental freedoms" in our Constitution, now come second to the newly discovered right of a thin-skinned bystander not to be offended.
Screw the bystander, I'm offended by the commission.
Anyone interested can sign a petition against these thought smothering Human Rights Commissions.
Sign the Petition:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free-dominion-against-the-hrcs/signatures.html
sounder, thanks for the link, I'll pass it on too as many people as I can.