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."

Comments

compared to the U.S.

[bcrowell]

I'm sure glad the state of civil liberties is so much better in the U.S. We just have torture, secret prisons where people can be held forever without trial, and an executive branch that claims habeas corpus doesn't exist. It's also no big deal that we have one of the world's highest incarceration rates, which is as high as it is mainly because of the victimless crime of selling drugs. Nope, no problem here. Those Canadians sure are bad, though.

Re:compared to the U.S.

[Concerned Onlooker]

And pointing out that someone is bashing the US, no matter how appropriate, is another way to get cheap karma points.

oh, irony

[mapkinase]

I find it ironic that in the thread about free speech people mention trolling - which is exactly what is your concept of free speech about - right to express unpopular opinions.

Not that I care much about your definitions.

PS. If you are gay, do not try to popularize the idea of enjoying putting a sexual organ in the places tighter than the place it belongs naturally and thus getting more kick out of it. Be in your closet and your punishment will be postponed till the Judgment Day. Fair enough?

Re:oh, irony

[meringuoid]

It is true that we will come to your country with war, whether you want it or not.

If you do that, you will be exterminated. No joke. It's what people do when they feel threatened by a minority. Hitler is disappearing from living memory, and the Holocaust is becoming a matter of dusty history books and grim museums in the East; with every old man that dies, taking the memory of that horror with him, there is less and less to stop the West from committing the same crimes again. So - attempt this and you give the far right all the support they need. They'll say about you exactly what the Fascists once said about the Jews, the Communists, the gays. Do you want all your people rounded up, the way Jews once were? Do you want to see Mecca glow in the dark? Because that's how your plan ends, and your god will not protect you.

It's things like this ..

[Luscious868]

It's things like this that make me proud to be an American. With all of crap that the current Administration has pulled sometimes I feel like there isn't much to be proud of but the Bill of Rights is certainly something that all Americans should be proud of (and the Bush Administrations constant attempts to piss on the 4th Amendment is something we should all universally condemn). Let people say whatever they want and trust the public to identify "hate speach" and counter it with reasoned arguments against it instead of trying to silence the speaker.

Just Plain Embarrassing

[Secret Rabbit]

1) The National Post is NOT a tabloid. Sure, it might be fairly right-wing. But, a tabloid it is not.

2) I'll prefix this with I'm a Canadian who disagrees with such "hate crime" laws. But, they are well intended. They were made to rid easy spread of things like the KKK ideology. Unfortunately, they were implemented not in a way that would keep free speech but "outlaw" spread of "terrorist" ideals. That is, if that's even possible, which IMO, it isn't.

3) Anyone here that read both The National Post's /article/ and The Seattle Times OPINION piece will note that The National Post's article has actual information in it (including some background) and The Seattle Times opinion piece has little to no journalistic value. Not that this is an uncommon situation when comparing Canadian journalism and US "journalism."

4) The Seattle Times doesn't even allude to the fact that there is extreme opposition to these laws; MP's are quite outspoken about them ON BOTH SIDES OF THE HOUSE (not to mention the police investigation into the Commission's tactics). All this yet there is worse things going on within the US over the past couple years. But, I guess because this isn't in the name of terrorism it's "bad" whereas the prejudice against "foreigners" in the US is "good" because it helps prevent "terrorism." Sorry, but you don't get to criticise how other countries deal with issues (especially when attempts to fix the situation are going on) when your country is doing the same, in different ways, and worse.

Re:Hate Speech?

[rtyhurst]

Canada has a different history and set of laws regarding hate speech than the US.

Get over it.

This is an outrage

[nfk]

Man, those whitey, god forsaken, senile, retarded, pussy, shackled Canadians are so gay.

On the page 46 the book says

[mapkinase]

"Muslim gang-rapists".

FYI, "Muslim gang-rapists" has nothing to do with Islam. Show me one single Hafiz of Qur'an "gang-raper", show me one single Muslim "gang-raper" who prays 5 times a day.

It is not "Islam is coming" that makes it a hate speech book, it is "Muslim gang-rapists" that make it a libel, false, lie.

Re:The world will be a better place..

[gbutler69]

Fuck Muslims! Fuck Islam! Fuck Mohamed! 2807 Summit Road Copley, Ohio 44321 Stand up to these fucks!

Re:Hate Speech?

[ttys00]

This is what happened in Kosovo. In the early 1900s Kosovo was approximately 10% Albanian, with most of the rest being ethnically Serb. Now it is approximately 90%. Albanians outbred the Serbs, and took control.

They did it without elections too. In a democracy it is easier and happens faster.

