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 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Jun 16, 2008
You know who's radical?

You really wanna know who's radical?

Me, babeh. I'm totally radical.

[/hijack]
on Jun 16, 2008

Kudos for bringing up the topic. I've seen it go through an editorial or two here in Canada, but even up here there hasn't been too much in the paper. I disagree with many of your conclusions, but that's neither here nor there.

I am very much opposed to hate speech legislation. I haven't read the Steyn article, and it could very well be full of the most repulsive, hateful bigotry that has ever been written. Regardless, the state should not be involved in denouncing it. Governments cannot have the power to muffle the speech of even the most evil individuals. I have a few reasons for this:

1) It does not deal with the issue at hand. Rather, it takes it out of the public eye so that people don't have to deal with it, confront it, and cast a critical eye to it. I understand the desire to protect people from having the kind of hatred incited against them that we've seen, for instance, incited against the jews and the tutsis, but muffling that hate speech is a short term solution that creates a long term problem. Politically expedient, but it only sweeps the problem under the rug.

2) Dealing with hate-mongers should be the reponsibility of the community. Actively confronting and fighting hatred in our communities has its own benefits. People become aware of the problem, they learn about the issues at hand, and the problem can be nipped in the bud and claims by the hate-mongers refuted. The catch here, I'll admit, is that you need to have a sulture that is willing to fight those kind of views instead of just going along with them, but I believe the current culture that western nations share is more than capable of that.

In my own experience, those people ARE handled in such a way up here even when the human rights courts can't get their claws on them. For the most part, Canadians simply don't tolerate much in the way of bigotry.

...Maybe thats why we figured letting the government smack 'em down for us was a good idea. Oops?

3) The slippery slope argument. We've already seen just where muzzling dissenting views can lead. I'm not quite sure how it's handled in British Columbia, but the human rights tribunal here in Alberta is quite appalling. They have a 100% conviction rate. If that doesn't give you pause, it should. It's not out of control yet, since the tribunal is only focusing on reasonably legitimate complaints. However, all it'll take is a more militant human rights court with an agenda and things can go downhill remarkably fast.

on Jun 16, 2008

First things first: Screw the Canadians, people get the government they deserve.

We actually have the most conservative government in power right now than we've had in a looong time. And as I stated at the beginning of this article, as a Canadian citizen I have far more rights and freedoms than U.S citizens do thanks to your wonderful Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act of 2006. Seeing as your government found a way to succesfully repeal the Magna Carta, you sure should be one to talk!

If a young, angry, and disaffected black youth reads the web page of Trinity United, buys into the anti-white conspiracy theories posted there, and decides to take violent action against whitey because he's been convinced that all of the above is TRUE (even though it isn't, of course)...should Trinity United be charged with a hate crime for publishing this garbage?

Well, for one I can't answer this question because I haven't read the website in it's entirety. Second I'm not a judge or lawyer so I really can't say. In regards to the specific piece you posted above nowhere did it say that there was anything intrinsically wrong with all white people. Nowhere does it say that all whites (as an entire group) are to blame for society's problems. Nowhere does it call for dealing with the "white question" or rising up in arms against all caucasians.

Now I'm no lawyer, but what constitutes a hate crime for me is actively promoting the position that an entire subset of humanity is intrinsically flawed or inferior. The Nazis did this with state propaganda quite well in the 30's and 40's. The Interahamwe in Rwanda had a radio station that regularly equated the Tutsi people as being "cockroaches" that needed to be stamped out.  That's a valid hate crime. Whenever you allow this message of the specific inferiority of a certain religion, race or culture it opens a breeding ground that leads to all kinds of nastyness. If Trinity United were to say that ALL whites were evil and needed to be dealt with, then yes, they would be on the hook for inciting people to action.

Here's another story for you of the eggregious abuses of hate crime legislation that's clearly muffling free speech:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/06/16/ot-pighead-080616.html

Someone left a severed pigs head with slurs against muslims on a front doorstep in Ottawa. It is being probed as a possible hate crime. It's events like this that the law are geared toward, NOT muffling free speech and they have not been used to muffle free speech!

on Jun 16, 2008

Artysim,

I agree that the event you're linking to is appalling, but as I posted above I'm not sure that criminalizing hatred is the correct way to deal with the problem. The only use I can bring up for it is as a transitionary step between a society that tolerates hatred and one that does not, but even then I have to question whether it does its job effectively (Re: sweeping the problem under the rug) and whether its worth the risk to free speech in general.

