[Sabastian]

Free speech falls prey to 'human rights'

Ian Hunter
National Post


Monday, August 18, 2003


Time was when freedom of speech was considered the cornerstone of democracy. No more -- at least not in Canada. Of course, Canadians are not very keen on democracy, either, being content to be ruled in perpetuity by a combination of courts and the Liberal party.

Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and by Section 2 of our Charter of Rights. Everyone likes rights on paper; for that matter, we like free speech, too, as long as the speech in question is soothing, anodyne and we happen to agree with it. We don't much like freedom for speech that offends us, or with which we disagree.

Take the case of British Columbia high school teacher Chris Kempling. Mr. Kempling is an exemplary teacher, as principals and students, past and present, have attested. But Mr. Kempling is a Christian and, as such, he believes homosexuality is "not something to be applauded," to use his own words. A majority of Canadians may agree with Kempling on this, but the human rights industry and the pseudo-intellectuals do not agree with Mr. Kempling, and therefore we must all keep silent.

The British Columbia College of Teachers suspended Mr. Kempling for "conduct unbecoming a teacher." This decision just might be understandable if Mr. Kempling had expressed his views in school. But he didn't. He expressed them in a letter to the editor of his local newspaper. So, off with his head! -- well, not yet his head, so far just his teaching licence.

Then there was Hugh Owens, a Saskatchewan prison guard, fined for citing (not quoting, just citing) Bible verses that condemn homosexuality.

Then there was Toronto printer Scott Brockie, hauled before our version of the Inquisition -- a human rights tribunal -- and fined for turning down printing business from homosexual activists.

And the case of the Christian couple in Prince Edward Island who shut down their bed and breakfast rather than be forced to condone homosexual acts under their own roof.

But perhaps I had better stop there; I am no longer sure that mentioning the ham-fisted totalitarianism of Canadian human rights commissions is safe. Perhaps overnight it has become "offensive" (in Canada, synonymous with illegal) to point out what human rights commissions are up to. When you cease to be governed by the rule of law and are governed instead by the caprice of judges, you can't be too careful.

This trend to subordinate free speech to offended feelings is not confined to Canada, although this is one area (often, I think, the only area) where Canadians may justifiably claim to be world-beaters.

When the Vatican issued its categorical statement on homosexual unions last month, it was denounced by all the sort of people the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would consider putting on a panel.

In The Globe and Mail, for example, columnist Heather Mallick warned the Pope henceforth to stay out of Canada -- on pain of, well, something akin to ex-communication from the sistership of all right-thinking (which is to say, left-thinking) cognoscenti. She also wrote: "Churchy people have no say in government, and that's all she wrote." I confess to finding that sentence frightening precisely because it is true.

To Mallick I say, fair enough, this is why free speech exists: to allow people like you to sound off, restrained only by the law of defamation, without the fear that by speaking your mind you are likely to have your livelihood removed or wake to hear the midnight knock upon your door. But how come Heather Mallick enjoys that right but not Chris Kempling? Why is any form of rhetoric allowable so long as it is directed against the Roman Catholic Church, but fawning subservience is the only thing permissible when the subject is gay rights?

As soon as the Vatican's statement was released, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned Catholic bishops there that any distribution of it, even in churches, could lead to prosecution and jail under Ireland's "hate crime" laws. Likewise in Canada, any biblical or religious objection proffered against homosexual "marriage" is routinely descried either as "homophobia" or "hate."

This is an effective political technique because it scares many people into silence. But it is fatal to free speech and, ultimately, it is fatal to democracy.

We need to remember that free speech does not mean freedom for the speech we agree with. Such speech needs no legal protection. If free speech means anything, it means protecting the speech we find disturbing, abhorrent, offensive.

Put simply: In Canada it is the Chris Kemplings whom the law needs to protect, not the Heather Mallicks.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commenta...B-43352407DF70

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Sabastian,

That is a sad state of affairs.

Dr. Ffreeze

[Snyder]

"Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently." Quite true.

[pax]

Im sure a lawyer is just gonna jump at the chance for million $ lawsuits for denying Mr K's right of free speech under the charter. I agree as long as he kept it out of class he had a right to express any view himself. Heck Id let my kid be taught by an anti semitic Nazi as long as he didnt teach my kid about it.

Hunter goes too far tho as its very likely aclu and other such human rights orgs will be the ones coming to help him in any court case.

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by pax

Im sure a lawyer is just gonna jump at the chance for million $ lawsuits for denying Mr K's right of free speech under the charter. I agree as long as he kept it out of class he had a right to express any view himself. Heck Id let my kid be taught by an anti semitic Nazi as long as he didnt teach my kid about it.

