I disagree...Americans (myself included) are, for the most part, a different animal.  We are proudly contrarian.  If you tell us we MUST do something...we will sometimes do the opposite merely to show you that we can and will always have that inalienable right.  Push us far enough and we will flaunt our inalienable rights.

There is a sense of nationalism that is voluntary.  The voluntary aspect of that nationalism separates the US from most other countries...and the only countries with as strong a nationalism have it forced upon them by their own government (China for example).Our history is such that there is a boiling point.  I believe Patrice O’Neil (an American black comedian) said it best.  “The Big Shut Up is Coming.”

(In Canada) I am witnessing the flailing pucker of haphazard email campaigns to gain political support.  I see videos posted on the internet.  Everyone waxes poetic about how unbelievably brazen the agenda driven Tribunals happen to be.

Well, wonderful...so what are you going to do about it neighbors to the north?  How about organizing the media instead of just hoping they cover the story (press conferences involving all plaintiffs over the last thirty years).  How about sabotaging the system by flooding it with hundreds of thousands of HR complaints so petty and arbitrary that the Commissions get buried in their own brain child.  How about filing HR complaints against those politicians who are sitting on their posteriors hoping it all blows over?  How about setting up a network of Pro Bono counselors across the Provinces who take turns representing victims of this tyrannical nonsense so that the respondents are not held hostage...and filing HR complaints against the Applicant when they read the material that they deem hateful...since truth is not a defense...they too are in violation by merely putting it on the record.  In fact, don’t just file one complaint...file a complaint each time it is read onto the record.

Cheers
JR

Where is your proof that Canadians are in danger of going to jail for “offending” someone with the truth?  Mark Steyn isn’t in jail, nor is he likely to go there. I read that MacLean’s excerpt with an open mind, because I’ve read Steyn before and I thought he was a good writer.  But that excerpt was hugely inferior to other stuff he’s done, cloaking racist attitudes as it does in the more politically acceptable terms “Islamist,” “Muslim,” and jihadist.  “Muslim” is not a race, it’s not a bunch of immigrant thugs, it’s a religion.  Muslims don’t beat up strangers who ask them to be quiet.  I note in his sad story of the Flemish man who got beat up by “six” thugs, he says “three” of the thugs were “Moroccan” as if that somehow proves that Islam was behind the beating. What has Islam got to do with it?  And who cares if “they” have more children than us and “take over” the country demographics-wise?  Aren’t we all human? Why does Canada have to stay white?  The assumption is that a white-dominated Canada has just got to be superior to any other possibility.

As for Rachel Ehrenfeld in Great Britain, going for a trial by judge alone is a role of the dice - she might well have done better if she’d had a jury trial.

And as for the white supremacist, the legal defence of justification (truth), has never been available in defence of his views, nor should it be.

Marnie Tunay
http://fakirscanada.googlepages.com/

To date, it’s been my experience that Mark Steyn’s thought processes are correct as well as discerning of a truthfulness seemingly hidden from casual view. In my view of this world, and in particular as regards the US and England, his “sacking of Rome theory” is most definitely prescient. I continually hear of, view and experience Islamics demanding outrageous personal “rights” for themselves by utilizing the laws of the country they are attempting to subjugate to their advantage. These instances seem most often to involve forcing Islamic mandates onto institutions of daily life and/or learning, as witness the near overtaking of the University of California Irvine Campus to the point of violently shouting down invited reputable public speakers such as Daniel Pipes et al as “defaming Islam,” as deemed “biased”, or of course the old standby of “racial” as defined by said wannabe conquering Islamics. It seems the world’s only “free speech” is that speech sanctioned as such by Islamics, which overtakes all other in order to achieve their stated goal of subjugating the West.

Marnie,
Try thereligionofpeace.com for a reality check on the true nature of Islam; and ezralavant.com for a running commentary on free speech in Canada.
You might think we’re all human but unfortunately the Koran teaches otherwise. In suras 2:65, 5:59 and 7:166 Muslims are taught that unbelievers are apes and pigs.
If you seriously think an Islamic majority might be a good thing in Canada you might want to try on a burka to see how you like it, also watching “I’m too sexy for my burka” on youtube might broaden your horizons.

Brian Lilley has said it like it is. The only quibble that I have is that he hasn’t stated the case as strongly as he might have. Free speech is a thing of the past in Canada, in any real sense of the term. Oh sure, there are some forms of hate speech and actions that you can still get away with. For example you can invade a Christian religious ceremony, deface the building, threaten the worshipers and actually physically assault them. Christians, and perhaps especially Catholics are fair game in Canada. These things have actually happened and as far as I can determine the thugs were never penalized.

