Author Faces Canadian Tribunal For Hate Speech

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...

The National Post is one of the national dailies up here, it's not a bloody tabloid.

Re:National Post is not a tabloid...

Except the National Post is a broadsheet, not a tabloid, even by that definition. Try again.

Re:National Post is not a tabloid...

You must forgive them. After all, with Fox as the main 'news' station their perspectives on all media have to be somewhat skewed.

[citation-needed]

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.

This law goes overboard, but yet...

... does absolutely nothing to stop the scourge that is Celine Dion for acts, "likely to expose a person... to hatred or contempt."

Rights and Demands

This whole thing is about the right to not be offended. Most important is the fact that any individual can file a complaint and legally go after (paid by the government) anyone they think has slighted or defamed them or said nasty words against them. Of course, the defendant has to foot all his/her own legal expenses.

It's actually a free speech issue and I'll leave out my own prejudices and let readers decide for themselves.

BC Human Rights Tribunal?

To silence others who say things that may make you uncomfortable is not a human right.

To be able to say things that may make people uncomfortable is.

I would ask the BC HRT: Is your mandate to preserve human rights? Or is it to restrict them?

Tolerance is a two way street

As a Canuck, I can tell you that the human rights tribunal stuff is very scary...because they operate under the effective assumption that you are guilty until proven innocent, they do not conform to the crimina code of Canada, and there is no jury of peers.

Essentially it's a kangaroo court that is allowed to issue 'sentences' that are themselves not in keeping with the criminal code, but are legally binding in the sense that you can be charged with contempt of the court.

It's the dark side of over-liberalization, and the belief that you have the right to NOT be offended.

Tolerance does not mean you have to like someone...just put up with them.

The world will be a better place..

...when one can make a spoof of "Life of Brian" but with Islamic connotations, without fearing for his/her life. For those that don't know, "Life of Brian" makes fun of both Christians and Jews, in a massive way. It's by far not the only movie that does that - in fact, both Christianity and Judaism (and Christians and Jews) have been on the receiving end of satire and comedy in all forms of artistic expression (plays, books, movies, figurative arts). And by "receiving" I don't mean it necessarily in a negative way.

I don't know how Islam got so protected and the Muslims so protective. It would almost seem like lack of self-confidence.

Hate speech ? Bollocks !!

im turkish. what he says is not what he conceives, or he expects or etc.

what he is saying about muslims taking over europe and putting women in burka and banning alcohol and bringing a medieval middle eastern culture all over europe is NOT what he imagines, its what MUSLIM GROUPS that hold great leverage and followers, say. they are OPENLY declaring that this is their intention. all around europe. in uk, netherlands, france and germany, these are going around in underhand jihad and propaganda cd distributions, in meetings or in obscure, far from sight mosques. but in turkey, now, there is a firm islamist government in control thanks to the votes from the islamists who SAID they were going to multiply and turn turkey to an islamist state back 20 years ago. and thanks to that islamist government, many sheiks, groups, 'charities' that were doing the same thing thats happening europe underhand, now are OPENLY and clearly declaring their intentions in public. no - not extreme, radical, eccentric people these are. these are major leaders of the islamist segments of the society. they are openly saying that democracy is no good, the only 'salvation' can be found under islamist republic with a theology, everyone HAS to live under the rules of islam. and when the constitutional court here tries to prosecute them for anti democratical and secular behaviour, guess what happens - they run to european union, and in an APPALLING move, european union supports, and tries to protect these people from being prosecuted inside turkey's borders according to turkey's own laws. i dont know which is more appalling though, the intervention in another country's LEGAL system, or the fact that eu, which is an organization that purports to be founded on ideals of humanism, democracy, modern values, actually protects people who say they WILL abolish democracy, and all of those modern values. no. dont do err here - its not 'opinion' or 'freedom of speech' or anything, they ARE actually taking measures and taking action to that extent - setting up 'charities' that fund 'boarding schools' in which youngsters aged 6 to 22 are brainwashed against EVERY of modern ideals we hold dear today, including freedom of speech, and non discrimination. and yes, indeed discrimination and hatred against western values are brainwashed into those kids, they are taught that west is rotten morally, anything good has to pertain to islam, jews, europe and us are satan, and they should fight against them. from whence do i know ? i HAVE been in those places. and i have many acquaintances and even relatives, who actually are lost to that brainwashing. it is sad. in turkey, since the last 6 years under this islamist party, enmity towards modernism and west has reached a peak.

