Mark Steyn acquitted of ‘flagrant Islamaphobia’ by Nazi-like Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Tribunal

The Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunals and Commissions still can’t figure out that their very existence is proof Canada has no human rights.

In fact, in applying their own prejudices, in pretending to read minds and in draining the finances of anyone it accuses of “hate speech” or “hateful press,” the tribunals and commissions hatefully suffocate freedom.

Yesterday, one of those “Human Rights” Tribunals, the one in British Columbia, acquitted writer Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine over publication of Steyn’s Oct. 23, 2006, article, “The New World Order.” The tribunal scum writes:

“The panel has concluded that the complaints are not justified because the complainants have not established that the Article is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt on the basis of their religion. Therefore, pursuant to s. 37(1) the complaints are dismissed.”

Murder of freedom. The self-important members of British Columbia’s “Human Rights” Tribunal actually took seriously complaints by Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress and Naiyer Habib, both of whom said Steyn’s story in MacLeans was “flagrant Islamaphobia” that made certain people feel bad. The complaints alleged “that the Article exposes Muslims in British Columbia to hatred and contempt, on the basis of their religion, in breach of s. 37(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.”

Doesn’t every argument offend someone? Can’t any piece of writing be perceived as “hatred and contempt” based on religion, color or creed? You want to end free speech and a free press? Well, tribunal fools, you have stuck a dagger into Canadian freedom. It doesn’t matter that you acquitted Steyn. What matters is that by your existence, oppression exists; liberty lies a corpse.

Here’s how the British Columbia tribunal tries to explain its oppression:

“This case raises issues of importance to all Canadians, including Muslim Canadians, and to Canada’s print journalists and publishers. The issues require us to look at two important values of our democracy, the [Human Rights] Code and constitutionally protected right to live in a society free from discrimination, and the constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech. The Tribunal is therefore engaged in balancing two important and potentially competing rights.”

So that’s it. It’s an attempt to balance a freedom from discrimination against freedom of speech. Bullcrap.

You fight discrimination by punishing acts of discrimination that keep people from equal access to jobs, neighborhoods, schools, voting booths and public accommodations. Unless they directly call for life-risking behavior, you don’t punish words. You certainly don’t punish words that question ideas, whether they’re political, scientific or religious.

In a democracy, even a religion has to be open to the questioning of free people. It’s not for government to decide what is “hatred and contempt” by one person for others, especially not in words. Free people can decide on their own what is hatred and what is contempt; government has no role here. If we are to continue improving the human condition, we have to allow the expression of even those thoughts that seem offensive, hateful and contemptuous. How else can we debate a loving alternative?

Canada trapped? Now why can’t the Canadians get rid of these kangaroo courts? Is there no legal procedure to challenge the existence of these tribunals and commissions as unconstitutional? If there is no way to fight this, the Canadians are screwed, and we Americans should start dealing with the fact that we have a dictatorship at our northern border.

Every member of Canada’s “Human Rights” tribunals and commissions should be given a 48-hour running head start to leave the Western Hemisphere. Then they should be pursued like animals for the rest of their lives.

Frank Warner

Comments

[jj mollo]

There are lots of ways to ameliorate the impact of bad law and bad protocol and bad organization. The US Constitution grew out of the British system, which seems to be doing pretty well today.

You are using the argument of the excluded middle here. Either something is all bad or all good. That's a stretch with Canada. The main problem that I see with Canada is curling. Otherwise they're OK.

[Frank Warner]

When I think of Canada, I think of fresh air, maple leafs and tall evergreens. The "Human Rights" panels represent toxic gas over a vast wasteland.

These tribunals and commissions are like the Iranian mullahs who decide, by mind-reading and prejudice, which candidates to include and which candidates to disqualify for office. They are all bad.

[Kevin]

Frank, you must by now be coming to understand us conservatives. The liberal ideal of 'fairness uber alles' has an extremely dark underbelly. It destroys freedom.

Mark only got away with being honest because he's a celebrity. If you or I tried that in Canada, we'd be paying some fines right about now.

[Frank Warner]

Liberalism represents open minds and generous hearts. It doesn't shut down a debate or intimidate debaters. The Canadians are in big trouble with this repression.

Are these little monsters getting paid to be on these tribunals and commissions? The Canadians pay people to shut mouths?

Think about it. Despotic scum get paid.