And Then They Came for Mark Steyn…
Freedom is under attack in this country by a powerful alliance between human rights bureaucrats and a small group of self-appointed censors. As has happened so often in the past, laws which were written with a select purpose – in this case the protection of minorities and others from actual violence or incitement to violence – are being abused to an end which we were explicitly assured would never arrive. Human rights acts, commissions, and so forth – we were told – would never suppress genuine free expression or to declare certain thoughts illegal: and yet that is exactly what they are doing in this country.
Today brings the news that Maclean’s magazine, as thoroughly respectable and establishment a Canadian institution as one can find, is going to be hauled before the BC Human Rights Tribunal for printing excerpts from Mark Steyn’s book “American Alone.” The Canadian Islamic Congress claims that Steyn’s words were, “flagrantly Islamophobic” and that it, “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.”
Now, people complain about things all the time. As a general rule, there’s a whole class of professional whiners out there. The problem here is that they might win.
There are two problems here.
The first is the law itself – whose language is sufficiently broad to make practically anything negative written about anything to potentially infringe. If I write that that someone is a moron – regardless of the subjective truth of that statement (that is to say whether I believe it to be true and whether a reasonable person could believe that to be true) – then that could automatically infringe regardless of truth. Similarly, if I write that someone or something is a threat that could also, by hurting someone’s feelings, transgress against the law even if that someone or something actually is a threat.
The second is that the people who interpret these laws are, to put in as non-infringing a fashion as possible, morons. The law was ostensibly written to be adjudicated by reasonable and unbiased people, a description which is as far from fitting for most “human rights” bureaucrats as describing Liberace as “mildly flamboyant.”
Thus, it is entirely possible that the Commission – or perhaps some other body that someone else has complained to – will go out and brand Mark Steyn’s book as “hate propaganda” or whatever other menacing term they might devise. No reasonable person would think it but, as I have stated, we are not dealing with reasonable people.
For evidence of this, we need look no further than the case of Stephen Boissoin, which was decided yesterday in Alberta. Boissoin wrote a letter to the Red Deer Advocate in 2002 in which he took issue with homosexuality in strong terms. For the most part I disagree with Mr. Boissoin’s position, but he expressed himself coherently and without calling for violence or anything else against gays – after all the newspaper selected it for publication. Yet, simply because he said things which gay advocates disagreed with, his letter has now been formally branded as “hate literature” and, therefore, illegal.
How long shall it be before some government bureaucrat orders me to dispose of my copy of “America Alone” – or my signed copy of one of Steyn’s anthologies? No one can say for certain. But can anyone say that such a day will not come in this country?
The larger danger here – and we see it in the Boissoin case – is that these legal actions will have a chilling effect on speech. The Boissoin case – over a letter to the editor in a local newspaper – dragged on for five whole years. That’s five years of expenses and anxiety. Less-brave people will opt simply to remain silent about controversial issues, rather than to risk the costs of protracted Star Chamber litigation.
These are not the only examples that exist. All Canadian lovers of freedom will know the sad chronology of oppression. The Toronto printer fined for refusing to make flyers for a gay group. The Saskatchewan man found guilty of quoting the Bible in a newspaper. The British Columbian teacher stripped of his qualifications for writing letters to politicians and newspapers. Brave men all – but courage has become a rare commodity in this country. Most of us don’t wish to be exposed to years of inaccurate ridicule in newspapers. Most of us don’t want to risk what we own and what we’ve earned to the capricious whims of kangaroo courts.
The Western Standard’s brave act of printing those Danish Cartoons –an international news story – cost them tens of thousands (and perhaps more) of dollars and helped to hasten the demise of the print edition.
But, if we fail to act, how long will it be before freedom is lost? It will not require that our opinions even be formally deemed illegal – no act of Parliament will have to be passed to enumerate a series of thought crimes. Instead, vexatious litigation will wear away the will of many. Soon, magazines won’t even try and print cover stories about Islam. Editors will throw away letters about homosexuality which don’t endorse the practice and excoriate Christianity. Indeed, much of this is already occurring. This entirely-legal form of harassment is enough to drive ideas – even popular ideas – to the sidelines of the forum.
