Human Rights Regression

well said. Small point . No need to publish. Possessive of 'its ' is 'its' not it's which is 'it is. '

Excellent post!

It is not actually the case (and this goes to your point about "standing") that the three Osgoode Hall grads are even the complainants against Maclean's magazine and Mr. Steyn. They are merely the public face behind which the actual complainant, Mohammed Elmasry, hides (thus earning the nickname "The Sock Puppet 3"). They were chosen for their more Westernized appearance (neither of the female grads wear the head scarf, for instance) and demeanor.

Nor is the complaint technically a lawsuit, although the lay person might wonder what's the difference since there is a real penalty attached to the "verdict" (which is invariably "guilty"). The difference is of course that the whole process, as detailed in your post, is merely a sham and parody of a "real" lawsuit -- a mock trial to give the appearance of legitimacy to what amounts to legally sanctioned extortion.

When Mr. Strong says that "It appears that these law students have not even considered the chilling effect their case will have on free speech or the freedom of the press.", I believe he is being entirely too considerate. On the contrary, those three individuals not only have attended law school, but are also Muslims themselves. It is entirely likely that they know exactly that their suit will diminish freedom for non-Muslims, and that this is precisely their purpose. It is not misunderstanding but malice.

I hope Canada fights regressing back to the Dark Ages to their last breath.

Very good article. As someone without any legal training I considered why the concept of standing was so important. Thanks for the very useful tutorial.

How ironic that, as I am typing this, the Google ad appearing at the bottom of the right column is for singlemuslim.com, bidding viewers to "Find a Muslim Marriage Partner."

Excellent post Mr. Strong. Mr. Steyn and Ezra Levant have done a very effective job of exposing the details of the corruption, absurdity and danger posed by these Canadian "human rights" commissions, which are purely instruments of oppression. Our conservative government appears to be conservative in name only, as they have not done or said a thing about it. I am a Canadian lawyer, and I continue to be shocked by the apathy shown toward this important problem by my peers and by Canadians in general. It has been apparent for some time that Canadians do not have the deeply engrained understanding of the importance of liberty that Americans have. My faith in the perserverence of the greatness of America lies in the hope that if nothing else, Americans will continue to teach their children the paramout societal importance of personal liberty and freedom of speech. We Canadians are now seeing the Canadian version of McCarthyism, but our Joe McCarthy is not ferreting out communists, he's ferretting out those who say things (regardless of whether they're true) that might hurt somebody's feelings.

I've been following HRC persecution of Maclean's and Mark Steyn, and I realize different country, different laws, but I can't understand the grounds for any charges. Here we were taught "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it," and there's nothing in the US Constitution guaranteeing freedom from being offended. . .

One item left out is Richard Warman's role in all of this. He is almost solely responsible for the harrassement of Ezra Levant and many others. Warman is the largest perpetrator of using the HRC against his political enemies reminiscent of the days of Fascism and Nazism.

On our internet radio show a few weeks ago we interviewed a few of the bloggers being sued for defamation by Richard Warman - the thug using the HRC to impose his brand of political correctness on Canadians. We interviewed Kathy Shaidle (fivefeetoffury.com) and Connie Fournier (freedominion.com), conservative Canadian bloggers who are under assault for speaking their minds in a country that considers "free speech" an American concept not embraced by Canadians who want to be free from "harassment." It's a damned disgrace, but if it weren't Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant being dragged into the interrogation chambers of the HRC, the disinfecting light of truth would never have shone on them.

To listen to the show, go here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/politicalvindication/2008/04/23/Political-Vindication-Radio

Its called 'Litigation Jihad'. These 3 so-called law-students are using every stratagem of warfare against the infidel nation-state to advance the cause of Islam. According to Koranic scriptures this is called 'jihad by the pen'. Warman is just a subversive tool in this war against civil liberties and freedom of speech.

I appreciate the many kind words.

I would also take to heart some of the constructive criticism of being too lenient with some statements regarding the "chilling effect" of such suits.

I would take exception the idea that freedom of speech is an American concept. After all, the framers of the US Constitution said the such freedoms were truths that were "self evident". The American Delcration of Indpendence, the Constituion, and Bill of Rihgts are remarkable documents, and in many ways universally applicable because they are "truths", indeed far more than concepts.

Cheers,

JDS

Very, very good post. As a citizen of the United States, I'd like so say "What the hell are you Canadians doing?" I can't, however, because we seem to be following the same path.

Mark Steyn is a personal hero of mine. His writings are eloquent, witty, and right on. If Canada "kicks him out", I hope he moves one country to the south.

A colleague of mine had a sign above his office door. I can't remember who the author was, but the message was so true--to wit: "I don't know the formula for success, but I can tell you the formula for failure: try to please everyone".

It's too bad that some citizens of Canada take offense at Mark Steyn's writings, but the only way he could prevent that would be to cease writing.

Please, oh please, Mr. Steyn, don't do that.

Terribly important essay on this issue in a complimentary way is Austers' comment ...http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010605.html

This piece has special relevance to the US State Depts and DHS recent policy of not using 'jihad, islamophobia., etc. anymore. The US govt. policy is rooted in the same thinking as the Canadian Ontario Commission as discussed by Auster. This is a huge issue , and Austers' comments certainly support this piece by J. Strong.

The liberal root of 'pc' was found to be described very well by Auster in a piece he wrote on the Ontario Human Rights Commissions curret attack on Mark Steyn as an 'islamphobe'. The link is:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010605.html

Here is the piece in its entirety....What the attempt to banish "Islamophobia" really means

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has issued a statement in the matter of the complaint of certain Muslims against Maclean's magazine and Mark Steyn with regard to Maclean's publication of an excerpt from Steyn's supposedly anti-Islamic book America Alone. The Commission declares that it has no jurisdiction under the law to deal with the case, since Ontario law prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods and services, housing, employment, and so on, but not discrimination in the content of magazine articles. (Other jurisdictions in Canada do outlaw such discrimination.) The Commission nevertheless says it needs to state its opinion on the broader issues raised by the complaint. It then launches into a disquisition on racism and "Islamophobia" which inadvertently reveals the heart of the modern liberal order.

The Commission states:

The Commission is concerned that since the September 2001 attacks, Islamophobic attitudes are becoming more prevalent in society and Muslims are increasingly the target of intolerance, including an unwillingness to consider accommodating some of their religious beliefs and practices.

Unfortunately, the Maclean's article, and others like it, are examples of this. By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to 'the West', this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice towards Muslims and others.

The key to the Commission's thinking is in its labeling, as wrongful "Islamophobia," the view that Islam is a threat to the West. The assumption underlying such a judgment, whether about Islamophobia or bigotry generally, is that all people are good (except for people who don't believe that all people are good), and that no people can be a threat (except for those people who believe that some people can be a threat). Since all people (that is, all people who don't hate nothing except hatred) are good, and since no people are enemies (except for the people who believe that there are enemies), any negative statement about a group (except for negative statements about the society's own majority group) is by definition a false, vicious, dehumanizing attack on that group.

The core error of this liberal view is that it never considers the possibility that some people and groups (other than the majority peoples of the West) may indeed be enemies. Specifically, it never entertains the possibility that Islam is in fact a threat to the West. If Islam is a threat to the West, then saying that Islam is a threat to the West is not an act of bigotry but a statement of truth and part of a legitimate effort to protect the West from a real enemy. By condemning truthful negative statements about Islam as bigotry, and even outlawing such statements, modern liberalism forbids the West from defending itself.

In short, liberalism has taken group conflict, a normal and recurrent feature of human history, and turned it into an immoral act, adding the further twist that only the West is capable of exhibiting such immorality against other groups, while other groups are incapable of exhibiting the same immorality against the West.

How does liberalism get away with seeing only Westerners' negative statements about Islam as wrongful, but not Muslims' negative and threatening statements about the West? Very simple. Under liberalism, there is no society "here" to be attacked. Under liberalism, Canada is not a substantive entity--not a nation, not a culture, not a people, not a group. Canada is, instead, a system for the promotion of human rights. Not being a concrete group or culture, Canada cannot be an object of bigotry. But Muslims and other immigrants, who are concrete entities, can be objects of bigotry. Muslims are a group and therefore deserve to be protected from discrimination. Canadians are not a group and therefore do not require protection from discrimination.

In short, Western peoples do not need protection under the modern liberal order, because modern liberalism, in its very premises, has already defined the Western peoples out of existence. This is why it's a waste of time looking for liberals and mainstream conservatives (who accept the premises of liberalism as much as the liberals do) to protect Western society from the intrusions of Islam and of Third-world cultures generally. Under modern liberalism, the Western peoples have already in principle ceased to exist, and all that's left is the mopping up operation.

* * *

The Commission, by the way, makes an interesting Freudian slip. After pointing out that Ontario's anti-discrimination laws do not infringe on publications and books, it mentions the more sweeping anti-discrimination laws in other Canadian jurisdictions, with the obvious intent that Ontario emulate them:

Limits to freedom of expression under some other human rights legislation in Canada are broader, stating that no person shall publish, issue or display before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol or other representation.

Of course the Commission left out a phrase. It meant to say something along the lines that no person shall publish any statement, symbol, etc. "that discriminates against anyone." By leaving out the words, "that discriminates against anyone," the Commission makes it sound as though the law prohibits all statements, publications, and symbols, period. Meaning, the total cessation of public writing and speaking. I call this a Freudian slip because, as argued here, the prohibition of all discourse is the logical end toward which liberalism is really heading.

- end of initial entry -

I agree with this post other than the statement that Osgoode Hall is Canada's "most prestigious law school". A few years ago it was ranked last in the entire country.

"Mark Steyn is a personal hero of mine. His writings are eloquent, witty, and right on. If Canada 'kicks him out', I hope he moves one country to the south."

Mark is way ahead of you there. He lives in New Hampshire and has lived there for some time.

No Muslim immigration, no problem. Time to close borders and workout as much voluntary and humane repatriation as possible.

Excellent article. The HRC cases are exercises in, as others have said, a form of bloodless jihad. Through bodies like the HRCs in Canada (and elsewhere), Orwellian "thoughtcrime" is becoming more and more a real thing, and it is insidious.

Excellent post, Jon. I wish we heard more about this case in the States. Mr. Steyn's recent article re: Obama/Rev. Wright in the National Review caught my attention and I am now an enthusiastic fan of his work. Glad to hear he has made my home his - New Hampshire - the Live Free or Die state.

Having read Mr. Steyns book recently, I believe that the contention of Islamofascism is very real. As a proud, conservative American it is a terrifying reality that all Americans need to put as the pre-eminent issue facing our country. Jobs, fuel costs and economics in general will not matter if our nation is changed by way of radical fundamentalists. Consider this, Black Liberation Theology (having also researched to some degree) has signs of radicalism likening to Islamofascism. Be afraid, be very afraid.

I am an Australian living in Perth, Western Australia and, this is my first time on this website. How refreshingly it is that, as a conservative,I can share my views with likeminded people. It always amazes me that, when you admit to being a conservative, how quickly you are labelled a Fascist! I fully agree with the comments posted by Mr.Strong and, indeed by all the other supporters of his column. I had the pleasure of reading Mark Steyn's book and enjoyed every single page for its truth and humour as well. The same "feel good" problem is creeping up here in Oz especially since the Left-leaning Labor Party one power last year after eleven years of conservative rule. We already have our national television channel the ABC wishing everybody "happy holidays" last Christmas so as not to offend the minority Muslims all over the country. Separate bathing days are now being mooted for Muslim women at one local Shire pool so that no White males will be allowed to swim on the day allocated.

It should be: The possessive of 'it' is 'its'. The word 'its' has no possessive.