The biggest problem is that the definition of hate speech is malleable and poorly defined, and the judgement of whether or not the spoken or written word meets those criteria is incredibly subjective. What is (fairly reasonably) defined as criminal now could quite easily be extended, bit by bit, to jurisdictions it was never intended to cover.

In your opinion, is that long term risk justified by the short term benefits?

on Jun 16, 2008
Kuperman posts:
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.

DrGuy posts:
Define Hate speech. Then give examples.


Larry Kuperman posts: #17:


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."


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:


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."



I have already addressed this somewhat in Kuperman's blog. Just for the record, Fr. Coughlin is not anti-Semitic, but he was anti-Communist and the Jews he was referring to were spreading Communism in the USA.

History can attest that during the 1930s and 40s when Fr. Coughlin had his radio show, he spoke out often and loud confronting those who were spreading Soviet Communism. He knew well of the large Jewish presence and their role in the murderous Soviet Communist movement killing millions of Russian and Ukranian Christians in 1917. Fr. Coughlin told the truth about the Bolshevik Revolution and Jewish participation both in that and in the foundation and promotion of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA).
For that he was gratuitously labeled an anti-Semite.

He wasn't an irrational hater of all Jews everywhere, but rather a man who saw the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party to power was directly related to the Communist menace throughout Europe. That innocent Jews were targeted for mindless pogroms was partially due to the fact that irreligious Jews had played a disproportionate role in the establishment of the Soviet Communist regime. Fr.Coughlin said, "in the 1917 revolutionary government Lenin had appointed "of the 25 quasi-cabinet members, 24 were atheistic Jews." Also there was more indirect Jewish support in the form of well known international bankers funding the revolutionaries.

This is a direct quote from Fr. Coughlin's Nov. 20, 1938 radio talk show:

"Therefore, I say to the good Jews of America, be not indulgent with the irreligious, atheistic Jews and Gentiles who promote the cause of persecution in the land of the Communists; the same ones who promote the cause of atheism in AMerica. Yes, be not lenient with your high financiers and politicians who assisted at the birth of the only political, social and economic civilizations that adopted atheism as its religion, internationalism as its patriotism and slavery as its liberty...my fellow citizens I am not ignorant of Jewish history. I know its glories. I am acquainted with its glorious sons. I am aware of the keen intellectuality which has characterized its progress in commerce, in finance, in all the arts and sciences, and particularly in the field of communications.
....by all means let us have courage to compound our sympathy not only from the tears of Jews, but also from the blood of Christians....thanks be to God, and to the radio and the press at length have become attuned to the wails of sorrow arising from Jewish persecution. May every honest Jew, every God-fearing Jew, as well as every God fearing Christian find themselves in this common objective. Gentiles must repudiate the excesses of Nazism. But Jews and Gentiles must repudiate the existence of Communism from which Naziism springs."


Mr. Larry Kuperman, I must correct you. Hate speech is NOT part of my religious (Catholicism) expression, never has been and never will be.




on Jun 17, 2008
Thank you Dr Guy for the opportunity (and Happy Father's Day to you if it applies!)


4 times over, and thank you!

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."


You missed the point, and unless you are talking about another Supreme court, SCOTUS has defended ALL speech, not just what you or I think is hate speech. Teh truth is what you think is hate speech I may not, and vice versa. And that what it comes down to is someone's subjective INTERPRETATION. In point of fact, there is no definition of hate speech as it is purely subjective. While many cite Chaplinskey, it has been rendered moot as the SCOTUS has been whittling away at that ruling for the last 60 years, to the point now it is ineffective. Do you think the ACLU wants that one to stand? The 42 ruling would have made all the KKK ralies obsolete as it clearly could have been used against them but has not been. Like Dred Scott, it is bad precedent, and will eventually be overturned completely.

So in the end, we have YOUR opinion or MY opinion of what is hate speech - and the law of the land is the censor's (get use to the word as he will be our constant companion soon) opnion. Today we hip-hip-hooray because some nut case is arrested for saying muslims are pigs. Tomorrow we join the nut case in prison for saying that Hinkley is a nut case. Brave new world? Enjoy it. I care not for your censorship.

