Posted on 07/22/2008 6:13:37 AM PDT by Clive
The Company Muslims Keep
Canada's Islamic community has nothing to gain by allying itself with human rights censors
Last week, at Toronto's Noor Centre --a cultural organization for liberal Muslims --I participated in a panel discussion on the question of whether the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) is justified in bringing human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine for publishing Mark Steyn's (now famous) cover article, The Future Belongs to Islam. What follows is adapted from my opening remarks.
No, I don't think the CIC's complaints have any merit. In fact, I find it quite creepy that government officials even take the case seriously. "Human rights" bureaucrats should focus on real human rights issues, like protecting Canadians from bigoted landlords and employers --not censoring journalists.
But you've heard all this before. I've made this case many times in editorials and columns, and so have lots of other journalists. So rather than repeat familiar arguments about the value of free speech, I want to focus on an aspect of the issue that relates directly to Canadian Muslims. The other panelists you've heard from take it for granted that Muslims will benefit from censorship imposed in the name of human rights -- because it will protect your community from Islamophobia. I'd like to challenge that assumption. Even putting aside all the usual principled reasons for upholding free speech, there are several utterly practical, self-interested reasons why the people in this room should be wary about hitching their carts to the thought-police horse.
It is only a matter of time before human rights censors come after Muslims. Like the Bible, Muslim scripture contains a lot of material that, by modern standards, would be considered sexist, homophobic or even anti-Semitic. One statement attributed to Muhammad, for instance, declares that "Judgment day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims will kill the Jews, and then the Jews will hide behind stones or trees, and the stone or the tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' " Is this the sort of thing that human rights mandarins will someday judge as "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" -- to quote the applicable language from the Canadian Human Rights Act (HRA)?
The prospect of a human rights tribunal telling you which Suras and Hadiths you are and aren't allowed to preach in your mosques may sound ridiculous.
But it's not. A few months ago, an Alberta pastor named Stephen Boissoin was slapped down by a human rights tribunal for the crime of proselytizing his socially conservative Christian attitudes toward homosexuality. As part of the judgment against him, he is now legally forbidden from commenting on matters of sexual orientation -- even in his sermons. The same sort of judgment was previously rendered against a Saskatchewan Christian named Hugh Owens, who cited Bible passages such as Leviticus 18:22 to denounce homosexuality.
Human rights mandarins haven't gone after mosques and mullahs -- yet. But that will change once Muslims have exhausted their usefulness as frontmen in the battle against Christians and conservatives. If Leviticus is now hate speech, how long before the Koran gets the same treatment? Journalists control the commanding
heights of Canadian culture. Why would you want to alienate them? What's notable about the reaction to the Steyn case is that even writers who abhor his right-wing politics have rallied to his cause. This includes not only the editorial board of The Globe And Mail, but also the Toronto Star, an avowedly left-wing newspaper that, in every other context, is a sounding board for political correctness and trumped-up racism accusations. And no wonder: Journalists put food on the table by putting words on the page. The surest way to enrage them is to slip a gag over their mouths, which is exactly what the CIC has tried to do -- purportedly in the name of all Canadian Muslims, no less. In the long run, is that going to improve the way that Muslim issues are covered by this same pissed off media?
It's the sort of illiberal gesture that summons to mind the worst stereotypes of Muslim political culture. Since 9/11, there has emerged a cottage industry of pundits seeking to explain why so many Muslim nations remain mired in dictatorship and violence. A leading theory is that Islam has no tradition of separation between mosque and state, and that traditional Muslim religious authorities tend to be totalitarian in outlook -- the result being that Muslim societies are intrinsically hostile to the liberal values required for democracy to prosper. Whether or not you see any truth in this political stereotype, there is no denying that the CIC's efforts to forcibly shut up Islam's critics play right into it.
Personally, I think the experience of Canada's Islamic community offers a great rebuttal to those who see Islam as incompatible with democracy:This country is home to hundreds of thousands of Muslims who participate actively in our democratic process, and in the open marketplace of ideas that is its lifeblood. If you want to fight Islamophobia, let this be the image cemented in Canadians' minds -- not that of eggshell-skinned censors working in league with government thought police.
-
I'm glad someone is finally recognizing the "battle against Christians and conservatives." It puts liberals, Muslims, atheists, gays, feminists, and some Jews, on the same side: Fighting against Western Civilization, which was founded on conservative principles and Christian values.
When they defeat the Christians and conservatives, they will they turn on each other.
That's a mighty big "when." As much as they'd like to think they can, I don't think they have the power to defeat Christianity and conservatism, unless we first give in to them.
The trouble with that plan is that it uts into a stance of having to accept the legitimacy of this form of Star Chamber proceeding.
These are similar thoughts that I have had. I’ve always wondered why this hasn’t been brought before the Human Rights Commission in Canada. In fact, I would like to see a Human Rights Commission brought before another Human Rights Commission in Canada on some of the garbage that they spew. Let the various commissions duke it out and bring on the popcorn!
An earlier post raised the question of what the advocates of these "human rights" tribunals expected them to do if not to attack freedom of speech. Mr. Kay has unconsciously given the answer. They were just fine with doing away with the rule of law because they thought that businesses and property owners would be the victims, not intellectuals and journalists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.