Click to download the complaint(pdf) against Macleans. I haven’t had time to read it, but the juicy part is said to be contained in the first 15 pages. Want to make your voice heard? Here’s the best idea I’ve seen to date;
“Regarding ways that we can all support Mark Steyn, isn’t the most obvious one buying his book (again)?”
Kathryn, better still. Order it online and deliver it to:
Canadian Human Rights Commission
344 Slater Street, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E1, Canada
Telephone: (613) 995-1151
Toll Free: 1-888-214-1090
TTY: 1-888-643-3304
Fax: (613) 996-9661
Meanwhile, Richard Warman’s reputation goes international; “You know you’ve lost your freedom when you cannot call a censor a censor.”
Well the Americans are noticing. So where are our Canadian media?
(Update: Welcome Warren Kinsella readers! (All 12 of you.) While you’re here, have a look around. I recommend this post, in which an individual using an assumed identity posts from a server registered to the Pollara polling company. )
Penny – ‘It will be interesting to see if Canadian journalists stand by Mark Steyn on principle.”
My feelings exactly.
Not only regarding journalists, but including newspaper editorials.
My guess it’s not registering in media board rooms, thus they (MSM) will continue as enablers to those whom would stifle this nations’ citizens right to free speech.
Serious stuff!
You can be assured that the supine Canadian media will let Maclean’s hang seperately and that supine Canadian politicians of all stripes will soon have their tongues well up the asses of the plaintifs.
Kate, the 70 pages outlined the paintifs objections but, what is the nature of their demands? What are they asking the CHRC to do on their behalf?
Up to now, I’ve regarded the many suggestions on this site that Muslim immigration should be stopped as offensive bigotry. NO MORE. This crap is a clear warning of the growing Islamic threat to basic human rights in Canada.
R Shapiro, the example you give concerning “likely to” is a judgement after the fact. ie. culpability for a murder.
The Human Rights Commission uses “likely to” as a judgement before the fact.
Therwe are no other laws, none, that punish behaviour before the fact.
Probably some of the posters on this thread are active politically, that is, you participate as party members in the federal riding associations. What better place to talk about this growing totalitarianism and to get a message to your MPs and the senior folks in your political organizations that Canadians cannot afford to tolerate these Kangaroo Kourts of Kanuckistan any more.
I am not a member of any political party myself, but I will send a letter to my ineffectual liebral MP stating my concern about these institutions. Not that it will help much, but if everybody starts e-mailing or snail-mailing their MPs, they might at least start to notice.
Beyond that, we`ve got to get a co-ordinated strategy to force the message to the politicians that we will not let our fundamental freedoms go down, rather, the pols will go down if they don`t defend them.
If you live in Toronto, (like I do), and you use public transpo, (like I do)- then you are probably used to having some brain-dead, Zombified ‘Jehoover’ thrusting a pamphlet into your face, (while you are saying: “No thanks!”, etc.
But last week,I gotta Muslim pamphlet, stuck in my face instead. It is put out, by some outfit called http://www.whyislam.org, (based in p.o. box 1054, Piscatawatay New Jersey)!?!
Whatever…………….
This blurb, is entitled: Status of Women in Islam. Quoted from that:
‘Thus when a man asked Prophet Muhammad, “Who is most entitled to be treated with the best companionship by me?”
The Prophet replied: “Your Mother.”
The man asked: “Who is next?”
The Prophet said: “Your Mother.”
Again the man asked: “Who is next?”
The Prophet replied: “Your mother.”
The man asked for a forth time: “Who is next?”
The Prophet replied: “Your father.”
I swear- it’s enough to drive a man to Jonestown, and drink cherry-flavoured Koolaid!
sheik,
This nonsensical, illogical stuff brought to you by an illiterate pedophile. Who also condemned a pregnant mother and an admitted adulterer to death by stoning. But not until after she delivered the baby. The most merciful and compassionate Mohammad (PBUH).
r. shapiro. Thanks for your comment, but, as pointed out by ol hoss, the difference between your example of culpable homicide is that there is a factual reality. A dead human being.
The judgment on the action-of-causing this dead human being is based on establishing a direct connection between the action, that is likely to cause that death..and the actual death.
The HRC judgments are before the fact. There need be no result to your action (what you wrote or said). No factual result. Nothing. You are guilty before any results have occurred from your actions/speech. The HRC is quite specific. THEY determine whether your writing or speech contains:
“any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” .
