Canada on Free Speech Death Spiral
The list of topics banned from criticism is increasing in Canada. First it was Islam, and then it was homosexuality. Now, it is making activist professors at public universities immune from criticism. By order of the Canadian government:
That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall
cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public
speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays
and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making
disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund's
witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all
disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from
current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned
Christian Coalition Inc.
That fact that I vociferously disagree with Mr. Boissoin (I am in fact thrilled, for example, that gays will be able to marry soon in California), I whole-heartedly support his right to publicly voice his opinions, even if it makes some people feel bad. Dr. Lund, as I understand it, as a professor at a state university, is a government employee, and a vociferous one at that. All limitations on speech are bad, but this decision has crossed that critical line of protecting government employees from criticism, what we would think as the absolute solid heart of the First Amendment (while simultaneously restricting religious beliefs, just for extra credit).
ettubloge:
The Mark Steyn case is the biggest case in Canada on free speech and its clash with human rights commissions in leftist countries. Since when can anything spoken or written be subject to legal sanctions in a country "governed" under a Constitution? Here is what Canadian journalist David warren wrote:
"For more than twenty years, in this column and elsewhere, I have been writing against the human rights commissions, which have quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country. They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgments on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover, "the process is the punishment" in these star chambers — for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing.
My hope is that this case against Mark Steyn and Maclean's will be fruitful. It will be, if it inspires enough people — especially journalists, of all political persuasions — to express outrage at what has been done; and inspires Canada's free citizens into the necessary political action to put an end to the human rights commissions themselves. The worst possible result is if the case fails to produce this response."
June 11, 2008, 5:16 amGeorge Hanshaw:
Freedom in Canada and most of the EU is in serious trouble, because ultimately no one has the tools that are necessary to protect their freedoms from politicians who would rather sacrifice all individual rights on the altar of political correctness and "consensus."
What the citizens of these countries need if they have any hope of maintaining their rights is something their politicians are scared to death to give them.
The right to keep and bear arms.
June 11, 2008, 11:25 pmtehag:
"I am in fact thrilled, for example, that gays will be able to marry soon in California."
I doubt you'll cheer when it leads to the same repressions of speech and religion in CA as in Canada. No sense fighting the inevitable, though.
June 12, 2008, 9:16 amJason:
"I am in fact thrilled, for example, that gays will be able to marry soon in California"
I know this is a little off topic but I was just wondering.
Why would a libertarian such as yourself support more government regulation and intervention in the private affairs of the citizens of a state ?
I find that puzzling in the extreme.
June 12, 2008, 2:48 pmMesa Econoguy:
Sorry, Coyote, you kinda missed this one.
You were just on the campus of the college who pioneered destruction of free speech in the name of left-wing academic "tolerance."
I am in fact thrilled, for example, that gays will be able to marry soon in California
This is at best a circumvention of insurance benefit designation for “traditional†marriage partners, and at worst a Trojan horse for expanded marital arrangements/benefits/privileges.
Not sure where that will lead us.
June 12, 2008, 3:50 pmRob:
Hmmmmmm... a little bit of a conundrum. On one hand you have speech against gays banned and then you protect criticism against Islam. What happens when Islam criticizes homosexuality as punishable by death?
June 16, 2008, 8:04 amRob:
Hmmmmmm... a little bit of a conundrum. On one hand you have speech against gays banned and then you protect criticism against Islam. What happens when Islam criticizes homosexuality as punishable by death?
June 16, 2008, 8:04 amRob:
Hmmmmmm... a little bit of a conundrum. On one hand you have speech against gays banned and then you protect criticism against Islam. What happens when Islam criticizes homosexuality as punishable by death?
June 16, 2008, 8:04 am