|
Several readers have asked me to link to this analysis over at Dead Reckoning of the Steyn/Socks face-off. I'm happy to do so as it makes several good points, among them:
Despite the fact that they have come age and were educated in Canada, specifically in the legal tradition of Canada, they still don't understand the concept of free speech. They think they are entitled to force Mcleans to simply allow them to publish whatever they want, and if they can't get it by bullying Mcleans they will get a government agency to do it for them.
This is so Muslim. If you want to accuse somebody in an Islamic country of offending Islam, you go to an Imam and get him to issue a fatwa against the offender. In effect, the human rights commissions substitute for the Imams and issue the fatwas.
I think that's correct. That's why the abominable drive-by verdict of Barbara Hall and the Ontario commission seems to the Sock Puppets an "historic victory". If, as the Canadian Islamic Congress does, you look at the OHRC as, in effect, a proto-Sharia court enforcing the official state doctrine, its pronouncement from authority seems entirely natural.
Incidentally, lest you doubt that the intent of the British Columbia case (see below) is to constrain dramatically the ability of Maclean's to discuss Islam, consider this clause of the BC Human Rights Code:
39 (1) If an order is made under section 37 (2) (a), (c) or (d) or (4) or 38 (2), the party in whose favour the order is made or a person designated in the order may file a certified copy of the order with the Supreme Court.
(2) An order filed under subsection (1) has the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken on it, as if it were a judgment of the Supreme Court.
|