Think about that. Likely to expose. Not actually has the result that someone is hated because of your speech. Just…exposed. Likely exposed. Not even actually exposed. Likely to expose.
Again, this means that you are punished before the result. Before the fact. No facts are necessary for the HRC. Just their speculation that something ‘might, possibly might’ happen.
Therefore, we have a law in Canada that ignores factual reality and focuses on the imaginary realm of fiction. Tales told by the members of the HRC. We punish people based on these fictional tales.
And – freedom of speech is a fundamental right. This HR Act is in violation of the Charter.
What are we going to do about this?
Trudeau wore a WWI German helmet, not nazi regalia. Don’t make it worse than it was.
Posted by: Kathryn at December 10, 2007 6:58 PM
AND
he wuz a card carrying kommunist in his youth
Maclean’s…
$55.64 + tax for 52 issues, plus 4 additional issues.
Done.
Think about that. Likely to expose. Not actually has the result that someone is hated because of your speech. Just…exposed. Likely exposed. Not even actually exposed. Likely to expose.
And of course, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that it should be perfectly OK to say something that might cause someone to be hated. There should never be a law against hating someone. It’s a normal human emotion albeit usually a undesirable one.
We need to limit the law to actual direct incitement to cause violence to be done to someone. Hatred of someone is not violence visited upon him. And if Peter says something to make Paul hate John and to act upon this with violence, Peter is not culpable unless he specifically suggested such violence.
It’s plain to see that this was designed as the enforcement arm of Liberal multiculti orthodoxy, and that it was drafted by lawyers FOR lawyers. There’s just not enough “billable hours” in actual job and housing discrimation work!
Chalk all this up to the infantilization of society — a world-wide trend.
Saudis give big to U.S. colleges
THE MONEY QUOTE
According to one Saudi press organization, the grants are meant to promote understanding and change America’s perceptions of Islam in the most fertile place, the university campus.
“The tendency, in some quarters, to identify Islam with fanaticism or even terrorism persists and has not been completely erased from the popular mind in the West,” observed a commentator in a March 1, 2002, article in Ain al-Yaqeen, a weekly controlled by the Saudi royal family.
he [Trudeau] wuz a card carrying kommunist in his youth
And took his sons to Siberia to see the future!
This little MacLeans escapade kinda puts the whole gun control thing in a somewhat more sinister light, don’t it?
“Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?”
Note this fact,
Every one person has the (as someone already mentioned) inalienable right to speak their mind.
The parliament of this country can make and pass laws that guarantee freedom speech without conditions. If the parliament did not and would not pass any laws concerning speech that would be even better and should be encouraged. If the parliament dismissed all laws concerning speech as void, that would be even better and should be encouraged.
The politicians have these ‘town hall meetings’ everybody can go and give them piece of your mind. Done that, the politician looks around as if there was some danger approaching, quite unbelievable, and that was a PC character just before they changed the trademark. The question was about a loophole in a particular wording of a law, he (the politician) even offered what word needed to change, when asked what is he going to do about it, there was silence, next question please.
In the late 90’s of the past century, Ralph in Alberta wanted to do away with the enemy of free speech, though there is this well known lawyer from Calgary that used to be MLA, he put a stop to it, also a PC.
By the way the Canadian Human Rights Commission is NOT an elected body of the people and therefore has no power, mandate and no right to make laws of this country.
The best thing about a repudiation of the HRC charters would be the silencing of the tongue clucking finger waging scolds who use it to browbeat their betters!
The Islamic complaint is hilarious in more than a few ways. Not only do they brazenly call Barbara Amiel a Jew, make contradictory statements about Macleans (literally one right after the other!), and misrepresent Mark Steyn, but they do so while proving everything these columnists say. That’s impressive.
The Islamic complaint is hilarious in more than a few ways. Not only do they brazenly call Barbara Amiel a Jew, make contradictory statements about Macleans (literally one right after the other!), and misrepresent Mark Steyn, but they do so while proving everything these columnists say. That’s impressive.
The Islamic complaint is hilarious in more than a few ways. Not only do they brazenly call Barbara Amiel a Jew, make contradictory statements about Macleans (literally one right after the other!), and misrepresent Mark Steyn, but they do so while proving everything these columnists say. That’s impressive.
“The most merciful and compassionate Mohammad (PBUH).”
PBUH? Put Bacon Upon Him?
Why is everyone running out and buying MacLeans?
You obviously don’t know the what the rag was like in the past – a defender of socialist Canadian mediocrity if ever there was one.