what is more appalling for me is the stance of the 'mild' muslims, who supposedly constitute the majority of muslims in the world. what they dont realize that, under islam, there can be no mild muslim, and any idea to the contrary is make believe, and self delusion. in islam, there are very solid orders in koran that openly, plainly orders that muslims have to fight jews and christians, and either forcibly convert them, or subdue and take tribute from them (maida surah, 9/29) and similar. one would try to argue that, it was valid at that time, in 600 AD, but it has to be commented, interpreted in some other way, but you cant. when you try to do this, you hit a solid wall ; according to islam, koran is the unchanged word of god. noone's word, including mohammad's word can be held over koran. it is god's will. AND koran states multiple times (around 7 separate places actually) that it is a very clear, understandable book that does not require any interpretation, intermediary (cleric, priest or anything), or reference from other places. when you combine these 3 facts, you CANT argue anything against someone says that muslims should fight against jews and christians.

thats why all the modernist, reformist ideas that some people are trying to spread around in middle east are hitting brick walls. there has been some action in egypt, in which some prominent people with the backing of a new generation, supporting them through internet, blogs and all, but they all had to either go underground, or escape egypt, because of both government and extremist pressure.

now theres this - there cant be mild muslims in an islamist society, because extremists eventually take the upper hand, thanks to the support they can gather through koran's situation i explained below, and either subdue or oust mild muslims. unfortunately definition of an extremist, as you know, provides for anything extreme. go out of line, you risk repression, prosecution, even death.

i know that a lot of politically correct people and a lot of modern muslims in europe and us-canada are going to be furious with what i typed. i dont blame them, because they do not know how things work. they live in currently balanced, long rooted societies in which no radical view can totally take over the administration, and their rights are covered against anything, they cant imagine something that sinister (like some radical group trying to take over a country by multiplying their numbers and eventually suppressing opposition) can happen. i actually didnt believe, until i saw what happened in my own country in the last 15 years either. the catch is that, islamist ideology does not confer any rights even to mild muslims, or modernists. you have to stick with the crowd, or you are one of 'them' who they see as the enemy of islam. even when i tell here, it seems like a sci-fi movie set in a post apocalyptic world. however it isnt.

there are already multiple big 'charities' that are running in europe, setting up islamic schools, 'dormitories', courses everywhere. what goes on is not 'ethnicity' or 'multi cultured'ness. those people like saadettin kaplan (a radical cleric in germany), fethullah gulen (an islamist that brainwashed an entire generation of turkish youth in turkey through the 'boarding schools' he founded through his 'charities', and someone who miraculously resides in u.s. under fbi protection, after constitutional court prosecuted him and ran away) are openly stating their intentions. these are not 'opinions' like some redneck expressing his antipathy against some hippie, people. these are stuff that are organized, meant, and done.

im not a muslim anymore. i have long recanted islam, when i was grown up enough to see that there is violence openly ordered in it, contrary to what mild 'wisemen' has been saying those days. and im at all times ready to defend that there is violence in islam, regardless of what anyone might think, because of what i explained, and in any local or international court, as long as my life is guaranteed. but noone can guarantee that.

the most horrible thing someone who is a humanist and modernist and following on the footsteps of erasmus, spinoza, paine, rousseau can be to support repression of such criticism and giving heads-up from people like the one who is being taken to court in canada. it needs to be realized that you CANT allow ideologies that seek to abolish democracy, freedom of speech and multiculturedness under a democracy, EVEN for the sake of freedom of speech and democracy. its a total irony. its actually more than that, a suicide. its what it would be like to give the 1933 election in germany to nazi party, despite nazi party had been saying that they intend to abolish democracy for the last 10 years, if they did say so. they didnt. but these are saying that they are going to do that.

what the mild muslims need to do is not to get angry with people who are warning of the DECLARED intention of these sources, but to PREVENT those intentions from happening. because in an islamist society, there can be no mild muslim let around with that kind of freedom you enjoy in us, canada, europe.

dont be a fool and think that it cant happen. they SAID it was their intention and it would happen in turkey, and it IS happening.

just wake up. we have reached this level in civilization through thousands of years of suffering. even if you find the current modern society incomplete or lacking, its no reason to let it slip back to medieval ages, upon the desire of a religious crowd.

Re:And so it begins...

Been near a college campus lately???

Re:And so it begins...

