[A] recent panel convened at the Queen Elizabeth Hall in London to discuss the topic “Is All Modern Art Left Wing?” The formal discussion was dreary and predictable but things turned livelier when it was opened to the floor, and the question of double standards was raised: “Courageous” artists seemed happy to mock Christianity but curiously reluctant to hurl equivalent jibes at Islam. Grayson Perry, the Turner Prize-winning transvestite artist who looks very fetching in his little Disney-princess frocks, reveals that he self-censors when it comes to Muslims because “I don’t want my throat cut.”
But that doesn’t entirely explain it, does it? Earlier this year, Channel 4 in London broadcast a documentary called Undercover Mosque in which various imams up and down the land were caught on tape urging men to beat their wives and toss homosexuals off cliffs. Viewers reported some of the statements to the local constabulary. The West Midlands police then decided to investigate not the fire-breathing clerics but the TV producers. As the coppers saw it, insofar as any “hate crime” had been perpetrated, it lay not in the urgings and injunctions of the imams but in a TV production so culturally insensitive as to reveal the imams’ views to the general public. As The Spectator’s James Forsyth put it, “The reaction of West Midlands police revealed a mindset that views the exposure of a problem as more of a problem than the problem itself.”
Who could actually be surprised by this? As far as the artists who mock Christianity, they simply know their target audience. As far as the Midlands Police Department, the Labor party is still the Labor party. How are the the facists on the left worse than those on the right?
“he self-censors when it comes to Muslims because “I don’t want my throat cut.””…truth from the mouths of..er um..ah..whatevers.
And there in lies the true nature of special interest censorship…this is also what leftoid PC is based on…it’s a kinder gentler terror that may not slit your throat for offending its sacred dogma with personal criticism, but it will certainly attempt to destroy you financially in its quasi-judicial tribunals.
Wahabist Jihad or CHRC or ACLU…all have the same method and the same agenda.
spousal abuse would usually be just the type of issue CBCpravda would like to take up. perhaps the Cry Bitch Complain network is muzzled for muslims.
Right, WLMR – the Wahhabi jihadists, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the ACLU – are all focused on censorship and repression of freedom of speech and thought.
Kindly note that the CHRC is in violation of our Charter. Its Section 13-1 violates Section 2 of the Charter.
(1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
What does this mean? It means that you cannot state anything ‘telephonically’ that is LIKELY TO EXPOSE a person(s)…to HATRED OR CONTEMPT.
Notice the capitalized words. ‘Likely to expose’ is not equivalent to ‘has exposed’. There need be no proof that someone HAS been exposed; the focus is purely and only hypothetical. Your statement ‘might’…expose someone.
Expose them to what? To ‘hatred or contempt’. Now wait – these emotions are purely subjective. They can be based on issues that have NOTHING to do with the ‘telecommunicated message’. Nothing.
You might see a picture of a black man with a gun, and might feel ‘hatred or contempt’ because you had a brother innocently murdered in a gang war. That is, your feelings of hatred and contempt might be very personal. How can your feelings be separated from the statement in Section 13?
Who defines ‘likely to expose’? After all, there need not be any evidence of any ‘hateful result’. None. The focus is pure speculation. Pure hypothetical emptiness.
Who defines ‘hatred or contempt’? Again, there need not be any evidence of anyone feeling hatred or contempt. AND, if there is any such emotion, it might have nothing to do with the ‘discriminated values (ethnicity, gender etc).
This means that the CONTENT of the values (exposure and hatred) are empty. There’s no need for actual exposure and actual hatred. It’s all hypothetical.
With such empty values, this section 13 of the Human Rights Code puts enormous unaccountable power into the hands of the unelected, appointed members of the HRC. They, and they alone, decide the content of these values. Again, the values of ‘exposure and hatred’ are empty; they are speculative rather than actual.
This violates our Charter Rights of Freedom of Expression. When is someone going to do something about this?
Go for it, ET. If the authorities say they can’t do anything about it then you might have to resort to launching a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Note his last sentence very carefully. It is something I’ve noticed during my adventures in blogging esp. these past couple of years…
* Muslims more upset over the observations that “most terrorists are Muslim” than they are over actual terrorism, even when Muslims are the victims.
* If an American blogger wonders why 40% of violent crimes are perpetrated by African Americans when they only make up 8% of the population, the blogger is a “racist.” But wouldn’t energy of the outraged be better spent _fighting_ all that real world violent crime, rather than “shooting the messenger” in sterile cyberspace??
