Alright, here we go.
First off, a bit of a grab bag. Bene Diction Blogs On notes Macleans’ recent retraction regarding certain aspects of the CHRC’s pseudononymous conduct. Marginalized Action Dinosaur notes the slow reaction/translation time for Ezra Levant’s submission to the HoC JUST Committee. Meanwhile, from Free Dominion: Fundamentalist Christians Are not a Protected “Identifiable” Group, Says BC Judge & AG.
Second, Binks, over at Free Canuckistan, has done what he does so well again, with a fresh links, news, and commentary round-up: Steynian 394. Do go and check it out.
The Toronto Star, a left-leaning rag which in the past has come out in favour of free speech, prints the ravings of a “human rights” geezer who’s trying to flog a book, and who wants “the media” to submit to “human rights” thinking on “free speech”:Sometimes it is useful to return to a contentious topic long after it has disappeared from the headlines, public passions have subsided and minds are perhaps more open to sober second thought.One such subject is free speech vs. freedom from hate.Um, when did it disappear from the headlines? Wasn’t it back in them as late as last week when a few champions of “freedom from hate”–what a deranged concept!–offered their two cents’ worth to a parliamentary committee?A debate on it raged for months, triggered by complaints by a group of Muslims against Maclean’s magazine for being allegedly anti-Islamic. But the issue was never fully resolved. Understandable, given that there’s no easy answer.Understandable, given that the complainers want sharia rules on speech to apply here is Canada, something that the clueless multicultists cannot–will not–see.“Clearly both are desirable in any civilized society but they are often seen as being in conflict. Need this necessarily be so? Except as between unrepentant hate-mongers, on the one hand, and over-committed freedom of speech freaks, on the other, I do not see why they should be.”So writes Max Yalden, distinguished federal civil servant who spent years refereeing such competing rights while serving as Official Languages Commissioner (1977-84) and head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (’87-96).Over-committed freedom of speech freaks, eh? In the sage words Nile Rodgers, “Le Freak, c’est chic.” And, hey, it ain’t the over-committed censors, like Mr. Yalden and Ms. Lynch, who are going to keep the free world free.In his just-released memoir, Transforming Rights: Reflections from the Front Lines, he is particularly critical of the media, the main trumpeters of free speech.The media are “not entirely neutral.” In fact, they have a conflict of interest that they rarely declare. “`Public interest’ can sometimes get confused with what `interests the public,’ i.e. what sells newspapers.”Yalden believes that the media shouldn’t have any more rights or immunity than anyone else.In fact, they don’t have “more rights”. They have the same rights as everyone else.Free speech, yes. But there’s the duty to curb hate: “We must, if we see ourselves as a civilized society, go after it as forcefully as we possibly can. Hate speech cannot be exempt from limits simply because it’s been carried in the media.”We must, if we see ourselves as a civilized society, speak our minds without fear of being chastised and punished by the state. That’s what makes and keeps a society civilized. The alternative–the state decided what can and cannot be said–is a facet of totalitarian societies, not free ones.The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly ruled that restrictions on hate speech “do not compromise the values of free speech.”Wrong. The Supreme Court ruled but once–a 4-3 decision in 1990–that Section 13, the “hate speech” provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act, should be retained. But as we know from the Moon Report, that ruling is way out of date since it was made at a time when there was no Internet, and is sorely in need of review and revision.
Our censors know they are fighting a faltering rear-guard action which in a bizarre effort of last resort leads them to call on Islamist Apologist Haroon Siddiqui, to assist in the re-inflation of their false piety. Siddiqui is one of the few remaining supporters of state censorship, a position Haroon’s own employer the Uber-Liberal Toronto Star has soundly rejected.
Max Yalden ex-CHRC Apparatchik presents his rationale for the establishment of a totalitarian state where we the unwashed and ignorant masses may be safely herded by “elite” bureaucrats – like Max Yalden. This appalling mind-set, steeped in the cultural relativism of our disastrous policy of multiculturalism, is common to proponents of Section 13 (1). The contempt our would be Kommissars hold for Canadian Society and democracy is always just below the surface.
Fourth, Denyse O’Leary over at Post-Darwinist writes: Intellectual freedom in Canada : News roundup:
Yesterday, I received the smuggest, stupidest media release I have encountered in forty years, from a dying religious denomination in the United States, announcing their support for some “hate crimes” legislation, because they are supposedly on the side of “love.”
Not me. I’m for hate. If you hate me, I want to know.
Briefly, the way this kind of legislation has worked out in Canada is:
– activists who have the ear of government shut down honest discussion by declaring their opponents guilty of “hate”. Islamists (not to be confused with Muslims) and anti-Christian gay activists* were the driving force behind recent anti-free speech drives in Canada, based on “human rights” commissions and laws against “hate.”
– most people cannot afford the legal fees to defend themselves against an organized assault.
– it spills over into just about every area of life (which late nite comic’s jokes are funny, for example). There is nothing a bureaucrat won’t regulate if you give him a chance.
– media here are fighting back, for the right to report the news, but government is slow to give back liberties it has wrested from us, so the problem will take a long time to fix.
That religious denomination cannot die fast enough to suit me.
*The big gay rights group did not even agree with these activists. They think, as I do, that free speech is a good idea. But it will take a long time to work the anti-free speech activists and their tax-funded enablers out of the system.
Here is what I wrote back:
For what it is worth:
I was astonished to receive this press release given that at least three books have been published in Canada about the injustices caused by “hate crimes” laws/”human rights” commissions.
[ … books already mentioned above … ]
There is a huge social movement against that here, NOT funded by “right wing hate groups” but by working journalists.
We can’t report the news any more. Well, we can, but it is dangerous and costly.
I’m one of the oppressed myself. [ … personal family example redacted … ]
The worst thing I could ever wish on you people is the experience many of my friends and I have had. But I might not need to.
Maybe, in a world where journalism , done right, is a dangerous profession, you are just a slimeball who lusts for the government payroll.
Anyway, xxxxxxxxxxx, please get me off your mailing list now. I can find out about your nonsense later if it is ever of any interest.
Do not expect me to greet you as a colleague. You are not.
My colleagues are the free press, worldwide.
Journalism is one of the world’s dangerous professions, and should not be disgraced by people cheering for censorship.
Read the rest here.
Finally, reassemblin‘ the files.