Mark Steyn, my friend, colleague and arguably the most talented political
writer working today, is on trial for thought crimes.
Steyn -- a one-man media empire based in New Hampshire -- was published a
few years ago in Maclean's. Now the magazine and its editors are in the dock
before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal on the charge that they
violated a provincial hate-speech law by running the work of a hate-monger,
namely Mark Steyn. A similar prosecution is pending before the national
version of this kangaroo court, the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Not that the facts are relevant to the charges, but here's what happened.
Maclean's ran an excerpt from Steyn's bestseller, "America Alone."
The Canadian Islamic Congress took offense. It charged in its complaint that
the magazine was "flagrantly Islamophobic" and "subjects Canadian Muslims to
hatred and contempt." It was particularly scandalized by Steyn's argument
that rising birthrates among Muslims in Europe will force non-Muslims there
to come to "an accommodation with their radicalized Islamic compatriots."
Note: Steyn's article was published in 2006, before Rowan Williams, the
archbishop of Canterbury, supported that point earlier this year when he
said that it is "unavoidable" that Britain will ultimately have to
incorporate some elements of sharia into its law in the spirit of
"constructive accommodation."
You might think that if Steyn had been able to quote Williams or someone
else who'd expressed that view, he and Maclean's wouldn't be in trouble.
You'd be wrong. One of the council's chief gripes with the article is that
Steyn quoted an imam living in Norway who said that "the number of Muslims
is expanding like mosquitoes." An accurate quotation is no defense when
giving offense.
Indeed, it seems there is no escaping the charge of promoting "hate" in
Canada at all. In 31 years, the national Human Rights Commission has never
dismissed a case as unfounded.
The council first demanded that Maclean's give it equal and unedited space
in the magazine to respond to Steyn's "Islamophobic" tract. The editors
refused. So the council took the magazine to "court," but not a real court.
These tribunals have all the rigor of a student government star chamber.
There are no rules of evidence and, again, truth is not a defense.
Why bother with evidence at all? Hate speech is essentially defined as
anything certain "victimized" people find offensive. So, if a group is
sufficiently offended to complain to a human rights commission, the burden
of proof has already been met.
And what about free speech? Dean Steacy, an investigator for Canada's
national commission, explained it nicely: "Freedom of speech is an American
concept, so I don't give it any value." He gets points for honesty.
Continued... |