The Shadow falls across Canada … what does it mean for the ID community in the United States?
| June 10, 2008 | Posted by O'Leary under Culture, Laws, Legal, Off Topic |
Observing the ongoing collapse of civil liberties in Canada, Bill asked me,
As I recall, Judge Jones in his ruling used the word “disparage” in relation to Darwin and his theory, attempting to put pressure on those who might want to disparage Darwin in the public school context. How soon before it is illegal to disparage Darwin in the U.S.?
Re “disparage” as a cue word, Bill was thinking, of course, of a recent punishment handed out by the Alberta “human rights” commission – one of fourteen shadow tribunals – to a Christian pastor, who had spoken out against the gay lifestyle (more below).
The rapid advance of fascism with a “human” face in Canada only became common knowledge in the United States recently, when popular columnist Mark Steyn was dragged before the BC tribunal.
To bring you up to date swiftly on Canada’s tribunals, I will simply quote Rich Lowry’s “Mark Steyn: Enemy of the State” summary this morning:
The country is dotted with human-rights commissions. At first, they typically heard discrimination suits against businesses. But since that didn’t create much work, the commissions branched out into policing “hate” speech. Initially, they targeted neo-Nazis; then religious figures for their condemnations of homosexuality; and now Maclean’s and Steyn.
The new rallying cry is, “If I hate what you say, I’ll accuse you of hate.” The Canadian Islamic Council got the Human Rights Tribunal in British Columbia and the national Canadian Human Rights Commission (where proceedings are still pending) to agree to hear its complaint. It had to like its odds.
The national commission has never found anyone innocent in 31 years. It is set up for classic Alice-in-Wonderland “verdict first, trial later” justice. Canada’s Human Rights Act defines hate speech as speech “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” The language is so capacious and vague that to be accused is tantamount to being found guilty.
And the remedies can be bizarre, as in this Alberta decision, “the most revolting order I have ever seen in Canada”, according to civil rights lawyer Ezra Levant. It includes, among many outrageous conditions imposed on an Alberta Christian pastor:
Boissoin can never — ever — communicate anything “disparaging” about gays. It’s a lifetime ban — and it applies to every conceivable medium, including his private e-mails.
Before I go on to answer Bill’s question about “disparagement” creep, I should mention that another large – and largely unknown – story is the credible accusations of wrongdoing against the federal Commission itself, such as Levant and others detail. (Yes, Levant has been charged too.)
Here is a summary he gave before the Canadian Association of Journalists’ meeting this year:
Please note that the original video was removed from YouTube earlier today because of defamation claims, so you may be exposing yourself to a risk if you view this. (You may be exposing yourself to the risk of stunting of the spirit if you don’t.) The new home for this video is here.However , keep in mind that the Commissions operate without most of the legal constraints to which conventional courts are bound. They secure many more convictions that way. In sum, it is not clear that the activities Levant details in the video – howver outrageous – are even wrong.
When your rights have been taken away, the bad things that the government does to you are not wrong.
So, could fascism with a “human” face attack the American ID community? That is, will there be a “human right” not to hear Darwin or Darwinism disparaged or challenged?
Having watched the soft tumour of fascism grow slowly over the decades in Canada, I have some thoughts to offer to Americans:
1. Wake up! “Human rights” are already eroding civil rights in the States – but the problem is currently concentrated on campuses. As FIRE ably documents, American campuses are already legendary for rampant, perhaps growing illiberalism.
When the students who have thrived under such conditions achieve power, they will institute, extend, and defend the only regime they have ever known to American society at large.
Of course there is hope. Free minds put no price tag on intellectual freedom, and academic freedom rockumentaries are beginning to appear …
2. Who drives the process? Because current high-profile cases in Canada are brought by a few unrepresentative Muslims or gays, some Canadian commentators – mistaking the smoke for the fire – attack those groups, thus dividing society and making some group members feel safer with fascism.
To fight fascism’s new “human” face effectively, please get this straight: The groups encouraged to vent complaints to kangaroo courts did not create those courts. The social engineers who in fact created them will just as readily persecute Muslims as Christians – when it suits their interests.
In fact, Turkish commentator Mustafa Akyol tells me that similar activists do precisely that in Turkey. And who would be very surprised if the human rights thugs here take down some gay guy who evangelizes against the gay lifestyle?
See, the point is not that some groups are favoured and others are not but that some grievances promote the “human” face of fascism and others do not. So the useful complaints are warmly welcomed. And favourable decisions extend Commission creep into more and more areas of society. That’s the real agenda.
3. Ignore legacy media: Don’t expect the legacy media to be much help. In fact, as the National Review editors noted recently, most Canadian media ignored the hearings, even though the hearings vitally concern their interests. That’s no surprise because no one knows who is next or for what complaint, and few can afford to represent themselves during the costly proceedings that would ensue.
But there is another factor as well: Embittered mediocrities play a key role in promoting “human” fascism. Civil rights are small comfort, after all, to a Canadian journalism professor who may never, in his entire harrumphing life, write a paragraph that compares with Mark Steyn’s prose tossed off almost at random. It suits such a fellow’s interests to silence Steyn. After all, it just isn’t fair, is it?
So do not assume that all media oppose soft fascism. For many, it is an excuse not to take risks with their coverage. They will apprise you that government minders won’t let them and they do their utmost to appear virtuous.
4. Some Americans imagine that a “conservative” government will provide protection. As if. The current Canadian government – which, for all practical purposes, supports the “human rights” racket – is “Conservative.” And to see how the province of Alberta’s perennial Conservative government has behaved, here’s the view from the EZ:
I think I was unfair to Lori Andreachuk, the thug on the Alberta “human rights” commission who recently ordered a pastor to publicly renounce his religious faith. Yes, Andreachuk is a bully. Yes, she is a destroyer of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and an underminer of justice. Yes, she is positively un-Canadian in her values. Everything I said about her was true. But I think I left the implication that her fascist decision was hers alone. It wasn’t.
It was a direct result of her boss and political patron, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach. Let me explain. ….
And Levant does explain – how a Conservative government backed, promoted, and supported the infamous ruling.
Now, a Democratic administration in the United States will probably move much more rapidly to implement fascism with a “human” face. But a Republican administration will probably find it just as convenient an instrument, and do little or nothing to get rid of it later.
Reality check: Once civil liberties are lost, they are immensely difficult to recover, as many Canadians are finding, to our sorrow.
5. Some Americans will tell you that the large Christian population in the United States will be a bulwark. Again, as if.
Christianettes fit so neatly into the “human” face of fascism. They can help Christians recover from state muggings or – much worse! – encourage them to use the corrupt and abusive tribunals to try to expand their “rights” – in other words, their right to be the tyrant instead of suffering under the tyrant. I’ve seen Chrstianettes in both modes. My rebukes are evidence of “hate,” of course – or, seen from another perspective, sanity.
6. Some will actually argue that the “human” face of fascism restrains “hate.” For example of hate, they cite the Rwanda massacres of the Nineties and the rise of Nazi Germany in the Thirties.
Re Rwanda, there is no comparison. Fascism with a human face did not get started in order to prevent generally unarmed and non-violent Canadians from massacring their neighbours. And Nazi Germany? Well, about that I learned something quite interesting recently: As Mark Steyn writes in Maclean’s (yes, the first big magazine that has been charged):
“Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.”
Actually, all Hitler had to do was invoke Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which gave him the right to place his “reasonable limits” on “freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom from unlawful search and seizure and surveillance of postal and electronic communications.” Just the sort of free hand the Commissions and Tribunals of Canada are learning to love.
7. Lastly, please stuff a red sock in the mouth of anyone who says that no Canadians are fighting back. Yes, many Canadians were born infected with the Trudeau virus and they love their Nanny Monster, and strive to be like her in every respect – and are largely succeeding.
But many Canadians were born immune. And others, from all communities, are rapidly acquiring immunity.
Oh yes, you will hear greasy excuses for the “human” face of fascism, along with insinuations against the resistance. Believe what you want. You are entitled,for now. But consider this declaration from 1960 (before the United States civil rights marches):
I am a Canadian,
a free Canadian,
free to speak without fear,
free to worship in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong,
free to choose those who shall govern my country.
This heritage of freedom I pledge
to uphold for myself and all mankind.Prime Minister Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker , July 1, 1960, House of Commons
* enshrined in the Canadian Bill of Rights
And this too: Now here is a real Canadian:
Remember, buy extra red sox – you may run out. Note: You may use white sox instead.
Meanwhile, …
38 Responses to The Shadow falls across Canada … what does it mean for the ID community in the United States?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
—–jj: “How do you avoid exposing someone to societal contempt when you’re arguing that what they’ve done is so grievous that normal societal rights should be suspended for such a person or group?”
JJ: You seem to be making a very, very, subtle point, in which case you must use the most concrete language at your disposal. I am not sure what you are driving at here. The whole idea is to shape society so that it promotes virtue and discourages vice. We want society to hate bad behavior and love good behavior. A good culture is one in which it is easy to be good. A bad culture is one in which it is easy to be bad. The HRC is saying that Canadians may not discourage (what they perceive to be) bad behavior and that they may not, therefore, try to influence the culture for the good.
Beyond that, I am not getting your point. Are you saying that those who criticize bad behavior are violating the Christian imperative which bids us not to “judge?” As Christians, we are to hate the sin and love the sinner, which means that we must be circumspect and judicious in calling attention to bad behavior. If we hold to that standard, we can then hope that society will follow our lead and not be unduly harsh in enforcing the minimum moral standards for a well-ordered society. We want society to think of good behavior as “in” and bad behavior as “out.” If civilized people don’t tell society which standards to embrace, then the barbarians will do all of the shaping.
The problem is that many who are prone to abnormal behavior try to normalize it by joining with others of the same mind set. In a spirit of solidarity, they try to remake society in their own image and likeness, and they don’t mind that the proposed change is at the expense of the common good. Under those circumstances, it is no longer possible to keep the focus on the behavior and away from the person, because the person has now embraced a “movement.” That means that the criticism of the behavior must now shift to criticism of the group, because it has now been made a group issue. Again, the HRC has decided that we may not confront, speak, or even think (yes I said think) of those groups in a negative way. Hate crimes are, in fact, thought crimes, even when they are not always articulated as such. That is what makes them so dangerous. In some parts of Europe, you can be thrown in jail for speaking about the Biblical teaching on homosexuality. The United States and Canada are well on their way to reaching this stage.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Pers.....?id=135546
Some U.S. press is covering this subject.
StephenB,
I didn’t think it was that subtle. But perhaps I should frame it a little bit more. I’m taking a look from the language taken at face value. We have a law that seeks to discourage any speech that is likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt.
I can accept that if I said “Muslims shouldn’t speak” I have gone over the line. What would be their judgment? An injunction on my speech.
I have to agree that that would be a reprehensible comment on my part, so I want to propose another case. What if I wrote a comment “Mr. Makkinejaad should have held his tongue,” about a case where I really believe that it would have been prudent, but somebody implies that it really means “Muslims shouldn’t speak.” (Because I’m Christian and some other Christian recently said something similar) and the HRC agrees. Or what if I quoted an Imam whose idea was that in a specific case “Muslims shouldn’t speak,” and the HRC ruled that it is likely to to expose someone to hatred.
The idea that I’m speaking hate, suggests that it is a hateful thing to want to suppress the voice of another. Their decision is to suppress my voice, regardless of whether their interpretation is the best one.
If the right to speech is dear, then injunctions against it are a grave act. Provided that the HRC is doing a good job and has the backing of the public, how can you prevent the all-too-human contempt against those whose abuse of their freedoms is so great as to deserve such injunctions.
You’ve already separated Boisson from the respectable members of society. You’ve just changed the definition of decency. It’s still likely that people will be viewed as indecent–especially those groups that are already more inclined to say things that can be interpreted as “hateful”.
Key point:
Stephen B has aptly put his finger on a central issue:
In short, once a society accepts that there is a need for reformation from longstanding wrongs [historically in the West this was pioneered by the prophetic dimension of the Judaeo-Christian tradition], then there is a second level of issue. Namely, false reformation, in pursuit of the “normalisation” of self- and socially- destructive or oppressive conduct.
Namely:
1 –> For a community to be worth living in across time, there has to be a mutual recognition of ourselves as equally being human beings who should be respected.
2 –> As Locke therefore cited from Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity in Ch 2 Section 5 of his 2nd essay on Civil Gov’t, to lead up to the points and principles of rights, justice and liberty:
3 –> Our equality under or Creator who made us in his image as moral agents is thus a self-evident premise of morality and governance, thence of liberty and justice. Anything that tends to undermine this fundamental equality is destructive to the community and threatening to individuals in it.
4 –> This brings up another theme SB raised, when he spoke of hating sin while loving sinners. Namely, that we must respect the individual but since that individual is a responsible moral agent living in a community of other equally endowed moral agents, we must not condone self- or socially- destructive destructive and/or oppressive behaviour and agendas. (And, especially when the word-magic of “science” or that of “rights” or “equality” are trotted out to persuade us to accept injustice. Hence, inter alia, the punch in Expelled, and of course that in the Mark Steyn case now directly in view. Today, they have come for the Sternbergs, Gonzalezes, Pastor Greens, Ezra Levants and Mark Steyns. If they get away with this, they will come for us soon enough, and — as Martin Niemoller so poignantly noted not so long ago — there will be no-one there to stand with us in defence of liberty. So, we must stand together NOW!]
5 –> This brings up the delicate balance of rights and responsibilities, thence the role of justice and government as an institution of justice. For, “your right to swing your hand ends where my nose begins.” (A right is a binding moral claim we exert on others because of our inherent dignity as God’s creation. That means that rights are mutual. It also means that some behaviours cannot be rights, as they tend to the destruction of the individual or the community that sets up the context for justice and mutual benefits and prosperity.)
6 –> Next, we instinctively know that societies that allow some to get away with destructive arm-swinging and prevent protest or appropriate restraint or response, fall into chaos. Sadly, there are too many historical examples of this. And not a few current ones. [For instance, if we allow judges and agenda-driven advocates to redefine key terms and institutions without serious pause to see just what they are pushing for and where ti will lead, that runs right into the 1984-type situation where words lose their proper meanings, and become tools of destructive deception and oppression. If words like "rights" and "equality" can be redefined, so can "justice." In this case, "hate" and "contempt" seem to have been improperly re-defined, in service to highly questionable agendas, not least those sitting on the Judge's bench.]
7 –> Enter, Denyse’s point [and behind it both Locke's and Hooker's; beyond them lie Paul and Jesus and Moshe]: the magistrate, the one in Rom 13:1 – 7 who wields the sword of justice, is sometimes just as likely to become the dangerous arm-swinger as anyone else.
8 –> Thus, we the people, perhaps acting though our spokesmen and/or lower magistrates interposing themselves, have a right to restrain, correct, reform and if necessary remove such offending authorities.
9 –> Thus, the force of the relevant paragraph of the US DOI of 1776:
10 –> Now, when you have a court set up to prosecute thought crimes, using vague assertions and the like, which has a longstanding record of 100% convictions, then you have prima facie evidence that you are looking at once creeping, now accelerating despotism. And, when we see the perversion of rights being used to suppress hard-won liberty, that is manifest injustice.
11 –> Canada, my sister Commonwealth country, faces two alternatives: [1] descent into the dark night of tyranny, or [2] waking up and stoutly resisting tyranny before it is so firmly established that it will take rivers of blood to break its destructive iron-fisted hold.
So, Denyse, you have the support of this Jamaican.
For, much is at stake.
GEM of TKI
PS: I think I should add that in the just above, I am underscoring that we can address groups advocating for that which is counter to the common good, by looking at the implications of their agendas; especially as manifested in cases where already we see injustice and oppression at work. We therefore expose wrongdoing, trace it to its roots int he agenda, and act to restrain such destructive agendas, while respecting the dignity of the persons involved. Difficult, perhaps something we can never do without partial failure, but a necessary challenge; all the difference between justice and mere revenge.
Denyse: I’m not sure I follow your response.
You seem to be saying simply that everyone is losing liberties and rights under these fascist commissions. Agreed. Never thought the contrary.
But these last decades there are always more attacks against anything remotely smelling of Christianity and it’s principles than anything else. Just like in the US.
I see the racket side of HRC, (wish the PM would!) but I fail to see why you don’t think Christians have been losing rights and others gaining them. That was my main point in that statement you take issue with.
Christains have lost rights and are losing rights every year.
Others are gaining rights – like gays – which no one can deny.
What about the pastor fined and constrained for his comments on homos? Is that not a major loss of rights? Even though not written clearly in legislation?
Has anyone ever tried to sue a gay for saying disgusting things of the church or christians? Never heard of it. And if they did would they obtain gain of cause? Doubt it, but I could be wrong.
Sihks gained the right to carry concealed daggers to school while all others are prohibited from such. And Christians lost the right to traditionally accepted public confessional schools.
How else can we explain the widely publicized “accomodements raisonables” and Taylor/Bouchard commission in Quebec?
We in Canada, like the rest of the world, are suffering from the proverbial “boiled frog” syndrome. Slowly Judeo/Christian values are being “boiled” away, denied and ridiculed. The “frogs” barely react.
Anyway, it seems that I’ve either missed your point or you’ve missed mine. So please clarify if you will.
Thanks
jj: I am sorry, but I still don’t get your point.
After writing three pages of reply, I don’t know if I can fit this into this discussion without appearing to hijack it.
There are a number of sayings of Jesus that can suggest context-free principles. It’s kind of like mathematic models.
There’s an principle of “diagnalization” in mathematical proofs used to rule out some propositions. The statement “There are no truthful statements” is a good example of a statement that nullifies itself. It must be nonsense, because in the normal context of evaluating statements there must be at least one case where it could be true. There can be no instances where this could be true, for we could not even say that we understand the sentence and mean it. By this, we pretty much know–if we can know anything at all–”There is at least one true statement” must be true. Of course, if that is the case, I’ve made another one: that it must be true. It might be the brute fact that there are no true sentences, but only that there are can ever make sense, we cannot pretend to convey any knowledge that way.
In the same way, we can counter absolute relativism, or even unqualified relativism. Any earnest apologist knows the technique. It’s just an isomorph of the above. Again, the universe can possibly resemble the universe proposed by relativism, but it cannot do so and be relativistic in that aspect at the same time and be communicable in that same sense. So you’ll find the Special Pleading universes of “Everything is relative except in that everything is relative.” The framework of the universe and our understanding of it are two different facts–or at least I think so.
I always try to council fellow apologists that rational order is not an absolute, but it is the only profitable assumption. (I interpret this as an illustration between the benefit of a positive assumption (a proto-faith) as opposed to a strict constraint to negative fact.)
We can always build on the assumption “Things make sense.” Until we accept this as a basis, all other discussion is noise.
So even though I’m using principles within the Christian perspective, I’m not simply using them in the conventional Christian way. The idea behind Jesus is God in human context–the Word made flesh. I can use implications in this, illuminated by Jesus himself, and not be restricted to a traditional Christian commentary. If you’ve read much Lewis, then you’ve seen these principles in action.
Now, to the HRC. If the HRC creates a climate hostile to Christians, then they’ve exposed a person or a group to hatred or contempt. Since “likely to expose” is a lesser level, it is already satisfied by the actions. Anything they would have said to influence this is then, by their definition “hate speech”. Thus if they are wrong in their assumptions, they could well fail their stated goal in this area.
The idea that Christian principles can be construed as “hate speech” relies on the idea that moral judgments working on a similar thinking group of people can result in private citizens enforcing that judgment (even if just through negative actions associated with hate or contempt). And again, if there were any self-proclaimed enforcers as a result of the HRC’s action, they again would fail in making a difference between their moral judgments and the Church’s.
So we have to believe that given an admirable HRC, enforcing moral censure on a person or persons does not result in a sort of moral indignation in like-thinking persons.
This is where they need to create a difference in kind, in order for it all not to fall apart. A potential, untested human nature that separates from an already exhibited human nature (and an accepted interpretation) on sheer stipulation alone that people who side with progressives are more orderly than those that don’t (likely, because of their “hatred”). Of course, you can’t create a difference by stipulation, so in the event that human nature allows self-appointed enforcers–of whatever the moral order is–as an innate part of social norming behavior, there is an argument that you are exposing the censured to public contempt. This argument would always be valid, until what you insisted as necessary human reaction in one case can be ruled out.
That’s why I said it was self-oblivious. Because it overlays assumptions onto a pattern of social norming behavior, i.e hateful actions, as a result of the pronouncement of social norms. But seeks to engage in norming behavior without even the admission that it could be likely to expose the other group by the same perhaps innate pattern. Thus they have to believe that they have remade man, just as every other naive progressive movement before them.