Comment (27)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiFree speech on the ropes
In Canada you can go to jail for offending someone with the truth.
Calling someone a bastard may not be the nicest thing, it may even hurt their feelings, but it may in fact be true, in the technical sense, if the person’s parents were never married. Truth is a great defence. It was truth that saw Oscar Wilde lose in his lawsuit against the Marquis of Queensbury. Queensbury had called Wilde a sodomite by posting a notice of such on a sign inside a prestigious gentlemen’s club in London. Wilde who was engaged in an affair with Queensbury’s son, sued the Marquis but lost because what the Marquis had said was true.
Truth has always been the journalist’s best defence as they seek to expose the failings of politicians, governments or societies leaders. Against a torrent of highly paid lawyers, journalists have always been able to rest on truth. Truth, as the Good Book says, will set you free. Except in Canada.
| Those complaining don't ever have to prove that hatred and contempt actually occurred, just that it is likely to have happened or will happen in the future. |
A quasi-judicial process few Canadians have paid attention to over the last few decades is generating much international coverage of late due to at least one high-profile name, Mark Steyn (pictured on home page). The man once called "the columnist to the world", published everywhere from Oregon to Jerusalem, London to Sydney, is at the centre of a series of complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and two of their provincial counterparts over an excerpt published in Macleans magazine of Steyn’s book America Alone. Steyn is accused of promoting hatred and contempt towards Muslims and of spreading Islamaphobia.
Except that due to the nature of Canada’s human rights laws, those complaining don’t ever have to prove that hatred and contempt actually occurred, just that it is likely to have happened or will happen in the future.
As if being accused of causing something that may not actually have happened is not bad enough, a recent filing by Canada’s Justice Department in another case stated quite boldly "truth and fair comment are no defence". The filing, submitted in a case against a white supremacist accused of spreading hatred on the internet, goes on to say that the jurisprudence supporting this claim is settled. Given the near 100 percent conviction rate of those accused of spreading hate on the internet in Canada, it appears the "truth is no defence" claim will carry the day. So to sum up, in Canada, you can face a tribunal hearing for writing something that is only "likely" to expose a group to hatred and contempt. The fact that what you write may be true or simply be a fair journalistic comment, won’t help you fight those charges.
Now before I explain why all of this prosecution of thoughts and writing in Canada matters to the rest of the world, let us consider the implications. Over the past number of years, many critics of the decision of President Bush to go to war in Iraq have asked why Saudi Arabia was not targeted. Saudi Arabia, after all, was home to 17 of the 19 hijackers that perpetrated September 11th. To make such an argument in Canada could be considered hate speech. Writing that 17 of the 19 September 11th hijackers were Saudis could see you hauled before a human rights tribunal and the fact that what you wrote is true would not matter.
In Great Britain, truth was no defence for American researcher Rachel Ehrenfeld who published Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed — and How to Stop It. Ms. Ehrenfeld was sued in Britain by a Saudi named Khalid bin Mahfouz on the grounds that the book was libellous against Saudis. Mr bin Mahfouz doesn’t live in Britain but that hasn’t stopped him from suing and collecting awards against the authors and publishers of 36 other books earning him the nickname, the Libel Tourist. In Ms Ehrenfeld’s case, a British judge ordered her to apologise and pay Î 110,000 in damages. Books about Saudis and terrorism are now potentially dangerous in Britain and unlikely to be published.
Writing in the New York Sun, Roger Kimball, editor of the New Criterion and publisher of Encounter Books wrote "I recently received a message from someone who helps distribute our books in Britain: ‘Can you please let us know if there are any references to Saudis and terrorist[s] in the book. We are just concerned that this book could potentially create libel lawsuits as it could offend Saudis living in England…’" Kimball has just published Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad by Andrew McCarthy. The book is written by the lawyer that helped prosecute Omar Abdel-Rahman, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Centre attack. Should the book garner any attention in Canada or Britain, Mr Kimball and his firm could find themselves in trouble.
Again, it might be hard to see how this impacts America, but then again the Romans had trouble seeing how the sacking of their outposts might one day lead to the Eternal City being overrun by Visigoths. Sales of American books in Canada account for about 10 percent of all sales; given Britain’s bigger population , one would expect British sales of American books to be 10 percent or greater. What publisher will take a risk on a controversial book if they know 20 to 30 percent of their potential sales are already cut off and libel tourists like Khalid bin Mahfouz wait to collect rich judgements from friendly jurisdictions, even if, as in Ms. Ehrenfeld’s case, the book isn’t even published in Britain?
Many writers when looking for a quote to defend free speech turn to Voltaire, I’ll offer you a little JFK. "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." Canada and Britain are now obviously nations afraid to let their people judge truth and falsehood. Could America be next?
