We Should Be Concerned
Published on June 12, 2008 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Current Events

 

Usually, when a journalist is censored in a Western nation, American news organizations respond with collective outrage. But as a major attack on press freedom unfolds in Canada, America's mainstream media are silent. Neither the TV networks nor the major newspapers have reported on hearings last week at what amounts to a Stalinesque show trial in Vancouver, British Columbia.

 

 Mark Steyn, a Canadian journalist who now lives in New Hampshire and whose column appears in National Review magazine as well as several U.S. and Canadian newspapers, is facing charges before British Columbia's Human Rights Tribunal.
 
His crime? Spreading "hatred."
 
The evidence? A 5,000-word excerpt of Steyn's book America Alone that was carried as an article, "The Future Belongs to Islam," in October 2006 by the Canadian magazine Maclean's, which is also a defendant. The hearings, which were held June 2-6, amount to a star chamber with the rules of evidence constantly changing according to the whims of the three commissioners. A verdict is expected in September.
 
Steyn and the magazine are also expected to be charged with a hate crime by the national  kangaroo court, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and another such tribunal in Ontario. Not a single defendant has ever prevailed before the national board in its 31 years of existence. To be accused is to be guilty, Soviet style.
 
The Canadian press has been all over this story, but it has not registered a blip in the United States, except for an AP brief, an article in The Washington Times and on conservative Internet sites and talk radio.
 
A highlighted piece of the case was a comment from an imam, Mullah Krekar, that Steyn drew from an interview in a Norwegian newspaper:
 
"'We're the ones who will change you,' the cleric said. 'Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU [European Union] is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children .... Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours.'"
 
British Columbia's hate crimes law requires only a "reasonable determination that the excerpt did express hatred and contempt toward Muslims, and likely caused it to spread," according to the National Post.  As evidence, complainants cited postings from two California-based Websites, FreeRepublic and Catholic Answers.
 
The hate crime charges were brought on behalf of a recent law school grad, Khurrum Awan, and the Canadian Islamic Congress's national president, Mohamed Elmasry, and its B.C. director, Naiyer Habib.
 
The three want to force Maclean's to run an identically long piece from their point of view.  That or contribute $10,000 to a race relations foundation, as Awan admitted under cross-examination, according to the Globe and Mail. Later, speaking before the Canadian Arab Federation, Awan threatened to use civil courts to extract "a few million dollars" from any media company that refuses their demands.
 
For the record, Steyn and Maclean's are accused of violating B.C.'s Human Rights Code, whose Section 7(1)( reads: 

"A person must not publish, issue or display ... any statement, publication ... or other notice that is likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt."

"There has never been a case in this country that has had such clear, concise evidence, ever," said Faisal Joseph, an attorney bringing the charge before the tribunal.  Joseph noted that the magazine had introduced Steyn's piece this way:

"The Muslim world has youth, numbers and global ambitions. The West is growing old and enfeebled, and more and more lacks the will to rebuff those who would supplant it.  It's the end of the world as we've known it."

Considerable evidence is mounting, particularly in Europe, that this scenario is a common-sense observation. Muslim populations are growing while other religious groups are declining, thus Muslim influence is increasing. Great Britain's Labour government has even gone to the absurd lengths of describing any Muslim-caused domestic terror as "anti-Muslim" activity because the bombings make other Britons less likely to feel good about Muslims. There is open talk of infusing British law with Islamic Shariah law, an accommodation that the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested would be "inevitable" before an outcry forced him to recant.
 
But getting back to Mr. Steyn and Maclean's, they are the poster victims of the trend in Canada to suppress the freedoms of speech and press at the whims of special-interest groups.
 
Most Americans are not only unaware of the Steyn show trial but also the many incidents in which Canadians have been hauled before human rights tribunals and charged with hate crimes for merely expressing traditionalist morality in public.
 
An evangelical pastor, Stephen Boisson, was fined $5,000 by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal on May 30, 2008, for writing a letter to the editor of a local paper in 2002 critical of homosexual activism in the schools.
 
A Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, newspaper publisher and a private citizen were each fined $4,500 in 2001 for the crime of publishing an ad that listed five Bible verses about homosexuality and had a circle with two stick figures of men holding hands with a line across it.  Three homosexual men had complained that they did not like the ad.
 
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has for a decade prohibited the broadcast of any material critical of homosexuality. Stations that carry Focus on the Family and other American radio programs have been warned that they could lose their licenses unless  segments dealing with homosexuality are edited out.
 
Many Americans have a warm, fuzzy view of Canada, and have no idea that a totalitarian nation is taking shape, instigated by gay activists and Muslim pressure groups in the name of "tolerance."
 
They do not know because America's mainstream media are refusing to cover it.
 
Perhaps it will take someone like Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan being charged with a hate crime in Canada to get the media's attention.  But that's unlikely, since celebrities have long understood that the only group that it is still okay to ridicule is Christians, especially Catholics and evangelicals. And that's not news.
 
As for Canadian mullahs attempting to use the law to gag Mr. Steyn and anyone else who gets in their way, well, that's just not news either in the United States.

Robert Knight

 


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Jun 14, 2008
It amazes me that anyone can argue for the necessity of protecting hate speech and further, implied in lulapilgram's comment, that hate speech is part of her religous expression.


Define Hate speech. Then give examples.
on Jun 15, 2008

Thank you Dr Guy for the opportunity (and Happy Father's Day to you if it applies!)

Hate speech is generally defined as speech (including print) that incites one group to violent actions against another group. The Supreme Court definition is summarized as "abusive, insulting, intimidating, and harassing speech that at the least fosters hatred and discrimination and at its worst promotes violence and killing."

The American courts usually base decisions on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire as "fighting words." You can read the various definitions at http://www.answers.com/topic/hate-speech?cat=biz-fin

I have already cited numerous examples in my article at http://kupe.joeuser.com/article/314078/Hitler_Goes_to_Heaven (shameless plug) but at the risk of repeating some instances:

Saint John Chrysostom Adversus Judaeos whicj incited a crowd to burn a synagogue the next day and which were called by theologist John Parkes "the most horrible and violent denunciations of Judaism to be found in the writings of a Christian theologian."

Martin Luther's On the Jews and their Lies which like the homilies of John Chrysostom formed the theological basis for Nazi anti-Semitism.

Father Charles Coughlin's speech in the Bronx, NY in 1938 "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing."

Hitler at the Nuremberg Rallies.

Muslim Mullahs urging the extermination of Israel.

Dr. Paul Cameron (since discredited) at 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference "Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals."

 

 

on Jun 15, 2008

I could have also cited comments made by the Nation of Islam, which is included in the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of active hate groups in the United States.

Numerous skinhead sites should also be on the list.

How did you feel when Fundamentalist preacher Jon Hagee referred to your religion as "the Great Whore?" I know how I felt when Hagee said of the Holocaust "Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says -- Jeremiah writing -- 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended."

As history has proven over and over again incitement is one step from action.

on Jun 15, 2008
I believe that due to freedom of speech, people should be allowed to say absolutely anything they want. It's when those words get published and distributed that it becomes another matter entirely


Huh? How exactly? This would mean complete suppression of reporting. How can the general public be made aware that some guy's a crackpot, a racist, a demagogue if his words cannot be published by others? I could almost accept that the crackpot himself could be tried for publishing his remarks if they fell into the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" realm (I don't see how publishing anything could fall into that realm), but to try an author or reporter for telling the truth is beyond Orwellian. A free press is essential to liberty, so much so that our Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution.

I believe Artysim is not quite correct about the Patriot Act. We don't have a Gestapo raiding homes in the middle of the night dragging alleged terrorists off to the death camps. That's just so much hype.

