Canadian HRC Sees No Evil When It Comes To Islam
by Jerry Gordon, The Iconoclast
The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) is unstinting in its stifling of criticism of Islam.
Marc LeBuis in his blog, Point de Bascule has the story on this latest example of how Canada throttles free speech. The story of the refusal of the CHRC to investigate his complaint has been picked up in today’s edition of Le Devoir in Montreal and on Ezra Levant’s blog, as well. It has become the buzz on the internet.
Marc Lebuis is to be commended for his ‘patience’ awaiting receipt of a reply from the mind numbing CHRC before going public about their refusal to investigate his complaint against a radical Salafist Montreal Imam. This is another demonstration that ‘free speech’ has no protection in Canada, as both Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant know that full stop given their own ’star chamber’ grilling by the CHRC and provincial variants. Underneath this refusal to investigate LeBuis complaint is the threat that any criticism of Islam is tantamount to ‘blasphemy’ a furtherance of the objectives of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Note this comment from Ezra Levant in his post, entitled CHRC: it’s OK to say gays should be “beheaded”, Jews “spread corruption”, Hindus must “be killed.”
Write to Lawrence Cannon, the new Foreign Minister and one of Stephen Harper’s key MPs in Quebec, about this latest inflammatory decision by the CHRC. It’s egregious to all Canadians ; but I believe it’s especially insulting to Quebec, and their culture of equality for women and tolerance for gays
.(Continue Reading This Article)
CHRC should stand for Canadian Hate Rights Commision.
Comment by Ed D — December 17, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
Ed D: This might be beyond your comprehension but the Canadian Human Rights Commission is mandated to protect all religions from discrimination and hatred. Hatred directed against the Moslem religion is equivalent to counselling hatred of Jews.
But as a self- hating Right Wing Jew you could not possibly understand what these words mean.
Comment by a herzberg — December 17, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
For moral equivalence fools like Herzberg and for the rest of us to strengthen our sanity:
Hugh Fitzgerald: Islam, Colin Powell, Wafa Sultan
Comment by Shy Guy — December 18, 2008 @ 2:53 am
hertzberg,
They say a fool and his money are soon parted but a fool and his foolish beliefs are eternal.
Comment by yamit82 — December 18, 2008 @ 4:20 am
Hertzberg, if he lived in Israel, would have voted for Meritz. That says enough about him.
Comment by Ed D — December 18, 2008 @ 11:40 am
Hertzberg#2 -You’ve missed the point and mistated the general idea behind Canada’s various Human Rights Commissions.
The mandate of various Canadian Human Rights Commissions, both federal and provincial is in part to protect all citizens and ethnically identifiable groups of citizens from racial, religious, ethnic or culturally based hatred and discrimination and to do so in part by giving them a forum where they can fight back against those that have allegedly discriminated against them. The mandate also is to promote multicultural values and respect and regard for all ethnic peoples and their respective cultures and beliefs.
The serious and important issues that have swirled around and which have been caused by Human Rights Commissions in the way they operate, have been brought to the fore by Ezra Levant and MacLeans Magazine.
Some of the issues in this regard generally are:
1. If Sec. 13 of the Human Rights Act and the mandates of Human Rights Commissions are a necessary adjunct in part or in whole to the hate crime legislation of the Canadian Criminal Code administered by the police and departments of Justice across Canada, then has the worth of the Human Rights Commissions in theory been completely perverted and subverted by those who administer these Human Rights Commissions?
For many the answer to this question is yes and further that these HRC administrators have so poisoned the whole idea of HRC’s that they should be done away with altogether.
2. If there is any purpose to be served by Human Rights Commissions, should it be the original purpose and raison d’etre that it was to provide tenants and employees who were victims of discrimination by property owners and employers to have a forum to complain and seek redress?
3. If the fundamental reasons behind the HRC’s are sound, there is a fundamental flaw in HRC’s in that the HRC’s act as both advocate for the complainant at no cost to the complainant and as judge and jury while an accused is obliged to bear the cost of defending themselves, which cost is punishing which thus forces people falsely accused capitulating and apologizing to spare themselves the risk of being found guilty and fined substantially by an HRC that has not lost even one prosecution it has undertaken.
4. Should our freedom of speech be without restriction and limitation? Should HRC’s be done away with? Should the hate crime provisions of the Canadian Criminal Code also be done away with? The theory here is that the best defence against racists who disseminate hatred and incite harm against a person or identifiable group within Canada, is the freedom of speech of those victimized and those who care about those who have been victimized by hate speech to speak out against these racists and in exercising that right, to out argue, out debate and so humiliate the racists that they will be ostracized within our nation and live their lives in pained humiliation and embarrassment.
I trust that the foregoing comments are informative to all who have commented on this topic.
Comment by Bill Narvey — December 18, 2008 @ 12:36 pm