NP: Study suggests “turban effect” as a source of Islamophobia

By Shannon Proudfoot, Canwest News Service June 29, 2008

A Muslim-style turban is perceived as a threat, according to a new study, even by people who don't realize they hold the prejudice, dubbed "the turban effect" by researchers.

Research volunteers played a computer game that showed apartment balconies on which different figures appeared, some wearing Muslim-style turbans or hijabs and others bare-headed. They were told to shoot at the targets carrying guns and spare those who were unarmed, with points awarded accordingly.

People were much more likely to shoot Muslim-looking characters -- men or women -- even if they were carrying an innocent item instead of a weapon, the researchers found.

"Whether they're holding a steel coffee mug or a gun, people are just more likely to shoot at someone who is wearing a turban," says author Christian Unkelbach, a visiting scholar at Australia's University of New South Wales. "Just putting on this piece of clothing changes people's behaviour."

Mr. Unkelbach largely blames one-sided media portrayals for the bias.

[...]

"I'm hoping that Canadian Muslims one day become invisible," says Mr. Elmasry. "As such, Canadians will treat them like any others."

Islamophobia -- "latent" before 9/11 -- is on the rise, he says, but there is very little research on the issue in Canada.

[...]

In fact, the Australian study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, confirmed that people don't even realize they hold these biased views. When the true intention of the experiment was revealed, Mr. Unkelbach says participants insisted they were not prejudiced and must have reacted differently from everyone else.

"The most common response was, ‘I'm sure I didn't show that effect,'" he says."They're uncomfortable and I believe them -- people are not doing this willingly. If they could, they would control that. Here, people are almost the victims of what they are fed by their environment."

A quick sampling of news items related to Muslims and the Middle East confirmed this, he says, with a focus on violence and terrorism almost obliterating more balanced stories about the culture and people.

"If everything about Middle Easterners is associated with terrorism, people tend to form stereotypes in their head," confirms Rima Wilkes, a sociology professor studying media at the University of British Columbia.

[...]

So the study shows that if you feed people a steady diet of violent, abberant behavior associated with a specific cultural group, combined with a constant stream of bigotry and racism from that group, that people will view that cultural group negatively?

Ya think?

SCC broadens law of fair comment

"We live in a free country where people have as much right to express outrageous and ridiculous opinions as moderate ones." Binnie J. SCC.
The Supreme Court of Canada has made a broader ruling in a private defamation case, WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, attempting to better balance the competing interests of comments, opinions, defamation and libel.

Key excerpts are below, written by Binnie J. for the majority view:

Per McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.: "The trial judgment dismissing the action should be restored. M’s expression of opinion, however exaggerated, was protected by the law. M’s editorial was defamatory, but the trial judge was correct to allow the defence of fair comment...."

"Although this is a private law case that is not governed directly by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the evolution of the common law is to be informed and guided by Charter values. The law of fair comment must therefore be developed in a manner consistent not only with the values underlying freedom of expression, including freedom of the media, but also with those underlying the worth and dignity of each individual, including reputation. A court’s task is not to prefer one set of values over the other, but rather to attempt a reconciliation. ..."

"The traditional elements of the tort of defamation may require modification to provide broader accommodation to the value of freedom of expression. There is concern that matters of public interest go unreported because publishers fear the ballooning cost and disruption of defending a defamation action. Investigative reports get “spiked”, it is contended, because, while true, they are based on facts that are difficult to establish according to rules of evidence. When controversies erupt, statements of claim often follow as night follows day, not only in serious claims (as here) but in actions launched simply for the purpose of intimidation. “Chilling” false and defamatory speech is not a bad thing in itself, but chilling debate on matters of legitimate public interest raises issues of inappropriate censorship and self‑censorship. Public controversy can be a rough trade, and the law needs to accommodate its requirements...."

