This weaselly, mealy-mouthed statement from the Thought Police comes from April 9, but I just saw it today, and so although I don't usually post archived material, I believe it provides important background on what the Thought Police are thinking as they close in on free speech. "Commission Statement Concerning Issues Raised By Complaints Against Maclean's Magazine," from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, April 9 (thanks to Alan):
In a recent decision, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) decided not to proceed with complaints filed against Maclean’s magazine related to an article “The future belongs to Islam”. The complainants alleged that the content of the magazine and Maclean’s refusal to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights.Denying a service because of human rights grounds such as race or creed can form the basis for a human rights complaint. However, the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) does not give the Commission the jurisdiction to deal with the content of magazine articles through the complaints process.
It is good that they're not proceeding with the complaint. But they're doing it not because the complaints represent an attempt to quash freedom of speech and impose Sharia restrictions on the free West, but on narrow, weaselly jurisdictional grounds.
Nevertheless, the Commission has a broader mandate to promote and advance respect for human rights in Ontario, forward the dignity and worth of every Ontarian and take steps to alleviate tension and conflict in the community, including by speaking out on events that are inconsistent with the spirit of the Code.While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission has serious concerns about the content of a number of articles concerning Muslims that have been published by Maclean’s magazine and other media outlets. This type of media coverage has been identified as contributing to Islamophobia and promoting societal intolerance towards Muslim, Arab and South Asian Canadians. The Commission recognizes and understands the serious harm that such writings cause, both to the targeted communities and society as a whole. And, while we all recognize and promote the inherent value of freedom of expression, it should also be possible to challenge any institution that contributes to the dissemination of destructive, xenophobic opinions.
Truth, as Peter Worthington points out, is not a defense. If there are Sharia supremacists in Canada working to subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law, you must not speak about it! To do so could provoke "Islamophobia"!
The Commission intends to further consider these issues in the coming months as it embarks on its new mandate, which places a renewed emphasis on addressing human rights tension and conflict through inquiries, consultation, public education, policy development and constructive debate and dialogue. [...]
Yet while ignoring jihadism and Islamic supremacism, the Orwell Commission declares that we must acknowledge the existence of racism, which actually plays no part in the assertiveness of this supremacist Islamic ideology -- except as a vehicle to advance that ideology in the cowed and pusillanimous West:
The Commission has long emphasized that forms of racism exist in all of society’s institutions. In order to effectively respond to racism, it is necessary to clearly acknowledge its existence.Racism exists in the media and the media has a significant role to play in either combating societal racism or refraining from communicating and reproducing it. Islamophobia is a form of racism that includes stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards Muslims and the viewing of Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.
The Commission is concerned that since the September 2001 attacks, Islamophobic attitudes are becoming more prevalent in society and Muslims are increasingly the target of intolerance, including an unwillingness to consider accommodating some of their religious beliefs and practices.
Maybe some people realize that there is always more Sharia to accommodate, and once you get into the habit of accommodation, there's no telling where you could stop -- unless you're willing to draw the line somewhere.
Unfortunately, the Maclean’s article, and others like it, are examples of this. By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to ‘the West’, this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice towards Muslims and others. An extreme illustration of this is a “blog” discussion concerning the article that was brought to the attention of the Commission which, among many things, called for the mass killing, deportation or conversion of Muslim Canadians.
The "blog" discussion had nothing to do, of course, with Maclean's or Mark Steyn, and we have seen Islamic supremacists planting such comments here. But in any case, this is all nonsense. Even if Steyn's article did portray "Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to ‘the West,’" which it did not, there is no doubt that some Muslims are a threat to the West, and are working to subvert it in the name of Islam. Can that be discussed in Canada at all, or would any broaching of it be ipso facto hate speech?
The Commission strongly condemns the targeting of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community by the media as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in the Code. The impact on a community both in terms of the intolerant messages being conveyed and the knowledge that society is willing to accept their dissemination is profound. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Racism has confirmed the role of the media in contributing to a sharp increase in Islamophobia and its acceptance as normal in ‘the West’. Further, the Commission’s 2003 report Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling illustrates the social cost of stereotyping to individuals, families, communities and Ontarians as a whole.
Here again: is it true? Is there an Islamic supremacist enterprise? Are there Islamic groups waging, in the words of a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum, "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions”?