Multiply the examples one hundred fold.
It’s become so commonplace to sniff “Don’t blame the victim” that we forget that sometimes the “victim” is to blame.
Society insists upon looking through the wrong end of the telescope. We just need to be brave enough to put up with the inevitable abuse we’ll receive from the bien pensants when we dare to look through the proper end and report on what we see.
“Macleans Will Never Be The Same After This”
One has to wonder how long before Mark Steyn will continue to have a voice in Canadian media.
Those of us who have for years refused to read, let alone subscribe to Macleans because of their leftist mush, are now logging on to their website to read Mark Steyn, since the demise of Ezra Levant’s Western Standard.
Thank goodness for the internet – and of course Mark Steyn!!
The question has been asked about the greatest generation Those who with great patiatism and moral pride fought through the second world war and sacrificed to rid Europe of the Nazi’s. Who had a large influence on the generation who came after? Some maybe offended by the link I provide below. But it may provide some answers as to why western civilization is screwed up today. Long read.
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html
Shawn,
Jews may have been or are involved in the movement I would label Gramscian or International Socialism, just as there are self-hating Christians, but to call Leftism a “Jewish conspiracy” is madness.
Are you a member of Vlaams Belang too? FOAD. I can’t stand anti-semitic shit anymore.
“It’s become so commonplace to sniff “Don’t blame the victim” that we forget that sometimes the “victim” is to blame.”
Only in the West. In Saudi Arabia, the victim most definitely is to blame:
http://ww4report.com/node/4675
Nothing would make me happier than seeing that entire backwards region nuked into oblivion. It’s going to come to this sooner or later, so my vote is for sooner, before they all have nukes too.
ET, I may be wrong on this, but I thought there was another part of the Constitution Act that specifically excluded Human Rights Tribunals from anti-discrimination provisions (not just affirmative action – now there’s an oxymoron).
Even if I’m right, they’re still wrong. And what about this professional complainer (Warman?) receiving money from CHRC? Is that true?
We draw a circle around Muslim ideology and say, “off-limits to debate and criticism”; we draw a circle around homosexual ideology and say, “off-limits to debate and criticism”; we draw a circle around Christian ideology and say, “fair to mock and ridicule”.
“spousal abuse would usually be just the type of issue CBCpravda would like to take up. perhaps the Cry Bitch Complain network is muzzled for muslims.”
That is why I call then ‘Muzzle ems’
Careful Kate,
Lest missionaries from the “Religion of Peace” visit you……….and you and yours end up in small pieces.
so sooner or later, some off the deep end christian type is going to do in some nutter of an artist and then all those of hate filled anti-christian paint splatterers and soup can stacking ilk can all self regulate because they are equally fearful of having their pathetic lives terminated by any and all religions. Maybe they’ll pick on budhists or go after the Dalai Lama for flying around the world and killing gaia with CO2
Onward christian soldiers, onwards to equality !
Grithater, that wasn’t a threat, was it? Or was it just a friendly pointer on how not to draw a cartoon? With an attitude like that you could work for the West Midlands police force.
“This violates our Charter Rights of Freedom of Expression. When is someone going to do something about this?”
Nothing will be done until someone gets up in a tree with a rifle and takes out one or more of the members of such a tribunal.
That may sound dramatic and harsh, but you cannot deter them with words. That is a domain available only to them, against you.
Although, if you choose to resist their ruling strenuously enough, eventually they will send men with guns (police) to force you to bend to the will of THEIR words.
So, the long and short of it is, that meaningful change is usually only brought about through the use of guns.
One must always, in the end, give war a chance. Even at the CHRT level.
“Lest missionaries from the “Religion of Peace” visit you……….and you and yours end up in small pieces.”
Would that change the name of this blog to “Small Dead Pieces”?
Fred: Christian-types pray for their enemies and those who persecute them, asking God to bless them.
At least the fundamentalists do.
Because, for them, the “deep-end” is a pool of unfathomable love.
The secular world may decry fundamentalism, but the fact is the underlying fundamentals of various faiths are vastly different.
Richard:
Agree or disagree.
You can find Christian extremists in any monastery or convent.
Martin B., It was, apparently a poor attempt at humour.
Set you free:
Please ennumerate the number of victims killed by terrorist Christian extremists over the past ten years.
Even a religion hating agnostic doofus like myself knows who I’d rather have as my neighbor.
