Whither freedom of speech
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
That was then.
This is 2008. In the 21st century, freedom of speech, long revered as the cornerstone of Western liberal democracy, is being slowly but consistently eroded worldwide. And I’m not referring to Russia, China, or the Middle East, where freedom of speech is well-known to be limited. No, this new campaign against free expression is increasingly showing up in places once thought to be paragons of liberal democracy — Western Europe and even Canada.
In Canada, the government has set up rather unfortunately named quasi-judicial “Human Rights Tribunals” in each province. Established under Canada’s Human Rights Code, the alleged purpose of the tribunal is “accepting, screening, mediating and adjudicating human rights complaints.” Human rights violations under the Canadian Human Rights code include “hate crimes,” which apparently includes any statement that could plausibly cause a group to “be exposed to hatred or contempt.” (Section 7.1, to be exact.)
The tribunal follows virtually no standards of legal jurisprudence. There are no established rules of evidence — the three panel members may admit or reject the admission of evidence on a whim. There is no due process. Defendants are not allowed to testify on their own behalf.
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal is now hearing a case that has been brought against Canada’s Maclean’smagazine for publishing an excerpt from renowned British-American columnist Mark Steyn’s most recent book, America Alone.The excerpt in question is alleged by Faisal Joseph, the lawyer representing the complainants, to expose Muslims to “hatred and contempt.” Joseph claims to have filed the complaint “on behalf of all the Muslim residents of the province of British Columbia,” who he claims were “offended” by alleged anti-Muslim sentiments in Steyn’s piece.
This is, of course, ridiculous — no Canadian Muslims were polled or canvassed prior to the case. In fact, there are only two named complainants: Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) president Mohammed elMasry, of Ontario, and Naiyer Habib, who recently moved from Saskatchewan to B.C. CIC spokesman Khurrum Awan has said he felt “personally victimized” by Steyn’s piece. The CIC wants the Tribunal to “order” Maclean’s to publish a lengthy five-page letter to the editor they wrote that criticizes Steyn’s piece.
I have read America Alone, and in my educated opinion the book contains no offensive or anti-Muslim statements. The defendants’ alleged “evidence” in this case is a number of anonymous anti-Muslim blog postings on unrelated web sites which they have unsuccessfully attempted to tie to Steyn’s book.
What is most disturbing about this whole fiasco is the attempt to have a government tribunal dictate what a private publication should and should not print — in effect, to have control over its content. That level of censorship is something you might expect to find in a totalitarian state.
But this is no isolated case. Authorities in Scandinavia closed down a website for fear it would “offend” Muslims. A story this week in London’s Telegraph described two Christian preachers who were told by a police community support officer to stop handing out leaflets about Christianity in a Muslim-majority neighborhood of Birmingham, UK, or face arrest on “hate crimes” charges.
A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a “hate crime” and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned.
I fail to see how peacefully distributing leaflets about Christianity constitutes a “hate crime.” In most Muslim nations, proselytizing is illegal. In fact, while I was in Jordan, a group of Baptist missionaries was deported for doing just that. But in Britain?
Maybe it shouldn’t be so shocking. Recently, Muslim-majority areas in Europe are becoming increasingly hostile to free speech, especially religious speech, that “threatens” Islam in any way. Certain viewpoints about Islam should apparently be considered “off-limits” for public discussion and debate.
This is a dangerous threat to Western democratic society as we know it. It stands in direct conflict with the fundamental Enlightenment principles of rational argument, skepticism, and critical thinking. Rather than offer their own counter-arguments and provide evidence that contradicts the claims of critics who write or say things critical of Islam, the trend in Western Europe and Canada is to get such points of view labeled as “hate speech” and banned from public discourse.
In fact, America alone remains one of the last places on earth where the notion of freedom of speech is still cherished and essentially undiluted — hence the title and one of the major points of Steyn’s book. Dean Steacy, the principal “anti-hate” investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission put it succinctly:
MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?
MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.
MS KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.
MR. STEACY: It’s not my job to give value to an American concept.
Indeed.
Greetings from Canada’s Left Coast aka Vancouver. I’m ecstatic that you’re following this and beginning to get an appreciation that not all is rosy north of the 49th Parallel!
There one thing I’d like to add to your already excellent article: A defendant at one of these “Human Rights” Tribunals (we up here prefer the term “Kangaroo Courts”) is not allowed to use … wait for it … is not allowed to use The Truth or Facts as a defense. They are irrelevant in front of these quasi-judicial bodies. For if you are found to have offended someone then you are guilty.
Welcome to British Columbia in 2008. Incidentally, we’re hosting the Winter Olympics in February 2010. If you care to share your thoughts with our politicians about visiting such a jurisdiction if such laws are still in place, then please do!