"It is therefore appropriate to modify the “honest belief” element of the fair comment defence so that the test, as modified, consists of the following elements: (a) the comment must be on a matter of public interest; (b) the comment must be based on fact; (c) the comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognizable as comment; (d) the comment must satisfy the following objective test: could any person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts? Even though the comment satisfies the objective test of honest belief, the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was subjectively actuated by express malice. The defendant must prove the four elements of the defence before the onus switches back to the plaintiff to establish malice...."

Per LeBel J.: "Since the issue was not raised before this Court, the trial judge’s finding that the editorial was defamatory should not be interfered with. However, although the threshold for establishing prima facie defamation is low, courts should not be too quick to find defamatory meaning, particularly where expressions of opinion are concerned. Triers of fact should be mindful of ensuring that the plaintiff’s reputation is actually threatened by the impugned statements before turning to the available defences. The test is whether, in the factual circumstances of the case, the public would think less of the plaintiff as a result of the comment. Relevant factors to be considered in assessing whether a statement is defamatory include: whether the impugned speech is a statement of opinion rather than of fact; how much is publicly known about the plaintiff; the nature of the audience; and the context of the comment. In this case, the impugned statement constituted comment rather than fact....In any event, the defence of fair comment is applicable. To satisfy the defence, a defendant should only be required to prove that: (a) the statement constituted comment; (b) it had a basis in true facts; and (c) it concerned a matter of public interest.... "

"The fair comment defence should not include an element of honest belief. Although this element continues to exist in some common law countries, its influence and utility have been waning such that it no longer offers anything of value in the exercise of balancing the right to comment fairly on matters of public opinion against the right to reputation. The elimination of that element would constitute a formal recognition that it is no longer justifiable, for purposes of the fair comment defence, to judge a person’s opinions on an objective basis other than to require that they have some basis in fact. Furthermore, since the requirements of a basis in fact and honest belief address the same issue, an honest belief requirement provides no additional protection to reputation. There is therefore no reason to retain that element. Eliminating it is an incremental change. This Court has the power — indeed the responsibility — to make such changes when the common law falls out of step with its underlying principles and with modern values, and when a test has proven to be unworkable or to serve no useful purpose...."

"If the defendant is successful in establishing the elements of the fair comment defence, the inquiry may turn to malice, which the plaintiff must prove if alleged. Proof of malice may be drawn from the language of the assertion itself or from the circumstances surrounding the publication of the comment. It may involve inferences and evidentiary presumptions. In order to defeat fair comment, malice must be the dominant motive for expressing an opinion...."

Per Rothstein J.: "The statements in question were defamatory but the defence of fair comment applies. To satisfy the fair comment defence, there is no requirement to prove objective honest belief. The defence of fair comment should only require the defendant to prove (a) that the statement constituted comment, (b) that it had a basis in true facts and (c) that it concerned a matter of public interest...."

The decision does not remove the responsibility of commentators to restrain from comments which are inherently defamatory or libelous, but it does broaden the context in which comments can be made without them being necessarily defamatory. It recognizes and broadens the view that an "outrageous" comment, while it may be outrageous, isn't inherently defamatory simply because it is outrageous.

At the same time, it establishes that "outrageous" commentary must have defensible value if its to avoid being defamatory. Writers and commentators would do well to review the various tests outlined in this decision and use them to guide their responses when taking on controversial issues and players.

Ezra Levant expands the discussion on this decision, particularly in regard to current freedom of speech issues before the various Human Rights Commissions.

Blatchford: "The truth in a nutshell, or what I won't read on vacation"

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD

From:
Saturday's Globe and Mail, June 27, 2008 at 8:20 PM EDT

"A couple of nights ago, I found myself in discussion about what I will call the jihadi trials going on in Canada at the moment – one the trial of a youth charged in the Toronto 18 case, the other the case of Momin Khawaja in Ottawa.

I'd spent three days on the Khawaja case and several weeks immediately before it writing about the Brampton case.

I was pretty weary of being surrounded by hatred, which is what lies behind the criminal charges in both cases.

That anonymous youth in Brampton and Mr. Khawaja may very well end up being acquitted, but the one thing they won't ever be able to claim, except in the legal sense, is innocence.