The notion that we need a federal law to embellish the punishment for and further deter the minuscule number of "hate crimes" (per the FBI's own statistics) is absurd. Once such a law is passed, there will be a steady expansion of the definition of "hate crime." It will be necessary to do because there will be so little for the act to enforce. Do we really consider our state governments incapable of dealing with such crimes, assuming they need to be treated differently at all? A dead victim is no more dead from a targeted crime than a stray bullet. A harassed or assaulted victim is no more harassed or assaulted, based solely on the assumed thoughts of the perpetrator. Creating special victim classes would appear to me to be unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. In my opinion, hate crimes legislation has been motivated by one thing only - securing the loyalty (and votes) of the liberal elites.

And all this apocalyptic talk about Muslim's taking over the world is just so much talk. If any civilization is poised to be the next superpower, it is in the Far East.
on Jun 15, 2008

In an effort to further the radical homosexual agenda

Radical agenda? Yes, the effort to enjoy the same rights and protections as everyone else is indeed radical. Hate crimes legislation do not elevate any particular group over another... if anything, it levels the playing field. As I said earlier, most of the use of the so-called "radical" hate crimes legislation in Canada has been well used by Jewish groups far more than it has by other groups.

If an ISP in your country is hosting a website that advocates the imprisonment or extermination of the Jews (or Muslims or Christians or Hindus etc) would you not want it taken down? Again, this brings in the topic of freedom of speech, which I would like to point to the example I used earlier;

You are in a very crowded theatre, packed full to capacity and just for fun you decide to yell out "FIRE!!!" or some other alarmist proclamation even though you know there is no such danger. You're just doing it for fun to see what happens. Maybe you have another reason... maybe you are friends with the owner of a competing theatre across town. Regardless, you are simply practicing your right to freedom of speech. So you start yelling in a panicked voice and everyone in the theatre panics and rushes to the exits. Several people are very badly injured (or even killed) as they get trampled in the ensuing pandemonium. The theatre company's reputation has been tarnished by the incident (even though they did nothing wrong) All the folks in the audience have had ther night ruined, the theatre company has probably lost a lot of money (folks will be angry and want their money back, again, not the company's fault but they'll still be on the hook anyway)

So all of this harm has come from you simply practicing your legal right to freedom of speech. This illustrates that while you have the right to say absolutely anything you want, you are also responsible for the consequences of those words.

Another prime example is in the business world. If a CEO decides to knowingly lie to the investors about the state of the company (in order to convince them to keep their money invested instead of withdrawing it) he can be brought up on charges and convicted. One argument would be that he was simply practicing his freedom of speech, but the consequences of his words caused extensive harm to his investors and possibly ruined lives, etc.

This applies to everything... you have the freedom to say whatever you want, but you are responsible for those words and the consequences they have.

Larry K is absolutely correct about incitement... it is one step away from action. If you get up on the rooftops and start proclaiming about how one particular group of people (culture, religion, gender, race etc) is the source of all our problems and need to be dealt with, your words are inciting hatred toward that group. No one is questioning your right to freedom of speech in saying those words, but you are responsible for the consequences!

 

on Jun 15, 2008
How did you feel when Fundamentalist preacher Jon Hagee referred to your religion as "the Great Whore?" I know how I felt when Hagee said of the Holocaust "Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says -- Jeremiah writing -- 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended."


Kupe -

I sympathize with your point - my wife is Jewish (by choice) - but "wounded feelings" are not mentioned anywhere in our Constitution. None of us have any right to be spared hurt feelings, anger or any other emotion.
on Jun 15, 2008

Daiwa

I believe that due to freedom of speech, people should be allowed to say absolutely anything they want. It's when those words get published and distributed that it becomes another matter entirely

Huh? How exactly? This would mean complete suppression of reporting. How can the general public be made aware that some guy's a crackpot, a racist, a demagogue if his words cannot be published by others? I could almost accept that the crackpot himself could be tried for publishing his remarks if they fell into the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" realm (I don't see how publishing anything could fall into that realm), but to try an author or reporter for telling the truth is beyond Orwellian. A free press is essential to liberty, so much so that our Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution.

My apologies, allow me to clarify!

