Freedom of speech under threat
Freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments: Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Bear in mind that implementation remains lacking in many countries (not pointing any elbows). I start off with this paragraph because it seems that many people need reminding.
Freedom of speech is under threat in Canada. Two separate panels: the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, are being used in a most perverse manner. These self appointed ‘Human Rights Tribunals’ are hell bent on taking away the human right of freedom of speech. Canadians, I implore you, do not let them - every inch you give them, is another inch of noose with which they will eventually hang us all. Freedom of expression is not negotiable.
Mark Steyn, a celebrated author and winner of the 2006 Eric Breindel Journalism Award (co-sponsored by The Post and its parent, News Corp) has been summoned to appear before the above two judicial panels on charges linked to his book ‘America Alone’. According to the New York Post: “The book, a No. 1 bestseller in Canada, argues that Western nations are succumbing to an Islamist imperialist threat. The fact that charges based on it are proceeding apace proves his point.” A good starting point is the NYPost article about it which can be read here.
Steyn writes for dozens of publications on several continents. On the subject of this terrifying threat to freedom of speech he writes:
In a free society, justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. And when you see what’s being done at the CHRC it’s hard not to conclude that the genius of the English legal system — the balance between prosecutor, judge, and jury — has been all but destroyed. The American website Pundita has a sharp analysis of Section XIII, comparing it to Philip K. Dick’s sci-fi novel The Minority Report, set in a world in which citizens can be sentenced for “pre-crime” — for criminal acts which have not occurred but are “likely” to. Who needs futuristic novels when we’re living it here and now in one of the oldest constitutional democracies on the planet? What kind of countries have tribunals with 100 per cent conviction rates that replace the presumption of innocence with the presumption of guilt and in which truth is not only no defence but compelling evidence of that guilt? Consider this statement, part of the criteria by which the star chamber determines when a Section XIII crime has occurred. What does it look for as evidence?
“Messages that make use of allegedly true stories, news reports, pictures and references to apparently reputable sources in an attempt to lend an air of objectivity and truthfulness to the extremely negative characterization of the targeted group have been found to be likely to expose members of the targeted group to hatred and contempt.”
Read that again slowly. Citing news reports, reputable sources, facts, statistics, documentation, quotations, references, scholarly studies, etc., has been “found” to be clear evidence of your “likely” “pre-crime.”
MARK STEYN — Macleans
Ezta Levant is another victim of the above HRT & HRC. Last week he appeared (stating that he appeared in protest) before what he called a “kangaroo court”, and video taped his meeting with the AHRC bureaucrat questioning him. The statement he makes in the above video sums up this issue entirely.
For more information see:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1024759.html
