I found a relationship between two seemingly unrelated stories.
Instapundit links to Kathy Shaidle and Ezra Levant. Shaidle, Levant and Mark Steyn share the honor of being on the wrong(?) side of complaints brought before Canada’s Human Rights Commissions. For those of you unfamiliar with the CHRC, the commission is the government body in Canada that determines which Canadians will have their rights protected and which Canadians are screwed. The CHRC does not protect “rights” across the board, rather, it chooses which rights it wants to protect at any given moment and often rules in a manner contradictory to its previous rulings. By means of example, examine the every unequal treatment given to the Rev. Stephen Boisson, a Christian minister and Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Al-Hayiti, a Muslim cleric.
Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate that condemned homosexuality. The letter can be read here. The Reverend’s views were deemed “hate speech” by the CHRC.
In addition to be fined $5,000 the following was imposed:
Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] 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.
Among other things, Al-Hayiti wrote:
Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life" "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded"
Of course, he didn’t reserve his bile only for gays:
Anyone who leaves Islam, cut his neck” in an Islamic state, Christians and Jews can keep their religion but they must pay a sum of money, the Jizyah. "The purpose of the Jizyah is to humiliate and punish Infidels to encourage them to accept Islam." The other Infidels (Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc.) have no options but to accept Islam or “be killed"
The Canadian Human Rights Commission rejected a human rights complaint filed against Al-Hayiti.
The danger is that when government is allowed to regulate the message, the government chooses the message, who delivers the message and how it can be delivered. The message becomes driven by the government’s agenda. No free man should ever allow his words to be filtered through politics.
In the United States we are blessed by a First Amendment which guarantees our right to free speech. The Amendment protects all speech including speech that can rightfully be called repugnant. In The Big Hate Paul Krugman frets about free speech, particularly speech by Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity whom he accuses inciting violence:
And that’s a threat to take seriously. Yes, the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril.
It isn’t hard to imagine Krugman, and others of his mindset, calling for Canadian style censorship in the United States. We are in a very difficult period in our country and Krugman’s attempt to link free speech to violence should serve as a wakeup call to all.
A much needed correction is in the comments section, provided by Blazing Cat Fur. I’ve heard that he is the hardest workin CAT in Show Business.