I thought we were ALREADY headed that way with crap like "free speech zones". The easiest way to control the masses is to ensure that no thoughts contradicting those in power can be heard. But that is my 02c, which ATM I am still able to post without fear of getting my door kicked in (I hope),YMMV

Re:And so it begins...

which ATM I am still able to post without fear of getting my door kicked in (I hope),YMMV

Not unless you live in a Texas compound with a wacky religious leader, at least.

There are some egregious examples of our (US) government overstepping their bounds, of course, but by and large, this sort of worry is not a current concern for most first-world citizens. But all you have to do is look to a country like China, where *real* political censorship and oppression occurs, and you then see how easily things can go astray.

Are people in China inherently more susceptible to authoritarian regimes, or somehow less capable of existing in a democracy than other peoples? Do they desire freedom less than we do? I suspect not, but I fear too many people simply assume that it could never happen to us. I'm not talking about some tin-foil hat government conspiracy, but a slow and gradual erosion of our rights - a slowly boiling pot to the frog, as it were.

I'm always astounded at those individuals who, while at the same time espousing fear of government censorship, are all too eager to cede so much power to the government in various guises: social programs, education, health care, financial control, and taxation. Power inevitably tends to corrupt, yet people are so easily deluded into thinking "yes, but we'll use that power to make our world better!" All the good intentions in the world won't prevent a powerful government from becoming at best bloated, inefficient, and uncaring, and at worst, tyrannical.

It's pretty easy to see with an example like this how well-meaning intentions can go so badly astray. Only foolish reactionaries talk of radical change the government. Such changes will likely never happen, and while I'm sure it feels great to take a principles stand, it affects nothing in the long run. Instead, the true battle is incremental - every new power ceded to the government must be carefully questioned... Will this really make the lives of our citizens better in the long run, or is this just another potential method for a government to oppress and control it's population?

Re:Hate Speech?

So it was hate speech? Slashdot has decided. Thanks for telling me what to think!

No, but the subject is facing a tribunal for hate speech. That doesn't mean he's guilty.

But even if he was, so what? Short of inciting violence, why shouldn't he be able to say that he hates orange people or that Pastafarians are evil? Good for Steyn for taking this and running with it. Who wants to live in a world where you're not allowed to explain why you dislike someone?

Re:Hate Speech?

> That doesn't mean he's guilty.

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:Hate Speech?

As a practical matter, yes it does. To date the conviction rate for the so called 'human rights tribunal is 100%.

I'm afraid you might be right there. And even if the courtroom acquits, public opinion can be a career-ender. I think he's doing the best thing here by taking the fight to them instead of sitting back and letting it happen to him.

You know, what gets me about this is that some groups deserve to be hated. What about Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-Il? I have no problem whatsoever with exposing them to ridicule or hatred because, well, they've brought it on themselves. Even the "protected classes" from the story have members that have it coming to them, such as people whose sexual orientation is toward children or animals, or maybe the Kansas school board who wanted to teach creationism in science class because of their beliefs.

You can't be free unless you're able to hate someone and convince other people to do the same. It's not pleasant and usually not good, but it's still a necessary evil.

Re:Hate Speech?

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)

Steyn predicts in his new book, "America Alone," that Muslims will swarm over Europe, ban alcohol and put women in veils

it just seems to me it is misguided political gesture to certain groups at the cost of freedom of speech. I'm a European and I occasionally worry about it too.

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:Hate Speech?

> The purpose is to stop people from encouraging or enticing hate.

That's already over the line. The second you put yourself (or worse, annoint ANYONE to) the position of deciding what thoughts are proper and which improper you are a threat to liberty. And for the record, I HATE YOUR FASCIST GUTS.

There, I'm now a hater. And I'll defend my right to hate anybody I get a hankering to hate to the death.. although as a non-pacifist I'll vastly prefer the death of the other guy if it comes to violence. Of course, being a friend of Liberty I'll also defend your right to hate me right back.... just as long as it's just words in the arena of ideas. So long as the factions are just waving signs in the street it's all just a 'frank exchange of ideas.'

Remember Freedom Zero: If you don't have the Right to be Wrong (in the other guys' opinion) you can never be Free.

Re:compared to the U.S.

I am not a citizen of US and I don't understand why the US needs to fix all the bugs in its system before people are even allowed to talk about problems they might see elsewhere? Sure the recent governments have done a lot to erode freedom and privacy to a great deal, but the almost absolute support for free speech in its system remains one of the best things about US. And I don't see why US citizens can't discuss (and even mock) other countries where some fuzzy notion of hate-speech is turned into a law.

