More on Censorship, and Human Rights in Canada

I mentioned yesterday how censorship was rampant in the Islamic world. Gates of Vienna has a post featuring Danish Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen defending free speech, and lamenting a recent United Nations Human Rights Council decision that would, at least, lend itself to the stifling of freedom of speech, if not outright doing so. Rasmussen, when the Danish Mohammed cartoons crisis hit, refused to apologise when Muslim leaders were demanding so and threatening violence. Danish embassies were attacked and set on fire in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, and over 130 people died.

The Human Rights Council decision just mentioned, is actually in large part an extension of these Muslim demands. An export, if you will, of censorship to the rest of the world. The resolution was sponsored by Pakistan and voted for by the other 17 Organisation of the Islamic Conference members that were on the Council at the time, except for one. (That article says one did not vote for it, but this offical UN release doesn't list any Islamic countries which voted against or abstained.) The West voted against it.

The resolution encourages combating "defamation of religions" and mentions only Islam. Freedom of expression, the resolution says, "may...be subject to limitations as provided by law and necessary for...respect for religions and beliefs."

But in Canada, basis for such combat may already be on the books. The Canadian Human Rights Act says in Section 13:

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that 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.

Those "prohibited grounds of discrimination" include religion. It was on the basis of Section 13 that got Free Dominion investigated for making "anti-Islam" statements by the Human Rights Commission. And this is much different from Section 12, dealing with general, non-telecommunicated speech, which says:

It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or

(b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate

if the discrimination expressed or implied, intended to be expressed or implied or incited or calculated to be incited would otherwise, if engaged in, be a discriminatory practice described in any of sections 5 to 11 or in section 14.

This deals with what the Human Rights Act does mainly deals with it, and what it was really meant to deal with: discrimination against people in government-controlled programs and employment. But Section 13 expands out and is used to deal with "contempt" in any scene of the country including the speech of private citizens, and not just governmental discrimination of peoples based on the prohibited grounds, including religion.

And, of course, including religion among things which cannot be spoken against (no matter how hard the terms) is just absurd. For what's the method to distinguish religious belief from political or social belief, or otherwise? For example, Conservatives: why don't you just call your political platform a religion and Stephen Harper a prophet? You wouldn't have to see those pesky caricatures of him in the newspaper anymore, and you wouldn't have to defend your positions!

So, for Canadians criticising aspects of Islam, my only suggestion is to make clear that you are criticising a wide-ranging form of ideology which includes, in particular, political ideology, and not just merely a personal religion that has no impact on politics. As is said of Islam, it is not just a religion in the Western sense, but a "total way of life." Even the most sly, disingenuous human-rights body couldn't get away with closing political debate in Canada, though they try, as seen in the Free Dominion example.

Anyway, I say, there seems to be no attempt to open up debate by the Islamic countries, and in fact they want to stifle criticism further by exporting their censorship through the UN. And such calls to infringe freedom of expression would land into very receptive arms when heard by the multiculturalists of the West, such as those behind the so-called "Human Rights" (which apparently doesn't include free speech) in Canada.