Author Faces Canadian Tribunal For Hate Speech 818
An anonymous reader writes "A Seattle Times editorial notes that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will put author Mark Steyn on trial for his book 'America Alone,' which has angered Muslims in Canada. Steyn is a columnist for the Canadian magazine Maclean's. According to the editorial, British Columbia bans all words and images 'likely to expose a person... to hatred or contempt because of race, religion, age, disability, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.' Steyn is unapologetic, and is advertising his book as a 'Canadian Hate Crime' and daring the tribunal to 'pronounce him bad.'" The Canadian tabloid the National Post has coverage of what it calls "a media storm."
National Post is not a tabloid... (Score:5, Informative)
National Post (Score:3, Informative)
Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (Score:2, Informative)
Matter of opinion. Conrad Blacks little rag is just a tabloid with bigger words IMO.
Rights and Demands (Score:5, Informative)
It's actually a free speech issue and I'll leave out my own prejudices and let readers decide for themselves.
Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And so it begins... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:compared to the U.S. (Score:3, Informative)
What Islam Isn't (Score:2, Informative)
The original article at FrontPage [frontpagemagazine.com] magazine explains a lot.
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).
Full post at: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4DE15EF9-A76C-4DD4-81E2-75683AEED74D [frontpagemagazine.com]
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Informative)
As a practical matter, yes it does. To date the conviction rate for the so called 'human rights tribunal is 100%.
And lets not just laugh at the silly Canadians and believe 'It can't happen here in America; We have the 1st Amendment!' Wake up, it's long dead and Hate Crimes is THE big new growth area for the State.
Re:compared to the U.S. (Score:2, Informative)
Of course not, but bashing the US is a great way to get a cheap karma bump around here.
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:1, Informative)
When I read the charter, it seemed to have exceptions built in it so you could talk about this sort of stuff as long as you didn't encourage hate towards those you were talking about. But then Provinces/Territories can 'enhance' legislation with their own so this is probably harsher than the Charter.
Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (Score:5, Informative)
Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Informative)
There is a subtle difference between disliking/disagreeing/etc and hating/hate speech. But looking at the topic of the book (haven't read it)
We have a politician in the Netherlands (Geert Wilders, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders [wikipedia.org] ) who has some of the same ideas, and made a short movie about it, Fitna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film) [wikipedia.org] It caused an outrage here even before anyone knew anything about it. Even to the point the government contemplated banning the movie, without actually having seen it.
Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (Score:2, Informative)
That's an example of etymological fallacy [wikipedia.org]: words can change in meaning after they are first used.
Re:I'm no lawyer but ... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Media storm? (Score:4, Informative)
Also, on the off-chance that you don't read magazines and newspapers, or don't follow news which disagrees with your politics, even Rick Mercer - a liberal comedian on a liberal TV network, covered a related case [youtube.com] in one of his famous "rants" recently.
If you've missed all coverage of this until now, then you either don't follow politics and current events, or you get all your news exclusively from far-left sources. I've been following it for months, and most of my friends and coworkers are at least aware of it, if not exactly well informed about the facts of the case.
Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (Score:5, Informative)
In my own, totally unscientific observations, ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN have considerably more market-penetration of televised news among the general population.
Also, consider the irony of issuing blanket statements in a post condemning intolerance and ignorance.
Re:Hate speech ? Bollocks !! (Score:3, Informative)
Hypocrisy, thy name is Seattle Times (Score:3, Informative)
"These [Free Speech] zones [wikipedia.org] routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, 'The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.' The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a 'designated free-speech zone' on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct... Police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine 'people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views.'"
Re:And so it begins... (Score:4, Informative)
1976-77, c. 33, s. 1.
PURPOSE OF ACT
Purpose
2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (Score:3, Informative)
He isn't just ranting about the evils of expanding Islam. In fact, that the particular focus is Islamic isn't even relevant; it's merely the chance of what is the most rapidly-expanding culture in the world today. He could be discussing any similar dichotomy throughout history.
The most relevant quotes are these:
========
You might formulate it like this:
Age + Welfare = Disaster for you;
Youth + Will = Disaster for whoever gets in your way.
By "will," I mean the metaphorical spine of a culture.
========
According to all of history, he's right. Frex, if you substitute "Late Rome" for any of the western countries he cites, and "Goths and Vandals" for Islam, or as another example "Imperial China" and "Mongol hordes", suddenly what he's talking about jumps into focus.
