Here’s a fund raiser to help out the victims of the Canadian Human Wrongs Commission, and fight its (truly) fascist attempt to suppress speech in Canada.
[Late evening update]
A victory, sort of, for Canadian free speech. The Human Wrongs Commission has dismissed the case against McLeans and Mark Steyn. Not because it was ridiculous (which it was), but because that pesky law prevented them from properly censoring them:
The Ontario complaint was rejected because the relevant portions of Ontario Human Rights Code only address discrimination via signs or symbols, not printed material.
But while rejecting the complaint, the Commission strongly criticised Maclean’s in a statement.
“While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media, such as the Maclean’s article and others like them, as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in our human rights codes,” it said.
Note that this is really part of a civil war between moderate Muslims and radical ones in Canada:
Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, however, said that for the Commission “to refer to Maclean’s magazine and journalists as contributing to racism is bullshit, if you can use that word.”
He said the Commission has unfairly taken sides against freedom of speech in a dispute within the Canadian Muslim community between moderates and fundamentalists.
“There are within the staff [of the Ontario Human Rights Commission], and among the commissioners, hardline Islamic supporters of Islamic extremism, and this [handling of the Maclean’s case] reflects their presence over there,” Mr. Fatah said, identifying two people by name.
“In the eyes of the Ontario human rights commission, the only good Muslim is an Islamist Muslim,” he said. “As long as we hate Canada, we will be cared for. As soon as we say Canada is our home and we have to defend her traditions, freedoms and secular democracy, we will be considered as the outside.”
Canadians need to think long and hard about what kind of behavior they want to reward. There is no place for these kangaroo-court, “Human Rights Commissions,” where one is guilty until proven innocent, in a truly free society.
[Thursday morning update]
More thoughts from the human rights violator himself:
So, having concluded they couldn’t withstand the heat of a trial, the OHRC cut to the chase and gave us a drive-thru conviction. Who says Canada’s “human rights” racket is incapable of reform? As kangaroo courts go, the Ontario branch is showing a bit more bounce than the Ottawa lads.
I’d be interested to know whether the Justice Minister of Ontario thinks this is appropriate behaviour. At one level, Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall appears to have deprived Maclean’s and me of the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence and the right to face our accusers. But, at another, it seems clear the OHRC enforcers didn’t fancy their chances in open court. So, after a botched operation, they’ve performed a cosmetic labiaplasty and hustled us out.
Instapundit has more, including this:
…for an organization that is supposed to promote “human rights,” the HRC’s agents seem curiously oblivious to basic aspects of constitutional law. In one famous exchange during the Lemire case, Steacy was asked “What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?” — to which he replied “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” (I guess Section 2 has been excised from his copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights.)
[Late morning update]
Here’s more on that Canadian blogger lawsuit. It sounds to me like someone, or several someones, need to sue Richard Warman (what an appropriate name) for false accusations and defamation of character.
A victory, sort of, for Canadian free speech.
No, it was a complete victory for Canadian free speech. The Commission said that what Steyn has to say stinks, but he still has the right to say it. Their ruling is 100% correct.
It seems there are now “Human Right’s Commissions” in the US.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_04_06-2008_04_12.shtml#1207766763
Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media
They left out the part about it being OK, if the racialized group is white, or Christian.
Yes, I can see how a warped mind like yours might see “Case dismissed, but guilty anyway, without a trial” as a complete victory for free speech, Jim.
It might be quite simple, really. To determine what rights ought to be afforded Muslims in a non-Muslim country; read the Koran, find out what rights and obligations are afforded kaffirs under Sharia, invert them to read the other way – and give them that. Precious little, I’m sure.
Face it, Rand, Mark Steyn is guilty of being a complete jerk. He’s not all that different from David Duke, Ward Churchill, Fred Phelps, or Ann Coulter. So it’s legal, so what. All of these losers would like to fly the banner of free speech to justify themselves.
