Typically one does not associate the word inquisition with our neighbors up north in Canada, and yet that is pretty much what is going on there to conservative author and columnist Mark Steyn. Minus the violence, Steyn is being subjected to a twisted court system that always finds defendants guilty and conducts itself in an utterly capricious way.
Steyn's crime? Daring to criticize radical Islam, an offense that many in this country would would no doubt love to criminalize. For his temerity, Steyn and the Canadian magazine Maclean's (which printed Steyn's essay, an excerpt from his book) are being put on trial by the "human rights commission" of British Columbia, one of several such bodies both Steyn and Maclean's have been forced to deal with by the Canadian Islamic Congress. Incredibly, the group claims that its human rights were violated because Maclean's did not allow one of its members a chance to respond in the publication.
What to do about this outrage? The editors at National Review have a few suggestions:
Supporters of free speech can do a few simple things. First, the Canadian and U.S. media need to start speaking out soon, and loudly. Aside from the fact that condemning these kinds of tribunals is the right thing to do, such proceedings also threaten the press’s very livelihood. So far, the public in Canada and elsewhere remain woefully uninformed about what’s going on.
Second, American and international political figures also need to speak out. A surefire way to get these tribunals onto the front page in Canada would be if they were roundly condemned by leaders from around the world. Speaking out in favor of free expression here is also important because, after the Danish cartoon incident, Muslims countries have been pressuring the U.N. to weaken its support of free expression as it relates to perceived offenses to Islam.
Third, support is needed for the inchoate political attempts to shut down these ridiculous inquests. Liberal Canadian MP Keith Martin has introduced what is known under parliamentary rules as a “private members bill” to do away with the section of the Canadian Human Rights Act upon which these tribunals rely for their authority to regulate media. And as a matter of principle, the conservative government currently in power in Canada should oppose these tribunals. The liberal Martin is the perfect spokesmen for the ruling party to get behind in a cross-ideological push to remove this threat to a fundamental Western freedom.
Full editorial here. Hat tip: motherbelt
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Free Press
June 10, 2008 - 11:05 ET by allanfI think it is abundantly clear that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and the New York Times think "freedom of the press" applies only to their organizations. That's why they so recklessly encourage Patrick Fitzgerald and the Government to investigate a news leak.
Dems
June 10, 2008 - 11:28 ET by iveseenitallIf the Dems could do this here, you bet they would. Americns also have lost their freedom of speech through political correctness. If Barry Sotero gets elected, it will only get worse. He would never speak out against something like this. Unfortunately, McCain probably wouldn't either. But with a Dem president and a Dem Congress, we'll have taken a huge step towards Communism and the end of America as we've known it. Remember the rumors about a Canada/ U.S. / Mexico Alliance? Just what Soros and his ilk want. All freedom-loving Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans are in danger.
Who is Barry Sotero?
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
In fact, they are tyring . . .
June 10, 2008 - 12:03 ET by GalvanicThe Dems, prompted by Leftist groups like MoveOn.org, Media Matters, Air America, are attempting to reactivate the so-called Fairness Doctrine -- an archaic policy from years ago when some communties were served by only one or two media outfits (often owned by the same company), running the risk of dominating the public arena with only one perspective on issues.
The doctrine is archaic because no such situations exist anymore. In addition to print and broadcast media, people get their information from cable TV and the Internet.
But the Left is targeting the radio talk shows -- a medium the conservatives have dominated since the reagan years. Since conservative talk shows generally have much larger audiences than their liberal competition, the Left wants to force the conservative shows to air liberal counter-arguments to everything that gets said on those programs.
With a Democratic Congress eager to act, we can be certain that it would be one of the first action in an Obama Administration.
Galvanic, the Fairness
June 10, 2008 - 12:10 ET by motherbeltGalvanic, the Fairness Doctrine would not force programs like Limbaugh and Hannity to air opposing viewpoints. It would force the stations that carry those programs to balance them with equal hours of liberal programming.