I don’t know who Marnie Tunay is, and I would like to say for the record that I respect his/her right to hold AND express any opinion on this or any other subject. I also disagree with much of what he/she has written in the above comments. The fact is that Mark Steyn could go to jail. I note in passing that Brian Lilley never said that he would go to jail. But there is little doubt that the HR tribunal will find him guilty and assess an outrageous “fine”. If he chooses not to pay the fine he will go to jail.

Was it Churchill who said that in a war the first casualty is Truth? There is a war in Canada. At least a small number of Canadians are fighting for the freedoms that their fathers and brothers, mothers and sisters fought and died for in WW II. But it’s an uneven contest when the government (and the court) says that the truth is not a defense.

I’m trying to find where the Canada Human Rights Act provides for a jail sentence for discriminatory hate speech.
I find provisions for fines and compensation, but no mention of a jail sentence.
(Just Google Canada Human Rights Act to verify this.)
It should be of great concern that some legal provisions should exist to stop the kind of systematic hate speech that encouraged the Rwanda massacres. I have been the recipient of e-mails conveying the idea that supposedly peace-loving Islamic moderates were carryng signs along the lines of “death to infidels.” There are extremists who hold such view, but the deception comes when moderates are portrayed as holding the same extremist views. The e-mails were designed to provoke fear, indignation and anger. In such a climate of opinion, Musims have reason to fear for their safety, and it is easy to initiate a spiral of violent actions and reactions. It is important for public safety that some means be available to stop such activity. Any such means should always be tailored to permit maximum freedom of expression In Canada the Human Rights Act is subject to the Charter provision of freedom of expression, which provides for a careful balance between freedoms and harms sought to be prevented . In the light of court decisions regarding the Criminal Code provisions against hate propaganda, expressions of hatred have to be extreme and of the sort that dehumanizes the targeted group before there can be a conviction.

You’re missing the point if you think that JAIL TIME is the only detrimental effect of this kangaroo court.  If this were to happen to every other “ordinary joe”, he’d lose his home and family and livelihood because of legal costs and intimidation involved. Or he’d just have to back down AND LOSE HIS FREEDOM while setting precedent for other simple folk to be made similar slaves as well.

Even if Steyn doesn’t go to jail, the cost of this insanity will PUT HIM IN DEBTOR’S PRISON!!!!

Oh excuse me.  It’s already happening right under our noses.  First with the CAS, and now with the CHRC.

Ken, the Bible forbids divorce except for adultery.  Do you agree with that?  What about that “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?” Or how about that “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?” Shall we round up all the self-proclaimed ‘witches’ and have a bonfire?  How much of the Old Testament do you actually live your life by, buddy?

As for Ken, Sheila Doral and Mrs. Lu, the reason you can’t see why Steyn is really in trouble is because you’re like him:  you think you have a right to pass off your opinions as being The Truth.  The Charter of Rights protects the publishing of provable facts.  Opinions have to be clearly stated as being opinions and not passed off as being “facts” which are incapable of being proven.  A derogatory opinion about any legal entity is still protected under certain circumstances.  Go back and read Steyn’s article again, and note how often he passes off his opinions as being “facts” without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

Lastly, with respect to Randal Martin, the source you’re looking for is the Supreme Court Judgments and the case is R v Keegstra 1990:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1990/1990rcs3-697/1990rcs3-697.html
Marnie Tunay
http://fakirscanada.googlepages.com/

First, they burn the books ....

Marnie,
Some more quotes from the Koran:
* Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
* Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
* Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
* Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
* Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
* If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him (al-Bukhari 9:84:57).
* Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
* Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
* Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).
* No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (al-Bukhari 1:3:111).
* The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land (Sura 5:33).

Maybe now you can begin to imagine where Islamic extremists get their ideas from.
The publishing of the above in Canada could potentially lead to hate crime charges.
Well, they’d be right in categorising it as hate speech but they’d be wrong to suggest that the person exposing it is the one fomenting hatred. This is the nub of the problem in the Mark Steyn case, aside from the fact that the whole HRC apparatus in Canada needs to be dismantled.
(Acknowledgements to Bill Federer (and Muhammad/Allah, and the hadith) for the quotes).

So what happens if a person, convicted by one of these kangaroo courts (which do not observe standard court procedure as regards testimony and evidence) does not pay the fine or penalty?

The phrase “Contempt of Court” comes to mind. A person can be thrown into the can forever on a contempt of court rap.

Where is the equity under the law when the Government pays all of the plaintiff’s legal and other costs while the accused has to pay their own costs?