Talking about how the system in US sucks when the topic at hand is about Canada makes me feel you are just karma-whoring for +5 Insightful.

You offended me, you should be on trial

People have the right to engage in offensive speech. It's an absolute right, though not one recognized by the Canadian Constitution. You have NO right to to not be offended by someone's speech. Don't like it, don't read it.

If you are not just trolling and really believe the crap you just spewed then I am highly offended by your attitude and plan on taking you to court. You obviously hate people who believe in Free Speech and you should be duly prosecuted under the laws you seem to think are a good idea.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial

1. Legal doesn't mean moral or right.

2. Free speech is designed to protect unpopular speech. Show me one ounce of evidence Steyn has impacted anyone's right to a happy and free life -- other than being unhappy he's saying something bad about them. The idea that the law gives you a right to not be offended is dangerous.

3. The quote about mosquitoes is not original to Mark Steyn: he was quoting an Imam. As for offering a rebuttal, it's their magazine, their printing press. Why should they allow a rebuttal? Am I allowed to write a column in the New York Times if they print something I disagree with? No. Is Microsoft allowed to force Slashdot to post a pro-Vista rebuttal on the main page? No. Do we want that sort of stupid to be a law? No. It might seem nice and fair if you don't think about it, but when you do, you'll see a thousand ways it would be abused and used to bog down free speech to the point no one says anything someone else might not like for fear of having to let the someone else use their resources to yammer on and on about how wronged they were.

Also, considering the stink this idiot commission raised against Ezra Klein -- a rather liberal fellow who happened to publish some cartoons depicting Mohammad -- I don't trust it, especially when almost all the decisions directly financially benefit a former member of the council, Richard Warman. And these "awards" he gets aren't taxable.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial

It was not Steyn who said that Muslims are "breeding like mosquitoes," it was a Muslim -- and he said it in order to celebrate what he believes to be the inevitable demographic triumph of Islam. Steyn just quoted him. Apparently you find accurate quotation to be offensive speech? Moreover, those who claimed to be offended by Steyn's writings did not ask to "offer a rebuttal," they asked for -- or rather demanded -- near-total control over an issue of the magazine, including what would appear on the cover. These facts are easily discovered by people who don't mind having their opinions contaminated by reality.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial

3. Mark Steyn's thesis is that muslims are taking over the west, "breeding like mosquitoes," and that they plan to replace our western legal system with Sharia law. And he is pretty offensive in the way he argues it. But the REAL issue of why he's on trial is because McLean's magazine (Canada's largest circulated magazine) has him as a regular contributer while refusing to let anyone offer a rebuttal. So, people complained.

Specifically, they refused to publish an article written by the complainants without editing it. The group that filed the initial complaint demanded that McLean's publish a lengthy response that they had written without making any changes to it. McLean's responded that if they submitted the article they would like published, McLean's editors would edit it and place it in the magazine. The complainants refused this counter offer.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial

Muslims are planning to take over the West, just like Christians planned to take over the West, Capitalist and Communists planned to take over the west, etc.

Just because we're currently dominated by a certain ideological set doesn't mean that it's native or natural in anyway.

However, "universal" ideologies by their very nature need to spread or perish. There is a reason that Asataru and Judaism don't evangelize -- it's cause you're either one of them or you're not. period.

However, people can be "converted" to Christianity, Islam, Capitalism or Communism... and those that won't buy in, clearly just need to be gotten rid of.

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial

Look at it this way. There's a group which tends to have large families and indoctrinates people to believe in a highly illiberal ideology. Let's forget the religion and skin colour. Imagine if it was purely a political movement that threatens to kill critics even outside the group and interprets criticism in an incredibly wide way. E.g. by telling people to kill authors and cartoonists in far away secular countries even though what they wrote or drew seems innocuous to outsiders. And it targets homosexuals and any women that want to marry outside the group. Men are free to screw unbelieving women [timesonline.co.uk]. At this point large numbers of its adherents arrive, legally and illegally, in liberal societies with low birth rates. Most of them end up poor and very much under its control. It tells them they are poor because society is too liberal. Potentially it could start to field political candidates in areas where its members are in a majority, and since it tends to deal violently dissenters and brainwash members to be obedient it could tell those members to vote for them at meetings and they probably would.

Doesn't that strike you as a threat to those liberal societies in the long run?

Re:why

Then they came to restrict your speech, and there was no one left to speak out in your favor.