December 31, 2007 | In Politics, Law | No Comments
December has been a difficult month for freedom of speech in Canada, as so called “Human Rights” Commissions continue to gain power and increasingly infringe upon our fundamental liberties.
Early in the month, our federal Human Rights Commission agreed to hear a complaint brought against Canadian-born author and journalist, Mark Steyn, on the grounds that a section of his 2006 book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, allegedly contained “Islamophobic” attitudes. The complaint, which is being sponsored by the Canadian Islamic Congress, also targets Macleans Magazine, a mainstream news weekly which published a chapter from Steyn’s book in late 2006.
The published excerpt, entitled “The Future Belongs to Islam,” suggests that certain aspects of Islamic culture are incompatible with western democracy, and that mass Muslim immigration is causing problems in Europe, and may soon do the same in North America. Ironically, the CIC’s complaint has actually added a lot of weight to Steyn’s argument.
Macleans Magazine has vowed to vigorously fight this complaint on the grounds of freedom of the press, claiming that it is “confident that the Human Rights Commissions will find no merit in the complaints.” Unfortunately though, it might not be that simple.
The section of Canada’s Human Rights Act used to suppress “hate messages” (s. 13), has been used dozens of times since the late 1970s – but mostly in the past five years, as those publishing controversial opinions on the internet have increasingly been targeted. The most shocking thing is that not a single respondent charged under this section has ever won their case.
In past cases, the Human Rights Commission has ruled that truth is no defense, meaning that even factual statements can be censored if they are deemed likely to cause “hatred or contempt” against any identifiable group. Furthermore, there is no penalty for filing frivolous complaints (as Human Rights lawyer, Richard Warman has done repeatedly), and all complainants are provided with free government lawyers, while respondents must either pay for their own counsel or represent themselves.
Grossly prejudiced “Human Rights” gestapos, which were initially created to prevent employment and housing discrimination, also exist at the provincial level, and are increasingly shifting their powers into the realm of thought control with each passing month. Respondents who are found guilty of spreading hate messages are fined, and usually subjected to a cease and desist order preventing them from publicly discussing certain issues and topics (i.e. a lifetime speech ban).
One example of this is Christian activist, Bill Whatcott, who was convicted by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission of “injuring” the “feelings” and “self respect” of homosexuals when he distributed a pamphlet referring to gay lifestyles immoral and potentially dangerous. Whatcott was fined $17,500 and received a lifetime speech ban preventing him from publicly criticizing homosexuality. If Whatcott fails to pay this fine or violates the lifetime speech ban, he could spend up to five years in prison. This decision was recently upheld by Saskatchewan’s Court of Queen’s Bench, which was apparently afraid of stepping on toes at the Human Rights gestapo.
I think the question now is if (when?) the federal Human Rights Commission rules against Macleans Magazine, will Canada’s leading current events magazine no longer be allowed to publish negative articles about Islam? Will it be required by Canadian law to muzzle its journalists and change its editorial reflections?
Regardless of one’s individual opinions on Islamic immigration, homosexuality, “anti-discrimination” laws, or any other controversial issue, shouldn’t the existence of a law which arbitrarily crushes freedom of expression be offensive to all Canadians? Will the application of this law to a mainstream news publication (Macleans Magazine) cause Canadians to wake up and take notice of how our individual freedoms are being eroded?
Or do most Canadians even care about their right to think independently and express their thoughts, without being crushed under the heel of the almighty state? If the answer is no then God help us all.
But if you care about freedom of thought and expression, whatever your political affiliation, then please consider signing this petition (http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free-dominion-against-the-hrcs.html) against “human rights” censorship… I urge you to do so not to further any particular political agenda, but in the name of freedom itself.
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
– John Stuart Mill
