So says Canadian journalist and politician Peter Worthington, and he's right. "Anyone care about free speech?" by Peter Worthington in the Toronto Sun, June 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):
The tragedy of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal's case against Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine over alleged "hate" mongering because of Steyn's views on Islam, is that most people don't give a damn.Oh, many sympathize with Steyn because the issue seems so silly, but most don't see the destructive effect of hate legislation, or how it threatens our freedom.
Of all the benefits embodied in our county, free speech is -- or should be -- among the most precious. Without the freedom to express opinions on any matter, we cease being a free society. The implications are as simple as that.
The villains in the Steyn case are not Muslims who complained to the HRC that Steyn's writings foster "Islamophobia" and hate. Nor is the Human Rights Commission at fault for hearing the allegations.
At fault is the government of Stephen Harper for not rescinding a law that the Liberals introduced and makes a mockery of both justice and freedom.
Harper is PM with the power to right a wrong. Instead, he's been silent and betrayed his own values....
Indeed he has, and the implications involve more than Canada alone. Read it all.
Multiculturalism cannot stand on its own merits. Therefor, Hate speech laws are necessary to prevent its exposure.
When the Truth Hurts, Ban it by all means necessary.
The Program"As It Happens" on the CBC is a classic example of just how bad Canada is infected.
Excellent commentary by Peter Worthington, who has always seemed to me to be remarkably clear-headed, fair-minded, and vocal in his support of freedom of the press and freedom of speech in general.
It's unfair to say most people don't give a damn. We care but our words go unheeded. We reach a point where we throw up our hands.
At fault is the government of Stephen Harper for not rescinding a law that the Liberals introduced and makes a mockery of both justice and freedom.
Does Harper have the authority to rescind this law unilaterally, through some form of executive action, or does he need Parliament to do so?
We make our views known and our lawmakers respond and then we learn later that government of the people can be reversed (at least here in the US) by five judges who have life-term appointments.
This journalist blames the people. How many of his profession have been preaching to us for years about "hate speech"? Looks like they're reaping what they've sown! What goes around comes around.
At fault is the government of Stephen Harper for not rescinding a law that the Liberals introduced and makes a mockery of both justice and freedom.
How about putting the blame where it belongs - on the LIBERALS WHO INTRODUCED THE LAW!
Or is Mr. Worthington another multiculturalist who is just upset that this law did more than he thought it would?
Where was Mr. Worthington when the "Liberals" passed the law? No doubt praising them for fighting against the "reactionary forces" in Canadian society!
PMK:
The Prime Minister needs parliament - the problem is the Conservatives have a minority government at present.
johnb,
Thank you.
So where does Mr. Worthington get off blaming Harper for this situation?
I don't pretend to know much about Canadian politics, but how much of a parliamentary majority does Steven Harper really have? From what I read, he had won with a plurality, but not majority, of 124 seats in a 308 seat parliament. No government can drive any major legislative initiatives given that sort of a mandate.
I'd be more easy on him, although one could argue that this is an issue on which he should be able to convince non Liberal Party members to go with him. That of course assumes that free speech and opposition to PC is something that he holds dear, and without knowing Canadian politics, I don't know whether he does or not.
PMK:
I'm willing to cut Harper some slack on this issue. I believe this issue is starting to take on a life of its own and the PM may be able to sit back and let it happen. The HRCs are coming under attack from many sides including those that are pretty liberal and/or left wing. I expect if the government tries to push reforming legislation through, the various opposition parties will likely try to create a story and stir things up.
As it now stands, I do believe the various Human Rights Commissions (HRCs) realize they've overstepped themselves and are in damage control mode. Note there is a private member's bill which would delete the offending section from the Human Rights Act. Private member's bills usually haven't much chance but this one has been drafted by Keith Martin, a doctor who is of South Asian origin and ran for the Liberal Party leadership last time around. In other words, this bill will attract attention - assuming the parliament lasts long enough.
Cheers.