When radio stations keep losing money because they can't sell any advertising time on the liberal shows, they will scrap the conservative show and play country music or auto-repair and gardening shows instead.
This is correct..
June 10, 2008 - 12:48 ET by ontheright...it is about the viability of airing the competing viewpoints. It may not cripple Rush, Hannity or any of the other "big boys", but it surely would destroy the smaller players.
One Small Correction, MB
June 10, 2008 - 17:12 ET by geoff.galeSorry to tell you, but the FD has never required a minute-for-minute time for rebuttal or for "opposing points of view."
In it's most recent incarnation, during the late 1970's and early 1980's, the worst that the FD caused was those dreadfully bad 2-3 minute rebuttal pieces on local and national news shows, along with the weekly rebuttal to the President's weekly radio address and the rebuttal to the State of the Union speech. That's been the sum total of the damage the FD has done. For students of the broadcast arts, the worst part of the FD has been the selection of some of the worst spokespeople in the world to do those "opposing points of view" spots.
You should also know that no FCC FD decision has ever been directed at talk radio. In fact, the genre of conservative talk radio was born, prospered and grew to maturity under an FCC that still had the FD in place.
While the FCC can cause stations to air programming that is unlikely to sell any advertising (Sunday evening radio 'public interest' programming and public service announcements are good examples), they don't dictate a set amount of either public interest programming or public service announcements on any licensee. There is nothing in the Communications Act of 1934 that gives the commission the power to legislate content on any licensee except at times of true civil emergency. They can ban certain content, but they can't force content or station format on an unwilling licensee.
I got my first commercial FCC ticket in 1961 (I was but a mere adolescent at the time) and have been an avid reader of their bulletins and decisions ever since, and I'm not particularly concerned with the FD. The reason Rush, Hannity, Savage, Levin, Boortz, et al stir the pot with the FD issue has more to do with their own ratings than it does with any reasonable fear. By the way, the roots of the FD go way back to policies enacted under the FRC (Federal Radio Commission) back in the mid-1920's. It's old news.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
the spirit of fairness
June 11, 2008 - 13:53 ET by TruthMongerif it means Conservatives then get equal frackin time in Hollywood, on prime-time TV, on popular music radio, cable, the theatre business, public schools and universties - I'm all for it:)...
Bill O'Reilly
June 10, 2008 - 12:11 ET by DEVILDOCMOMhad a segment on his TV show last night which really scared me. It was a conference in Minnesota on "media reform". These people are ready lead an inquisition against us at this moment. bho CANNOT be elected, they will destroy our country.
Liberalism = Socialism =
June 10, 2008 - 11:21 ET by mattmLiberalism = Socialism = Tyranny.
IF
June 10, 2008 - 11:27 ET by cvgbuckeyeIf Barack Hussein Obama is elected, along with the current Marxists in congress, this is the same type of prosecutions that you will see for the following crimes in this country:
1. Criticizing any liberals in elected office.
2. A news organization voicing anything of a Conservative nature.
3. Anyone suspected of having any kind of a racial THOUGHT or suspected of having any prejudicial THOUGHT of any kind against anyone except a white Evangelical Christian.
4. Being an Evangelical Christian.
5. Being a Conservative.
6. Saying anything against the left wing media.
7. Publishing any unflattering picture of George Soros, Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, The Insurance Cave Men or Sean Penn. (How in the name of The Lord would a picture of them be published otherwise).
8. Having half a brain.
9. Being an attractive woman.
10. Having an IQ over 65.
cvg
June 10, 2008 - 11:31 ET by iveseenitallSome might think you are exaggerating. I don't. Only time will tell.
Who is Barry Sotero?
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
you forgot
June 10, 2008 - 14:33 ET by UndercoverConservativenot worshipping Che Gueverra and Hugo Chavez
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
It Just Keeps Getting Worse
June 10, 2008 - 11:30 ET by dboSteyn is not the only Canadian being burned at the stake by these silly tribunals. The thought police got this Pastor too.
http://www.lifesiten...