The case against Steyn was a win-win on his terms: If they rule for him, then he can feel vindicated; if they rule against him, then he can feel persecuted. They gave him half of both and his whining about “kangaroo courts” is completely predictable. Of course he’d like to pretend that he’s sitting in jail right now. It’s all the more convenient if it isn’t actually true.
As for that other guy, Tarek Fatah, one loose cannon doesn’t make a civil war.
Steacy response: “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”
Forget that it is also a Canadian recognized freedom as well. Has American hatred gotten so heated that any concept originating in America is intrinsically bad? I don’t know any other way to interpret Steacy’s response. It’s not given value because the concept was developed in America (I don’t think that is particularly true, eventhough it is a key freedom for US citizens)? That’s just moronic. If I was a Canadian, I’d be demanding that agent be removed from whatever governmental office he holds. Since I’m an American, it gives me pause in wanting to do business with Canada, when they have officials who think like that.
Face it, Rand, Mark Steyn is guilty of being a complete jerk.
Sorry, I’m not in the habit of “facing” complete and utter (and totally unsupported) nonsense.
He’s not all that different from David Duke, Ward Churchill, Fred Phelps, or Ann Coulter.
Horseshit. You want to see a complete jerk, look in the mirror.
As for that other guy, Tarek Fatah, one loose cannon doesn’t make a civil war.
So, a moderate Muslim is a “loose cannon,” according to Jim Harris.
I love it.
Do you never tire of making yourself an asshat at my web site?
So, a moderate Muslim is a “loose cannon,” according to Jim Harris.
Except that Tarak Fatah isn’t a moderate Muslim, even though he calls himself one. Or maybe he is, who knows, but that isn’t what makes him a loose cannon. What makes him a loose cannon is his history of antagonizing other moderate Muslims who try to work with him. His organization has seen more splits than a sundae shop.
Also, this comment is related to something that I have been pondering for a long time:
I’m not in the habit of “facing” complete and utter (and totally unsupported) nonsense.
I’ll admit that there is one thing that you can say about Mark Steyn, Ann Coulter, and Ward Churchill that makes them look less like creeps than otherwise: They aren’t genuine. David Brock made that point about his ex-friend Coulter when she started praising McCarthyism. They have a happy audience, but no real following; they don’t really act on their words; they’d probably rack up civil liabilities if anyone did; they can make it up as they go along.
Ann Coulter shows you will probably happen to Steyn. After a few years, she seemed more rancid than witty, and the audience moved on.
They have a happy audience, but no real following; they don’t really act on their words; they’d probably rack up civil liabilities if anyone did; they can make it up as they go along.
And just what “words” of Mark Steyn would you be concerned about him “acting on”?
I’m still waiting for you to make a substantive criticism of something that he’s actually written. I suspect that I’ll be waiting a long time, because I doubt that you’ve ever actually read him and (as usual) are simply bloviating your pompous ignorance.
Mark Steyn is a superb writer. Witty, incisive and fair in his presentation. I thoroughly enjoy his appearances on H & C when he evicerates Alan Colmes. To compare him to David Duke or Ward Churchill makes no sense at all, other than to insult Steyn. He’s neither a racist or a liar.
To compare him to David Duke or Ward Churchill makes no sense at all, other than to insult Steyn.
Well, what do you expect? Consider the demented source.
Canada has a history of pandering on these issues. When Free Inquiry magazine republished the Danish cartoons, it was banned by “Chapters”, Canada’s largest bookstore chain. Chapters doesn’t carry Mein Kampf any more, either.
In Alberta, when the Western Standard republished the cartoons, a Muslim used the Alberta Human Rights Commission against him. This has a chilling effect because even when you win, you still lose. Defendants have to pay their own legal fees and waste their own time, even when free speech is obviously on their side. Check out this impassioned defense of the Western Standard case:
http://uk.youtube.com/user/EzraILevant