- The Canadian Human Rights Commission just did something
it never did before-it dismissed a hate speech complaint. On June 27, CHRC
dismissed the complaint against Maclean's magazine, which was accused of
anti-Muslim hate speech. The Muslims' disappointed lawyer said the defeat
was not a surprise. He cited "inappropriate political pressure"
and a political climate where hate speech laws and commissions are themselves
under attack. One word comes to mind at this pointyahoo!
- Think about it. The commission had convicted
everyone else ever hauled before them. It exists to prosecute and punish
"hate speech" and "hate crimes," to doggedly track
down the politically incorrect and their "hurtful" bias. Yet,
CHRC had to throw out this case, and it wasn't even a surprise. It was
expected because "the international controversy sparked by this case
has prompted many in Canada to question the very basis of the so-called
"hate speech" laws," as a columnist put it.
- This event is a break in the wall. It offers
incredible hope. Canada's speech police, for the first time ever, dismissed
a complaint because of pressure against hate laws. This pressure threatens
to fracture the entire foundation of these freedom-stealing, politically
based laws. Could America's northern neighbor return to fair English law
and throw out hate speech laws and tribunals? Stranger things have happened.
We just celebrated July 4, an independence won by the sacrificial heroism
of a patriotic minority. If enough Canadians and Americans care about saving
freedom, this battle could be won.
- Canada's National Post reported June 18 that
the besieged CHRC was going to review itself and its speech-punishing ways,
particularly how it reviews internet "hate." The Post said the
commission has been the focus of "a divisive national debate."
People are realizing you can't punish "hurtful words" without
destroying freedom of speech, fundamental to democracy.
- We've been praying for this. "Anti-hate"
laws are advanced with the argument that people should be protected from
discrimination and hurtful speech. But you can't remove those things from
society without removing liberty, too. The government must police citizens'
behaviors, words, and ultimately our thoughts. This turns into insane,
scary tyranny very fast. (Example: It's absurd that a government agency
in the UK is saying toddlers should be rebuked for racism if they turn
down spicy food or call each other names. But you could laugh only if it
weren't real. This tyranny of government is just one of the mind-boggling
results of empowering people in office to decide what other people are
allowed to say, think, feel, or believe.)
- Canadian MP Keith Martin, a liberal lover of
free speech, introduced a measure in February to completely repeal Canada's
hate speech law (Sec. 13(1) of the Human Rights Act). A <http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=565219>Post
article in early June reported that nine MPs had publicly criticized the
CHRC and one introduced a motion calling for its review. Post said outrage
at the hate speech tribunals "has come from across the political spectrum
-- from white supremacists on the far right to the Canadian Civil Liberties
Association on the left." The article explains that current "anti-hate"
law in Canada allow for convictions even if the "criminal" didn't
intend to spread hatred and even if his or her speech was perfectly true!
This is outrageous.
- Even as early as May, the outcry against hate
laws was so strong that the Canadian Jewish Congress, "a leading advocate
of powerful anti-hate laws" in Canada, told the Post <http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=530424>it
might support changes to Canada's hate law.
- The Post staunchly defends free speech and calls
for Sec. 13(1) to be completely repealed. It says, "Christians don't
get a veto on words or images that blaspheme God and his prophets. The
same must be true of Islam -- not to mention Judaism, Hinduism and every
other faith. No matter what your faith, the trade-off for living in a society
that honours free speech is the requirement to grow a thick skin."