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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:National Post is not a tabloid... (Score:5, Informative)
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:National Post is not a tabloid... (Score:5, Informative)
National Post (Score:3, Informative)
This law goes overboard, but yet... (Score:5, Funny)
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:Rights and Demands (Score:5, Insightful)
But that is the most ridiculous right anyone can ask for. Sometimes truth offends people, does that me we should lie to them instead? And what about religion? Some religious people are offended by any attempt to question their belief-system, does that mean we can no longer criticize any religion? And what if a religion offends certain people, is that allowed?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And here's why: If the government wants to say, "you can't say offensive things" then it's a
BC Human Rights Tribunal? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fantastic sources. (Score:3, Insightful)
Tolerance is a two way street (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
why (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why (Score:5, Funny)
The world will be a better place.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know how Islam got so protected and the Muslims so protective. It would almost seem like lack of self-confidence.
Re:The world will be a better place.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The west has been supporting this violent minority for way too long already, actively (e.g. the Taliban in afghanistan would never has been as powerful without US support) and passively (certain well-known extremist organizations are not forbidden in several european nations, despite their anti-democratic principles).
The Dutch politician Wilders has, like many, shown that just warning for the "muslim" threat, is not a way to fight this problem. It really is too generalizing, and you cannot deal with the muslim problem by generalization, because that would affect the whole democratic principle. Why forbid muslims to wear their head scarf, but allow jews to wear a wig and catholics to wear a cross.
It doesn't work that way. An evolution to muslim integration can only work by making sure the rotten apples don't get a change to spread. This might be easier than you would think, but there has to be a complete political will to do this. Hint: giving the extremist guns is not a very good idea, politicians: please stop with that first.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now THIS is censorship . (Score:4, Insightful)
Once you ban one type of speech, none is free.
Hate speech ? Bollocks !! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (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 head
i was (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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'.
Ezra Levant's Blog (Score:5, Interesting)
Here [ezralevant.com] is a short video from his interrogation and a quote from his blog: "And after I made [my point], [Human Rights] Officer [Shirlene] McGovern said 'you're entitled to your opinions, that's for sure.' Well, actually, I'm not, am I? That's the reason I was sitting there. I don't have the right to my opinions, unless she says I do."
And here [ezralevant.com] is another video from the interrogation in which Levant expresses his disgust at being directed to answer to the government and characterizes the human rights officer as a thug.
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.'"
So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
What would happen if... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And so it begins... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And so it begins... (Score:4, Interesting)
Great flick.
Political Correctness is about doing the wrong thing for seemingly proper reasons.
Or, it's passive aggression writ large.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And so it begins... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:And so it begins... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's already happening and has been happing for well over a hundred years. Ever read the 10th Amendment. Particularly the following:
Congress, the President and the courts have been ignoring the 10th Amendment for ages.
Re: (Score:3)
I see the government in the same light one would view nuclear power on some island where no other means of generating electricity were viable or had ability to provide power on a scale large enough.
Just like a nuclear reactor, government is a very powerful, in many cases life-saving, thing. But just like a nuclear reactor it is forever challenging to maintain control over. If you do not have enough safety interlocks, enough backups and well thought out procedures to keep this monster in check, it will use
It's about priorities (Score:3)
Re:And so it begins... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And so it begins... (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (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:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm afraid you might be right there. And even if the courtroom acquits, public opinion can be a career-ender.
Actually, if you are an author, I think quite the opposite is true. Nothing will make people want to read your book more than being told by the government that they aren't allowed to. I'm sure the publicity resulting from all this nonsense has done wonders for the sale of his book in Canada.
But on to the larger point. I think it is perfectly legitimate for public opinion to have an influence on sales. In a free society, I don't think government should be deciding what books you are allowed to read, but the public does have a right to an opinion, and consumers have the right to decide whether to follow it or not. That's as it should be.
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Funny)
There. Fixed that for you.
Seriously. After 10,000 years or so of recorded history and civilizations and all, you'd think everybody would've gotten the memo by now. Good or bad, ideas are a bitch to kill. Shoot/torture/maim/imprison the messenger, they become a martyr. Ban saying the words out loud, they get whispered even further.
We're upitty little animals, and scolding and yelling at us about what not to do is about as effective as telling junior not to put peas up his nose. We'll do it just to spite you.
If you're serious about banning hate speech--that is, any works that advocate or could incite the killing of other people--then throw the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, Nietzsche, Machiavelli, and probably a good half or more of the rest of the sum total of religious and literary texts throughout human history onto that fire.
The only way to kill a bad idea is to give it attention and discuss why it's wrong.
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
The people mounting this attack are the most politically inept lot I have ever seen. This is an own goal in overtime. I have a good idea of what the hate speech law was trying to prevent, but it is being applied to stifle any criticism of any cultural tradition, which means that regardless of how dysfunctional imported customs are, no one can actually come out and say they're messed up. The people in these human rights tribunals don't even have any credentials to justify their authority--and they get to define what hate speech is. So the trial will generate a lot of discussion outside of Canada, but those inside Canada will have to be careful what they say, because it might be considered hate speech.
