Tag Archives: Free Speech

Danish cartoon aftermath – the attack on free speech continues

Posted on by
3

Following my most recent post, a reader (my dad) directed me to this story.

Tragicomic irony as the United Nations Human Rights Commission urges laws banning free speech. You guessed it … it’s a Motoons thing, pushed by Pakistan and other Muslim nations, horrified that the publication of a cartoon in Denmark forced thousands of Muslims to burn cars, Danish flags and consular buildings and in a couple of cases, to kill each other.

GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.’s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.

The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries — with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela — had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

Free speech, apparently no longer a human right.

As I wrote in my previous post, while the Danish cartoon scandal is old news, the true battle rages on – the battle of free speech, and freedom in general. And as the cartoons were used as ammunition in the battle against free speech during the scandal, the scandal itself continues to be used as ammunition today.

A democratic society depends on the ability of its citizens to openly exchange, debate and criticize ideas. The United Nations wants religion protected from that criticism. It’s an attack on freedom and an attack on our democratic society. While the danger of offence resulting in violence is real (we’ve seen what happens when a group gets offended by some cartoons,) it’s much more dangerous for society if we allow ideas to go unchallenged.

Here’s the original story Jules Crittenden was quoting from in his blog entry.

Update:

I didn’t post the cartoons because I figured they were accessible enough. But, as requested, here’s a link to the cartoons that caused so much commotion.

Ezra Levant on the new human right – the right not to be offended

Posted on by
1

I accept no man’s authority to approve or disapprove my right to publish something.

Hear, hear!

While the Danish cartoon debate is old news, the free speech debate is as relevant as ever. In light of the release of Levant’s new book, Shakedown, I decided I’d share an essay I wrote on this subject for my “Language of Persuasion” class about a year ago. In the paper, I defend the thesis that the Danish cartoon riots were not about cartoons at all – Muslim fundamentalists used them to fuel outrage and create fear, which became a powerful tool in an organized effort to attack free speech, and the Western media submitted to that fear. Levant was one of the few who did not, and he was taken to the human rights tribunal for it.

Read it here: Terror as a persuasive medium in the attack on free speech

The Danish cartoon scandal was not about cartoons at all. It was about the freedom of speech. The riots were an organized campaign designed to silence any criticism of fundamentalist Islam and it managed to strike fear in the hearts of the Western media. Fear prevailed over the freedom of speech during that violent time. But the battle is far from over. If the Media realizes that submitting to fear will only encourage more violence the next time someone speaks out, and if they approach sensitive issues with more courage the next time, free speech will reign once again.

Defending free expression

Posted on by
Reply

A story that generated much publicity in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has become the centrepiece of a Supreme Court hearing that could permanently alter the scope of defamation law in Canada.

Lawyers for the Ottawa Citizen and more than a dozen other media organizations urged the top court yesterday to endorse a new defence against libel that would protect properly researched stories published in the public interest, even if they contain errors.

Full Story (Thanks for bringing this story to my attention, Dad) 

As someone who practices journalism, this story is particularly relevant to me. As the law stands now, if I publish something that could potentially tarnish someone’s reputation, I can be charged with libel even if I approached the story with the best intentions for public interest or if the information was false because one of my sources lied to me. This makes publishing controversial stories quite risky, and discourages journalists from pursuing important stories that could put them in hot water. Depending how this case goes, that could all change.

“Men have issues just like everyone else”

Posted on by
9

It seems it’s okay for everyone to have an advocacy group – except straight white men. At least that’s the case at Brandon University. And I’ve seen this issue come up many times (the I’m a White Minority @ Ryerson Facebook group controversy comes to mind). It seems a bit hypocritical that some of the same people who claim to be fighting for equality would rally against the right for men to have advocacy groups of their own – just like every other group has.  

When Will Breen tried to form his campus group, he faced a lot of criticism: 

One elected council member set the tone of debate, scoffing that Breen’s group would be nothing but a “pornography and cigar club.” As a man, he huffed, he didn’t require representation. Other speakers were miffed and simply couldn’t see the need. The motion was defeated.

