O, Canada; O, Death of Free Speech

Over the past several months I have read numerous articles about Canadian censorship. This is interesting because certain factions in the United States have wanted us to be more like Canada or Europe. This year, the possibility exists that we may elect a filibuster proof Senate and Congress controlled by the Democrats with a Democratic President. Just in case you have forgotten the “political correctness” which is the hallmark of this crowd, I thought I would give you look-see across the border to see what Canada has wrought.

Canada has had several constitutions over the years as it attempted to perfect its multicultural view of life. The latest was enacted in 1982 entitled The Constitution Act in an effort to reconcile French interests in separatist minded, French speaking Quebec. Included in The Constitution Act is something called The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is this the equivilent of the American Bill of Rights? Not quite.While Canada does enumerate rights, including Freedom of Expression, within its “Constitution”, these rights are not absolute. That isn't new to us here. We know you can’t yell “Fire” in a theater, and we have libel and slander laws which are civil in nature.

Canada, on the other hand, is different. Embedded in its Constitution Act is another section called "the limitations clause," which states: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it 'subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.' ”The Canadian Government and its provinces have used "the limitations clause" to go after “hate speech” through the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its enforcement of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It defines hate speech as a statement which “is likely to expose a person or persons to ‘hatred or contempt’ by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” We call them protected classes in the United States. The definition of these protected classes has been steadily expanded over the past several years, and the Canadian bureaucrats are loving it as they attempt to build utopian, multicultural society.

These “hate speech” crimes are enforced through extra-judicial tribunals and star chambers operated by political appointees. Hearings are not public. There are no rules of evidence. Any aggrieved member of a protected class can bring a complaint, thus causing newspaper and magazine publishers, broadcasters, authors, and those making political commentary to hire lawyers and incur legal costs over someone getting their feelings hurt. Punishments can include fines and cease and desist orders if the tribunals don’t like what you are saying. If you refuse, you will be jailed for contempt. The chilling effect alone is enough to put free speech in the deep freeze. THIS IS SCARY STUFF.

The issues surrounding this affront to civil liberties are pointedly on view in a case currently pending in the British Columbia hate speech tribunal. Mark Steyn, a conservative Canadian commentator, wrote an article for the Canadian Maclean’s Magazin entitled “The Future Belongs to Islam.” It was a spin off from a book entitled “America Alone”, the thesis of which is based in the demographic argument that Moslems are having children at a much higher rate than the rest of the Canadian population. Because they don’t reflect the host countries’ values, it is only a matter of time before Islam becomes the dominant ethnic group, particularly in countries with immigration policies which encouraged or are encouraging Muslim immigration.

While this argument may seem absurd in the United States where we actively try to assimilate all immigrant groups, that isn’t the case in Canada and Western Europe where huge Muslim populations, either through accident or design, have been isolated from mainstream society. The proof of the pudding is in Great Britain, where the Archbishop of Canterbury (the head of the Anglican Communion), as well as other high ranking government officials, are making the argument that Sharia law should be allowed in the Muslim communities located in Britain.

In Canada, which prides itself on its multiculturalism, the Muslims were upset by the Steyn article, and filed complaints in the hate speech tribunals. There are several different actions pending in various tribunals at the Federal and Provincial levels. The federal case against the magazine filed in Toronto was thrown out on a technicality. Notwithstanding, the federal tribunal could not stop itself from commenting that there needs to be limits on free speech if it offends groups in society and undermines freedon, whatever that means.

The case against the book is currently being decided in Vancouver. The holding should be released sometime this month.One theme I continually attempt to drive home is that our freedoms are precious. They are easily eaten away by those who have “a better way.” In Canada, hate speech has crossed the line into political discourse. The current Canadian Prime Minister is attempting to deal with the problem, but is running into difficulty. Is this what we want here?

So when you got to vote this fall, be wary of those running for office here in the United States who look to Canada or Europe as better examples for the United States. Be wary of those who sing the praises of multiculturalism instead of rapid assimilation. Be wary of those who say we have to understand strangers in our midst, and we should adapt to them instead of them adapting to us. It is folly, and can lead to our demise