If so, this must be discussed. And if "Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community" really stands against this enterprise, they should not fear or oppose such a discussion.
Ah, the clueless bureaucracy. You'd think, reading their findings, muslims weren't responsible for the single most devastating terrorist attack on the North American continent. You would think most all acts of terrorism targeting innocent defenseless civilians were not committed by muslims. You would think islam is uninvolved in a majority of all major conflicts on earth. You'd think nearly all acts of barbarity - "honor" killings, beheadings, torturing prisoners, kidnapping Christians, suicide bombers, violent rioting, legalized child marriages, oppression of women, human rights violations, and encroaching fascism - were not being instigated and propelled by islam and the words of their pedophile prophet.
But since when does truth trump political correctness?
We are all going straight to hell, but not because we are "Infidels" or "Unbeleivers." We are going for allowing the cult of death to take hold in our societies without a fight.
Ontario is full to bursting with leftist, warm and fuzzy liberal treehuggers, always concerned about the rights of others while ignoring the rights of Ontarians and Canadians. I don't miss Ontario a bit - Nova Scotia is much better! Hardly any muslims here.
I guess the Commission spent so much time reading so-called anti-islamic blogs they missed the hundreds of jihadi websites calling for death to Israel, death to the United States, death to Western civilization.
But then again, it seems muslims can get away with saying anything they want.
Can someone please explain to me why SO MANY people are so protective of Islam and Muslims??? I don't get it. I could even understand a passive, indifferent tolerance but I DON'T understand an activem,aggressive protection and defense of them.
THOUGHTS???
After reading this, you have to conclude that 1984 in Canada isn't far away.
The Commission recognizes and understands the serious harm that such writings cause, both to the targeted communities and society as a whole.
I wonder if the Commission recognizes and understands the serious harm that Islam causes, both to the targed communities and society as a whole?
What about the writings known as the Koran? Do they recognize and understand the serious harm that such writings cause, both to the targeted communities and society as a whole?
By ignoring the primary danger, and by targeting the response to that danger, the Commish becomes part of the danger.
Maybe Mark Steyn, et al, should sue the Commish for the grave danger they pose to society as a whole.
One of the weaknesses that contributes to that mind-set so dangerous to Canada is the desire to carefully distinguish the warm, tolerant, tiers-mondisant Canada (fill in any banalities and soothing cliches you want right here) from the crude rude Colossus of the South, the United States of America (in the South Pacific, a certain dangerous penchant in New Zealand may be similarly attributed to a desire to show "we are not Australia"). America has faults, all kinds of faults. But for god's sake, Canadians who pride themselves on their tolerance and their goodness and their third-worldness and all the rest of it, in contradistinction to the United States, should see that the most tolerant, most liberal of Muslims is the equal, in his ideology (if he is indeed a Believer, and not a Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslim), of the most rabid holy-roller you can imagine, and far more dangerous, in his ultimate effect -- swelling the ranks of Muslims, and therefore of their perceived political power, and therefore of the willingness of politicians to do their bidding or be solicitous of what are considered to be "their" demands, and there is no Muslim country on earth that would be preferable, in its mental or political makeup, to America -- that much-maligned Colossus to the South -- at its positive worst.
After reading this, you have to conclude that 1984 in Canada isn't far away.
Posted by: S Perry at June 24, 2008 8:24 AM
================================
You might say that it is a big step backward. Literally and symbolically.
Can someone please explain to me why SO MANY people are so protective of Islam and Muslims??? I don't get it. I could even understand a passive, indifferent tolerance but I DON'T understand an activem,aggressive protection and defense of them.
THOUGHTS???
Posted by: Madame Vengier at June 24, 2008 8:15 AM
================================================
When you serve the devil (i.e. Allah), the devil works behind the scenes, invisibly, on your behalf.
Because Western Civilization has abandoned its roots and its strength (the Judeo-Christian value system, and the God of that system), it is vulnerable and wide open to some other system, in this case, Satan and his system du jour, Islam.
Satan (islam) is rushing to fill the void left by our abandoning the Judeo-Christian value system, and the God of that system.
"Islamophobia is a form of racism..."
It's a form of WHAT? Sounds to me like someone is trying to create a race, where none exists! What is the name of this new race?
I guess they're gonna call them the "Islams", since Islamophobia is the name for the racism against them. Imagine--the racism comes before the race is identified (or created). Who says Mohammed never worked any miracles?