Re:The world will be a better place.. (Score:3, Informative)
yes, that too (Score:3, Informative)
but, those who want to wear headscarves dont go to higher education if they are banned from wearing headscarves within the confines of university.
had it been in u.k., or had it been in france or germany, this would be an awkward thing, because in those countries that particular headscarf is not a symbolical flag that radical islamists gather around. the headscarf they wear, the 'turban' is not the traditional headscarf of turkish women. NOone in turkey objects anyone wearing traditional headscarf, and even the heavy handed secular, anti islamist representatives in the assembly even suggested such a solution - we can allow headscarves in universities, if you put a note that it has to be in the form of traditional headscarf.
ENTIRE islamists segment in turkey have created a big fuss about it. turban wearing women said they would never wear it.
the reason is simple. even if it is the traditional headwear of turkish women for centuries, a normal headscarf is not an islamic symbol that radicals hold as a rallying cause for the radicalism. if they are made wear the traditional one, they will not be able to use it as an agitating symbol, because noone objects to traditional headscarf.
they have to push turban. for the last 20 years they have been using it as a symbol to gather support, they cant just let go of it. one of the major lines this current islamist party used to gain support was the turban cause.
unfortunately turkey is not a european country. the situation here is not something that can be solved through laws that would work in netherlands, switzerland or sweden. we are under heavy influx of radicalism, that is funded by middle eastern radical groups. turkey never will be a modern european country if this islamism thing spreads around. it was almost on the right track 20 years ago, until eu started intervening in turkey and ironically made islamists' task much more easier here..
Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (Score:4, Informative)
It's happened in lebanon.
Pre-civil war (so 1943-1970s) Lebanon was Switzerland of the Middle-East. Stable, beautiful history, big banking industry, the easy way to reach the ME. Large population that speaks French so easy for Europeans to deal with, and the population was something like 80% christian, 15% Sunni, 3% Druze.
Fast forward to today, Christians represent a quarter of the population, Sunnis are even rarer, the rest are all Shia muslims, mostly emmigrated from Syria and Iran, with military backing from those countries. They were the cause of the 2006 conflict that forced Israel to destroy much of southern Lebanon and the southern neighbourhoods of Beirut.
No, Lebanon is not a western country. Yes, I'm probably going to be modded troll and I guess I deserve it.
But the example is still there. What happens when Europe is flooded with muslims who want sharia law? What about those muslims who don't want it?
Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just Plain Embarrassing (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, go do some research before beaking off. You're confusing HRC's with real courts, which they're not.
Oh, and by the way? Acting like an arrogant jackass when it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about makes you look pretty stupid. Try to keep the attitude to a minimum, ok?
i was (Score:3, Informative)
Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (Score:5, Informative)
Those Muslims won't be called Muslims. They will be called apostates and they will be severely punished at the discretion of Khalif. The standard punishment for apostasy is death. (Khalifs have a right to suspend capital punishments if situation requires it. For example, Khalif Umar suspended amputation of the right hand as a punishment for stealing when there was a famine in the land).
Re:Hate speech ? Bollocks !! (Score:4, Informative)
due to bible being a book that is compiled by later people from the stories of the times of jesus (which to use as 4 major versions was decided in council of nicea in anatolia, in 300 AD or so), if someone finds anything in bible not fitting with modern values, s/he can refuse them, and say that 'they were written in there by the hand of man'. a valid excuse too, and no theologist can object with strong conviction - the very fact that a long standing and lively theology concept exist in christianity is due to the fact that bible, the teachings are very debatable.
in islam you dont have this. koran, is supposedly unchanged. therefore, its direct word of god. period. you cant say anything agains this in islam, and cant debate or refuse anything in koran. its a package. you refuse one thing in it, you refused everything.
due to this fact, fundamentalism is much more common, and much more hardline in muslim countries, than the christian fundamentalism you have in usa, or europe. really, when looking from here, and coming up against any of them, your fundamentalists appear like mild conservatives compared to the islamists we have here.
Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (Score:3, Informative)
You need to read more carefully. The quotation about Muslims breeding like mosquitos comes from a Norwegian imam who was bragging about how rapidly his community is growing. Steyn is not quoting another critic of Islam in order to hide behind him, he is quoting a proponent of Islam as evidence of the views and intentions of Muslims.
Re:And so it begins... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Informative)
That will not be hapening. The number of Europeans that convert to Islam won't be large and nothing will happen in just a few years.