With a single stroke, civilization is stopped in its tracks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but at least that's a restriction you voluntarily placed upon yourself.
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Christianity most certainly has been involved in racism, and as a direct counter to your specific argument, texts in both the Old and New Testament refer to wiping out specific groups of people. The entire final book of the New Testament is about those that don't believe in Christ. They end up facing their judgement and eternal torture.
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 sounds like racism to me, or at least xenophobia, which is just a step away.
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
By the way, where is your defense of christianity? All I see is you jousting at windmills and setting up strawmen about islam.
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:4, Funny)
What happens to the victims? Torches and pitchforks?
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=33030
When Mark Steyn writes for the Jewish World Review (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0802/steyn1.asp) the B'Nai Brith doesn't seem to complain though.
You see, I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws, but when you fight for hate crime laws you can expect others to use those as well. I'd prefer to see less censorship, but people have been jailed in Canada for saying there was no Genocide.
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never been fond of the notion of "hate crimes". Acts, are either legal or they are not.
Why should the victim of a crime (take your pick) be considered more protected than another in an otherwise similar circumstance because of the vague notion of a "hate crime"? (Some people are more protected than others?)
Why should the perpetrator be considered more "vile" than another in an otherwise similar circumstance because of the vague notion of a "hate crime"? (Some people are less protected than others?)
There is either equality under the law or there is not.
With the introduction of "hate crimes" equality under the law goes out the window because we've replaced "facts" with "feelings" (for the uninformed "hate" is an extreme feeling).
It's just a matter of time before "hate" is replaced with "thought". And now that "speech" equals "hate" that day gets ever closer.
For shame Canada. For shame.
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:4, Interesting)
Inciting a riot is against the law even if it is just attempted, the same goes for inciting hatred to cause violence.
If you want another area of the law where the intent of the crime plays a role in sentencing try manslaughter and murder, the mental state of the attacker has a big influence on the sentence.
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
> a role in sentencing try manslaughter and murder, the mental state of
> the attacker has a big influence on the sentence.
And it should. If some Klansman or Rev. Wright follower kills somebody of their preferred hated group the odds are very high that they would do it again. That's why it is proper to take mental state into account at that point. You got that part right.
But arresting Rev. Wright for 'hating on whitey' BEFORE he kills anyone or incites a riot (as opposed to Rev. Sharpton who does have blood on his hands yet walks free) is just wrong. I think Rev. Wright is an asshat and Obama is a fellow traveller in hatred that disqualifies him from high office. I do have the right to use their hatred in judging them as regards things like public office. I assert that I also have the right to refuse them service, a belief the government will imprision me for acting upon. In the they MUST have the right to be wrong, idiots, wicked, whatever disparaging term we the sane want to heap upon them, right up to the point where they actually become violent or become a clear and present danger via inciting violence. For if we deny their liberty ours will surely be forfit.
And that is where this whole mess in Canada crosses the line. Steyn has done nothing violent, nor has he incided anyone else to commit violence. But he is on trial and while I don't think these thugs can imprision him they can, and planned to, bankrupt him. Whether they back down now that the spotlight is on them or scurry back into the shadows with the cockroaches doesn't change anything.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Hate crimes though are not "thoughtcrime". We're not banning the action based on what the person's opinion is
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: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, Insightful)
Democracy is an inadequate substitute for freedom. European post-Christian socialism has produced an unsustainable society. The result will be a very different Europe in 50 years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The purpose of the law has never been to govern thought.. but expression. You're welcome to sit in the privacy of your home, or your local cafe and think about how much you hate group X or how you'd like it if other people hate group Y.
At issue is encouraging others to do so.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hate Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
This attempt to suppress certain forms of speech because they "incite" people is just as wrongheaded as rationalizing video cameras on every street corner in order to stop terrorism. Neither "solution" gets to the root of either problem, and have been about as effective as trying to cure diarrhea by tinkering with the plumbing in your house. Put it this way: hate usually spreads among the ignorant, among those with no sense or knowledge of history or other peoples. If you want to prevent hate crimes, eliminating one of the basic causes for hatred (ignorance) is a better solution than legislating civil liberties away. It just takes education.
The other big problem in the world today is that people have become spineless weaklings, unable to stand up to those who say, "I find your speech offensive and I will try to intimidate you until you stop." So far as I'm concerned, the Muslims (at least, the vocal ones) are living in a glass house: if they don't want to hear anything offensive to their religion and/or way-of-life then stop saying bad things about everyone else's. Odds are I'll keep my trap shut if you keep yours under control. Otherwise
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:4, Interesting)
It takes a pretty god damned insecure individual to feel threatened merely because someone does not like him/her. "We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling" is NOT a threat. I'm really tired of how fragile and candy-assed and otherwise cowardly people are becoming. It is a trend that does not bode well.