And, here I thougt Islamophobia was a fear of Islam...
Madame, I agree with PersonOfTheBook and remember that Satan is called the prince of this world...either that or some kind of Jedi mind control thing.
However, you are not alone in wondering what the heck is going on in the world recently...particularly with US government rules on what one can and cannot say about terrorism and islam and the UN taking the OIC position on reining in free speech to prevent "islamophobia". Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
I think What is going on is quite obvious Politicians world wide are terrified of what would happen if the general public became aware of the true nature of islam. The EU seems to be waking up a bit. They have told member nations to tighten up there borders. BUT then they are negotiating to let muslim countries into the EU which allows unrestained crossing of borders.
Much is made of "Islamophobia", a derisive term, if ever there was one. It reduces our legitimate fear of an enemy that has sworn to kill us and eliminate our civilization to a form of neurosis.
What can we call Islam's fear of the outside and its inability and outright refusal to coexist with others?
Xenophobia doesn't go far enough.
The creed of Islam is based on a phobia. Why can't Islamophobia be redefined as Muslims' fear of the outside and be used against Muslims who seek to do violence against any and all non-believers?
First of all I don't give a flying f*kc for the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Racism, Doudou Diene, who has confirmed "the role of the media in contributing to a sharp increase in Islamophobia and its acceptance as normal in ‘the West’"
As far as I'm concerned Doudou can keep breeding cockroaches in Afrika rather than bullshitting his way around the US of A.
An extreme illustration of this is a “blog” discussion concerning the article that was brought to the attention of the Commission which, among many things, called for the mass killing, deportation or conversion of Muslim Canadians.
Standard Muhammdan fare. In the case of the imam against sheik yer'mami some Australian imam's made similar comments in letters of support, in on case even blaming sheik yer'mami for the deportation of Mohammed Haneef.
The whole thing was thrown out after enormous cost and waste of time. Should the moon be concerned when a dog barks on earth? I think not.
Is this a step up for more control over freedom of speech in Ontario?
Looking Forward by the Ontario Human Rights Commission
Starting July 2008, human rights complaints will no longer be filed with the Commission but will be made directly to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. At the same time, the role of the Commission in preventing discrimination and promoting and advancing human rights in Ontario will be strengthened. The Commission will expand its work in promoting a culture of human rights in the province. This will include taking a leadership role in fostering constructive debate and dialogue among concerned individuals and organizations regarding the issues raised by Islamophobia in the media and the ways in which the Commission, the media and others can begin to address them.
"The Commission strongly condemns the targeting of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community by the media"
"racialized community"? What on earth does that expression mean?
The question is: are other "racialized communities" targetted by the media? The Orientals? The American Indians (First Peoples to Canadians)? Latin Americans (another invented "race")? No? They're not? I wonder why. Maybe because they're not threatening other Canadians, and demanding the overthrow of Canadian law, customs, and government.
Maybe they could follow the example of Hawaii, and do a major cultural drive to simulate the pre-English Canada as it once existed, and thereby attain a national identity that nobody will mistake as either American or British, just as nobody mistakes Mexican Aztecs or Peruvian Incas for Spaniards. Although I can't see how folks descended from English or French settlers will buy into that.
The bureaucracy in Canada and the US is not as much the problem as the complacent ignorance of the masses.
People want to hear that Islam is a religion of peace. They don't really want to know what's going on if it doesn't fit into the "terror as anti-Islamic" narrative.
The people's passivity is a vote in favor of the repressive tactics of Canada's HRCs and US politicians' maddening whitewash and appeasement of Islamic supremacism.
We can't give up, though. We have to wake our neighbors up. We need to keep framing this free-speech issue as, at root, a back-door attempt to impose "Saudi values" on North America, to replace Western human and civil rights with "Islamic human rights" so infamously enshrined in the so-called "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights". The Muslims who are in the West for the right reasons will stand with us in this fight only if we are willing to fight for ourselves.
ah good old ont. Canada version of the land of fruits and nuts aka California only there frozen fruits and nuts up here and they will keep on aiding the implementing of sharia in canada not realizing that they are going to be its victims
The funniest aspect of the American legal system, at least, which is probably shared by the Canadian, is that every plaintiff is required to be taken seriously by the court. So, no matter how ludicrous a lawsuit is, the judge can only dismiss it on legal or jurisdictional grounds.