Set you free: A Christian extremist would be someone who follows the Christian Scriptures to an extreme — meaning they are radical lovers of God and humanity.
The martyr Stephen would be a good example.
The ultimate example is Jesus Christ himself.
A person who is violent or hateful is not a Christian extremist, but a Christian aberration.
Mark Steyn’s presence at Macleans is one of the reasons I consider it to be one of the most balanced publications in Canada at present. I hope they keep him around, along with Andrew Coyne. It’s become a daily read for me.
Andrew Coyne thought Borat Dion could make a rebound. Clearly he is unbalanced.
I used to be one who argued for freedom of artistic expression when the idiots with their urine-soaked Jesus or whatever would come along. I thought it was a petty publicity getting ploy, and didn’t deserve any attention. Best ignored, not fought.
But the hypocrisy of the “artists”, as well as “feminists”, and “advocates for free speech” has been fully revealed in recent years as they clam up whenever Islam comes along, but scream only at easy targets that they know will not hit back.
Cowardice and cheap ploys to get more money, not some lofty ideals, are behind 99% of the artistic political expressions of today. I’m not a particularly artistic person, but what little regard I have had for these people has long since been eroded. I have added them to the ranks of politicians, journalists, and other so called leaders of our society who fear Muslims and put up no resistance as our society is destroyed from within.
I look at the world our children will inherit, and I am just sad about it.
Leftist Mental Disorder must be caused by some, as yet unidentified, genetic abnormality.
I’m having problems with reading the article – apparently add-ons are causing me to have to shut down; I got through Page 2 though – I always wonder about why this sort of thing happens when reading informative articles.
St. Mark 13:13 “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”
St. Luke 21:17 “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.”
St. Mark and Luke, Chapters 13 and 21 are a short good read.
A person doesn’t need to be gobsmacked, as a Brit would reference, to know that Christians live amongst people who hate them to the core just for simply being Christian; it is all part of God’s great plan, and if it wasn’t for reading, seeing, and being subjected to it, it would be hard to believe.
Oh please. The answer to the Greatest Generation/hippie dichotomy is pretty simple. Having endured the Great Depression and WW2, the GG’s wanted their kids to have everything they didn’t have, and spoiled them. The end.
Jews had nothing to do with it.
PS: Warman just won $30,000 MORE dollars in yet another ruling. Maybe now he can buy some hair…
shamrock – Warman is a lawyer; he takes his cases to the HRC on his own expense. And yes, he’s awarded money by the HRC. I’ve no idea what he does with that money.
John West – I disagree with your suggestion of ‘what to do’ – killing one of the HRC members. That won’t help. Violence hasn’t helped Islamic fascism. What has to be done is a class action lawsuit against the HRC for violation of Section 2 of the Charter.
The Charter, however, is itself contradictory and is therefore deeply flawed. Section 2 of the Charter, Fundamental Freedoms, states:
“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.
Notice how this contradicts Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, which expressly denies Section 2b of the Charter. Notice that Section 2b states that everyone..has freedom..of other media of communication”. This means that every individual is free to post on the internet, a ‘media of communication’. The Human Rights Section 13 denies this freedom.
BUT the Charter under Equality Rights states that 15.1 “every individual is equal before and under the law…without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”.
But Section 15.2 removes these rights, when it says: “Subsection 1 does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”.
Whew. Think about what this means. It, like the Human Rights Section 13, has moved into speculation. It says that IF what I am doing, saying, writing, can be ‘defined’ (by whom?) as ‘ameliorating….the disadvantaged (definition? proof?)…then, Section 15(1) is not relevant. I can’t be prosecuted for hate speech if I say that it is ‘ameliorating..the disadvantaged’..
This means that a member of a ‘disadvantaged’ group is almost immune from prosecution if their activity (eg, a SSM wedding in a Catholic church hall) is deemed to ‘ameliorate’ the conditions of homosexuals/lesbians.
If I write online columns against..’race, national or ethnic origin…etc..this ought to be OK under Section 2 of the Charter (freedom of belief and expression). But, according to the HRC, someone might be offended, and this violates THEIR rules.
Now, what if I’m gay, or a fervent jihadist, or…and I write an online column against non-gays, against other religions…This ought to be permitted according to Section 2 of the Charter.
It ought to be a violation of Section 13 of the HRC – but – they ignore these violations.