The chameleon may change its colours but at the end of the day it’s still a chameleon.
You are better off buying Mark Steyn’s book, or Oriana Fallaci’s book, or so many other good books that speak the truth.
But MacLeans? Honestly don’t waste your money.
Why beat ’em when you can join ’em? Visit http://www.appointments-nominations.gc.ca and you to can apply to become a member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
That’s (PBUH) pork, bacon undt ham, Sean.
Kate, I greatly appreciate your mentioning the Richard Warman, Free Dominion fiasco. Besides being one of that board’s founding members, I regard Mark and Connie- the sysops- as friends, and I believe they are being railroaded and persecuted.
FD moderator West Viking has written a synopsis:
Our federal government is engaged in a despicable campaign of peacetime censorship unprecedented in a free, democratic society. Section 12 and 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a duplication of Sections 318 to 320.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada and thus a violation of Charter Section 15 as the ruses and processes under the two pieces of legislation are distinctly different.
Richard Warman has initiated several complaints to the CHRC alleging violations of CHRA Section 13. He is using the CHRA to silence people whose opinions he disagrees with, claims not to be a member of any group that he seeks to defend against hatred and has claimed credit for winning several cases heard by CHRTs.
The trend started by Mr. Warman is gathering steam. Individuals and groups are making complaints to HRCs claiming that opinions they disagree with constitute ‘hate speech’. This poses a danger to our Charter freedoms, most notably the freedoms of religion, belief, opinion, expression and freedom of the press. The recent complaint by the Canadian Islamic Congress against Macleans magazine is a clear example of where this trend is taking us.
The unfettered freedom of individual expression and the media is vital to a healthy democracy. Opinions that we find vile must be debated and destroyed in full public view. Censorship through show trials drives vile opinion underground to fester and grow. There is urgency in ensuring protection of the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians. CHRC censorship must be shut down.
-source link–
MND @10:19: I totally agree about the infantilization of society these days.
I wrote yesterday @2:28, “In days past, such sophistry and bully-boyism [the Muslim case against Mark Steyn–and let’s include Richard Warman’s cases too] would have been summarily quashed by the adults. But where are the adults today? It seems that the bureaucracies of most of our public–and many private–institutions are inhabited by Peter Pans of both genders: as a woman, I have no difficulty stating that the worst cry babies and magical thinkers, with big footprints, are soft-headed, hard-hearted women.”
TJ (12:48AM)
Mark Steyn and Barbara Amiel, for starters. It has been quite a few years, 6 at least, since I let my subscription lapse but, as they now include Mark Steyn’s columns, I’ll give them another go.
Didn’t George Jonas contribute columns in the past? Does Maclean’s ever print Christie Blatchford or Margaret Wente? These 2 wonderful writers/commentators (plus Rex Murphy) are pretty much the ONLY reasons I still take the Globe & Mail… plus, I like to get a take on what “The Other Side” is peddling, EVERY morning. Front page.
But I get my news from places like Canoe News online (Sun), or Drudge, or National News Watch.
By the way, I’ve purchased “America Alone”, twice.
With “Media-Propagated Islamophobia”, let them talk to themselves, ignore them. Why take their bait?
It’s a free country, we can have opinions and state them freely and free of malice. We still have the right and responsibility to pay heed to what our Governments are up to. We can gauge for ourselves what’s working and what’s not.
If immigrants are not a fit with our way of life, we’ll know it soon enough and let the government know about it through the only means we have.
If Muslims get too bold, and think they can operate here as they did in some of the hell holes they came from, they’ll be having s tough life among us, we won’t accept it.
We still have a backbone don’t we?
“That’s (PBUH) pork, bacon undt ham, Sean.”
I’d buy THAT for a dollar.
Liz J asks, tongue in cheek, I presume;-) “We still have a backbone don’t we?”
Canada seems to have lost its collective wit and cojones: we’re now, it seems, a nation of surrender monkeys. Our least responsible, least mature, and most intimidating inhabitants—though often styled as “victims”—are allowed to swagger around, boasting of their rights, while, both literally and figuratively, knocking the rest of us over. Of course, the rest of us are also supposed to take it meekly and keep our mouths shut.
This has been building for the past 30 years: a few Canadians have had their finger on the pulse that whole time, e.g., people like the savvy lawyer, Gwen Landolt of REAL Women, who fought the Charter before it came into law. So, what’s happened to REAL Women? While still going strong, financially supported by its members, not government handouts, it’s been treated like a pariah. What’s happened re its predictions concerning our social, political, and judicial culture? REAL Women’s been 100% correct. (A voice crying in the wilderness.)
