Subscribe to Topics
Our allies at Refugee Resettlement Watch, AnnC and JudyW have taken up the cudgel in defense of free speech that appears to be an offense in our neighbor to the North, Canada, with the CHRC witch hunt against author and journalist Mark Sten and editor Ezra Levant of the Western Standard, whose ordeal we have posted. They have also drawn attention to the dilemma of the British blogger, “Lionheart” presently in the US who will be arrested for alleged ‘racial incitement in the U.K. for criticizing Islamists in Londonistan. We have posted on “Lionheart’s” plight.
As we noted in our recent post, both the witch hunt up in Canada perpetrated by Islamists and the Lionheart blogger case are reasons why we bless the Constitutional Free Speech benefits of our First Amendment. These matters closely resemble the ordeal of the fictional character Josef K in Kafka’s, “The Trial” who awoke one morning and found himself arrested and tried for unknown charges by unknown accusers. What was a surreal fiction is now a reality fomented by Islamists in the West under the banner of cultural jihad violating our free speech rights. Brava to JudyW and AnnC at Refugee Resettlement Watch.
by JudyW, Refugee Resettlement Watch, January 29, 2008
We see the need for a new category on this blog — free speech. In Canada and in Britain, bloggers and journalists are under attack for saying the kind of things we say here at Refugee Resettlement Watch. One is Mark Steyn, the extraordinary columnist and author of America Alone. As reported by Paul Schneidereitt in the Nova Scotia Chronicle Herald:
Last October, Maclean’s published an excerpt from Steyn’s new book, America Alone. In that work, Steyn argues demographics foretells the collapse of the West and rise of Islam. Below-replacement birth rates in many Western countries, including Canada, says Steyn, and high fertility rates among Muslims, increases the danger Islamic fundamentalism will overpower Western countries in future.
In the United States, that’s not a punishable offense. But in Canada –
[f]our law students…filed complaints, backed by the Canadian Islamic Congress, with the federal, B.C. and Ontario human rights commissions, alleging Steyn and Maclean’s were promoting ill will towards Muslims. Again, in a measure of just how far these commissions believe their jurisdiction over what we say goes, the federal and B.C. bodies have indicated they’ll hear the case.
Ann wrote yesterday about the case of Lionheart, the British blogger who is threatened with arrest if he returns to Britain because of things he said on his blog. As he put it:
I am currently out of the Country and on my return home to England I am going to be arrested by British detectives on suspicion of Stirring up Racial Hatred by displaying written material” contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986.
What a dreadful thing that Britain, the cradle of the liberties we enjoy as Americans, has such a law! We pray for Lionheart’s safety. And we need to make sure that nothing like that is ever imposed on us, though some are trying to do just that. One of my favorite guardians of our free speech rights is Nat Hentoff, whose article in yesterday’s Washington Times, Freedom for thought we hate, is well worth reading. The title of the article (and the book Hentoff is reviewing) comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:
“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
And he quotes George Orwell, who knew something about politically correct suppression of speech (remember the Ministry of Truth in 1984?):
“If large numbers of people believe in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech even if the law forbids it. But if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be prosecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.”