BUT, I could say that under Section 15(2) of the Charter, I have every right to write this to ‘ameliorate the conditions of my group’.
I don’t know if I’ve muddled the whole thing up, my point is that these Sections 2 and 15 in the Charter contradict each other. And Section 15 privilages group rights over individuals, and privileges ‘disadvantaged groups’ over nondisadvanted groups.
And the HRC Section 13 contradicts the Charter Section 2.
Unreal.
Richard:
I will take that as an agreement on what defines Christian extremism … monastic orders are populated by imperfect human beings attempting to live a Christian life with plenty of time set aside for introspection.
Monastics, martyrs (you give the example of Stephen, you could include all the apostles, who met with violent deaths) and saints.
These are human examples of how the world resists the Christian message of pursuit of inner peace and whose examples give life to the written word.
Therefore, although the Bible forms and important base to understanding, it is only through the example of human life that the words can be fulfilled.
This is a basic understanding that has somehow been lost in today’s Western societies.
Once living the word becomes secondary to the fundamentalism that makes literal understanding of the word the primary virtue, then Christianity weakens and becomes vulnerable to attack by secular humanists.
The parable of the Pharisee and the Publican clearly demonstrates the difference.
ET ASKS:”This violates our Charter Rights of Freedom of Expression. When is someone going to do something about this?”
someone has by taking on the CHRC cult’s biggest complainer.
Go here and donate:
http://www.freedominion.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=91127
Mark Steyn’s article has left me with the sad feeling of being unable to stop a train wreck that is happening in slow motion right in front of us.
I maintain that leftists/liberals find common cause with Islamists in their mutual desire to see the end of Judeo-Christian ideals/values/Bible. When presented with atrocities committed in the name of Islam, they simply revert to relativism -“well Christian fundamentalists are the same, and what about what Israel does to the poor displaced Palestinians”.
No one reports on the historical Mohammed or how the Koran is a mishmash of the Old and New Testament.
More Canadians need to read Mark Steyn.
Small Dead Animals praise of Mark Steyn for his talk on why artists are usually leftist is interesting. However I haven’t forgiven Steyn for his Maclean’s cover article which waxed nostalgic over Chretien’s thuggish reign.
As a Quebecker, I haven’t forgotten the François Beaudoin affair and how Beaudoin and his lawyer were harassed for several years (searching their houses and Beaudoin’s chalet and locker at his golf club) just because Beaudoin (the Business Development Bank) was against loans for Chretien’s friend in the Grand-Mère Hotel land deal. Luckily a Quebec Superior Court judge who did not owe his post to the Liberals ruled that Beaudoin had been subject to malicious harassment. The Bank (and I assume we taxpayers) had to pay out a lot of money to compensate him for his loss of livelihood and reputation.
I believe Beaudoin had to agree to now longer discuss the affair as part of the agreement, but I could be wrong.
This use of the R.C.M.P. to harass Beaudoin and later an Ottawa journalist who was looking into the Mahar Arar case show how far down the slippery slope we were with the Liberals in power. The independence of the judiciary was also in danger in the good old days.
Small Dead Animals praise of Mark Steyn for his talk on why artists are usually leftist is interesting. However I haven’t forgiven Steyn for his Maclean’s cover article which waxed nostalgic over Chretien’s thuggish reign.
As a Quebecker, I haven’t forgotten the François Beaudoin affair and how Beaudoin and his lawyer were harassed for several years (searching their houses and Beaudoin’s chalet and locker at his golf club) just because Beaudoin (the Business Development Bank) was against loans for Chretien’s friend in the Grand-Mère Hotel land deal. Luckily a Quebec Superior Court judge who did not owe his post to the Liberals ruled that Beaudoin had been subject to malicious harassment. The Bank (and I assume we taxpayers) had to pay out a lot of money to compensate him for his loss of livelihood and reputation.
I believe Beaudoin had to agree to now longer discuss the affair as part of the agreement, but I could be wrong.
“John West – I disagree with your suggestion of ‘what to do’ – killing one of the HRC members. That won’t help. Violence hasn’t helped Islamic fascism. What has to be done is a class action lawsuit against the HRC for violation of Section 2 of the Charter.”
ET, I am not suggesting that someone should actually do such a thing, but I do suggest it would bring about immediate change in the attitude of the members of such tribunals. Just as the Artists don’t want their throat’s cut by being harsh on Islam, the wimps (and they are wimps) on the HRC don’t want their heads blown off.