In Brampton, wiretaps had revealed the principals of that group (not the youth) delighting in the news of Canadian army casualties in Afghanistan and almost smacking their lips at the prospect of Jew-killing; in Ottawa, Mr. Khawaja's own e-mails had him talking of a remote-control detonator he was building for his jihad brothers overseas and the prospect of a colleague's potential suicide mission to “Yahoodiland” (Yahoud is the Arabic word for Jews). I was sick at heart of hearing non-believers like me regularly described as infidels or “dirty kuffar,” of writing down the lengthy academic-sounding titles of extremist books, of hate-mongers being called Islamic scholars, of descriptions of beheading videos.

Anyway, while waiting for my flight home at the Ottawa airport, I was on my cell talking to my pal Rosie DiManno, the gritty Toronto Star columnist just returned from another trip to Afghanistan, where she travelled the country all on her own but for a young interpreter.

We were meant to figure out the guest list for an upcoming party, but she said, “That's a great trial you've got going there,” and off we went, soon discussing our shared frustration with those who persist in believing that youthful goofiness or general haplessness are incompatible with terrorist aims and missions. They never have been with ordinary criminals – that's why most of them get caught most of the time – so why would it be any different with terrorist criminals?

To illustrate this, Rosie mentioned a book she was reading which notes that two of those wanted in the Oct. 12, 2000, attack by an al-Qaeda cell on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden are also wanted in an earlier unsuccessful attempt to blow up the USS The Sullivans in the same harbour, an attack averted only because the thugs – oh, those goofy kids! – overloaded their small boat such that it sank.

According to a U.S. Department of Justice indictment, Jamal Ahmed Mohammed Ali al-Badawi and Fahd al-Quso were among those who allegedly salvaged their explosives, regrouped, built a better boat – and eureka, less than nine months later, pulled alongside the USS Cole and blew a 40-foot hole in its hull, killing 17 sailors.

In the same vein, I told Rosie about some evidence at the Khawaja trial, particularly the testimony of a key witness, himself a convicted al-Qaeda operative, about the loose connections between the Khawaja group and others who had succeeded – one was a London Tube bomber, and two unnamed others were described as completed a mission in Israel, presumably a suicide bombing.

It was at that point that the Air Canada clerk at Gate 27 approached me.

“Excuse me,” he said, “you can't say those words. Those words are illegal.”

“What words?” I asked, bewildered, given that by then I'd said probably 2,000 words.

“Suicide bombing,” he whispered.

Now, I know of course one is not to make jokes or threats about bombs at airports, and properly so. But I hadn't been doing that, rather recounting some of the public evidence heard that day at a public trial in the nation's capital.

“That's not illegal,” I snapped, barely restraining myself from adding “You ninny.” Besides, I told him, I was a reporter telling another reporter about my work day, which was true enough.

“Do you want me to call security?” he asked primly. “I'm supposed to call security in these situations.”

“You do what you like,” I said, talked to Rose a bit longer, then sat down and resumed reading my book.

About 10 minutes later, a fellow passenger warned me that she thought the clerk had called security. I couldn't believe it, and kept reading, and sure enough, within a few minutes, a young woman with a walkie-talkie in her hands (I guess so if I suddenly turned into a human missile she could call for help) asked to speak to me. She'd had a report about “an incident,” she said. So I told her through gritted teeth what had happened, she magnanimously agreed it was “not illegal” to say what I'd said, apologized and went on her way.

When we boarded a little later, I asked for the ninny's name. He refused and hissed, “If you make a scene, I'll call the pilot and you won't be flying tonight.”

I was so very tempted to tell him to go ahead, but I knew he probably would do it and I wanted badly to get home, so held my tongue. I was quietly praising myself for my steely calm when another passenger remarked, “I didn't know you were an anarchist, Christie.”

