A major event with the Canadian human rights commission has come to light. One which was highly predictable and will surprise no one. After reading this article please check the link here. It is an article from the person who actually filed the complaint about which this post is written.
gayandright has written on this already as has Ezra Levant in great detail however there are aspects to this which need to be noted and filed as a general rule that matter a great deal not just to all of us with respect to this instance of ‘judicial’ abuse but as a principle which occurs constantly throughout history and civilization.
Whenever a lever of power is created, typically its for a seemingly benign use. Something the vast majority can see a benefit from and more, would appear to be coarse if they opposed the creation of this lever. The Human rights commissions are just one example. I mean who wouldn’t be against human rights? Who doesn’t oppose hate? if your not against hate you must be for it right?
The problem lies with what happens when someone you don’t like has his hands on this lever. We could be talking about gun control, hate literature laws or smoking bans in private clubs. All laws which where introduced in a way that seemed benign and worthwhile. But each one of these started out as a kind of exception to a larger principle of general freedom. It not just may, but will happen that once these exceptions to general principle are allowed into law which are based on precedent, that someone will get their hands on this new lever of power and use it against the greater good and even against its own intended design. This is true for all the examples quoted above.
Now the human rights commissions have blown any shred of credibility (as if they had any left at this point) by refusing to hear a case against a Canadian Muslim preacher who defines the very word and spirit of section 13 of the hate crimes act.
I will block quote from Ezra Levants blog here and continue after…
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has rejected a human rights complaint filed against a radical Muslim imam who published an viciously bigoted book about gays, Jews, women, Christians, and even called for the murder of infidels.
Marc Lebuis, the publisher of the Quebec blog Point de Bascule, filed a complaint with the CHRC back in April, after reading a hateful book called “Islam or Integration?” “Islam or Fundamentalism” (thanks to reader John for the translation correction.) You can see a copy of the book in its entirety here. (It’s in French.)
The book plainly meets all the tests of section 13, including the jurisdictional test — it was written by a radical Muslim cleric here in Canada, named Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Al-Hayiti, and it was published on the Internet by him, too.
More importantly, Al-Hayiti’s book seethes with hate. According to Lebuis’s careful notes, it included statements such as these (I’ve included only a portion of them):
Homosexuals
- Homosexuals and lesbians should be “exterminated in this life”
- “Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded”
Infidels
- Most Infidels “live like animals”
- “sending our sons and daughters to the schools of the Infidels has devastating effects on their beliefs, their behavior and their character. For the children of Infidels are the most pervert children. At a very early age, they adopt the behavior of their parents ”
Men are superior to women
- “men are superior to women and better than them”. In general, “men have a more complete intellect and memory than women”
Muslim women are superior to Infidel women
- “The veiled Muslim woman is a light in the darkness of the 20th century, she carries the torch of modesty, of chastity and of Islamic values”
- “male Infidels will not be happy with us until our women are in their beds, in their magazines and in their dancing clubs !”
- “If a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man … their marriage is invalid, in fact it is adultery”
Muslims are superior to Infidels
- “… a Muslim must never put his brother in Islam at the same level as an Infidel. In fact, to place Infidels at equality with Muslims is one of the greatest form of ignorance and injustice”
- “The rule is that the most disobedient among Muslims is better than the most virtuous, the most polite, the most honest and the most loyal among the Infidels”
Christianity
- “It is because of this religion of lies, which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery”
Jews
- Jews “spread corruption and chaos on earth”
- Most Jews “seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing”
Slavery
- “owning slaves is not prohibited”
- “Allah has allowed men to marry two, three or four women, but one who fears he will not be fair can marry only one or have slaves.”
Democracy is contrary to Islam. Jihad is a duty of sedition
- “Democracy is a system in total contradiction with Islam”
- “… freedom is unknown in Islam, it contradicts Islam, therefore it is a false concept”
- “[freedom] serves to justify corruption” and “stooping to the lowest levels of bestiality”
- “Anyone who leaves Islam, cut his neck”
- in an Islamic state, Christians and Jews can keep their religion but they must pay a sum of money, the Jizyah. “The purpose of the Jizyah is to humiliate and punish Infidels to encourage them to accept Islam.” The other Infidels (Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc.) have no options but to accept Islam or “be killed”
Dear reader, don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe it should be against the law to have this much hate in your heart. I’d want to make sure that Al-Hayiti’s calls to violence (cut an apostate’s neck, kill Hindus and Buddhists, etc.) didn’t meet the standard of criminal incitement, and I’d hope that CSIS was attending his sermons to make sure he wasn’t going even further off the cuff. But plain old-fashioned anti-Semitism, misogyny, anti-gay bigotry, etc., ought to be legal. The answer is denunciation, debate, marginalization, etc. — not government censorship.
But that’s not the approach taken by the CHRC. They have prosecuted Canadians for much less. But they refuse to prosecute anyone who, well, isn’t Christian.
As readers will know, I was specifically acquitted of section 13 charges for publishing the exact same words for which Rev. Stephen Boissoin was found to have committed “hate speech”, by both the CHRC and the Alberta HRC. That’s because I’m Jewish, and Rev. Boissoin’s Christian. HRCs have a special hate for Christians.
I disagree with Ezra that he was acquitted because he was Jewish. I believe he was acquitted because the HRC didn’t have the stones to take him, and the 30 or so odd bloggers at least who copied the text of the Rev. Boissoin’s editorial verbatim including some gay organizations who found the HRC’s actions to be far more repugnant than the words of an inconsequential Christian minister. The HRC’s would look pretty ridiculous taking on gay organizations and blogs such as gay and right for reprinting the anti homosexual thoughts of Boissoin. However I do agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Levant that it must not be illegal to say whatever it is you want in the realm of politics etc.
My issue is subtly different though. I believe that the consequence of bad levers of power is that they will always be selectively enforced and against the greater good of a free and democratic society.
In Ottawa Canada as well as other cities in the great white north we have a monument to the women killed by the Muslim Marc Lepine (not his original name as he was a Moroccan) which was paid for by all three levels of government. Municipal, Provincial as well as Federal. The inscription reads:
“To honor and to grieve women who have been murdered and abused by men. May we see the day when women can walk the streets free of fear of male violence”
The above inscription clearly violates every aspect of Canada’s hate literature law act. However the women’s monument was not only allowed, but funded by the government itself who passed and enforces these same laws.
Ultimately, all such laws which make exception to larger principles of freedom of speech and true human rights of equality before the law become selectively enforced. It did not take very long to go from laws which forbid racial discrimination in hiring to affirmative action which no matter how you spin it, is nothing more than racially motivated hiring. The very opposite of the initial laws which make racism a crime as a decider. So clearly its OK to be racist when hiring it just depends which race against which you are discriminating.
This of course has always been the case. Any attempt to justify it is mere spin. The Nazis for example didn’t discriminate against jews, they selected for the oppressed Aryans!
Ultimately its a relief to see the HRC’s of Canada so blatantly tip their hand in this fashion. It is several nails in the coffin for them or for us. Either way it means change. Perhaps if government agencies are finally perceived to be acting against any notion of reason or fairness to the citizens who they represent there will be some real protest.
Eeyore for Vlad