Perhaps the time has come to act. To draw a line in the sand. I am not one for rallies. I am not one for shouting in public. I think that it’s uncouth, rough and, well, liberal. But, really, we seem to be running out of options.
Today brings the news that Maclean’s magazine, as thoroughly respectable and establishment a Canadian institution as one can find, is going to be hauled before the BC Human Rights Tribunal for printing excerpts from Mark Steyn’s book “American Alone.” The Canadian Islamic Congress claims that Steyn’s words were, “flagrantly Islamophobic” and that it, “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.”
Now, people complain about things all the time. As a general rule, there’s a whole class of professional whiners out there. The problem here is that they might win.
There are two problems here.
The first is the law itself – whose language is sufficiently broad to make practically anything negative written about anything to potentially infringe. If I write that that someone is a moron – regardless of the subjective truth of that statement (that is to say whether I believe it to be true and whether a reasonable person could believe that to be true) – then that could automatically infringe regardless of truth. Similarly, if I write that someone or something is a threat that could also, by hurting someone’s feelings, transgress against the law even if that someone or something actually is a threat.
The second is that the people who interpret these laws are, to put in as non-infringing a fashion as possible, morons. The law was ostensibly written to be adjudicated by reasonable and unbiased people, a description which is as far from fitting for most “human rights” bureaucrats as describing Liberace as “mildly flamboyant.”
Thus, it is entirely possible that the Commission – or perhaps some other body that someone else has complained to – will go out and brand Mark Steyn’s book as “hate propaganda” or whatever other menacing term they might devise. No reasonable person would think it but, as I have stated, we are not dealing with reasonable people.
For evidence of this, we need look no further than the case of Stephen Boissoin, which was decided yesterday in Alberta. Boissoin wrote a letter to the Red Deer Advocate in 2002 in which he took issue with homosexuality in strong terms. For the most part I disagree with Mr. Boissoin’s position, but he expressed himself coherently and without calling for violence or anything else against gays – after all the newspaper selected it for publication. Yet, simply because he said things which gay advocates disagreed with, his letter has now been formally branded as “hate literature” and, therefore, illegal.
How long shall it be before some government bureaucrat orders me to dispose of my copy of “America Alone” – or my signed copy of one of Steyn’s anthologies? No one can say for certain. But can anyone say that such a day will not come in this country?
The larger danger here – and we see it in the Boissoin case – is that these legal actions will have a chilling effect on speech. The Boissoin case – over a letter to the editor in a local newspaper – dragged on for five whole years. That’s five years of expenses and anxiety. Less-brave people will opt simply to remain silent about controversial issues, rather than to risk the costs of protracted Star Chamber litigation.
These are not the only examples that exist. All Canadian lovers of freedom will know the sad chronology of oppression. The Toronto printer fined for refusing to make flyers for a gay group. The Saskatchewan man found guilty of quoting the Bible in a newspaper. The British Columbian teacher stripped of his qualifications for writing letters to politicians and newspapers. Brave men all – but courage has become a rare commodity in this country. Most of us don’t wish to be exposed to years of inaccurate ridicule in newspapers. Most of us don’t want to risk what we own and what we’ve earned to the capricious whims of kangaroo courts.
The Western Standard’s brave act of printing those Danish Cartoons –an international news story – cost them tens of thousands (and perhaps more) of dollars and helped to hasten the demise of the print edition.
But, if we fail to act, how long will it be before freedom is lost? It will not require that our opinions even be formally deemed illegal – no act of Parliament will have to be passed to enumerate a series of thought crimes. Instead, vexatious litigation will wear away the will of many. Soon, magazines won’t even try and print cover stories about Islam. Editors will throw away letters about homosexuality which don’t endorse the practice and excoriate Christianity. Indeed, much of this is already occurring. This entirely-legal form of harassment is enough to drive ideas – even popular ideas – to the sidelines of the forum.
Perhaps the time has come to act. To draw a line in the sand. I am not one for rallies. I am not one for shouting in public. I think that it’s uncouth, rough and, well, liberal. But, really, we seem to be running out of options.
posted by Adam Yoshida at
6:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home