Here's what offends this writer
Why should free-born Canadians require the permission of the state to read my columns?
Do you remember a cover story
Since the CIC launched its complaint, I've been asked by various correspondents what my defence is.
But, given that the most fundamental "human right" in modern
Let's take it as read that I am, as claimed, "offensive." That's the point. It's offensive speech that requires legal protection. As a general rule, Barney the Dinosaur singing "Sharing is Caring" can rub along just fine. Take, for example, two prominent figures from
By contrast, here's another Scandinavian head of state. Two years ago, Queen
Can you still print the Queen of Denmark's remarks in a Canadian publication? To be honest, I'm not sure. If you examine Dr.
"The number of
That claim certainly appears in my piece. But they're the words not of a notorious right-wing Islamophobic columnist but of a big**shot Scandinavian
" 'We're the ones who will change you,' the Norwegian imam
Given that the "mosquitoes" line is part of the basis on which the HRC accepted Dr. Elmasry's complaint of "Islamophobia," I'm interested to know what precisely is the of**fence? Are
Just for the record, my book is not about Islam, not really. Rather, it posits Islam as an opportunist beneficiary of Western self-enfeeblement. The most important quotation in the entire text is nothing to do with
"Civilizations die from suicide, not murder."
One manifestation of that suicidal urge is the human rights commission. It is an illiberal notion harnessed in the cause, supposedly, of liberalism: gays don't like uptight Christians flaunting the more robust passages of Leviticus? Don't worry about it. We'll set up a body that'll hunt down Bible-quoting losers in basements and ensure they'll trouble you no further. Just a few recalcitrant knuckle-draggers who decline to get with the beat. Don't give 'em a thought. Nothing to see here, folks.
The Canadian Islamic Congress is now using this pseudo-judicial shortcut to circumscribe debate on one of the great central questions of the age: the demographic transformation of much of the Western world. The Islamification of Europe is a fact. It's happening. It's under way right now. Are Canadian magazines allowed to acknowledge that? And, if they do, are they allowed to posit various scenarios as to how it might all shake out? The CIC objects to articles that suggest all
Not if the CIC and their enablers at the human rights commissions get their way. I note, too, that the Ontario Federation of Labour is supporting the Canadian Islamic Congress's case. As Terry Downey, executive supremo of the OFL, primly explains, "There is proper conduct that everyone has to follow"--and his union clearly feels my article is way beyond the bounds of that "proper conduct." Don't ask me why. I don't pretend to understand the peculiar psychological impulses that would lead the OFL to throw its lot in with Dr.
Oh, dear. Is that "offensive" to the executive committee of the OFL? Very probably so. I may well have another "human rights" suit on my hands. Heigh-ho.
Or we could all grow up and recognize the dangers in forcing more and more public discourse into the shadows. As David Warren put it, the punishment is not the verdict, but the process--the months of time-consuming distractions and legal bills that make it easier for editors to shrug, "You know, maybe we don't need a report on creeping sharia, after all. How about we do The Lindsay Lohan Guide To Celebrity Carjacking one more time?" Canada is not unique in the urge of its bien pensants to pre-emptive surrender: Australian publishers decline books on certain, ah, sensitive subjects; a French novelist was dragged into court to answer for the "Islamophobia" of one of his fictional characters; British editors insist books are vacuumed of anything likely to attract the eye of wealthy Saudis adept at using the English legal system to silence their critics.
Nonetheless, even in this craven environment,
So I'm not interested in the verdict--except insofar as an acquittal would be more likely to legitimize the human rights commissions' attempt to regulate political speech, and thus contribute to the shrivelling of liberty in