Re the comments at the Globe and Mail being closed re the horrendous murder of the young Muslim girl: the comment sections of the MSM, like the CBC, Globe and Mail, Star, TVO, etc., have been almost permanently closed to REAL Women and any others who don’t toe the politically correct mentality of the gulag Canada’s fast becoming. Unless the direction we’re headed changes quite drastically and Canadians are allowed to exercise their rights to freedom of association and speech, I’m filled with dread.
Kyrie eleison.
Send your comments to: BCHumanRightsTribunal@gov.bc.ca
To the members of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal;
I am writing in response to the ‘complaint’ registered by Khurrum Awan, Muneeza Skeikh, Naseem Mithoowani, Ali Ahmed, Daniel Simard alleging that articles appearing in Maclean’s magazine and written by Mark Steyn, Barbara Amiel and others, are promoting ‘Islamophobia’ and likely to cause ‘fear of Muslims’.
Like most Canadians, I recognise and appreciate the contributions of immigrants to Canada and I welcome them in assisting in building our future. Simple demographics show that Canada will require a great many more immigrants in the years ahead. Tens of thousands of people from China, Japan, Europe, Australia, the Philippines, Mexico and scores of other countries have successfully adapted to the Canadian culture and have flourished. They do so because their first allegiance is to their new home and not to a political party, a culture or a religion.
Canadians are a generous people but the complainants are asking the Tribunal to force us to give up one of the most fundamental rights of a free people: the right to free speech and fair comment. No other ‘religious community’ has demanded the special rights that have been demanded by the fundamentalist Islamic community. Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and Lutherans all seem to have adapted well to the cultural norms of Canada. Many prominent Islamists unfortunately, appear to believe that Canadians can be bullied into what they call ‘reasonable accommodation’s, which seems to be an unending series of demands for greater acceptance of practices that are contrary to Canadian values.
Like most Canadians, I don’t ‘fear’ Muslims, nor am I ‘Islamophobic’, which by the way, appear to be two iterations of the same complaint. But one would have to be either blind or wilfully stupid to not recognise what is taking place throughout the world. London, Buenos Aires, Madrid, New York, Bali and scores of other major events are not figments of an over-vivid imagination. In today’s Globe and Mail I note two events. The first is a bomb in Algiers that killed 67 people, while the second, much closer to home, reports that “Muhammad Parvez, 57, has been charged with murder in connection with the death of his daughter, Aqsa Parvez.” apparently for “ceasing to wear a hijab and adopting a more Western style of dress.”
Yet despite the long litany of violence in the name of Islam, there have been exceedingly few acts against individual Muslims in either Canada or the United States. A graph can be found at Investor’s Business Daily IBDeditorials.com illustrating the fact that Muslims report fewer ‘hate crimes’. According to the report “66% of religiously motivated attacks were on Jews, while just 11% targeted Muslims, even though the Jewish and Muslim populations are similar in size.”
I am concerned that those who can only be described as ‘Fundamentalist Islamists’ are using the Human Rights Tribunal as yet another weapon in their arsenal as they attempt to impose an Islamic Ummah throughout the world. Using the Tribunal to silence Canadian’s ability to openly discuss threats to our society is a natural extension of what has been taking place throughout the world. We are all aware of the infamous ‘Mohammed Cartoons’ which by any standard were quite innocuous, yet most publications throughout the world feared the retribution – whether physical or political – of the fundamentalist Islamic community.
Should the Tribunal accept this complaint, you will be acting against the long standing tradition of free speech that is the lynch-pin of any democracy. Will the Globe and Mail have to cease reporting events like that of poor Aqsa Pavez, whose capital crime was adapting to Canadian culture? Will Canadians have to simply accept female circumcision or women being relegated to second class status because we dare not speak against it?
As my representative, I ask that you reject this complaint and thereby re-affirm the foundational rights of all Canadians, rather than supporting a small group (the fundamentalists) of religious adherents whose cultural norms are in conflict with the historic values of Canadians from coast to coast.
Has anyone reading the complaint against Maclean`s noticed how often the authors refer to honour killings and other atrocities as “unfortunate incidents”?
I suppose they think the murder of a 16-year-old Mississauga Muslim by her father is just another “unfortunate incident”.
lookout:
Yeah I saw your comment on infantalization. That, I believe, is the story of the era. I have a feeling that its [note, no apostrophe!] source may very well be militant feminism (you know that “hostile environment” meme).