And no reflection on you, but I do not frequent the Relgion Forum. It is a personal decision I make as it appears the most intollerant (myself included in the past) replies are in that forum - and I do not mean only the conservative christians. I dont like what I see either by those who profess my faith, or those who think they are better because all they are doing is condemning those who professs my faith.
on Jun 17, 2008

You know who's radical? You really wanna know who's radical? Me, babeh. I'm totally radical. [/hijack]

Teh truth is what you think is hate speech I may not

You want teh truth?? You can't handle teh truth!!!

The biggest problem is that the definition of hate speech is malleable and poorly defined, and the judgement of whether or not the spoken or written word meets those criteria is incredibly subjective. What is (fairly reasonably) defined as criminal now could quite easily be extended, bit by bit, to jurisdictions it was never intended to cover. In your opinion, is that long term risk justified by the short term benefits?

Starstriker I agree with all of the above. I admit that there are problems with the wording. As I've stated before, in my opinion there needs to be clear evidence that an entire race/culture/religion/group of humanity is being singled out as inferior or dangerous (and then being broadcast via legitimate media channels)

The arguments that I see here are mostly boogeyman scare statements that if hate legislation is enacted the big bad government will install microphones and cameras in everyone's homes to ensure that no improper thoughts are allowed to form. (Just like the scare statements that universal healthcare will somehow devolve your quality of living to gulag levels, although all of the G8 countries with universal healthcare have longer lifespans for their citizens than Americans, go figure) Anywho, the other commentators on this forum have pointed out that there are already laws that deal with these things without hate legislation. This is true. There are libel and slander laws which effectively muzzle true freedom of speech in the U.S already. And of course there are certain no-no's. If you say that you want to assassinate a politician in the U.S, you're in trouble. Say you want to wipe out an entire race? no prob bob!

 

 

on Jun 17, 2008
There are libel and slander laws which effectively muzzle true freedom of speech in the U.S already.


I don't think so. That they "effectively muzzle true freedom of speech", anyway.

And the kind of straw man arguments you throw up are not particularly persuasive, Artysim. If the healthcare systems were the only difference between the US & the other G8 countries, then you might be on to something worthy of further study. But figuring out the reasons for differences in life expectancy in wildly different societies is so dicey & convoluted that most don't bother & just assume "it's the healthcare system" since it's the easy target of opportunity.

And of course there are certain no-no's. If you say that you want to assassinate a politician in the U.S, you're in trouble. Say you want to wipe out an entire race? no prob bob!


Half point for you there. But, I'm unaware of anyone who's been thrown in jail just for saying so. If I had a nickel for all the lefties who've said in print or verbally that Bush should be shot, I could retire.
on Jun 17, 2008

I'd disagree with the assertion that it's fearmongering. The slippery slope argument is a very, very valid one. Police states don't form overnight, they form piece by piece, each argument reasonable, and each measure only involving a small sacrifice for the greater good. Orwell wrote on the subject often (ie, Animal Farm and 1984). By the time it's made illegal to Think Bad Thoughts (tm), that will already seem like a reasonable step.

There's overblown rhetoric out there, but I don't think the comparison between health care debates and freedom of speech is particularily accurate. If you don't protect freedoms, you lose them.

on Jun 17, 2008
You want teh truth?? You can't handle teh truth!!!


Damn fat fingers!
on Jun 17, 2008
Orwell wrote on the subject often (ie, Animal Farm and 1984).


It is also very telling that Orwell wrote the latter one just 6 years after the Chaplinsky decision. I think since then, the Supreme COurt has shied away from limiting any kind of speech, and slowly is overturning that "Dred Scott" decision.
on Jun 18, 2008
The biggest problem is that the definition of hate speech is malleable and poorly defined, and the judgement of whether or not the spoken or written word meets those criteria is incredibly subjective. What is (fairly reasonably) defined as criminal now could quite easily be extended, bit by bit, to jurisdictions it was never intended to cover.


The definition of hate speech isn't that hard to define. Any published speech that promotes the (marginalisation/getting rid of) of a part of humanity that is not actively considered criminal (criminal = pedophiles, for example).

If there were really such so-called "totalitarian state" in Canada, you could never hear anything from the peoples who promote pedophilia. We don't arrest those people, as long as they don't act.

Peoples like KFC would like to get rid of the homosexual, while homosexuality is perfectly legal in Canada. If she founded a club spraying ideologies saying that the Homosexuals has to be castrated, put into psychiatric hospitals, or sent to Netherland (or even treated like second-class citizens), she would be promoting the marginalisation of a part of the citizens of Canada, and it would be a hate speech.