The issue at hand is more that many European countries have accepted a large number of immigrants in the past (and still do sometimes), thinking that it would be temporary and they would return to their original country. Except they didn't. They brought over their families instead. No real problem yet, except for two things. 1: A large portion did not integrate into/adapted to the mainstream society. 2: They have more children on average, which are not always integrating properly too. This is already causing tensions within the society and the problem is not expected to get better anytime soon.
But that is the whole problem. If you procreate fast enough as a group, you can get your democratic majority. Not in a few years, but it still within a century. (especially with whole native babyboom generation dying in the next 40 years)
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:2, Informative)
Fair enough : some context.
First, let's take a look at how the meaning of the quran is built up. It is the LITERAL word of their "god", and here's what he has to say about interpretation :
"[3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing literal verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses."
So this means the quran contains 2 things : (1) stories and (2) laws, to be interpreted literally.
Now let's give some context, shall we :
"[8:55] The worst creatures in the sight of GOD are those who disbelieved; they cannot believe.
[8:56] You may reach agreements with them, but they violate their agreements every time; they are not righteous.
[8:57] Therefore, if you encounter them in war, you shall set them up as a deterrent example for those who come after them, that they may take heed.
[8:58] When you are betrayed by a group of people, you shall mobilize against them in the same manner. GOD does not love the betrayers.
[8:59] Let not those who disbelieve think that they can get away with it; they can never escape.
[8:60] You shall prepare for them all the power you can muster, and all the equipment you can mobilize, that you may frighten the enemies of GOD, your enemies, as well as others who are not known to you; GOD knows them. Whatever you spend in the cause of GOD will be repaid to you generously, without the least injustice.
[8:61] If they resort to peace (as defined in the "dhimmi" system), so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
[8:62] If they want to deceive you, then GOD will suffice you. He will help you with His support, and with the believers."
These are clearly laws, to be interpreted literally, stating that consistent violence is to be used against all who disbelieve, because "they are the worst beasts on earth". This violence can temporarily be reduced to only psychological violence (ie. threats and terror), but it can never end. Here's another nice one :
"[9:111] GOD has bought from the believers (the muslims) their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, to kill and get killed."
Explain to me how you can believe this to be the literal word of god, and not commit acts of religious violence, because this is something I do not get at all.
The same argument (and worse) can trivially be made with the texts of the vedas.
It is disturbing to me that in your efforts to cast Christianity as the only non-racist religion, you have simultaneously cast Hinduism and Islam as racist in their entirety.
That *should* disturb you. Hopefully enough to honestly check for yourself whether it's true or not. To check this using actually valid references, to read about this, the history, the applicable laws, and what changed when and how.
Specifically of intrest to answer this question are the "dhimmi" system in islam (and how portions of it are applied by current governments, e.g. the death penalty for leaving islam) and the "caste" laws of pre-modern India. If you want to be truly horrified at how bad religious law can get, then check out the "honor"-laws, specifically about the resolution of murder between samurai and plebs, in the Japanese feudal period. Then compare this to, oh, say the Magna Charta, or canon law.
I hope you actually do this, and are not "horrified" because of simple facts. Nobody's horrified that the sky is blue, you should not be horrified that people of different cultures are
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:4, Informative)
The complaint is for a comment in his book: "The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes." The sad thing is, Steyn is quoting the words of a muslim cleric from Norway, Mullah Krekar. The imam was boasting at how Islam would outbreed Europe: "We're the ones who will change you . . . Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.
Steyn is being charged with racism for accurately quoting a member of the religion he is allegedly persecuting.
It is a mark of great shame for Canada and its citizens.
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law#Roman_litigation [wikipedia.org] Cases were initiated by a summons which was followed by appointing a judge.
So from both secular and religious sources of our legal heritage there are traditions of courts who heard the accused as a matter of procedure which predate the inquisition.
Re:What would happen if... (Score:3, Informative)
-b
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:3, Informative)
I am sorry, but once people start claiming that "muslims don't believe in the quran", I sort-of tune out.
So why don't you tell me why just about every muslim country still has a discriminatory legal system (or worse : death penalty for leaving islam) ? In fact, there have been lots of demands of introducing a discriminatory legal system in western countries. Just to give one example :
Canada [bbc.co.uk]
And there have been racist killings, lots of them, based on the quran in western countries.
I won't accept arguments that state that muslims don't believe in the quran. It's offensive, to muslims, and to my intelligence. Muslims do believe the quran is the literal word of allah. That's what they all claim, that's what they scream when they blow up some random families for imagined "crimes". That's what they say while they stone women to death in Iran. That's what every mosque service starts with : you can't just wave it away like you do.