Speaking with Mark Steyn at an event in Ottawa, I explained my sacking of Rome theory; that these small battles against free speech in nations such as Britain and Canada were like the battles that led up to the sacking of Rome. Those battles weakened the Empire and eventually led to the fall of Rome itself. Steyn agreed. America, he says, is foolish to think that it can and will prevail as the one outpost of free speech if all the other Western nations fall. Already campus speech codes, hate speech laws, historic revisionism and multiculturalism have left Americans unsure of what is acceptable to say, think or write. If the trends in Canada and Britain continue, people in America may soon be asking if what they want to say, think or write is legal.
Brian Lilley is Ottawa Bureau Chief of Astral Media Radio
China does not like the beliefs of the Falun Gong people and so represses them. China is condemned by Human Rights groups - and rightly so. However, these condemners in Canada are guilty of the same repressive tactics when it comes to Christians expressing their beliefs. Hypocrites.
lwestin, I think that your comment pretty well sums up the discussion. Good point for me to bow out. I couldn’t agree with you more. To put it bluntly, many Canadians have become a mixture of wimps who won’t take a stand either for or against anything; and egotistical, self centered, intellectually shallow people who simply take no interest in anything that doesn’t impact them directly. One of the lessons of history is that when a society is composed of people who are ignorant and/or apathetic, that society is ripe for picking by some aspiring tyrant or tyrannical government. I weep for my beloved Canada.
Anyway, I’m checking out on this topic now.
There’s jail, and there’s ‘jail’. Many people are already in ‘jail’ in Canada. They are not free to express their religious beliefs or live according to their own moral standards. This is a punishing and oppressive atmosphere for many.
Its one thing to have laws that protect from speech that incites violence. Canada has those. Its entirely another thing to have a pseudo-judicial group decide what speech is likely to give someone an uncomfortale feeling, and punish them for it. Or punish a business for not following the ‘mores-of-the-day’ instead of its own (and until recently - society’s) mores. Putting a photographer out of business for not shooting an event he believes is immoral, is tantamount to forcing him to support that immoral activity. Punishing a religious magazine for publishing its religious doctrine, a doctrine that is expressed in terms of love and forgiveness - not violence, is repressive.
These things are recent doings of the humanrights commissions in Canada. Problem is, Canadians are not offended by gov’t heavy-handedness, unless it affects them directly. They are used to depending on the gov’t, the media, the schools to tell them what to think and how to behave. I doubt the ‘backlash’ will be enough or soon enough to prevent serious erosion of intelligence and creativity in Canada. No matter...they’re not having any kids anyway!
Americans have a little more resistance, but don’t feel too smug! Many local gov’ts have been making similar type discriminatory and repressive actions against citizens. Not all of those have been reversed or addressed. Watch Out!
(ALSO, its worth some research into recent UN/EU activities, to become familiar with their bullying tactics to pressure countries to restrict freedom and change cultural mores.)
“Hello, Doral, I have access to Judgments databases, and I know how to use them, so don’t try to snow me about court judgments, okay?”
Marnie, that sounds like a threat to me.
Is there some reason why you “have access to Judgements databases”?
Thanks for confirming that “the truth is no defense” in Canada. It is a fact that the commissioner stated on the record that “… the truth is no defense… “ That’s a cold hard fact. You seem to have a very unique definition of the word “opinion”. Too bad that Doug Collins died before he had a chance appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court. Check your everlovin’ court records and then try to tell me that this is not a precedent in Kanadian Kangaroo Kourts.
Steve, I agree that the morass that Canada is in started away back when...probably even before Trudeau. But Trudeau certainly is certainly the poster child for the current crop of liberal nazi wannabes who won’t rest until every last one of us is in chains, forged by courts that are more interested in social engineering than they are in justice. If Trudeau didn’t plant the seeds of intellectual tyranny he certainly did a good job of fertilizing the dump that they grow in. It is my everlasting shame that I once voted for Trudeau, and even stood as a candidate for the Liberal Party in BC.
I have to agree to a certain extent and also disagree to a certain extent. I think that what’s happening in Canada is tantamount to Soviet repression. Forcing people to ‘apologize’ for their views which are based on traditional Christian values is simply a nanny state gone wild. However, Canada descended into the depths of idiocy long ago when they were tolerating some pretty intolerable politicians like Pierre Trudeau and his ilk.
Fortunately, the United States is much more of a participatory democracy where voters get to weigh in on huge issues like this and it forces the courts and politicians to sit up and take notice. For instance, I think all eyes are on California at this stage because the California Supreme Court issued a very Canadian-styled (and relatively rare for the US courts of late) decision of ‘we know better than the people’ which is so typical of our northern neighbour’s ruling elite. While the California ruling pertained to gay marriage, it is still an infringement of personal freedom because they arrogantly trampled an overwhelmingly voter-approved ballot initiative. Californians would be wise to approve the constitutional amendment that would reverse this decision in November, not just on moral grounds but also because it will remind the courts that the people still are boss. Make no mistake: if this decision is not overturned, it will lead to further infringement on personal and free speech liberties in California.