The book I was reading that night, and for the past week, is Mark Steyn's America Alone (The End of the World as We Know It). It is an excerpt from this book – equal parts wildly funny and alarming – which appeared in Maclean's magazine two years ago and sparked a rash of complaints to human-rights commissions from coast to coast to coast, as they like to say on the CBC.

The general complaint is that Mr. Steyn, a Canadian who lives in the States, is spreading hate and contributing to “Islamaphobia” by taking note of A) the falling birth rates of most Western nations, except for their Muslim populations, B) the increasing spread of Islamic-inspired violence, including the homegrown sort, in the world and C) making the link between them to suggest the West is under attack – oh, and D) aiding and abetting the attacker with the exquisite sensitivities of multicultural politics.

I think that's it in a nutshell, and suddenly, I felt I was smack in the midst of Mr. Steyn's description of our silly world, “where you need retinal-scan ID in order to rent Mary Poppins but you're liable for prosecution if you express your feelings too strongly after the next bombing.” Or, in my case, merely say the words aloud.

I am off for a bit of a break, and no, I shall not be memorizing Koranic passages during my holiday."

Mark Steyn's view of this controversy is here (the book is available here). A series of observations on the broader controversy can be found here. These links, regardless of your political allegiance in Canada, should be thoroughly explored. No Canadian should accept, must not accept, what these events foretell.

US Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment

In a landmark decision, District of Columbia v. Heller(full text), the United States Supreme Court upheld the right of individuals to own and hold firearms for hunting and personal protection, including handguns. The city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, had long had a ban against handguns, even though there was little to no supporting data that the ban reduced the incidence of criminal use and murder in the district.

A lower court decision recently set aside the Washington ban as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court today affirmed the lower court decision and, in its first ruling on the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, has upheld the majority view that the amendment indeed enshrined the right to bear arms, and not that it was the province of a militia, a view many anti-gun groups have tried to use to remove the right to personal ownership of firearms.
[Cross-posted from Gun Control Canada.Org, with permission]

"Pushing Back..." BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

June 23, 2008
PMO pushes, CTV pushes back

Susan Delacourt "the Star's Senior Writer in Ottawa, has covered federal politics for more than two decades as a reporter and bureau chief. She is Senior Writer for the Star's Ottawa bureau and a frequent guest on CBC Newsworld's Politics." LOL!

"Yesterday, at the end of CTV's Question Period broadcast, there was some strong and remarkable evidence of journalists pushing back against the Prime Minister's Office. Rather than explain the story, why don't I just put the transcript here? I would imagine we'll be hearing more about this in the days to come:

JANE TABER: Craig, we've got to address a complaint. We received a complaint from the Prime Minister's director of communications Sandra Buckler about something you said on the show about the fact the Environment Minister or the Finance Minister would not come on to talk about Dion's green plan.

CRAIG OLIVER: And it was accurate for me to say they had both turned us down. However, they did offer us Jason Kenney, the Minister of Multiculturalism, to attack the government's green plan, and we said, sorry, we're not talking about multiculturalism, we're talking about taxation or we're talking about environment. And so they're insisting that we should take their person. And the question really is who's producing the show? Are we producing the show or is the Prime Minister's office producing the show? Would somebody tell me?

TABER: I think Sandra Buckler has an idea about who's producing the show, and I think that she, when she offers someone, she expects...

OLIVER: She thinks we should take her candidate.

TABER: Exactly.

OLIVER: Any time somebody's offered by her, that's the person we should have on the show. Not somebody we choose.

TABER: And we have to say that Jason Kenney of course did appear on the show, but we spoke to him in a panel situation with other MPs about, you know, what the accomplishments of the government were.

OLIVER: And we were glad to have him.

TABER: We were very glad to have him, we're always glad to have Jason Kenney on the show. So that's the complaint, we've addressed it, and as we leave you we're going to leave with you pictures from the studio of Parliament Hill and the preparations for the July 1st celebrations. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next week."