As for blaming castes on the British, that's just low. If that's true, please explain why Britain does not have a caste system based on ethnicity (a factor you conveniently left out : castes are actually directly racist, as they're based on things like skin color and physical features : you are born into a caste and can never leave it. Being part of certain castes has an influence on what things are crimes in a lot of Indian states. That makes those laws directly racist : different laws for blacks and whites (literally))
An opinion from the Left (Score:2, Informative)
From reading on this topic a few months ago, I came to the conclusion that the "100% conviction rate" is based on complaints made before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by a human rights lawyer (alas, I can't recall his name) who chooses his battles carefully. The actual number of complaints he has filed to date is small; less than ten, IIRC. But he has won all of them.
The political left in Canada is very much in favour of human rights commissions and tribunals. They are one way for less advantaged (and monied) people to make complaints of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, creed, gender, and sexual orientation. But even on the left there's considerable debate over the merits of this case. Anyone interested in seeing a part of this debate can visit this thread [rabble.ca] on Rabble.ca (which politically is probably further left than the Slashdot majority.)
Re:Hate speech ? Bollocks !! (Score:3, Informative)
Campaign underway to remove section 13(1) (Score:2, Informative)
total bollocks (Score:4, Informative)
ottomans had a tendency to record everything. every single kind of thing. because empire clergy and government didnt have anything to be afraid from anyone. to the extent that they didnt see any issues with recording how many young male boys a particular sultan had in his harem. (icoglani). it was a normal thing for them.
same historical accuracy goes for the atrocities they did. they very well recorded how Kuyucu mustafa pasa had got his nickname "Kuyucu". (meaning Well user). this minister had been instrumental in suppressing the Celali revolt in central anatolia, by killing people in atrocious manner. ottoman records show 30.000 people were killed by being thrown into water wells. this is why he got this nickname. and he is only one of the ottoman ministers in that fashion too. same did for what they did when they conquered any new land. the SOLE reason for conquering new lands was because of the booty. it was why the ottoman army went revolting if some sultan didnt go on an attack somewhere every 5 years. it was the foundation of ottoman state - its called Ghazi culture. you go attack in the name of the religion, you occupy, plunder. the rule is that if a city is taken by force, 3 days of free booting is offered, in which the army can take anything it wants. most of the time this manifested in taking slaves. in 1453, when mehmed ii decided to continue the patriarchate after occupying constantinople, they couldnt find the successor that was supposed to be appointed in place of the old patriarch. you know why ? because during occupation a sipahi squad leader (a low level beg) had appropriated that man during the plunder, as a slave among his many. sultan had to send his men to take the new patriarch from the slavery he was under in provincial rumeli (SE balkans) so that the new patriarch could be appointed. these information had taken AGES for me to gather and learn. everything in regard to historical facts here is edited by state ministries, and nothing allowing real history is allowed, if they do not fit well with the 'tolerant and great ottoman empire' myth. and they do not open ottoman archives even to turkish people - mind that. it is supposedly our heritage, but we cant go in and read anything from there, save a 10% they opened. you can guess that this 10% was the only amount that was not in conflict with the myth they are trying to create here.
no ottoman tolerance is bollocks. only jews were tolerated to that extent, and there is a very solid reason for that - when mehmed ii conquered istanbul at 1453, he wanted to rebuild the city. but being founded on a Ghazi culture, ie - conquer and plunder and get tribute kind of state - ottoman empire had lacked the craftsman to do anything in istanbul. therefore he sent orders to gather up all the craftsman that could be found anywhere near empire, most of them minorities. and when spain persecuted jews around 1490s, ottoman empire accepted them, because they needed craftsmen. thats the reason of the 'tolerance'. same 'tolerance' was not conferred upon the NORMAL citizens of the empire, as you can see from how did they treat people in central anatolia. ah, i also forgot to add the 40.000 people Sultan Selim had slaughtered in just one week in northern iraq around 1510, but thats another and long matter.
the same myth creating goes around in the internet too. turkish zealots (most of our compatriots are unfortunately zealots, they have an over exaggerated sense of egoist nationalism) edit wikipedia articles and such to change negative publicity about ottoman period. unfortunately, historical accuracy doesnt matter a shit. any historical fact that they cant refuse are dismissed by labeling them 'western propaganda, they wrote the history themselves'.