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.

LONDON — Social networking websites like Facebook could be forced to pass on details of users’ friends and contacts under British government proposals to fight terrorism.

Millions of Britons use sites like Facebook, Bebo and MySpace to chat with friends, but ministers are concerned the rapidly evolving technology could be exploited by extremists.

Critics have attacked the plans as more evidence of big government intruding into people’s lives.

As politicians jockey for higher rankings in the polls, some people are left wondering “who’s standing up for the issues? who’s standing up for freedom?” Well, it’s up to us. We can continue waiving our banners in the stands, or we can get up, get engaged and behind those politicians whose priorities lie with the issues, instead of the team they play for in this game our political system has turned into. We need to get to know our candidates instead of blindly voting for the team they represent. Because the issue of freedom doesn’t fit neatly into any one party.

But, as Ron Paul has discovered, freedom has the power to unite when you put partisanship aside. In his book, The Revolution: A Manifsto, he writes:

By the end of 2007, more than twice as many Meetup groups had been formed in support of our campaign than for all the rest of the candidates in both major parties combined. I have never seen such a diverse coalition rallying to a single banner. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens, constitutionalists, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, antiwar activists, home-schoolers, religious conservatives, freethinkers – all were not only involved, but enthusiastically so. And despite their philosophical differences in some areas, these folks typically found, to their surprise, that they rather liked each other.

The mainstream media had no idea what to make of it, since we were breaking all the rules and yet still attracting such a varied and passionate following. I began making this a central point of my public speeches: the reason all these different groups are rallying to the same banner, I said, is that freedom has a unique power to unite us.

In case that sounds like a cliché, it isn’t. It’s common sense. When we agree not to treat each other merely as a means to our own selfish ends, but to respect one another as individuals with rights and goals of our own, cooperation and goodwill suddenly become possible for the first time.

And that’s what needs to start happening here in Canada. There’s more to politics than partisanship.

While these are all great reasons to legalize pot, I was struck by the fact that hardly anyone is talking about the most important issue: freedom.

Have we become so used to being babysat by the govenment that we don’t mind them telling us how to live our own lives? Are adults capable of weighing the risks versus the benefits of pot use on their own –  or do we need the government to make that choice for us?

We need to be thinking bigger than just pot…

Update:

A Canadian Member of Parliament has also called for an end to prohibition. His reasoning: it would help to curb gang violence. Once again, no mention of freedom.

Update 2:

In light of increasing gang violence, the Conservative government in Canada is getting tougher on gang-related drug crime. Why not just legalize drugs and take the wind right out of the sails of gangs? Remember Al Capone? You don’t hear about gangsters killing people over alcohol now that it’s legal. It’s all drugs, now.

At least they’re talking about it in Europe.

PARIS — Right-to-die controversies are playing out in European media and parliaments in stark contrast to Canada where there is no momentum to amend Canada’s law that criminalizes assisted suicide and euthanasia, experts say.

In Italy, Eluana Englaro, left in a permanent vegetative state after a car accident 17 years ago, was allowed to die this past week amid a controversy that divided the nation.

Full Story

[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.