Comments

An interesting dialogue...especially from that source...
I rarely watch CTV's Question Period..since - a few years back - I thought Craig Oliver gave the Tories of the day far too easy a ride - compared to say a Don Newman in general..(or his Friday panel of pundits in particular!)...
Heck - Question Period was up there in Pierre Bourque Deep Blue territory!
I confess - more recently - since Jane Taber has been carrying the heavier part of the load - the balance of questions has improved somewhat...
As for Sandra Buckler and her team of non-communicators - they can't have it both ways - complaining on the one hand that the "Media" is biased - and then trying to play switcheroo with the Flower Pots - depending upon who the "Boss" trusts that week...
Good for Messrs. Oliver and Taber for giving light to that little game...

Posted by: wascally wabbit | June 23, 2008 at 12:51 PM

"However, they did offer us Jason Kenney, the Minister of Multiculturalism, to attack the government's green plan"

Is this exactly Craig Oliver said(from story above)? If so then somebody better tell Mr. Oliver that it's not the "government's green plan" they were discussing (Thank God!) but the opposition's totally useless tax grab plan!

This says it all to me! The Liberals still can't get over the fact that they are no longer in power and the Toronto media can't either!!

Pathetic!

Posted by: Caroline | June 23, 2008 at 04:47 PM

"I would imagine we'll be hearing more about this in the days to come"

Why? What would be the point of hearing more about this? This is just a silly little childish game on all their parts.

Re Wabbit's comment: Taber and balanced questions? Now there's an oxymoron.

Posted by: Scott | June 23, 2008 at 04:51 PM

Well those media guys sure told those Tories how things were going to be run!
Oh by the way who did they get?

Posted by: ian | June 23, 2008 at 04:55 PM

Another whine-fest from the mainstream media. Did you ever consider that these people actually have real work to do, and may not always be available for your 30 second trash-talk interviews? Perhaps they offered Mr. Kenney because they knew he would already be at your studio and he had time to deal with another interview.

Or, perhaps they know that the Liberal Green Shaft is really nothing more than a tax plan to suck billions of dollars out of the Canadian economy and Jason Kenney is better suited to talk about the tax implications of Dion's "plan". Nice code word for a massive tax plan, too bad you don't get the fact that the green they refer to is cash.

Posted by: Jim Pook | June 23, 2008 at 05:27 PM

CRAIG OLIVER: And it was accurate for me to say they had both turned us down. However, they did offer us Jason Kenney, the Minister of Multiculturalism, to attack the government's green plan

Someone tell Greg that the liberal party is no longer the government. The guy needs to retire.

Posted by: JK | June 23, 2008 at 05:49 PM

"However, they did offer us Jason Kenney, the Minister of Multiculturalism, to attack the government's green plan, and we said, sorry, we're not talking about multiculturalism, we're talking about taxation or we're talking about environment."

Attack the Government's Green plan?

Note to Craig Oliver: The Liberals are the Official Opposition as they lost the last general election.

Maybe someday, there will be a non-biased media in this country. Until then, I can dream.

Posted by: BrainDrainXP | June 23, 2008 at 05:50 PM

So, CTV Question period get to decide who speaks for the Government of Canada on a certain issue? Sure seems to me that someone is trying to "produce" something.

Posted by: pj | June 23, 2008 at 06:00 PM

So essentially what you're saying is that it was a Sunday? If you want an interview with Bill Gates and are offered Steve Balmer instead, do you throw a hissy fit or are you happy to have an interview with someone in the company?

Just because you have a show to do doesn't mean that you get to choose everyone who's going to be on the show; they have the right to decline. This is the point, I believe, they're trying to make. Take 'Right-of-Communist is Politically Incorrect with Bill Mahar' for example, does he choose or do those who actually represent contrasting views get to decide who will appear on his show?

Posted by: Gen. Lee Wright | June 23, 2008 at 06:11 PM

For a guy Oliver's age who has been around politics all his life, you would think he understands the job of Parliamentry Secretary to the Prime Minister. Hey Craig, here's a little refresher on what one of your hero's used that position for.