If I criticize the governement, it is not a hate speech.
If I criticize an idea ("pedophily is illegal" should not exist) it is not a hate speech.

Someone mentionned United Church earlier. I am not totally sure if they are promoting heavily african-american community, or they want to get back at the white races, and oppress them. If it is the first, then it is not hate speech. The second? It is. But if they are not promoting hate speech, but some of their members do illegal acts toward the white people, then maybe U.C. should be investigated at the core. But until it is proven that they promote harming in any way the white community, then it is not a "hate speech".

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.


Funny. I live in Quebec, and I never heard of this. It isn't that much of a "big new" here, since (as said earlier) it is B.C. jurisdiction.

People here are much more concerned about a federal bill that will soon be officialy exist, and that allows the federal governement to stop subsidy movies that promote things "opposed to the public order" (what is opposed the public order? It is up to the governement to choose. So if a conservative governement is elected, they could stop funding movies speaking in non-harsh term of homosexuality). That kind of censorship was met with outrage by a lot of people, and now, it is unlikely it will never pass.

I think there is a lot more censorship in USA than in Canada. the puritanism present is a good example. rating "13+" the Simpson Movie because of Bart's drawn penis (come on!). The outrage at the Nipplegate and the way the whole medias reacted, overreacted is clearly another example of the increasing censorship in the USA.

on Jun 18, 2008

Peoples like KFC would like to get rid of the homosexual, while homosexuality is perfectly legal in Canada. If she founded a club spraying ideologies saying that the Homosexuals has to be castrated, put into psychiatric hospitals, or sent to Netherland (or even treated like second-class citizens), she would be promoting the marginalisation of a part of the citizens of Canada, and it would be a hate speech.

well if you're wrong here why should I listen to you elswhere? 

Your assumptions are wrong about me. 

tell me are you aware of the Canadian pastor who was jailed/and fined for speaking out against the homosexual agenda from his pulpit? 

 

 

on Jun 18, 2008
well if you're wrong here why should I listen to you elswhere?
Your assumptions are wrong about me.
tell me are you aware of the Canadian pastor who was jailed/and fined for speaking out against the homosexual agenda from his pulpit?


it was an example, sorry KFC. But you are the single most anti-homosexuality poster I am aware of on this website.

I wasn't aware, but I am not surprise. Good thing he was, don't you agree? He is using a tribune that has incredible influence over people to spread anti-homosexual propaganda. Just because you think it's right to speak about the "homosexual agenda" as you like to call it doesn't mean it's right to do so.
on Jun 18, 2008
it was an example, sorry KFC. But you are the single most anti-homosexuality poster I am aware of on this website.


Well let's take this time to clarify right now. I am NOT anti-homosexual as in people.

I am against the act of homosexulity as outlined in the scriptures. It's called sin. I am against the homosexual agenda that is forcing society to agree with them that this is NOT a sin. So in effect I see them as saying...."Don't believe what God says. Believe what we say." It's no different than the serpent in the garden beguiling Eve with his fancy dancy slithering talk.

I would treat homosexuals like I would any other member of society, with dignity and respect. I can do that while disagreeing on the sin. It's not hard for me to do.

I wasn't aware, but I am not surprise. Good thing he was, don't you agree? He is using a tribune that has incredible influence over people to spread anti-homosexual propaganda. Just because you think it's right to speak about the "homosexual agenda" as you like to call it doesn't mean it's right to do so.


no I don't agree. He's not using a tribune. He's preaching from the bible and it says homosexuality is an abomination to God. This is a case of "hate speech" taken too far. From a Christian POV we are called to speak out against sin.

Of course the world doesn't want to hear this. That's why they crucified Christ. Same thing. He actually claimed to be "the truth."

They covered their ears and rushed at Stephen before they killed him (Acts 7). Paul said the unbelievers have itching ears for the untruth. They seek to get their ears tickled. They will, he said, literally turn their ears from the truth.

This is what's happening. Just like they covered their ears and rushed at Stephen with murder on their heart so too is what's starting to happen for those who speak out against the untruth. Instead of murder tho, it's more PC to jail and fine the offenders in an effort to shut the opposition up.

Pretty interesting actually.

4 Pages1 2 3 4