One Small Step for Mankind

Finally!!! The Canadian Ministry of Justice has been directed to review Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This has been used to shut down Freedom of Speech for a long time contrary to its intended purpose. Albertan Reverend Stephen Boissoin has a lifetime ban on speaking in public about his beliefs about homosexuality (recall that he is a clergyman supported by scripture). The same post discusses the CHRC's determination that true invective by an Imam is not worthy of censure.

The nature of Section 13 is vile. If people feel the need to spout hatred then it should be the obligation of all people to challenge and shame them. To have the State silence them is an act of political and social laziness and drives them underground where they attract the most violent adherents.

Cudos to Prime Minister Harper. Let's hope it works out.

The Loss of Freedom

George Jonas has written a piece on the fate of freedom in the West as we transit from a Classic Liberal to a Modern Liberal society. His post is pretty rambling but his warning is clear - we need to protect basic freedoms and beware of the incursion of false "human rights" that are really individual sensibilities that are rammed down the throats of others.
George has managed to escape from two frightful events in his lifetime - the occupation of Hungary by the Soviet Union and marriage to Barbara Amiel. In the first he became painfully aware of the dangers of the unquestionable sensibilities of the moral elite overriding the rights of anyone to question or debate popular myths and what "everyone knows". We are in serious danger of tredding that path with Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The "right" to not be offended masked as being targeted with "Hate Speech" represents a slippery slope to true authoritarian oppression.
I wrote earlier about the Canadian Human Rights Commission inconsistency in a ruling in Montreal recently compared to the gag order issued to Reverend Stephen Boissoin in Alberta. Social misfires, such as statements that offend others, need to be dealt with socially - if someone offends you shun them. But for the State to issue a gag order on otherwise free speech is an abomination in a "free" country. It is only a short step to including criticism of the government as offensive (or "hate") speech. I believe that the argument that homosexuality (or other things) is blasphemous is wrong. I, however, will defend with my life the right of wrong people to say that it is. They may even be right; I only believe that I argue from God's side of this argument.
Just to be clear, the CHRC finding that the writings of imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti do not represent hate speech against identifiable groups is dead wrong. The ruling gagging Reverend Boissoin is also dead wrong. The difference is that imam Al-Hayiti must have the right to argue his hate and that must be vociferously refuted in the same that the view of Reverend Boissoin must be refuted, not gagged.

Mind Boggling Inanity at the CHRC

There is not much I can say about the ridiculous decision by the CHRC to reject a complaint filed by Marc LeBuis regarding hate speech from Montreal imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti against gays, women and Jews that hasn't been said by Firey Spirited Zionist, Mark Steyn, or Ezra Levant except to say that it is wrong to say, as Al-Hayiti says, that:

• Homosexuality is a "perversion"
• Homosexuals "spread disorder on earth"
• Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life"
• "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded..."
• "It is because of this religion of lies [Christianity], which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery..."
• Jews "spread corruption and chaos on earth."
• Most Jews "seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing..."

and he should be shunned from polite society for saying these things. I would defend his right to make an ass of himself by saying them - as I would for Reverend Stephen Boissoin who wrote a letter entitled "Homosexual Agenda Wicked" to the Red Deer Advocate. He received a lifetime ban on speaking in public about his beliefs about homosexuality. Read the letter at the link. It is nothing like the vitriol of Al-Hayiti.

So the lesson is, if you are Muslim you have a right to free speech. If you are not, particularly if you are Jewish or Christian beware not to dislodge your gag.

Perhaps something positive will come out of it all. Ezra Levant reports that support for the repeal of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act is getting louder and wider. Perhaps the hypocrisy of Jennifer Lynch and her band of zealots at CHRC should finally be looking through the classifieds.

What is Freedom

What does freedom mean in a real context? Most thinkers trace the development of the idea, in modern times, from Thomas Hobbes, through John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and others. These fellows approached freedom from a highly theoretical direction and, with the exception of Hobbes, considered "freedom" to be from Government interference. Only Hobbes considered that freedom might be from an external influence other than the sovereign government and he considered only the threat from a chaotic anarchy.
It seems to me that there are numerous agencies who can threaten our freedom and a strong government is as likely to be our protector as our oppressor. That is why it was developed.
I will post ideas and arguments here on this subject. I hope for lively debate.

Canadian vs Islamist Values

"There's a widespread belief in the public that people don't want to hear offensive speech all the time. But to some degree, we have to permit it in our society if we're going to have freedom of speech."

That was the thought that Richard Bronstein publisher of the Jewish Free Press after he came to an agreement with Syed Soharwardy to withdraw his complaint at the Alberta Human Rights Commission. That perfectly summarizes the whole point that Ezra Levant has been making in his very public dispute with the same commission. The whole point of Levant's defense is that Canadians have a foundational right to free speech within some very limited criminal restrictions.

Levant and Bronstein did not try to incite violence and they said nothing slanderous. They did offend some people who think that no-one should criticize Muhammad because Muslims are not supposed to criticize Muhammad. There seems to be a belief, not just in Canada, that ethnic minorities - most often lately this means Muslims - have a right to not be offended. No-one has a right to not be offended. Multiculturalism doesn't mean that Canadians who have been in Canada are required to accommodate everyone else's sensibilities while new arrivals are not required to adjust their expectations to our society.

While Soharwardy has now dropped the complaints his comments to the CTV in 2006 show how little he understands the paradigm he lives in here in the free West:

Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada said publishers of the cartoons should apologize and added that they are abusing freedom of the press.
"They have to apologize in the newspaper, and they have to condemn their action, and they have to come to our centre and apologize to our congregation, too," he said.

It is Soharwardy who should apologize to Levant, Bronstein, and everyone in Canada who believes in the importance of a constitutional democracy and to whom a Sharia based society would be intolerably offensive existence.

Levant's oddessy and his brilliant responses to the AHRC can be seen here.