"During Jean Chrétien's term as Prime Minister of Canada, parliamentary secretaries were set to two-year terms and the post was used as a reward for weary backbenchers. Their duty was to answer questions and table reports on behalf of ministers when they were unable to be present in the house."

So Oliver and Taber have an issue with him addressing the issue. Did it ever dawn on them he discusses various issues in the House of Commons daily for cabinet ministers? I guess Craig feels he deserves more than the highest House in the land.

Posted by: Paulsstuff | June 23, 2008 at 06:17 PM

God - how pathetic are Canadian journalists.... It is a non story and it is even more pathetic that Delacourt seems to think this is the heroic Candian Media "pushing back" and worth a blog. Can't wait for Travers to weigh in. Tim Russert could push back...

Posted by: Barry W | June 23, 2008 at 06:29 PM

Oliver and Taber's comments more closely resemble stuffy arrogance than the journalistic integrity they are invoking.

The quality of Canadian Sunday morning political talk is sophmoric and shallow compared to that offered on the US networks.

Could one imagine the late Tim Russert pouting over who the DNC's congressional leadership named to talk about the President's agenda?

CTV - and others in the media - would benefit from more time spent researching the issues and positions of parties and candidates than clashing with them over the mundane.

Posted by: J. Weatherman | June 23, 2008 at 06:32 PM

Um... so you're saying that cabinet ministers must drop everything when CTV decides to allow an interview? And it had better be the one CTV wants. No substitutes, even if at the cabinet level? To comment on the phantasmagorical that slithered out from another party's internal squabbling. Oh yeah ... let's all get our [censored] noses up each other's [censored] and have a mighty whine.

Posted by: Lindsay | June 23, 2008 at 06:39 PM

I think the PMO still have their back up a little bit. I think this ethos will pass over time as the Tories get used to things up there for a few years. It's not like I haven't heard any of the news networks in the US say that so and so from the Republicans denied our invitation. Like that's a big deal. Like they care. Geesh!

Posted by: nbt | June 23, 2008 at 06:40 PM

If you make a living talking politics should'nt you know who is in government?
Oliver needs to resign or CTV should remove him from his post LOL.
CTV is making CBC look unbiased by comparison.

Posted by: Durward | June 23, 2008 at 06:41 PM

It is arrogant beyond reason for the press to assume they have a right to decide who can speak on behalf of the government. I'm sure if Oliver and Taber had their choice they would have Maxime Bernier there to respond so they could combine a double hit. Oliver was almost bristling as he indicating it was up to them to decide who speaks for the Canadian Government. Which leads one to ponder,Who elected Craig Oliver?

Oliver's attitude during the entire show was that of a Dion sychophant - calling the "Green Shift" a bold initative in the area of Dion's strength. The Green Shift contains no targets only taxes and as for strength under Dion as Minister of the Environment green house gases increased over 30% - what kind of strength is that?

Don't look now Mr Oliver but when you stated "However, they did offer us Jason Kenney, the Minister of Multiculturalism, to ATTACK THE GOVERNMENT'S GREEN PLAN" your political bias is showing. The Liberals aren't the governemnt no matter how much you may wish it.

Posted by: Dane M | June 23, 2008 at 07:04 PM

And why did the ctv keep quiet about the potential problem with the title of dion's plan.
Message to Delacourt and Craig, the liberals are not the government.
Over 2 years and the media has not got the message, liberals, out, liberals will be out for several years. If liberals ever get back in even with a minority, Alberta will be out.
We will not tolerate another NEP or Green Shift Tax, or GST2.

Posted by: MaryT | June 23, 2008 at 07:13 PM

Don't you think it is time the media realizes neither they nor the Liberals are in power? The whining from both is endless!

No wonder Harper ignores the media or gives them short shrift. They really are woefully ignorant on many issues and have an over-inflated sense of importance.

Besides, isn't Craig Oliver past his due date?

Small wonder Sandra Buckler barely gives these kindergarten refugees the time of day...