I intended this statement to be more in the case of say, a radical group that has a website promoting the extermination of a certain culture (or stating that an entire culture has a subversive agenda and needs to be dealt with) This group is entitled to their opinion entirely. Once they start publishing a newsletter calling for the extermination of others and distributing it, now they're on the hook. The point I was trying to make is that websites are a grey area- no one forces you to go to it, nor do you have to pay to go to them (very rarely anyway)

In regards to freedom of the press, context matters This is why I stated earlier that hate crimes legislation and how it fits in with freedom of speech are indeed very controversial and difficult subject. Let's look at 2 examples...

Local newspaper re-prints some comments of crazyman crackpot and his opinions on how a certain group need to be wiped out. While they re-print his words, the article doesn't condone his side and fleshes it out to tell the story of what is going on (this would include comments from other folks, backstory, maybe some nice pictures of his groups compound where they will await the second coming, etc) This does not fall into hate crimes. As you stated, they're just reporting the news.

However

Same local newspaper re-prints crazyman's words, with no context, no explaining the situation or backstory and then says "this guy's right! we DO need to wipe out all the "insert name here" people! If we don't, they're all gonna sneak into our houses in the night and get our kids!!!

This second example does fall into hate crimes legislation. Ann Coulters comments, for example, about how we needed to invade muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert their populations to christianity would fall into the category of hate speech, for example!

 

on Jun 15, 2008
This applies to everything... you have the freedom to say whatever you want, but you are responsible for those words and the consequences they have.


I agree with your point with one caveat - speaking the truth, regardless of the consequences, should never be subject to criminal prosecution, nor should accurately reporting the words of others. Both can certainly be subject to civil action, but neither should be subject to criminal prosecution. We don't have to criminalize every aspect of our existence in order for good people to be good.
on Jun 15, 2008
Same local newspaper re-prints crazyman's words, with no context, no explaining the situation or backstory and then says "this guy's right! we DO need to wipe out all the "insert name here" people! If we don't, they're all gonna sneak into our houses in the night and get our kids!!!

This second example does fall into hate crimes legislation. Ann Coulters comments, for example, about how we needed to invade muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert their populations to christianity would fall into the category of hate speech, for example!


I disagree. The reader is free to accept such characterizations or not. We are autonomous, after all. And the press has been doing exactly what you cite in the above example for years. Once you decide an Ann Coulter can't speak her mind, where do you stop? Who decides whose opinions, statements and beliefs are acceptable? Who minds the minders?
on Jun 15, 2008

Actually Daiwa, the person that I was asking, Dr Guy, is a Catholic. But your point is taken.

Mark Steyn, the person whom KFC is defending, advocates genocide. He said about the Muslim population of Bosnia "The Serbs figured that out—as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can’t outbreed the enemy, cull ’em."

KFC, do you ever research these articles before repeating them? Not only are writing in support of a man who advocates genocide in Europe, but you were completely wrong about the mainstream media ignoring him when the article was on the front page of the New York Times.

on Jun 15, 2008

Once you decide an Ann Coulter can't speak her mind, where do you stop? Who decides whose opinions, statements and beliefs are acceptable? Who minds the minders?

exactly.  Our freedoms must be protected. 

but you were completely wrong about the mainstream media ignoring him when the article was on the front page of the New York Times.

not really, first off mainstream media is more than one article in the NY Times.   Tell me, did you know about this before I pointed this out?  Did anyone?  Or did you rush to your computers and google the subject matter?  Besides...... did you not read the whole article?  It said:

The Canadian press has been all over this story, but it has not registered a blip in the United States, except for an AP brief, an article in The Washington Times and on conservative Internet sites and talk radio.

Mark Steyn advocates genocide?  Really?  I'd have to read the whole context before making such a statement as the one you're making.  It's all about context, context, context. 

 

I would say the amount of press this has got is in effect ignoring the situation in Canada......and date wise when was the NY Times run in connection to this article?  I have yet to see this NY Times article.  Got a link on it perhaps? 

