“They and their friends at the Canadian Islamic Congress are seemingly not interested in stimulating debate, but only in shutting it down, by making it more trouble than it’s worth for editors to run articles on one of the central questions of the age: Islam’s relationship with a dying West. In using quasi-judicial coercion to squash debate, they make one of the central points of my argument — that a proportion of Islam is inimical to western traditions of freedom — more eloquently than I ever could.
“It is puzzling to me, even granted the cobwebbed modishness of these misbegotten creations of the Trudeaupian Seventies, why the Canadian and British Columbia ‘Human Rights’ Commissions regard it as within their jurisdiction to regulate the editorial decisions of privately owned magazines. But any Canadian interested in freedom of expression should be deeply concerned by the commissions’ willingness to hear this ‘case.'”
Unfortunately, plenty of Canadians aren’t interested in freedom of expression.
To Leftists, the necessity of HRCs is a given; these bloggers merely debate whether or not Steyn fits their criteria of “thought criminal”. Of course, they conclude that he does (after admitting they don’t really have a firm grasp on the facts of the case) and condemn him based on the completely arbitrary and subjective notion of “racism” (because he dares to criticise radical members of a religion — yes, I know…) You see, their benighted fellow Canadians need to be protected from harsh truths and hurt feelings, especially when these harsh truths are published by magazines run by “multi-million dollar corporations.” (The jealousy these posters feel when confronted by visible evidence of other people’s success is palpable, and typically Canadian…)
To those of us on the other side, what is self-evident (based on tenents of the Enlightenment that liberals used to hold dear) is that the very existence of a quasi-judicial committee supported by tax payers’ dollars, which determines who has and has not committed a “thought crime” (and has found every single accused “guilty” in the last thirty years) is an abomination.
So ask these leftists: what side would Orwell, their great hero, be on? Voltaire? Bertrand Russell?
Now: what about Stalin? The Weathermen? Hughie Newton?
The answer reveals once again how debased and devolved the Left has become, although this debasement can be traced back to the French Revolution. (Note the gleeful use of the phrase “public shaming” in that blog post. Now, I’m a known fan of “shunning” — but I don’t believe it is the State’s job, subsidized by our extorted tax dollars. Quite the opposite. We’d have less need of an all-powerful State if one-on-one shunning made a comeback. Of course, Leftists think it’s the State’s job to do everything, so they don’t have to, personal responsibility being anathema to them…)
Alas, these people are legion, and they are more or less in charge.
