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.

Censorship in the Islamic World

I said yesterday that the ISU was on the case of blocking this site in Saudi Arabia. Apparently they've done so, and now apparently the United Arab Emirates is doing the same. I note that the visits by the censoring agencies of these countries were the only visits to this site from those countries. They censor me before anyone else from their countries even manages to find my site! Makes me wonder what their procedure is -- a pretty thorough-going one anyway. **

But what it really makes me wonder about is the level of censorship in the Islamic world. It's high across the board, and another. And it's not limited to websites. Books too are banned indifferently from websites in many Muslim countries, and press freedom infringed as well.

And, again, here I think of the call for dialogue we always hear between the West and Islamic societies. I've mocked this call for dialogue before, and now I find a new ground on which to question it. How could there be dialogue if so many Muslims cannot even gain access to the side that is critical of their ideology? In the West we have no problem reading their positions: Saudi propaganda, even though it is much hated, floods into Canada, the US, and Europe for example. But nothing that breaks the party line is let into Saudi Arabia.

Let Muslim countries uncensor the critics of Islam. Then perhaps dialogue can begin. How could it be otherwise? The start of dialogue is 100% depending on this first action of the Islamic world, not the Western world.

** UPDATE: Apparently all traffic is routed through the ISU, and so it was not at all necessarily the ISU itself that was viewing the site. I apologise for the assumption.

Hello Saudi Internet Services Unit

I see that the Saudi Internet Services Unit has been perusing this website. They do the work of determining what sites should be blocked from access in Saudi Arabia. So I may be banned already. I direct the rest of my post to those people at the ISU. **

ISU, everything I say is in good faith. If you block my site from the areas under your control, you are depriving people of information and debate which is all healthy. You quote Joseph in your Quran, saying that Allah was right to "divert" plots which would have drawn him into ignorance (12:33-34). You say this justifies some censorship. I won't debate that, but I will say that I have none of these plots so THOSE VERSES DO NOT APPLY TO ME. I say nothing to draw anyone into anything bad, but speak only to create dialogue in order to learn. By what verse of your texts would you justify silencing a person who seeks the truth through dialogue? If you think I am mistaken on topics, then show me where I am wrong, or at least let others.

To ban me is to do me an injustice.

** UPDATE: Apparently all traffic is routed through the ISU, and so it was not at all necessarily the ISU itself that was viewing the site. I apologise for the assumption.