Isn't that amazing?
June 10, 2008 - 12:12 ET by motherbeltIsn't that amazing? Someone else was forced to take down a billboard with a Scripture verse on it, and it's illegal to quote Scripture that condemns homosexuality.
Quoting the Bible as hate speech! This is really Bizzaro World!
Motherbelt, I wrote my
June 10, 2008 - 12:14 ET by celatorMotherbelt, I wrote my little comment below before I read yours. Sorry! ;+}
No need to
June 10, 2008 - 18:12 ET by motherbeltNo need to apologize.....GMTA! ;-)
muslim outrage Part 5,445,231
June 10, 2008 - 11:44 ET by SickofLibs"First, the Canadian and U.S. media need to start speaking out soon, and loudly."
Fat chance. The US media is presently occupied electing Obama. Canadians: Best of luck. You can choose to die by the pen and not the sword... for now.
muslim crybabies: a prerequisite to claiming 'human rights' violations is acting like civilized humans.
Exactly...how much human
June 10, 2008 - 11:47 ET by taterExactly...how much human rights do their wacko extremists give before they kill those who oppose their views.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
Islam is a cult
June 10, 2008 - 11:57 ET by American TaxpayerIslam is not a religion, it is in fact a cult that operates utilizing terrorism as a means to futher the cause of spreding Islam to every corner of the earth by the point of a sword if need be, these are the words of Mohamhead . If anyone should dare point out the truth they are an infidel, worse yet make a cartoon and see what happens. Christianity is always fair game but say one word about Islam and watch all hell break loose
Prepare for stoning
June 10, 2008 - 15:00 ET by SickofLibsNow you've done it - please turn yourself at the nearest CAIR office, infidel.
The Canadian government is
June 10, 2008 - 12:12 ET by celatorThe Canadian government is very far along on the path toward socialism. It began, in part, with the so-called "Quiet Revolution", and manifests itself now with an extraordinary attack on free speech. For example, pastors who teach that active homosexuality is prohibited by Scripture, are subject to fines and imprisonment. There are many other examples.
Steyn is a true hero (and there are others in Canada). With this Stalinist inquisition now in full force against him, he is exposing what could be the future for the US unless we wake up. We owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude.
»→ Canada's French Connection
June 10, 2008 - 12:53 ET by Cool ArrowLooks like they're following the lead of France who convicted Brigitte Bardot last month of hate speech.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Thank you Steyn & others
June 10, 2008 - 13:36 ET by MaximusBraveheartwho stand up for the truth & free speech. God help us! I hope peoples eyes are open when they elect the next President of the USA. The media are using their brain-washing powers to elect Obama Nation vs. presenting any critical review of what he stands for. Critical is the key word. YOU should be critical of someone who wants to socialize the country and take your freedom and economic freedom away. Do these reporters know what the Constitution even is?
Mark should apply for asylum in the US
June 10, 2008 - 13:28 ET by ur-conHe wouldn't be prosecuted (at least not yet), only persecuted.
In one of the NRO articles on this....
June 10, 2008 - 13:50 ET by Prester John....a member of this august "tribune" is quoted as disparaging "free speech" as being an "American idea".
Scary stuff.
If, God forbid, muslim
June 10, 2008 - 15:42 ET by celatorIf, God forbid, muslim terrorists should destroy a Canadian monument or cause some other calamity in Canada, I fully expect the Canadian elite press to apologise to the radicals for having built the monument in the first place.
I used to go to Canada often. I will not visit there again until they come to their senses. I do know there is an enormous degree of resentment on the part of many Canadian citizens on the tyranical turn their government has taken. But I think it may be too late for them.
Matthew and Maximus , From
June 10, 2008 - 14:34 ET by WR JonasMatthew and Maximus , From my point of view we are decades past the niceities normally observed in polite discourse. There is no objective press. It is open and full time propaganda , lies , mockery, partisanship and negativity.