What ever happened to the principle of “innocent unless proven guilty”?

How did Canadians ever manage to survive since 1867 without some human rights czar/czarina rooting out all the terrible hatred that our ancestors expressed for each other?

I submit that one of the surest means of provoking physical violence is to forbid and suppress the free expression of opinion.

What I see in some of the posted comments is a knee-jerk reaction, without any thought given to the idea that some limitations may need to be placed on freedom of expression.

This discussion, itself a kind of court of public opinion, has its own kangaroo-like nature in that facts are not dealt with fairly. It is misleading to say that a person can go to jail for expressing hatred towards a group, when what is meant is that if they refuse to obey a court order they can be held in contempt. Compare: “In country X they put you in jail for parking beyond the alloted meter time” when all that is meant is that if you show contempt by refusing all requests to pay, a jail sentence may be the ultimate result.

If you are going to criticize a law or a court, or a country that enacts a law that appears to be something you don’t like, at least make some attempt to fairly assess that law, its operation and its impact.

My sense of the working ot the U.S, system is that there is more legal provision for freedom of expression, but that vigilante action tends to negate any practical advantage. Think of Martin Luther King, for one.
Freedom of expression will best be protected when limitations, such as libel, are recognized and properly circumscribed.

Re: comment by Marnie Tunay:

The case of R. v Keegstra dealt with the Hate Propaganda section of the Criminal Code of Canada and was dealt with by the regular courts, right up to the Supreme Court of Canada. This should not be confused with the operation of the Human Rights Act and the tribunal created by it, impugned by some as a “kangaroo court” because it is not subject to the same rules of evidence as the regular courts. What I’m looking for is evidence to support the claim that the tribunal has the power to imprison people, something that I could not find in the Human Rights Act.

Marnay,
You’re comparing old testament verses, which Christianity effectively abrogates, to the Koran, which is a living testament to more than a billion Muslims.
When was the last time Christians burnt a witch at the stake?
When was the last time Muslims beheaded an infidel?
What example did Christ set?
What example did Muhammad set?
Attacks on Islam are not intended as attacks on Muslims.
They are humans just like anybody else and the vast majority of them are peaceful in spite of the exhortations to murder and mayhem contained in their “holy” book, for which I give them credit. Unfortunately, Islam appears to inspire a disproportionate level of violence from a significant number of its adherents. Which religion in human history can match its track record of oppression and bloodletting?
In a very real sense, many Muslims are victims of a malignant form of brainwashing. The comparatively benign brainwashing of Christianity just doesn’t compare. In answer to your personal question: I don’t live my life by any part of the Bible as I am not a Christian, although the Judaeo-Christian heritage embodied in the laws of my country no doubt informs my behaviour. So my anti-Islamic sentiments are not motivated by religious rivalry as you seem to be implying. They stem from observation and reason, I like to think, although it’s admittedly difficult to be objective regarding ones own prejudices. So yes, you’re right, I do think my opinions are “The Truth”, otherwise I wouldn’t hold those opinions, but I’m also prepared to change them if you can reasonably convince me that I’m wrong. This of course leads us back to the HRC’s in Canada which don’t allow people the right to express even provable opinions if someone of totalitarian predisposition has the mind to use the HRC for that purpose. Islam and the HRC’s are complementary in that sense. The only real difference is that while the HRC uses the law to stifle debate, Islam prefers the sword.

Cheers to Randall Martin for bringing the voice of sweet reason into the fray.  And let me just emphasize the point he is making:  the only time anyone has ever gone to jail in Canada for voicing his opinions is when he (a) promulgates those opinions as being facts and (b) ignores a court order to stop doing so. 

PS: If you read the Koran and the Bible with open minds, you would find lots to like and lots to dislike in both books.  The time is coming for a new understanding of religons as being maps to the spirit: you follow a map as long as it’s taking you where you want to go and as long as it’s not offending your understanding.  We need to understand that the world is never going to be all-Christian, or all-Muslim - and that that’s okay. We need to make bridges between reasonable people of all faiths, so that we can overcome our one true enemy, the Adversary.  If we don’t succeed in doing this, we are all going to die in the next terrible world war.

We have to understand that Al-Qaeda is not about Islam-it’s about taking political power violently, illegally.

Muslims have to understand that they can’t come here and force their ideas on their new country.  Believe me, many of them do understand this.  I am married to a Turk who just wants to succeed in this country like the rest of you and go to his “church” once a week.  The only difference is that he doesn’t eat pork or drink alcohol; so he won’t be the drunk driver who kills someone in your city tomorrow.

Marnie Tunay
http://fakirscanada.googlepages.com/