"But I won't be the last"

[...]
"One thing I've learned these last few months is that it's always worse than you expect. The willingness of the B.C. troika's social engineers to trample over every basic rule of English law has embedded at the heart of Canadian justice a soft beguiling totalitarianism. I'll be the first No. 1 bestselling author and National Magazine Award-nominated columnist to be deemed unpublishable in Canada.

But I won't be the last.

Mark Steyn. Macleans.ca June 4, 2008

"Canada is no longer a free country"

Following the comments in Natalie Solent's blogpost on samizdata.net ( a British libertarian site) [h/t] leads to this analysis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, using the recent decision of the Alberta Human Rights Commission in the Boission case as a application of principle (Levant has commentary on this decision).

The very first section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads -

. 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Doesn't that sound marvellous? You can rely on the quality of what we sell, eh? Guaranteed. Still, as with any sales talk, it's wise to look for the small print.

For a start, no guarantee can be absolute, can it? You have to be reasonable. And indeed the Charter says so. It's quite honest about it. Any limits have to be reasonable.

And where do you find those limits? Ah, they have to be in the law - "prescribed by law", as the Charter puts it.

And my goodness, not only that, but these limits must be such as can be "demonstrably justified". Nothing underhand about that is there? You gotta be able to demonstrate it. Don't all these nice things make you feel secure?

And to put icing on the cake, this demonstrable justification has to be the sort of justification that you find in a "free and democratic society". Which is what we are, aren't we?

Now, can we all dance around singing "we're free, we're free"? Well, not quite.

Move on to section 2 -

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

You would expect that if for example, a Christian Pastor believed that some kinds of behaviour were sinful, then section 2 (a) would allow him to believe that. He has freedom of conscience and religion doesn't he?

You'd expect him to be free to state his beliefs openly, from his pulpit, or in his Parish magazine. Or in any magazine, for that matter, or on the radio or via the Internet.

Oops, big mistake. You see you've mis-read section 1, and you've ignored the fact that Alberta has a law that prescribes something different. In a free and democratic society he is not allowed to state his beliefs like that. He's not even allowed to hold those beliefs.. He must renounce them, publicly.

How do we know this? Because Lori Andreachuk from the Alberta Human Rights Commission says so.

You see, the expression "a free and democratic society" doesn't mean what we thought it meant. It really means "a politically correct society" . And what does that mean? It means whatever any Judge thinks it ought to mean, and whatever any Human Rights official, such as Lori Andreachuk thinks it ought to mean.

So don't go looking for gift-wrapped freedoms of the sort you thought you could get from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms store. The shelves are empty.

Posted by Herbert Thornton at June 8, 2008 06:19 PM

Quite so. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms isn't worth the paper its printed on. A constitutional charter can't, by definition, be an "evergreen" document, subject to the whims, hubris and outright malevolence of politically correct parliaments and jurisprudence. Its very existence is to prevent statist abuses, not entrench them. The CCRF provides no "guarantees" whatsoever, except that you can be guaranteed, that with the support of less than a plurality, a Canadian parliament can erase your freedoms with a whipped vote. The CCRF says so. Certainly, if you are a firearms owner, you know that your freedom to have a firearm, in the minds of the legislators and their hangers-on, became a privilege overnight.

Democratic states do not grant "privileges" to their people, the people give privilege to the state, in order to preserve the rights of the people. Authoritarian states give privileges to the people in order to preserve the rights of the state. Where do you want to live?

Pakistan to ask EU to amend laws on freedom of expression

Didn't want you to miss this part:

They said that the delegation would also tell the EU that if such acts against Islam are not controlled, more attacks on the EU diplomatic missions abroad could not be ruled out.

From the Daily Times of Pakistan (h/t):

Pakistan to ask EU to amend laws on freedom of expression

June 8, 2008

By Tahir Niaz

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday.

They said that a six-member high-level delegation comprising officials from the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Law would leave Islamabad on Sunday (today) for the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium and explain to the EU leadership the backlash against the blasphemous campaign in the name of freedom of expression.

