Three years ago a complaint was launched by the aptly misnamed Canadian Human Rights Tribunal against a Christian pastor named Stephen Boission for a letter to the editor speaking against homosexuality.
The tribunal ruled against him:
the Alberta Human Rights Commission ordered Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public forum. He was also commanded to pay damages equivalent to $7,000 as a result of the tribunal’s November decision to side with complainant and homosexual activist Dr. Darren Lund. The tribunal has also called for Boissoin to personally apologize to Lund via a public statement in the local newspaper.
Whatever one’s view of homosexuality this sure seems like the stifling of free speech. At the time I wondered how Canada would react if he had been a Muslim iman rather than a Christian preacher, well we don’t have to wonder any longer. as the national post explains:
In April, a Quebec blogger named Marc Lebuis brought a complaint to the commission over a book published on the Internet by a Montreal-based fundamentalist Muslim, Abou Hammad Sulaiman al-Hayiti. Lebuis claimed that the book exposed gays, Jews, non-Muslims generally and other identifiable groups to “hatred or contempt” under the plain meaning of Section 13 of the act.
Mr. Lebuis’ purpose, he admits, was to “test the objectivity of the commission” in light of commission rulings against Christians for publishing equally or less strident language.
Considering the Boission case this should have been a slam dunk, guess again:
CHRC officials told Lebuis that they would not proceed with an investigation of his complaint. They argued that Mr. al-Hayiti was free to say whatever he liked against “infidels,” and particularly non-Muslim women (what with their disturbingly wanton habits of dress and behaviour!) because they do not constitute an “identifiable group.” As for Mr. al-Hayiti’s imprecations against groups established as “identifiable,” like gays and Jews, the commission reported vaguely that these “do not seem” to meet the criteria for promoting hatred.
Well in that case Mr. al-Hayiti must not have said anything strident right?
Allah, Mr. al-Hayiti warns, has taught that “If the Jews, Christians, and [Zoroastrians] refuse to answer the call of Islam, and will not pay the jizyah [tax], then it is obligatory for Muslims to fight them if they are able.” Christianity, in particular, is denounced as a “religion of lies,” which is responsible for the West’s “perversity, corruption and adultery.”
At one point, Mr. al-Hayiti’s book refers to “the incredible number of gays and lesbians (may Allah curse and destroy them in this life and the next) {emphasis mine}who sow disorder upon the Earth and who desire to increase their numbers.” In one short passage, this combines a seeming accusation of demonic “recruitment” with an open wish for the complete elimination of homosexuals and a claim that they are a source of social chaos.
Gee maybe Ann Currey can interview him about his views on gay marriage.
I agree with the Post that free speech demands that Mr. al-Hayiti views should not be censored, but neither should Mr. Boission’s. The unreality of the difference is clear and Glenn Reynolds has pointed out the danger of this:
Will other religious groups take the lesson that violence works? Because, in a world of the spineless, it does, and at very low cost. Thanks, guys, for establishing this incentive structure.
The best way to answer speech that is disagreed with is more speech and the best way to call out either a spineless worm or a bigot is with courage. So in that spirit:
My favorite of the cartoons
This is my favorite of the infamous Mohamed cartoons. Think about it, Canada thought that this image was beyond the pale but the words of the Iman above were not.
Update: Nothing to see here either.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 