These leftist limp wristed control freaks are not insane murderous Muslim Jihadists, they are mentally defective Liberals who will only understand the lead slap upside the head.
Your suggestion may be the civilized and proper way to go about trying to bring about change, but there is no incentive for that change to occur. What are you going to do … threaten to put the government in jail?
You cannot win against these people. In the courts, they have the advantage of all the tax-payer money they need to beat you back down to the ranks of the obedient. They also have the full support of most of the government and more than half of the Canadian population who agree with their views.
15.2 covers affirmative action programs and the like. It’s not a matter of ‘someone’ determining whether or not what you say or do ameliorates the condition of a given protected group; it’s a matter of the state implementing programs to achieve those goals. It’s probably one of the worst sections of the document, but it’s a product of the era in which it was created. For an excellent treatment of what these rights have led to in practice, I recommend “Friends of the Court” by Ian Brodie — PM Harper’s Chief of Staff. His focus is interest-group litigants being given intervener status at the SCC, but the second section of the book uses Schelling Curves to demonstrate the long-term effect of defining specific, protected status groups (he argues they will seek to exclude other, nascent groups in order to preserve their own status).
There is no conflict between HRA s.13, Charter s.2 and Charter s.15 on account of Charter s.1,
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
This means that the rights enumerated in the document are not unlimited. Prisoners cannot use their s.6 mobility rights to get out of jail, and individuals cannot use their speech rights to produce threats, criminal libels, or incitements to hatred, violence, or genocide. All of these speech limitations are actually spelled out in the Criminal Code and have nothing to do with Human Rights Tribunals. I think HRTs are odious quasi-courts, but they’re legal — and the constitution doesn’t contradict itself, I’m afraid.
Bruce Randall, the Leftists do have a mental disorder/defective gene, whatever, they do not have the capacity to see reality, they dwell in the never never land far up in the clouds.
I read my last issue of Macleans and canceled subscription when they imposed Saddam Hussein on a photo of George Bush. They lost a few with that one.
Don’t have any great expectations with Coyne, he’s a good fit with them, he’s all over the map at times.
ET,
One more think to make my point.
There an old idiom that goes like this.
“A handful of might is worth a bag full of right”
recall the people who are the targets of a lawsuit after having alerted authorities to suspicious behaviour by some “muslims” boarding aircraft.
it is becoming illegal to try to prevent crimes?
Bravo, Steyn.
A statue to ‘the cowardly artist’, representing almost all artists, should be erected in the Islamic Republik of Britain.
Society insists upon looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
“Think globally, act locally”. Something about this slogan always seemed fundamentally wrong to me.
The concept seems to be “get orders from superiors” and “harass your neighbours if they don’t comply.”
Oh come on. It is not the Muzzies fault. They are just poor,depressed peoples who have had a bad upbringing and lived in a disfunctional household.Lets just all get together and sing Kumbaya for them. Then they will see the right way to behave. And I have some ocean front property in Edmonton going cheap.
Oh please. The answer to the Greatest Generation/hippie dichotomy is pretty simple. Having endured the Great Depression and WW2, the GG’s wanted their kids to have everything they didn’t have, and spoiled them. The end.
Yes I’m sure. American civil war was about ending slavery. The end
Oh.And to answer the question,not all modern art is left wing,but all of it is just plain ugly,sophmoric,and plain stupid.Wonder how an art exhibit showing a bunch of Taliban hanging dead from the diapers on their heads on a cross would go over,ummm???
As a Christian I don’t mind the artists denigrating my Faith and my God. It reminds me of a toddler tripping over his feet. Both are acting out of inability and/or ignorance.
Canada Goose, Steyn has little use for Chretien and used Oscar Wilde’s statement to perfectly describe him
“He know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
“As a Christian I don’t mind the artists denigrating my Faith and my God.” by Joe
“…, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Romans 12:19
I always figure I’ll leave that sort of crap for the Lord to deal with; I’m sure I’ve got nothing on his vengeance.
Given the vise-grip hold of the MSM by left-libs, I can’t imagine Steyn being able to hold on to his column at Macleans for long. His list of past papers and magazines, worn like a badge of honour, is lengthy and speaks volumes of his lack of willingness to compromise for unhappy editors. I give him 6 months more with Macleans at most.
If those thought-fascist’s in the “human rights” tribunals were consistent wouldn’t Islamism be considered a hate crime? Sorry, I must be dreaming.