 

 

on Jun 15, 2008
Mark Steyn, the person whom KFC is defending, advocates genocide. He said about the Muslim population of Bosnia "The Serbs figured that out—as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can’t outbreed the enemy, cull ’em."


I'm not sure KFC is defending the person, as opposed to the behavior or actions for which that person has been indicted based on "hate speech" laws. By the way, there are not many things on which KFC & I agree and I'm not "defending" KFC, only my opinions on the matter.

I also was left with the impression that Steyn was being prosecuted for reporting something someone else said, not for something he personally said. The content of his words in the quote above is despicable, no question. I'm free to make that judgment. But I strongly question whether he should be fined &/or sent to prison for it. I believe prosecuting someone for either offense (saying or reporting) is not supported by our Constitution, but just wanted to clarify.
on Jun 15, 2008
There are other Orwellian & Alice-in-Wonderland aspects to criminalizing certain types of speech as "hate crimes" -

The laws are so broad in their definition of "hate speech" that any Nifong out there could have a field day if he wanted to.
What should the statute of limitations be?
Should people be subject to prosecution for things they said publicly 10 years ago?, 15 years ago?
Do we have to revise the laws periodically to add/remove classes of "victims" (in theory, no victim, no crime)?

The number of Congressmen and Senators potentially subject to such laws, BTW, is rather sizable.
on Jun 16, 2008

Actually, Daiwa, the issue of what the person said is absolutely core to the issue. If KFC had written an article entitled "Racist author advocates  Muslim genocide, Muslims object"  the  article would be quite different.

As for the media ignoring it, have you checked KFC's facts? Always a good idea. It was covered widely, both in Canada and elsewhere well before this article. On June 9th, the story was in the National Post, the Winnipeg Sun, the Chronicle Herald, Town Hall....a total of 165 sources came up in Google.

Almost without exception, the Liberal Media supported Mark Steyn, who is a professional racist, known for using terms like "gook" and "Chink."  (As in his 2001 statement made while writing for the British Spectator "it's one thing to let the Japs build your car and the Chinks supply your cuddly toys, but you'd have to be nuts to give the Brits the sirloin concession." Source: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=52735a33-d844-470d-a8b4-eb7de7942d8e)

KFC quotes Steyn's introduction, yet omits that his answer to the growing number of Muslims is a "Final Solution" based on the war-crimes of the Bosnian Serbs. (Steyn has actually referenced Bosnia as an example that the rest of Europe should follow.) Wouldn't you agree that that is a fairly significent omission?

Further, reading KFC's article, she identifies Steyn with the Christian Evangelical movement, saying that Steyn was "merely expressing traditionalist morality in public." Genocide and racism are traditional morality? In what kind of church exactly?

To summarize, the article was misleading where it was not flat out incorrect.

on Jun 16, 2008

Thanks LW...you said it well.  We must protect our freedom of speech both written and verbal.  We should never be afraid of speaking out.

I have no problem with the homosexuals and their right to free speech. I would  protect their freedom of speech just as strongly as my own.

Where I draw the line is them selling their wares to our children overriding what we're teaching them and telling us we have no choice but to accept their viewpoint or be labeled intolerant and the government interference in all this makes it all that much harder to swallow.  Now they want to come after those in opposition  (such as the Christians but not limited to) as hate speech. 

It was covered widely, both in Canada and elsewhere well before this article. On June 9th, the story was in the National Post, the Winnipeg Sun, the Chronicle Herald, Town Hall....a total of 165 sources came up in Google.

Canada and elswhere?  Where's elsewhere?  Like it said in the article.  It was and still is considered BIG news in Canada. I've already said that.  HUGE news in fact.  But it has NOT been widely broadcast or highly mentioned in the major news sources at all in this neighboring country.  I read the newspaper and watch the news every day.  I have not seen this at all until I read this particular article. 

 And btw Larry......you did NOT answer my question:

Tell me, did you know about this before I pointed this out? Did anyone? Or did you rush to your computers and google the subject matter?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Pages1 2 3 4