E.g. When someone sues Satan (and it happens a lot) the judge generally has to require that the complainant deliver a subpoena first...or just tell them that the court has no jurisdiction over hell...
MadameVengier --- I, too, have thought many times about your question but since liberals/leftists “think” in such a muddled, illogical manner, it’s very difficult to understand why they think and act the way they do. I also completely agree that the root cause is their rejection of our Judeo-Christian heritage (it certainly wasn’t atheism/islam/hinduism/etc that produced the cultural values which created our wonderful, free Western countries that so many millions want to live in).
The text and video at-- http://caosblog.com/4854 --helped me greatly to understand them. Is the text and video of a speech by Evan Sayat, a 9/10 liberal--9/12 conservative, at the Heritage Foundation.
His main points (sorry if too long): “The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. In order to eliminate discrimination, the modern liberal has opted to become indiscriminate—they reject rational thought as a hate crime!
Everything they believe is designed to tear down what is good, and elevate what is evil. Does it tear down the behaviors that lead to success and elevate the behaviors that lead to failure until there’s nothing left to believe in. They quite literally can’t differentiate between good or evil, right or wrong, better and worse.
Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. Indiscriminateness of thought inevitably leads the modern liberal to side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over success.
In a world where no behavior is to be deemed better or worse than any other, then the expectation is that all behaviors should lead to equally good outcomes. To the modern liberal who cannot make that judgment, success is cheating! The one thing that we find incredibly disturbing about all of this is the fact that they’ve become like anarchists; with no solutions, and nothing to replace the system that they hate so much.”
It’s almost impossible to reason with them, but I do try.
BTW, The Heritage Foundation website has a wealth of downloadable audio and video presentations, including the inimitable Robert Spencer and his speech, “The Truth About Muhammad, November 14, 2006 at
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/archive.cfm?startdate=12/31/2006&days=364
Check the same page and the yearly archives toward the top right of page for speeches by Nonie Darwish, Walid Pharis, and many other luminaries currently warning the West about fundamentalist Islam—all audio can be easily DL’d onto computer or mp3 player.
THOUGHTS???
Posted by: Madame Vengier
Although I totally agree with the spiritual POV as others have mentioned. I am reminded of the emperor with no clothes story.
As you will recall everyone was afraid to mention the obviouse because of the power of the emperor. Putting that into todays context is a little of a stretch but one that comes to mind is OIL. Or as we have seen money=power. Even though personal contacts may not show the money power connection. Equating Islam's innocences is a connection not hard with humans at a subconscious level.
Another way of looking at it, the bully on the playground is getting away with murder because most are not aware of it. The few that are are afraid of the bully. And the hurt are silenced by the bullies actions.
The thought police are the school yard adults who think they know what is going on but don't or could care less. They only want to maintain peace and this includes not confronting the problem because that would disrupt the peace. Instead they pick on the weaker kids and make them feel guilty by attacking them for defending themselves.
I have always looked at international geo-politics as the way kids interact on a play ground and it usually fits perfectly.
Xenophobia doesn't go far enough.
The creed of Islam is based on a phobia. Why can't Islamophobia be redefined as Muslims' fear of the outside and be used against Muslims who seek to do violence against any and all non-believers?
Posted by: PMK
I looked up the word Xenophobia
- Anglophobia, Francophobia, Germanophobia, Jim Crow, Jim Crow law, Russophobia, abhorrence, abomination, agoraphobia, alien, anti-Semitism, antipathy, apartheid, aversion, bigotry, black power, black supremacy, chauvinism, class consciousness, class distinction, class hatred, class prejudice, class war, color bar, color line, demonophobia, despitefulness, detestation, discrimination, dislike, division, ethnocentrism, exclusiveness, execration, fascism, foreigner, hate, hatred, insularity, insulation, isolation, know-nothingism, loathing, male chauvinist, malevolence, malice, malignity, minority prejudice, misandry, misanthropy, misogyny, narrowness, odium, out-group, outcast, outsider, parochialism, persona non grata, quarantine, race hatred, race prejudice, race snobbery, racial discrimination, racial segregation, racialism, racism, red-baiting, repugnance, seclusion, segregation, separation, sex discrimination, sexism, snobbishness, social barrier, social discrimination, spite, spitefulness, stranger, superpatriotism, tightness, ultranationalism, vials of hate, vials of wrath, white power, white supremacy
Just about everyone of these words or phrases defines the Islamic state of mind regarding everyone else and to some extent withing themselves.