I find myself chuckling over two phrases from my earlier life: one, from my little brother in the tent during a family camping trip: “I want my widda wed pillow”; the other, my daughter in her early childhood, a century or so ago, reacting to a little gentle/loving discipline with: “You hurt my little feelings”.
The whole world now sounds like my little daughter c. 1979-1980.
I believe Diane West (sp?) has a book out on this subject.
Have also much appreciated your posts on REAL women and their pioneering efforts against HRC’s jackboot justice.
Barbara: Good point about “unfortunate incidents”. Ironically, Steyn himself once made an extremely interesting observation about how 9/11 was often portrayed in our leftiest MSM as a tragic happening akin to a natural disaster.
Bang on Barbara!
CHRC makes it hard to respond because they don’t post an e-address. They expect you to phone and go through the menu-maze or to write by snail mail. Having reached a real live, communications person, here is an e-address you can send your concerns to:
mark.vandusen@chrc-ccdp.ca
Please make your views known to the commission.
Mr. VanDusen of the Canadian Human Rights Commission informs me that the proper e-address for submissions or concerns is:
info.com@chrc-ccdp.ca
Warren is such a hypocrite. He comes here to comment but you can’t comment on his blog entry about small dead animals. To answer Kinsella’s question, what political entity just strangled a young woman to death? That would be an Islamist. I don’t see Nazi wannabes going around killing people. Do you? Now if the little pussy Warman was chasing down REAL Nazis who did REAL things to people over 50 years ago, he would earn my applause.
I have issues, big ones, with Paul Fromm, but since when does someone’s opinion cause harm? Grow up and grow some balls for frack sake.
MND, yes, the non grownups who now run most things–into the ground, BTW–are a very serious problem these days. It’s (I really appreciated the possessive “its”!) more than too, too bad. In fact, if not changed somehow–how?–I believe we’re doomed.
I’m glad you appreciate my references to REAL Women, not a group one dares mention in polite company if one wants to be included next time! The inversion of truth and values in this country is truly astonishing and utterly scandalous. And we’re all going to–aready are–pay(ing) a VERY hefty price. Civilizations fall and we’re on our way down . . . down . . . down . . . (Of course, in polite company, I don’t say that anymore because “polite” Canadians don’t want to hear it. Pity.)
lookout: Re: “the inversion of truth and values” you’ll appreciate this piece I think:
Jihadism, Liberalism and Perversion
‘Just got the link, MND. Thanks. I’ll check it out.
MND, fantastic article from American Thinker: thanks!
(Yup, our civilization’s going down, down, down . . .)
I’m going to post a few paragraphs from the article:
“Ideas do have consequences. Mass murder, idealized by [the Marquis de] Sade, became mass murder carried out by Hitler. Civilization is a fragile thing, and once perversion rules, there are no limits to the human imagination. We thought Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were the worst, but now we see Islamic Jihadis strapping bombs to babies and blowing them up. Once again, we are in a struggle between civilization and perversion. Some remain puzzled by the alliance between modern day left-liberalism and jihadism. Perversion explains the puzzle. . .
“They [child jihadis] are indoctrinated in the erotic pleasures instantly available to mass murderers: all those eager virgins. There has been a strangely muted reaction from the civilized world. We have heard repeated calls for restraint on our part, warnings against “Islamophobia”, and we take pride in minimizing casualties when fighting the Sadean [as in Sade] jihadis . . .
“The reason we hear so little condemnation, much less military resolve to annihilate these savage perverts, is Western culture’s thralldom to contemporary, politically correct liberalism, which is itself perverse. Post-modern liberalism shares the mindset of the jihadis and unconsciously enjoys their enactment of liberal fantasies . . .
“Civilization has been built painstakingly on difference: male and female, yes and no, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. There are rules, laws, customs, hard-won scientific knowledge. Civilization is a fragile guardian of reality, which must be defended from the onslaught of barbarians wishing to abolish rules and differences.
“In each of our psyches the perverse temptation must be fought, if civilization is to survive. The more advanced the civilization, the more intense the appeal to throw off constraints. Often individual rebels are rewarded with the title of ‘artist’, but Sade was an artist whose ideas were realized in Nazism.
“When the discharge of polymorphous perversion is united with murderous aggression we get Jihadism. Such perverse ideologies could be more easily fought if not for the politically correct, liberal urge to submit to them in their crudest totalitarian form.”
by psychoanalyst, Stephen Rittenberg, MD