Now that hypothetical example would constitute an actual threat. That example goes far, far beyond merely disliking or hating someone.
The Nazis are an instance where the size and power of the state spiraled out of control. The persecution of the Jews and the Reichstag fire and the climate of fear and distrust were means to that end -- if they were unsuccessful, different means would have been used. Having a "tribunal" of people who can decide whether you have committed a thoughtcrime or not (face it, this is what "anti-hate" laws are) is another means to increase state power. The Nazis would have approved.
How about we instead expose the unstated assumptions that are behind all of this? All of it assumes that just because you hear an opinion, you have zero choice but to believe it and to act on it. All of it assumes that just because you dislike or even hate someone or something, that you have no choice but to act on those feelings without regard to the harm that it might cause. In other words, you're all mindless idiots with no hope of deciding anything for yourselves.
Or, from the politician's point of view: "some of you seem to think you should be able to think for yourselves; well that might interfere with the expansion of state authority and the uniform, homogenous society it demands, so we have set up a tribunal to tell you what thoughts you may express and which thoughts are thoughtcrimes and have given it the power to persecute anyone who says something too controversial. That way, we can get you to think in terms of emotional outrage and whether or not you are 'offended' which suits us far better than if you were to think in terms of facts and reasoning. Rest assured that this is all for your own good and that our motives are entirely pure and that this power will never ever be abused." Will we ever wake up and get tired of this?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So does North Korea, but that doesn't mean I can't condemn them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:compared to the U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps it's not simply a case of irrational or nationalistic bias as you seem to think it is, and more a case of sometimes criticism of America deserves +5 and sometimes defense of America does. Contrary to popular belief, we're neither a wholly moral and righteous nation, nor a wholly evil and manipulative one.
When you label any criticism of America as "oh, they're just bashing the US again", you make it so that valid criticism is ignored as though it were invalid, which thwarts any efforts to improve America, and encourages actions which worsens us.
Re:compared to the U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If a debtor tells you someone else is bad because of their debt, or a thief complains about being robbed, a homosexual republican promotes discrimination against gays, etc., their own flaws deserve to be addressed.
As an American myself, I'd *much* rather bring to light flaws from my own country than flaws from other countries. *Not* because I hate my country, or that I want to knock it down a peg, but because I want my *own* country's flaws fixed, and that's not going to happen if
You offended me, you should be on trial (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find all this debate asinine. Canada is a democracy, and the Canadians voted for a government to legislate and enforce the laws of the land. This fake outrage around the decision of a Canadian tribunal to prosecute a man, is tantamount to a Dutch citizen getting all riled up because he read in the news that an American was jailed for possession of weed. Or, an Americ
Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (Score:5, Informative)
Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (Score:4, Interesting)
So a privately-owned business should be forced by government to give away wordspace because of some peoples' hurt feelings? Do you know much about this issue? Do you know the conviction rate of the HRCs? Are you aware of the tactics used by the HRCs?
Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (Score:5, Informative)
Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't that strike you as a threat to those liberal societies in the long run?
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: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: (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 c
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
So I guess you feel that you should be on trial too?
Hypocritial moron.
Re:Just Plain Embarrassing (Score:5, Insightful)
To use the example of the witch trials:
1. People were paid to report witches.
2. Evidence was considered irrelevant when judging witches.
3. All of the "witch's" property was confiscated and used as "payment" for the judges, torturers, executioners, etc.
In light of all that, is it really any surprise that they kept finding witches?
Likewise, these "human rights commissions" exist solely to punish people accused of spreading hate. And they use a framework similar to the witch-hunts:
1. With a 100% conviction rate, they guarantee that the accuser will be paid for accusing someone - anyone.
2. "Questioning" is conducted in private, without a lawyer, and evidence is largely irrelevant.
3. The "defendant", who is always found guilty, is ordered to pay up to the accuser, while taxpayers foot the bill for the process.
So in light of that, is it any wonder that they keep prosecuting and convicting innocent people? While the very basis for these commissions is in itself flawed, the far larger problem is the way in which the commissions are set up. They are extra-judicial bodies which have no accountability, and no supervision.
Do we really need a separate judicial system which doesn't answer to anyone, just so we can stop offencive speech?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Completely off-topic, but here you go: Sydney Gang Rapes [wikipedia.org]
So if a Muslim man rapes someone, and I call him a "Muslim rapist", I'm committing libel and hate speech?
And people wonder why I'm opposed to these commissions!
Just out of curiosity, could you take a look out of your window and tell me what colour the sky i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, no, you already contradict yourself. You believe there is a god, and from that you extrapolate (without actually being told by god, just someone who said he talked for god, and you trust that the people who wrote it down did so correctly through history also) a given law.
That is using that derived law to spread