I’m proud to have Kate as one of my co-defendants in our fight against “the bravest man” Warren Kinsella “has ever met.” (snort)
Please read Kate’s original post with all its relevant, explanatory hyperlinks and photos…
For, instead of having published The Satanic Verses in Margaret Thatcher’s England, he might have unwisely chosen Trudeaupia: 2008 for the release of his novel, and thus found himself dragged from hiding and delivered to his would-be executioners through the force of a human “rights” tribunal dictate to account for his blasphemy.
Whoops! Did I just commit stereotype?
And by every indication, this sorry waste of skin would have been skipping along at the heels of the pack, cheering the “human rights” process towards its logical conclusion[1].
So, I believe the time has come to challenge to this self-described Liberal “ass kicker”. Mr. Kinsella — how many more hours must pass before you publicly add the name Mike Duffy to your growing list of neo-Nazi sympathizers?
We’ll wait while you search for your balls.
Footnote:
[1] I’m stumped. What child’s toy goes best with “Danny Pearl was not a documentary”?
Please note with shame that an American commentator (and a presumably “stupid, knuckledragging rightwinger” at that) understands the real issue better than “Canadian political expert” and actual lawyer guy Waren Kinsella;
namely that Section 13.1 (with its “likely” clause”) CONTRADICTS the Charter, and THAT’S WHY WE WANT IT AMMENDED OR STRUCK COMPLETELY:
By 1990, the case finally wound up before the Supreme Court of Canada, in Canada (Human rights commission) v. Taylor. At issue were two conflicting pieces of law.First, section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act:
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
And of course the Canadian Charter of Rights (similar to the U.S. Bill of Rights), which one would think is pretty clear:
“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.”
DO
YOU
UNDERSTAND
NOW
For American readers who don’t understand Kate’s Footnote [1] about a “children’s toy”…
I will never forget — though I can forgive because it is a command from God I take seriously — the anti-Christian attacks and smears that daily emanated from the Liberal War Room and from the mouths of various Chretien cabinet ministers. All the vile insinuations and outright accusations that Christians are theocrats with a hidden agenda to take away people’s rights and freedoms, and stupid creationists to boot. I know lots of Christians but none of them are theocrats. None want the church to run the state and hold the levers of power. None want a Christian-style Taliban government. But that’s a politically-correct stance to take these days.
Warren’s Barney stunt may have seemed cool to him and succeeded in perhaps making Stockwell Day a “laughingstock” among the secularists, but I found it hurtful. Every attack on Day’s faith was an attack on mine and every other Christian. Every bit of ridicule and derision, of quotes taken out of context and twisted, of things blown out of proportion, deeply concerned me and many others.
Though most people assume that Christians are in the majority because most Canadians self-identify as Christian, those who take their faith very seriously are in a minority. It was during those days in the War Room that I deeply experienced what it was like to be a vulnerable minority that was under attack by the society at large, by my own government no less. It was deeply painful. And not a little scary, because the very illiberal tendencies that my group was being accused of were being acted out before my eyes through organs of government like human rights tribunals.
I can understand how vulnerable minorities feel when the only news about them is negative, when everyone is tarred with the same brush, when the religious leaders they hold dear are ridiculed or even blasphemed. When the actions of a minority are used to characterize the whole group. But I don’t think that human rights commissions are the appropriate route for addressing these grievances.
