Bill Whatcott faces troubles, and I think censorship is afoot. Whatcott HRC-Worthy?

Methinks not, and nor does John Carpay of the Calgary Herald:

Should Bill Whatcott be required to pay $17,500 to four individuals who were offended by the flyers he distributed? In 2001 and 2002, Whatcott distributed flyers articulating his opposition to teaching homosexuality in Saskatoon’s public schools. In making his case that this would harm children, he said “Sodomites” were trying to spread their “filth” and “perversion.” The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal must rule on whether the contents of Whatcott’s flyers are “extreme” enough to justify this $17,500 human rights tribunal ruling. The court’s job is not easy because extremism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and the meaning of “extremism” changes with time. Forty years ago, sodomy was a Criminal Code offence and same-sex marriage would have been an “extreme” proposal. Today, same-sex marriage is legal and it would be considered “extreme” to re-criminalize sodomy. What qualifies as “extreme” depends entirely on the subjective perception of the viewer or listener.

Which is exactly the error inherent within the HRCs in Canada.  They’re a subjective system, mixing both government power with the freedom to speech.  A political tool at best, and a high danger to Canadian freedom at worst.

Whenever you are determining the extent of someone’s extremity of intentions, then one is coming very close to ruling on such things as thought crimes.

And I like my Orwell as evening reading only.  I don’t need him in real life too.

In a Regina courtroom last Friday, the lawyer for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission repeatedly asserted that the content of the flyers was “extreme” and “hateful.” She also admitted citizens opposed to teaching school children about homosexuality do have the right to speak out and can even use “strong” language to do so, but not “extreme” or “hateful” language. She spoke as though the difference between “strong” and “extreme” is obvious; as though Canadians are unanimous in where they draw the line. But as this court case and others demonstrate, Canadians draw the line in many different places. Which begs the question: why should the government take sides in public policy debates by prosecuting those who advocate politically incorrect views? As long as the expression is peaceful, why not let Canadians listen to all views (even “extreme” ones) and make up their own minds on matters of politics, religion and morality? Canada’s human rights laws continue to put courts in the difficult position of having to decide if expression is sufficiently “extreme” or “hateful” to justify the government’s prosecution of Canadians who express politically incorrect views. In similar fashion, Canadians are put in the impossible position of having to predict with accuracy whether their social, political, moral or religious commentary will be considered “extreme” or “hateful” by human rights bureaucrats. Since most Canadians can’t afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves against human rights prosecutions, and since most citizens are not capable of handling the stress of a prosecution that can drag on for years, and since most people would be horrified to see themselves publicly branded as “bigoted” or “hateful” by the process, people do what appears wise under the circumstances: they censor their own speech.

Any subject that might involve race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or religion (eg. immigration, same-sex marriage, Islamist terrorism) is now clouded by the spirit of fear because saying something “discriminatory” may well land you in hot water with human rights commissions.

Those who know me, know my stance on freedom of speech.  I don’t even see it as a right, but as an extension of our basic humanity and existence, and whenever anything with the power to censor us is attempting to do so, it unfortunately falls to us to reclaim what has been taken.

And writing, in the end, is the ultimate form of protest against those who would seek to take my words.  And yes, I know, nobody’s exactly breaking down my door to haul me away to the gulags for my speech, but as soon as government tribunals are deciding the fates of people such as Bill Whatcott, and Stephen Boissoin, and Ezra Levant, and Guy Earle, and Mark Steyn, and who knows how many others, then I can no longer say that my speech is my own.

It would seem that John Carpay agrees with me ( by the way, read the rest of his article.  It’s quite good. ) As do the folks at Free Dominion, and countless other hubs of free-speechery across the web-world.  I certainly hope such hubs will last in the face of Canada’s government.

And I certainly hope that Canada’s government will last in the face of its’ own bureaucracy.

-By the way.  Phew.  First post on Neoconstant, and boy is it a bit awkward, learning all the intricacies of this wondrous new thing called ” wordpress “.