Re:As a practicing Muslim

[mapkinase]

Iran is not an Islamic country. The majority of Sunni scholars hold an opinion that Shia scholars are infidels and the ordinary Shia just ignorants whose opinion does not matter in religious issue.

Saudi Arabia rulers are sold to West. Not good example.

Taliban is the closest on your list. And yes, I understand that you do not understand good that is coming to you. There is no point on arguing here. You made your not understanding very clear.

"If an Islamic government can not even work in a small area of the world" That is your opinion. Islamic government worked through very large portion of history. Since when military superiority makes the ideology right?

"He who has been trustworthy in small matters, shall be given greater authority." Trustworthiness is a new subject. What is it that you are accusing Muslims of in the matter of trustworthiness?

"If those are not examples, then has there ever been a government that rules according to Allah's law? "

Yes. The best examples would be the Islamic rule of quite substantial part of the world during Khulafa of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and 'Ali. After that all of them made some mistakes, but in general there were quite many just Khalifs who were much better than any of the rulers of Muslim countries today.

For example, the rule in Andalus, where Jews and Christians enjoyed life that would never be even imaginable for Jews and Muslims under Christian rule at that time.

The rule in Uthman Khalifate is another example. Again, Jews and Christian enjoyed much more freedoms under that rule that Muslims can have right now.

For starters, before this totalitarian democracy madness started, religious minorities had a right to exercise their own rule on the members of their own communities. Example: Jews in Tzarist Russia in XIX century. Same goes for minority communities in Muslim countries.

So then why do you try to argue if I am incapable of comprehension?

I am not arguing. I am just replying now.

Or is it that you use this justification for me not agreeing with you to reassure yourself that you could not possibly be wrong? Let us do not assume things about each other beyond what is directly evident from what we say, ok? Otherwise, it just sounds silly.

"Would you consider suspending the entire Islamic law for anyone suspected of a crime?" This is just non sequitur.

"I gave instances of items that had large impacts on society." Well, I would not want you to impose on me an allocation of substantial part of my time researching whether the documents you mentioned have an impact on the society compared to other interests of people who claim to be acting upon them. So please, if you want to make a point, give me example that I do not have to research.

"I have had to spell Khalif and I tried to spell it phonetically." It does not matter as long as it is not impediment to understanding.

"If we have to pay for something, it is not a freedom, it is a privilege." Yes. You are paying for the privilege to be protected in an Islamic country.

"Further, economic freedoms are only a small matter." I think you do not know what are you talking about. I suggest you learn about what people want.

"There are several other things as well, such as being able to associate with other people as we choose. " I guess that would depend on the scale of such association. If it is limited to the conclave of non-Muslims, some community, area, village, region, then it's ok.

"The restrictions we read about that are placed on women would be considered abhorrent here." Those "abhorrent" limitations (that sisters are fighting to have a right to in Turkey, France, Tunis...) are only for Muslim women. Headscarf is not necessary for non-Muslims as long as they do not go around in a dress offending local customs. Rule of common sense.

"For instance, I have heard that it would be required for Christians to acknowledge Mohamed as a prophet. " That is absolutely not correct. Is t

Correction

[bussdriver]

It is embarrassing how the American system has failed to function properly; which I attribute to the 4th branch (news) being corrupted in many ways in addition to the spoiled selfish public neglecting their duties. (I am an American, BTW.)

Bush cheated and had massive mainstream media support.

Bush was NOT elected in 2000. He was appointed in the most openly corrupt supreme court decision ever (or likely the worst.)

Bush narrowly won 2004 if you believe computer voting works and exit polls can be 10+ points off.

Remember that many of the scandals shortly AFTER the election were KNOWN and SUPPRESSED before the election. This includes the prisoner "abuse"; which for a long time is what the media called it-- "abuse" and almost never mentioned the videos of the serious "abuse" but focused upon the less objectionable (relatively) aspects.

Computer voting in ALL forms continues to get every benefit to delay resolving the problems. They put them in without delay but getting them out even if proven rigged would take YEARS...

Re:He SHOULD Be On Trial

[ccmay]

I would just like to say, you are a worthless piece of shit for trying to justify this outrage. Drop dead.

Re:As a practicing Muslim

[ccmay]

Muslims control 1/3 of the worlds oil supply and I have no doubt in part the recent crisis are in fact engineered. Nuking Saudi Arabia is a good start.

I don't want them nuked. I'm a reasonable and merciful man. I just want Israel and the US to conquer the place, seize the oil fields as compensation for 1400 years of bloodthirsty Muslim oppression, and excise Mecca from this plane of existence.

I want to see the Wahhabi scum driven at gunpoint into the Empty Quarter, there to live like their savage ancestors, without any amenities of modern life. They WANT to return to the seventh century. Let's put them there, good and hard.