At another forum, a female professor could barely tolerate hearing Breen’s reasons for starting a Men’s Collective. “She was saying that men do not have need of representation, that we have historically been the oppressors, that we have no position of disadvantage,” the fourth-year geology student recalled.

But Breen isn’t forming another group to compete for victim status. He questions why everyone thinks a group should be “disadvantaged” to have an advocacy group.

“Men have issues just like everyone else,” he maintained.

Full Story

Imagine if someone called the Women’s group a “baking and knitting club.”

Breen eventually was granted the right to start his group, which will receive $400 in funding. That, compared to the $5,000 per year and  $2,000 startup grant the Women’s Collective gets. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans-gender Commission gets $2,000 per year.

Thanks to Fraser for bringing this story to my attention.

Queen’s comes to its senses

Posted on by
2

I heard about these “dialogue facilitators” Queen’s University hired a while ago. Glad that’s over with.

Bravo to Queen’s University for abandoning the creepy “Intergroup Dialogue” program, whereby a small squadron of hired racism-sexism police was to be turned loose on student residences to survey, report on and intervene in incidents of offensive speech.

Full Story

Does the Human Rights Tribunal Really Need to Get Involved?

Posted on by
Reply

What happens when two personal freedoms conflict? 

[Ted] Kindos owns Gator Ted’s Tap & Grill in Burlington. Four years ago, he asked a marijuana smoker to step away from his front door.

The medically licensed toker complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission of bias against a disabled person. He won.

Kindos was about to pay the fine and post obligatory signs saying, “We accommodate medicinal marijuana smokers,” when a different government agency told him he could lose his liquor licence. Serving anybody possessing a controlled substance – prescribed or not – is against the law.

Full Story

Medicinal marijuana smokers certainly have a right to access their medicine, free of discrimination (you can even argue that anyone should have a right to do anything to their own bodies as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights – but there are laws preventing that). But shouldn’t people also have a right to protect the well-being of their business? Would the toker be any worse off if he had simply moved a few meters away from the entrance, away from the families that regularly passed through? Apparently a compromise wasn’t good enough.

After spending $40,000 to fight the rights complaint – the government covered [the smoker, Steve] Gibson’s costs – Kindos announced last May he would settle. But on seeing the offer, he changed his mind. He was ordered to pay Gibson $2,000 for pain and suffering, train staff in the human rights code, educate the public about the code, and post the signs.

Discovering he could lose his licence proved the last straw.

Kindos must continue to fight the complaint or lose his business, he says. Legal bills could also bankrupt him but a lawyer has agreed to take the next stage without charge.

All this because the Ontario Human Rights Commission got involved in a situation that could have easily been worked out between two individuals.

Debatable? Not according to the University of Calgary

Posted on by
2

Should a public university, funded by taxpayers, be able to censor controversial speech on campus? According to the University of Calgary, the answer to this question is a resounding “yes.” In spite of its stated mission to “seek truth and disseminate knowledge,” and in spite of advertising itself as “a place of education and scholarly inquiry,” the University of Calgary has charged some of its own students with “trespassing” because they set up a pro-life display on their own campus this past November.

Full Story

People have varying life perspectives – sharing those perspectives enables progress. It doesn’t matter if you agree with the message or not, cutting it off only contributes to ignorance. 

The fact the University of Calgary has allowed other controversial displays to go on raises questions about their motives in this particular case:

Moreover, the university has expressed no qualms about other controversial large colour displays, including ones showing the effects of torture on political dissidents in China, the cruelty of animal testing and the consequences of spousal abuse. It seems gory and disturbing displays on campus are fine–as long as they do not convey a politically incorrect view on abortion.

A publicly funded educational institution getting involved in a public debate is one thing – and that’s another question altogether that we can leave for another time. But, assuming it’s perfectly acceptable for them to participate in the debate, is there anything that can justify silencing the other side?