In fact it is difficult to believe there is anyone who thinks the press is substantially objective . If anyone has ever watched an Obama (or any Democrat liberal) interview versus a Bush interview . The difference is so glaring you feel as though you are in another dimension.
We need to understand this is war and the loser gets extermin8ated. Those who think that electing McCain is a blocking move and we can recapture the reins in four years are sipping kool aid.
The left will leave no one unpunished. Talk radio will be gone . Hate speech codes and thought crimes will become common. If anyone thinks I am being alarmist they need to review global events as indicators of what will be happening here next. Europe and Canada already have such measures and liberals are drooling at the prospect of incorporating similar measures here.
Sorry to frighten you folks but the pendulum swings only to the left.
mb and Matthew... thanks
June 10, 2008 - 16:11 ET by bigtimermb and Matthew...
thanks so much for this update...as Mark Steyn is one of my favorite people in the world...Lord I hope he wins.
I hope they do take up the third scenario with the Liberal Keith Martin's proposal...
When oh when are we going to quit coddling the Muslims, CAIR wins here in our own county all the time...
People need to wake up before it is too late...once again it is right before our faces and we keep bending to the enemy who hide in sheeps clothing using laws in all countries against our own safety...or creating new ones.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Matthew, here is the latest
June 10, 2008 - 16:32 ET by RMRMatthew, here is the latest from the "offended ones":
From The National Post: TORONTO -- Muslims must "demand that right to participate" in national media, Khurrum Awan, the primary witness in the Maclean's magazine hate speech hearing, told a weekend conference of the Canadian Arab Federation.
"And we have to tell them, you know what, if you're not going to allow us to do that, there will be consequences. You will be taken to the human rights commission, you will be taken to the press council, and you know what? If you manage to get rid of the human rights code provisions [on hate speech], we will then take you to the civil courts system. And you know what? Some judge out there might just think that perhaps it's time to have a tort of group defamation, and you might be liable for a few million dollars," he said.
- Mr. Awan described his increasingly high-profile struggle "against particular elements in media that are misusing and abusing their responsibility" in writing about Islam.
- He said that the argument for limitless free speech "is really a far-right Republican argument that is being imported into this country."
RMR: Directly from the mouth of the head "sock puppet".
Canadian Human Rights Commissions
June 10, 2008 - 17:32 ET by geoff.galeYou should read the following article:
http://www.lifesiten...
It's about the most recent effort to dismantle the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. If this effort succeeds, there will be no legislative authority for the Commissions to exist. Note that the effort is being led by a Liberal Democrat (OK, I know that the Canadian terms aren't exact matches for ours, but they're close enough). The recent blundering of Federal, Provincial and local Human Rights Commissions has been causing enough of a stir in Canada (not enough for my tastes, but some considerable stir nonetheless) that even the Lib Dems have seen the light.
One of the key aspects of the Steyn/MacLean's case is that several of the offensive passages cited by the complainants were quotes from Islamic sources, not original content from Steyn. The Canadian press/media are just now figuring out that that this means that they can be held responsible and accountable for reporting the words of others. That's not a risk that even the most liberal of them is willing to take.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
Ah-ha g.g... this explains
June 10, 2008 - 17:44 ET by bigtimerAh-ha g.g... this explains it all perfectly!
Thank you... thank you.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
And best of all
June 10, 2008 - 17:47 ET by sarcasmoThe article uses the term "liberal" correctly, which around here is a pleasant change.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Steyn with a "y",
June 11, 2008 - 03:06 ET by tbeemerNot with an "i". Got it right in the body, just not the headline. :-)
No one said he was an
June 11, 2008 - 05:26 ET by Jack BauerNo one said he was an Einstein.
Are you sure...
June 11, 2008 - 13:09 ET by geoff.gale...that it's not Eynsteyn? :)
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...