Saturday, February 2, 2008

Lefties Reject Freedom Of Speech

Apparently they believe they'll never need it. Apparently they believe that since their views are politically correct - they'll never be hauled in front of a "human rights tribunal" for such "discriminatory practice" as saying something, that is likely to expose members of a group "identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination" to hatred or contempt.

So when a Liberal MP Keith Martin introduced a motion to repeal subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the one which enforces political correctness in the manner described above) plenty of Liberal bloggers blasted the initiative, calling it a "move to ensure Nazi rights". Even The Canadian Press begins its article about Keith Martin's motion by mentioning the praises he received from the white supremacists.

Stephane Dion suggested he'll ask Keith Martin to withdraw his motion. Other left-wing politicians too were quick to distance themselves from it:
"This is not the position of the Liberal Party of Canada or the Liberal caucus or Mr. Dion," said spokeswoman Leslie Swartman.

"We support the Canadian Human Rights Act and will not entertain changes to it such as this."
NDP MP Wayne Marston said he was "deeply troubled that any Liberal" would try to weaken human rights legislation. While some complainants may try to abuse the act, Marston said his party has "great confidence" that human rights tribunals can weed out the frivolous complaints from the genuine ones.
Is that so? News flash for Wayne Marston - those "human rights tribunals" have 100% conviction rate. Therefore, none of the "frivolous complaints" was ever weeded out. In fact, with the way subsection 13(1) is worded, a mere assumption is enough to get one convicted. But even if a miracle happens and a false complaint is dismissed at a certain stage - still the defendant will incur thousands in legal fees while the "frivolous" complainer gets a free ride.

Finally, let's look at the people against whom the complaints were filed as well as what those complaints were for. Among the most recent victims are:
  • Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin - for writing a letter to the editor, arguing against promoting homosexual lifestyle to children as young as five or six.
  • Ezra Levant, the editor of The Western Standard - for publishing the famous Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad.
  • Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage Party - for exposing health risks directly related to homosexual lifestyle.
  • Mark Steyn and the Maclean’s magazine - for publishing an allegedly Islamophobic article, "The Future Belongs to Islam"
  • The Catholic Insight magazine - for publishing several articles (some of them dating back to 1994) criticizing homosexual lifestyle.
Did you notice the trend? Now what are the chances that Salman Hossain, a Bangladeshi currently residing in Canada, gets hauled in front of the HRC for posting messages that call for attacks against Canadian soldiers on Canadian soil? Don't count on it! Soldiers don't qualify as a group of "persons identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination", so subsection 13(1) doesn't apply in this case.

Instead of protecting Canadians from hate speech, subsection 13(1) protects special interest groups from criticism, infringing on others' freedom of speech. Which is yet another reason why subsection 13(1) must be deleted from the Canadian Human Rights Act.

No comments: