Warren Kinsella’s new ally in the never ending struggle against hatery!
(Related… Catholic Insight might enjoy more support from certain quarters if they had the presence of mind to run the occasional teen sex pictorial essay. Educational ones, of course.)

The Alberta Human Rights Commission took only 900 days to grant their approval of a magazine publisher’s choice of news content;

“Look at his rationale for acquitting me: because the Western Standard met Gundara’s home-made tests of reasonableness. We published the cartoons in “context”; we published letters that “criticized” them; and my favourite, the cartoons weren’t “simply stuck in the middle” of the magazine. Gundara must have thought for ten whole minutes to come up with that list of journalistic do’s and don’t’s. And – phew! – he likes me. He really likes me!
Sorry again, I don’t give a damn if he likes me. In fact, it rather creeps me out that a whole squad of teat-sucking bureaucrats spent 900 days inspecting me and the Western Standard. I positively want to offend them. In fact, that’s pretty much the only test of my freedom: can I do exactly what Gundara says I shouldn’t? I’m not interested in publishing recipes or sports scores. I’m interested in bothering the hell out of government.”

(Editor’s Note: The above image is reproduced here for the sole purpose of offending. No editorial value or news worthiness is intended. No letters of criticism will be published. Thank you.)
Continue reading…

Ezra Levant has filed his statement of defence.

There’s something altogether too “informative” about this Margaret Wente column;

Fortunately [the creator of the Obama cartoon cover for the New Yorker] works in the United States, where the worst they can do is denounce you. Here in Canada, they can take you to a human rights commission. That’s what happened in April when Halifax’s Chronicle-Herald ran a political cartoon by Bruce MacKinnon. It shows a burka-clad figure identified as Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal, a woman who demanded a large amount of compensation after her husband was arrested in an anti-terrorism raid and later released. She holds a sign that says, “I want millions,” and her speech bubble says, ” I can put it towards my husband’s next training camp.” Outraged, a local Muslim group complained to the human rights commission, and, for good measure, called the police. […]
But it’s Europe where cartooning and Islam really don’t mix. In the Netherlands, eight police officers showed up recently to arrest an obscure cartoonist for sketching offensive drawings of Muslims that appeared mainly on his own website. He spent two nights in jail, and Dutch authorities are deciding whether to charge him with inciting racist hatred.

Wente shouldn’t have to expend column inches to fill in the background on these cases – they should have been reported on the front pages of every paper in the country and led every national newscast at the time they happened.
That’s what a responsible press would have done in the face of a force that threatens a fundamental right – but these aren’t responsible times in the media industry.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 57 Muslim nations, has declared that Islamophobia is a menace and that any such defamation of religion should be criminalized and prosecuted vigorously. The OIC, which has growing clout at the United Nations, wants the UN to enact international “anti-defamation” rules that would forbid blasphemy. Islamic members of the UN’s Human Rights Council have succeeded in changing the mandate of the UN’s special rapporteur on freedom of expression. In addition to investigating cases of censorship and violations of free speech, this person will now “report on instances where the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.”

One can only hope that the when the times comes that the crocodile comes for them, the bite is neither swift, nor painless.

Syed Soharwardy, (who originally filed, then dropped, a complaint against Ezra Levant over the republication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons) has issued statement on recent decisions by Canada’s human rights tribunals;

When I initiated my complaint against Mr. Levant, I saw human rights commissions as a non-violent means of resolving differences among Canadians. I was not aware of the controversies between the commissions and Canada’s faith communities. I am thinking specifically of my friend Fred Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary. Upon learning about the difficulties he and other faith communities have encountered with the commissions, I withdrew my complaint against Mr. Levant.
One of the reasons I chose Canada as my adopted homeland is because of our country’s great respect for religious freedom. In Canada, I am free to be good Canadian and a good Muslim. There is no contradiction between the two.
In listening to the experiences of Bishop Henry and Pastor Boissoin, I realized how precious religious freedom is to our country and how easily freedom is lost.
Yes, I have often expressed concerns over Islamophobia. Some of the portrayals of Muslims in the media have been painful – so much so, that I worried when I set out across Canada on the multifaith walk against violence.
However, the reaction from ordinary Canadians could not have been more hospitable. Canadians of all races, colours, religions, and ages have welcomed me, a Muslim man with brown skin, into their homes, their neighbourhoods and their communities. They have walked with me, eaten with me and prayed with me. They have expressed strong concern for preserving our civil liberties – which includes freedom of speech and religion. They have also expressed a strong desire to end violence in Canada and around the world.
This experience has taught me that we can only end violence when we respect the freedom all Canadians.
There will always be pockets of Islamophobia in Canada, just like there are still pockets of anti-Semitism, racism and sexism. However, I have learned that the best way to dispel misconceptions between our various cultures and communities is for us to meet face to face and learn from each other similarities and difference.
This can only be accomplished in a society that respects freedom of expression, freedom of religion and all of our other democratic freedoms.

And good for him.

Not hate speech;

Abul Kasem: Islam decrees that they be slaughtered Islamically, just in the manner as animals are killed, that is, by beheading. In Sunaan ibn Majah (hadis number 4.3126) we read that the blood of animals is very dear to Allah, and therefore, one must slaughter animals to please Allah (hadis number 4.3167). Since non-Muslims are animals it is evident that Allah has a great penchant for the blood of infidels.

Related not hate speech: “Is a T-shirt claiming that “9/11 was an inside job” any less offensive than a 7-year-old girl with a swastika drawn on her arm? … How about kids wearing the ubiquitous T-shirts of the murderer Che Guevara? Or even listening to the fading shock star, Marilyn Manson….?”
Probable hate speech!

COMICS FOR FREEDOM RALLY to be held at The Comedy Bar (945B Bloor West) on Saturday, July 19 in Toronto. Canadian Comic, Guy Earle, is holding a benefit show, celebrating 40 years of stand-up comedy, to raise money for his impending Human Rights Tribunal. Guy is being taken before the Human Rights Tribunal based on his comebacks to a heckler during a Vancouver comedy night back in May 2007.
The show is UNIQUE in its format. 40 comics will hit the stage for one minute of raw, uncensored social commentary. Stand-up is the embodiment of FREE SPEECH and this show personifies our right to speak while we still can. The show, on July 19th, starts at 9pm and tickets will be available before the show and at the door for 20$. Comics are invited to register for the show at guyearle.ca. Supporters for the cause are invited to come to the show or donate at the same homepage. Come one, Come all, but REMEMBER there WILL BE offensive language!

CHRC dismisses complaint against Catholic Insight…

Friendly tips from the Alberta Human Rights Commission help desk;

Ask the church to get a signed consent form from everyone, parents and children, everyone, stating that they are not forced to attend and are there of their own free will. Later he added that this consent should be drawn up by a lawyer who is familiar with the Human Rights Laws.

Also…

The church needs to contact the police to make sure they do not view the program as bordering on criminal activity—need to show them the curriculum so they know what is going on and do not arrive on the scene.

Today’s decision by the Supreme Court of Canada about defamation law has shifted the balance from plaintiffs to defendants — in other words, towards greater free speech. The court calls it a modernization, which it is — phenomena like talk radio shows, partisan TV panels and the Internet were not around when defamation law was developing (it actually goes back 400 years). It also brings us more in synch with the U.S. approach to free speech, and breaks away from the European model of soft censorship.

RTWT.

Press release;

Maclean’s magazine is pleased that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed the complaint brought against it by the Canadian Islamic Congress. The decision is in keeping with our long-standing position that the article in question, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s best-selling book America Alone, was a worthy piece of commentary on important geopolitical issues, entirely within the bounds of normal journalistic practice.
Though gratified by the decision, Maclean’s continues to assert that no human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial decisions of the nation’s media. And we continue to have grave concerns about a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to say nothing of the inconvenience. We enthusiastically support those parliamentarians who are calling for legislative review of the commissions with regard to speech issues.

More – “I was at the Prime Minister’s garden party this evening…”

Edward Michael George;

Each of the authors rejects the authority of government to censor speech. Each condemns the Human Rights Commissions as illegitimate–as, essentially, kangaroo courts … But each, also, accepts that the accused in the given cases (i.e. Mark Steyn and Stephen Boissoin) have said something “hateful”.
Now, don’t get me wrong: this would be just fine … except that none of these columnists–as per journalistic convention–spends so much as a sentence demonstrating what, exactly, makes the opinions in question hateful! They are united in their easy posturing to the effect that assholes should be allowed to spout nonsense, but they do not so much as dare to doubt that Steyn and Boissoin are assholes and that theirs is nonsense.
What should concern us is not the political toadying at work here, but the trend of journalistic incompetence.

I prefer “malpractice”. Journalists are among the chosen few who hold the power to damage, even destroy the lives of innocent people. They should be held accountable for professional laziness, cowardice and agenda-driven reporting.
Oh, wait….

“It’s time for a new batch of letters – this time asking the MPs how much they would appreciate having their communications monitored by an HRC bureaucrat with an unknown and undisclosed political bias. How comfortable would they feel, knowing that it’s not just the potentially hateful comments of their constituents they need to worry about, but the potential that their responses will be monitored – and potentially – available to their opposing members.”