Xenophobia doesn't go far enough.
The creed of Islam is based on a phobia. Why can't Islamophobia be redefined as Muslims' fear of the outside and be used against Muslims who seek to do violence against any and all non-believers?
Posted by: PMK
I looked up the word Xenophobia
- Anglophobia, Francophobia, Germanophobia, Jim Crow, Jim Crow law, Russophobia, abhorrence, abomination, agoraphobia, alien, anti-Semitism, antipathy, apartheid, aversion, bigotry, black power, black supremacy, chauvinism, class consciousness, class distinction, class hatred, class prejudice, class war, color bar, color line, demonophobia, despitefulness, detestation, discrimination, dislike, division, ethnocentrism, exclusiveness, execration, fascism, foreigner, hate, hatred, insularity, insulation, isolation, know-nothingism, loathing, male chauvinist, malevolence, malice, malignity, minority prejudice, misandry, misanthropy, misogyny, narrowness, odium, out-group, outcast, outsider, parochialism, persona non grata, quarantine, race hatred, race prejudice, race snobbery, racial discrimination, racial segregation, racialism, racism, red-baiting, repugnance, seclusion, segregation, separation, sex discrimination, sexism, snobbishness, social barrier, social discrimination, spite, spitefulness, stranger, superpatriotism, tightness, ultranationalism, vials of hate, vials of wrath, white power, white supremacy
Just about everyone of these words or phrases defines the Islamic state of mind regarding everyone else and to some extent within themselves. Calling the kettle black.
Americans. Send money to these folks fighting for freedom in Canada. When freedoms vanish in Canada, the democrats soon start using Canada as a "good example" of equity and justice.
Canada is the front lines in the fight for freedom!
In_remembrance
If I may suggest another Heritage product: Victor Davis Hanson's In Defense of Liberty: The Relationship Between Security and Freedom
He discusses the loss of freedom of expression in the West, brought on by self-censorship and fear of murderous Islamic retaliation.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev060308a.cfm
Thought Police exist when intellectually lazy but ambitious people manage to get into positions of authority and wish to impose their stunted view of "the good" onto the rest of us. Half the time, they are wrong--generally the half that takes some study to understand, not merely jump to conclusions based on using inappropriate templates based off of pseudo-intelligent TV shows like 60 Minutes and CSI.
http://www.bravenewsworld.blogspot.com
PMK----Thanks! I just dl’d it. Am a huge fan of Mr. Hanson and his very informative website. He’s a true intellectual giant for America and Freedom.
RE: “He discusses the loss of freedom of expression in the West, brought on by self-censorship and fear of murderous Islamic retaliation.” This reminds me of the exchange between Hugh Hewitt and Lawrence O’Donnell, a “political analyst” (woo-o-o-, a political analyst!), in which O’Donnell, in my humble opinion, fully displays his cowardice and hypocrisy that probably applies to at least 95% of the liberal press.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/muslims_vs_mormons.asp
Muslims vs. Mormons
Hugh Hewitt had Larry O'Donnell to explain his recent attack on Mormonism, which included his characterization of the religion as a "racist faith" and of Joseph Smith as a "lying, fraudulent, criminal." Hewitt asked O'Donnell whether he would be so bold as to criticize Islam with that kind of vigor.
HH: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?
LO’D: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I WOULD LIKE TO CRTITICIZE ISLAM much more than I do publicly, BUT I’M AFRAID FOR MY LIFE if I do.
HH: Well, that’s candid.
LO’D: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…
HH: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.
LO’D: They’ll never take a shot at me. THOSE OTHER PEOPLE, I’M NOT GOING TO SAY A WORD ABOUT THEM.
Yeah, he’s candid alright---and again, in my humble opinion, a candid hypocrite and coward!
And speaking of threatening freedom of speech, here’s Robert Spencer–The Truth About CAIR at the Young Americas Foundation as he explains the true purpose of the Council for American Islamic Relations. This speech took place at Young America's Foundation’s National Conservative Student Conference.
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?ContentGuid=9fcac680-c339-4f26-9d55-73c9f179c33d&RadioShowId=22