So this is all why I think America will certainly be threatened by Canada’s new Bolshevik-styled censorship and personal speech infringement, but I think that the US is much more conservative and less likely to have the same problem that Canada is having any time soon.
A good contribution to the discussion Ross. I had no idea that Indonesia was more open to freedom of speech than Canada is. You most certainly couldn’t have found a publisher in Canada today who would risk publishing “anti-PC” books. The risk is just too high.
I’ve even had to do extensive revisions to my autobiography to delete the accounts of the unwanted and uninvited homosexual assaults by five different men (sequentially) that I was subjected to starting when I was 18. Fortunately for me I was a big strong kid and was able to inflict enough pain on these perpetrators that they eventually left me alone. I carefully avoided using the word “perverts” in my book but the descriptions of the attacks would have probably landed me in front one of the Canadian Human Rights Commissioners ... or whatever they call those make-believe judges.
The biggest problem with the Human Rights people in Canada are that they presume that you are guilty of the most evil thoughts and they are psychologically incapable of understanding that one can hate the sin and love the sinner at the same time.
I have already self-censored myself by not posting comments about homosexuality and Muslim immigration and by writing to you here with my name and IP address unconcealed I suppose I risk some web-troller in Canuckistan turning me in to the Maple KGB.
It’s sad but true that it is probably safer to publish ‘politically incorrect’ material in Muslim Indonesia than in Canada. Unless you deliberately lie to defame somebody, (or insult the head of State or encourage separatism or ‘blaspheme’!) you can bang on about anything.
Certainly it is not regarded as criminal to denounce perversion, as has become the case in Canada. Morfiny Books fiction is a good example here in Jakarta. They publish my novels which are totally anti-PC!
As to ‘white supremacists,’ they of course should be free to say what they think.
The fact that black Africans are making a better stand for decency within the Anglican church than the white bishops inclines me to disagree with white supremacy theories, but I also loathe the class hatred preached by Marxists of every sort. In a real democracy, I have to listen to both types of irrationality, and they to me.
What if I was to tell the truth about Neo-Nazi skinheads in Eastern Europe?
Hello, Doral, I have access to Judgments databases, and I know how to use them, so don’t try to snow me about court judgments, okay? Doug Collins was told the truth was no defence to violating a court order. And it isn’t. There is no defence for violating a court order. And that’s not to say that what holocaust-denier Collins said was true, either. The court was making the point that the issue of truth is irrelevant to the issue of violating a court order.
And PS. you’ve emphasized my point about opinions being passed off as facts, insofar as that point pertains to yourself.
Marnie Tunay
http://fakirscanada.googlepages.com/
Well Marnie Tunay, what opinion of mine have I passed off as the truth? You can’t answer the questions that I posed so you attempt to slander me. Tough Marnie. I don’t take offense that easily. Shakespeare, in Othello, wrote that the heart was never pierced through the ear. Meaning, of course, that if I don’t choose to be insulted, hurt, etc., then I shall not be no matter what anyone says to me or of me. I am of the opinion that some human rights plaintiffs are laughing all the way to the bank. Let me be clear. That is a statement of opinion, not fact.
So, according to you the Charter of Rights protects the publishing of provable facts (i.e. - truths). Hogwash! The late Doug Collins proved the facts that he wrote, in front of the B.C. Human Rights commission and was told that “...the truth is no defense...”.
As to the nit-picking about jail time: I suppose Marnie that you would argue that if a parachute fails to open it is not the faulty parachute that kills the jumper, but rather the sudden impact with the ground. If a penniless country preacher is fined an amout of money that he doesn’t have and can’t possibly pay then he goes to jail just as surely as if the sentence had been a jail term. If I were “fined’ the amount that some of the victims of the human rights witch trial “judges” have meted out I would most certainly not be able to pay up even if I wanted to. Therefore I would go to jail and stay there until I paid up. If I am wrong on this point I’m sure someone will correct me. As such, my freedom of speech is seriously infringed because in everything that I say or write I must err on the side of caution. Even when I could say or write something that is provably true I dare not because I am terrorized by these people.
Hello,Randall,
You can’t find what you’re looking for in the Human Rights Act because it isn’t there. The Human Rights Commission only has the power to refer a case to the Ministry of Justice for further investigation. Only the courts can imprison people: criminal courts or military courts. Oh wait, I’m forgetting those little old “security certificates” which defy all of our laws and principles about human rights. Yep, if CSIS doesn’t like something you said or who you had lunch with last week, it could be good-bye you, locked up indefinitely with no lawyer, no charges, no seeing the evidence against you, no nothing. But hey, there ain’t no “kangaroo courts” in this God-fearing Christian country…
Marnie Tunay
http://fakirscanada.googlepages.com/
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/
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.
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.
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >