In Canada, it's illegal to say anything bad about Islam

In Canada, a magazine is being prosecuted for hate speech. The crime? Reprinting part of a book by Mark Steyn (with permission from the owner of the copyright, of course) warning of the coming Muslim takeover of the West.

I read the allegedly hate-filled article and find that I agree with most of it. I take exception to the author’s belief that a declining population is such a bad thing—I think that Japan will do just fine with a declining population—but that’s not the reason why the magazine is being prosecuted. In Canada, it’s against the law to say anything bad about Islam.

The fact that a trial like this is taking place proves the point of the Mark Steyn article. Once it becomes illegal to point out the danger that the West is in, what chance does the West have left? The United States is the only country where the people still have the freedom of speech.

Comments

[Vim]

It's also illegal to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

"First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world."

This quote from the article is funny. Oh no! One more reason to fear foreigners!

[JewishAtheist]

Banning that kind of thing is stupid, wrong, and counterproductive. This is true regardless of whether Steyn is right or not.

[roissy]

this is really a dangerous development in the West. the 1st amendment puts america head and shoulders above europe and canada for this reason, despite our relative paucity of charming outdoor cafes for sipping espresso and people watching.

too funny that the same libs who waved the flag of the 1st amendment so bravely when larry flint's rights were on the line are slowly but surely retreating from it (and even making excuses for curbing it!) when multiculti diversity is the morality du jour.

the writing was on the wall with the passage of "hate (thought) crime" laws. the steady dismantling of this country's greatness continues.

[Peter]

Banning that kind of thing is stupid, wrong, and counterproductive. This is true regardless of whether Steyn is right or not.

Exactly. Steyn's Islam-will-Conquer-the-World-and-haul-us-off-to-the-ovens panty piddling paranoia makes me vomit, but he has a right to spew it without fear of legal repercussion.

[Turambar]

Vim, I cant believe that you are defending this. And in such transparently flimsy way.

The sentence of Steyn's before the one you quote is right on the money:
Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion.

The current 'progressive' wave is all about regulating the opinion they dont like. Why you dont find this troubling is odd.

[Steve Johnson]

I like the "fire in a crowded theater" defense of this restriction.

If he wrote a book about American protestant fundamentalists taking over Canada, he'd have no problem. If American protestant fundamentalists tried to take over Canada they'd have 0 chance any policy success.

He did write a book about a Muslim takeover of Canada. If there were enough Muslims in Canada to push for policies, the authorities would do all they could accommodate them: shria courts for disputes, driver's licenses with veils on, no investigation into importing cousin brides, etc.

So no shouting "fire" in a crowded theater if there is a fire but shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is encouraged if there is no real threat of fire.

[Vim]

Turambar: I'm not defending it at all. It's not a good idea. I just thought the American exceptionalism at the end was over the top.

I am not bothered because I think the issue hear is incitement.

Besides, the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms grants "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication."

[Bad Liar]

Can't go and hurt anyone's feelings these days. Self esteem is at stake. And if anyone says that Islam isn't a religion of peace, I'll have to fly a jet into a skyscraper!
The left thinks that Islam is really cool because it is anti-western. They are also afraid of muslims. That is why feminists never speak up about the massive islamic abuse of women(or gays, jews, buddhists, christians, hindus, Dutch film directors or anyone else not muslim that have been bombed, shot, attacked, raped, mutiliated, stoned or had their head hacked off for criticizing islam). How many people have neo-Nazis killed in the last 10 years vs. muslims?
And Vim, that post was very, very weak. We are seeing quite a bit of that lately from you. Can't you tighten up your comments? You've obviously got a good bit of time on your hands. Put some effort into it! I just hope your scientific work isn't suffering.

[Dan Morgan]

It is strange that the emerging limitations on free speech don't show up in the Freedom House evaluations. Another example of the West being oblivious to important developments within Western countries that have profound long term consequences.

[Gamma Man]

The left patronizes Islam because it is still less of a menace for their agenda than the Christian majority. Liberals aim for absolute power. And the majority of the population - the Christian Middle class- stands in their way.

They don't care if Muslims start to be a threat to the system in 20 years, because liberal elites will either be dead or too old and rich to care.
"Après moi, le déluge!"

[Half Sigma]

Gamma Man: "The left patronizes Islam because it is still less of a menace for their agenda than the Christian majority."

That's the correct answer.

[Turambar]

I am not bothered because I think the issue hear is incitement.

I am looking for the incitement in the article. Steyn isnt advocating that his readers commit violence against any specific person or group.

It also beggars belief that the McCleans demographic is is going to read a wandering multi page article and then run out for some curb stomping.

[Vim]

Turambar: Maybe inciting one guy a lot is like inciting a million people a teeny bit. ;)

[dearieme]

I think that the American tradition of Free Speech is so good that they should try the experiment of extending it to the Universities.

[PASH]

Wasn't some guy arrested or something for calling a black "nigger," "coon, "spook" or something? I seem to recall this happened not to long ago, where I don't remember. I have no doubt the left(and their black mascots) would love to see what is going on in Canada become law here. I hear blacks say "nigger" all the time, but I guess this is OK for some reason.

[Kirk]

"Maybe inciting one guy a lot is like inciting a million people a teeny bit. ;)"

If you want to ban things that incite violence, why not ban Islam?

[tommy]

I just thought the American exceptionalism at the end was over the top.

We are exceptional.

No one in America is being prosecuted for the thought crimes the Canadian, German, Dutch, and French governments routinely go after.

Not yet. If our country continues to be filled with Third Worlders who seem incapable of understanding the fine difference between personal violence versus racial and religiously charged speech, that all may change.

Jihad Watch has a good article on the New Duranty Times (heh) reaction to the Steyn story.

[Moving]

http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/105235/The-World's-Best-Places-to-Live-2008

Detroit, Mombasa, Johannesburg and Port au Prince didn't make the list this year...

[Abhs]

My high school newspaper was nationally acclaimed. As part of the staff, we made the mistake of publishing a comment that was deemed "insensitive" to the Muslim minority (calling them partisan) in our school and were subsequently lambasted by our liberal principal and school council. We never apologized.

What's the posed solution to the problem of Muslim extremism? I just spent 20 minutes reading, but even if the article/responses to it are factual in content, without offering any methods of dealing with the problem they debase themselves to petty hate and fear-mongering.

[Spungen]

Man, I can't believe you're talking about Islam today. Just wait til I find *your* secret online porn cache.

[Gil]

Maybe there's something to be said about white women 'pricing' themselves out of the market relative to decreased racist Western mentalities? White women being the highest class of women expect to get the highest status men over non-white women (I remember reading of one survey of well-off young women who's financial future was quite rosy and these women still aspired to land a guy who still higher status than them!). Presumably white men are still have the highest status potential for women to land yet guys are attracted to good-looking women not high-status women hence in modern not-so-racial times a white guy may in fact seek a good-looking Latina or Asian women who happens to be lower-status seeking (therefore more grateful) than a white woman. Maybe it's just me but it seems relatively easy to find white guys dating non-white women nowadays thereby futher leading to the demise of the white Western race. (Hell! I wouldn't mind being with an Asian or light-skinned half-caste woman! I could even entertain a racist conspiracy notion of 'if Japanese women would prefer a white guy over a Japanese guy then American and Australian guys could get the last laugh against the Japanese for WW2! }>8P)

[anonymous]

There is simply no basis for banning this article or prosecuting people who publish it. It does not incite anyone to violence. It's not even that critical of Islam! It's much more critical of what has become of the west. If it made me want to do anything, it was to get serious about finding a wife, having babies, and raising them in classical Western culture and philosophy.

Knock on wood, America remains exceptional in regard to freedom of thought, speech, and religion. It's chilling to me that we are alone in this respect.

[Captian Beefheart]

Remember, multi-ethnic Democracies DON'T WORK! Therefore, the only way of making a multi-ethnic State work, is by dropping the "Democracy" part.

We will see the same thing here(US). As the country becomes less "White," the country will become less "Democratic."

[Steve Sailer]

It's time to boycott Canada as a vacation spot until the Canadian government stops violating basic human rights, such as freedom of expression.

[Steve Sailer]

It's time to boycott Canada as a vacation spot until the Canadian government stops violating basic human rights, such as freedom of expression.

[Celeste]

Besides, the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms grants "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication."

That's what I thought too but here in BC the BC Human Rights Code was referenced in the Steyn case. It was section 7 and it reads as follows:

7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons.

That pretty much covers any kind of dissent. And anything negative can be argued as exposing one to hatred or contempt.

[Vim]

Captian Beefheart :

"Remember, multi-ethnic Democracies DON'T WORK!"

'White people' is a multi-ethnic group. As far as I know people still give out Irish, Italian or Polish American awards and scholarships and have festivals and things of that sort. The Amish still live separately. Jews are still fairly distinct. An all white America seems like it would be a fairly ethnic America.

In Europe, white ethnic differences are even more entrenched.

[p]

There's nothing "wrong" with Islam--just another stupid religion among the long list of stupid religions.

We all know who the real enemy is.

[Markku]

"There's nothing "wrong" with Islam--just another stupid religion among the long list of stupid religions."

Islam is not just a religion. It's a complete way of life: spiritual, legal, and political. Islamic scriptures mandate Muslims to ultimately make Shariah, Islamic law, the supreme law over all of humanity by any means necessary, including war. In fact, political entities outside those who have implemented Shariah (= Dar-al-Islam, the House of Islam), are called Dar-al-Harb, the House of War. Under Islam, there cannot be permanent peaceful co-existence between Islam and other civilizations, only temporary truces. This is a design feature of Islam.

Now, Islam can be treated as only a religion, and many Muslim believers do, but that is only because of their failure to either know about the full requirements of their religion as many poor Third World Muslims are illiterate and have no knowledge of Arabic, and thus what they books (= the Quran and the hadiths) say, or their hypocrisy. Of course, some Muslims are only nominally Muslim and not believers like I'm only nominally Christian and not a believer.

[loki on the run]

Norway: The country of peace meets the religion of peace

All's well that ends well.

[John Smith]

I think the liberals have been able to shut down debate on Islam by saying that all critics of Islam are "Islamophobic."

Instead of focusing on the violence of Islam, we should specifically narrow in on Islamic attitudes towards gays and secular government. That's the best way to show their irreconcilability with the West.

[Captain Beefheart]

"In Europe, white ethnic differences are even more entrenched."(-Vim)

Absolutely, and I sure hope we don't have a similar future of ethnic conflict as the Europeans did historically.

"An all white America seems like it would be a fairly ethnic America." (-Vim)

Please don't mistake what I'm talking about as advocating an "all white America." I'm simply saying that European Americans should start thinking more as one ethnic group in order maximize political interests. "Hispanics" are also diverse in terms of ethnicity but if we examine how Hispanics operate politically, we see some continuity. Generally, Hispanics favor wealth redistribution, affirmative action, illegal immigration(in order to enlarge their numbers), and "hate-crimes" legislation.

European Americans(EA) are perceived as "opponents" by black and Hispanic political activists who see the wealth and power that EA's have as something to be gained. If we look to groups like "CAIR"-- which is a Islamic group--we see that they put out a statement in solidarity with the illegal immigrants. These various ethnic groups see a people who are disorganized and most importantly, a people plagued by political correctness and will continue to take advantage of this weakness.

As much as I hope it all works out n the U.S., I think its only reasonable to start thinking about forming a similar political unit in order to protect our interests.

While you are correct that EA's are a diverse group, so were the Germans before unification. Bavarians, Prussians, and Pomeranians eventually came together out of political necessity the same way as Irish, German, Italian, Polish, and Estonian Americans will need to do.

Again, I do hope we can run and skip holding hands in the multicultural love circle. But if every other ethnic group is aggressively pursuing power while forming alliances with others who do the same, its not going to be a bright future for EA's if we fail to organize.

[M S]

The internet is the only 'place' that has real free speech - all others restrict it, by content or presentation, for reasons of public order & harmony. But some are engaged in censorship efforts online (see: w2.eff.org/br/ -and- www.linux.com/articles/36324 )

The US does not allow 'ALL' speech, even after discounting obscenity & public-safety exceptions. Many books are banned, mainly due to unfortunate historical events - like the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' [Half Sigma comments: this book is not banned in the United States, it's available for sale at Amazon.com. I just checked.] that suggests that certain Jews are involved in a global conspiracy to rule the world through multi-national organizations like the UN, IMF, world-bank, agency of centralized banks, media associations & control over multi-national companies. (See: www.answers.com/topic/the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion ) [It's un-realistic for there to be vast conspiracies - we can't get everyone to agree not to commit suicide - how could every member of some large group be following some secret agenda?] The book is a very intricate conspiracy theory, but does not suggest any way to 'undo' the supposed harm from the grand conspiracy - still it is considered hate speech. Despite some rhetoric, most nations & all wealthy nations, ban speech for more reasons than just inciting violence. Historically this is a reasonable approach to maintain security. Recall that Hitler only started 'inciting' violence in his speeches, after he made sure all oppositional leaders were dead. If his speeches inciting hatred were curtailed earlier he may not have taken over as easily. (surly the horrible economic situation, the zeitgeist to 'revenge' the Allied WW1 victory, the Pope's acceptance of Hitler's rule, Chamberlain's lack of volition to militarily stop Germany's annexing of the Sudaten-land & smaller European neighbors, all had a sort of snow-ball effect on the situation)