The delegation, headed by an additional secretary of the Interior Ministry, will meet the leaders of the EU countries in a bid to convince them that the recent attack on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan could be a reaction against the blasphemous campaign, sources said.

They said that the delegation would also tell the EU that if such acts against Islam are not controlled, more attacks on the EU diplomatic missions abroad could not be ruled out.

Sources said that the delegation would also hold discussions on inter-religious harmony during its meetings with the EU leaders.

The Stormy Days of March

"I’m sorry, but I really think that you’re missing the point. As noted in earlier comments, I was arguing that no one has a right to advocate the violation of a group of people’s human rights.

No, actually you're not. You're arguing, poorly, and with malice, that the violation of the rights of individuals should not be discussed. Steyn isn't advocating violation of anybody's rights. He is simply pointing out what should be obvious to many. You should actually read his book. Your reaction is the written equivalent of holding your hands over your ears and loudly proclaiming "I can't hear you!" There is much to discuss about the impact of Islam on western civilization. Islam is not a religion, its a blueprint for society. While you wish to be free from Christianity as you walk down the street, the reality is, no society exists without a religious morality at its core. There is really no such thing as a secular society.

Going through your responses to other commentors, you are all over the place intellectually, contradictory at best.

The irony is that you represent a demographic that can most benefit from a dialogue sparked by the MacLeans' article, but won't listen.

And then there is the Upperdate... "... Here’s another quote for you Steyn; You’re a sad, pathetic excuse for a human masquerading as a writer. Clearly a tapeworm has more talent than you. How you manage to stay employed is beyond me. I suppose I’ll chalk it up to wingnut welfare.

How is it that so many leftist secularists don't know what a bigot is, when you demonstrate with every phrase, every sneer, every condescension, that you are one?"

The above is a response I posted to a blog of the title above which Mark Steyn had captured for his Reader of the Day segment on his online blog.

I've reproduced it here because I've found that leftist bloggers don't take criticism well, and tend to be highly selective about who gets to offer an opinion on their blogsites. I fully expect that my post on her website will be deleted (as my post to yesterday's Reader of the Day blogsite was).

Update: Well, to her credit, she let the comment stand, and has some dialogue going. Good for her.


I guess it really shouldn't be a surprise that leftist bloggers support the censorship mantra that has become the principal raison d'etre of Canada's human rights tribunals/inquisitors/star chambers.

If the oblique statements in the last paragraph are puzzling to you, then I would direct you to, firstly, order a copy of Steyn's America Alone (available from his website), secondly, read it, and third, or maybe even first, visit his blog, above, and also visit Ezra Levant for a broader overview of what's been happening (and about to happen)to Canadian freedoms you've always assumed existed and took for granted.

While you're at it, work through Andrew Coyne's liveblog from the BCHRC hearings in which Maclean's is being drubbed by a coven of witch-hunters. Better set aside a couple of evenings. The sorry details will lead you through a tortuous path that will leave you speechless (or should, because that's what the Human Rights Commissions intend). Pick a day when you can sleep in the next morning...

Random thoughts....

Given that the HRCs are hellbent on destroying the fundamental freedoms that our lads are committing themselves to die for in Afghanistan, it begs the question, why would any right thinking lad (or lass) want to do that, over there? We might be better served to keep our boys close to home. Its becoming clearer by the day, they'll be needed here, to restore democracy to Canada.

I've said before that the closest historical antecedent to Canada's future is the former state of Yugoslavia. The multi-culti plan to turn Canada into the world's largest First World refugee camp will pretty much ensure the analogy. Given the existing and building tensions between anglophone and francophone Canadians, eastern, central and western Canadians, non-aboriginal native and aboriginal native Canadians, and now Christian, Jewish and Muslim Canadians, the outcome seems inevitable. Taken together with the loss of sovereignty of our non-renewable resources to huge emerging second world economies pretty much completes a view for Canada that is extremely bleak. Once, Canada was about the land. Now, that's pretty much done with as we rush to develop, sell, and ghettoize it. An intellectual Tent City.