I doubt that someone will stand up for him. What the sad thing is though is that he already lost his teaching license over a personal judgment wrt homosexuality "not something to be applauded,". This is hardly worth losing your job over and Mr Kepling should indeed still be teaching. He should not have to spend a fortune in the courtroom to get his license back. Further to suggest that possibly someone not condone or even criticize homosexuality is in no way similar to being a Nazi. The Nazi's are the ones who took the mans license and make the case for situations where by if someone is offended by another's opinion (and this is not for everyone, it only applies to a few particular interest groups BTW) they ought to be penalized and while your at it throw all freedom of speech out the window.

Originally Posted by pax

Hunter goes too far tho as its very likely aclu and other such human rights orgs will be the ones coming to help him in any court case.

How is it that Hunter goes too far exactly? Do you suppose that he might possibly loose his job for printing such an article being Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario? The thought Nazi's may do just that.

[Humus]

Originally Posted by Snyder

"Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently."

Those who buy Apple? 8)

[Natoma]

This is no different than the teacher losing his or her job over making derogatory comments about women or minorities or poor people or whatever. It happens all the time. Usually defamation suits or fear of defamation suits will cause the schools to act.

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

This is no different than the teacher losing his or her job over making derogatory comments about women or minorities or poor people or whatever.

I don't understand how you can say that. If I said, I believe adultery is "not something to be applauded," should I lose my job? If I was a teacher should I lose my job?!? Do you think I just committed a hate crime against all those that practice adultery? I view adultery and homosexuality in much the same light, am I doing something wrong? Is that line of thinking against the law?

You accept homosexuality, you like homosexuality, I accept that. That is ok with me as it is your choice, not mine. You can say how good it is. You can say you agree with it. Why cannot I say it is "not something to be applauded" and not lose my job? Please explain to me how this is not a double standard.

Please explain,
Dr. Ffreeze

EDIT- Hmm, I think I just read your statement wrong Natoma. Sorry. =(

[Snyder]

Originally Posted by Humus

Those who buy Apple? 8)

Quite a good example. Although the majority has the opinion that Macs suck, everyone should have the freedom to think otherwise and buy one, and we should respect that.

:P

[pax]

Originally Posted by pax

Hunter goes too far tho as its very likely aclu and other such human rights orgs will be the ones coming to help him in any court case.

How is it that Hunter goes too far exactly? Do you suppose that he might possibly loose his job for printing such an article being Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario? The thought Nazi's may do just that.[/quote]

In that he generalizes human rights orgs in one passing statement. Such orgs as the ACLU often jump at defending such outpsoken people. ACLU has defended nazis rights to manifest in the past for ex... why wouldnt they defend Mr K here? But time will tell. Im sure a court case will happen as its such a clear case of violtaion of free speech rights...

[MfA]

The first 2 are simple labour disputes, you can get both fined and fired for saying the wrong things in public just about anywhere without doing anything illegal (Im sure Mr. Kempling had a little more to say than just that cute line when writing to the paper BTW ... he might have a case though, depending on his contract). The last 2 cases are simple discrimination cases, it could just as easily have been about refusing service to black people.

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Question,

Then there was Toronto printer Scott Brockie, hauled before our version of the Inquisition -- a human rights tribunal -- and fined for turning down printing business from homosexual activists.

So if I have a printing business and a porn company wishes to have me print up some offensive flyers, can I refuse them without breaking the law?

Just wondering,
Dr. Ffreeze

[Legion]

Originally Posted by Dr. Ffreeze

Question,

So if I have a printing business and a porn company wishes to have me print up some offensive flyers, can I refuse them without breaking the law?

Just wondering,
Dr. Ffreeze

To be more specific a porn company that specializes in homosexual porn.

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Legion,

Well, that was not my questions. =P I was wondering if a printing business could refuse to print porn flyers, Natzi flyers, KKK flyers and the like.

Just wondering,
Dr. Ffreeze

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by MfA

The first 2 are simple labour disputes, you can get both fined and fired for saying the wrong things in public just about anywhere without doing anything illegal (Im sure Mr. Kempling had a little more to say than just that cute line when writing to the paper BTW ... he might have a case though, depending on his contract). The last 2 cases are simple discrimination cases, it could just as easily have been about refusing service to black people.

I disagree that what he said was wrong as far as I am considered the jury is still out on homosexuality. What is wrong entirely is that this creates a further discriminatory environment in government may discriminate against someone for what they think about.

Blacks are not the same case as homosexuals. One is the color of your skin the other a behavioral matter.

This about sums up my opinion on free speech.

We need to remember that free speech does not mean freedom for the speech we agree with. Such speech needs no legal protection. If free speech means anything, it means protecting the speech we find disturbing, abhorrent, offensive.

Otherwise there is no debating anything with regards to the legislation in front of our democratically elected officials. They can have no opinion officially or unofficially all this does is stifle the debate. Freedom of speech ought to be upheld.

[MfA]

If your reason is because it is homosexual porn no, if your reason is because it is porn period yes :) Hell I dont know.

I just dont see the problem, Canada puts discrimination based on sexuality on the same level as discrimination based on race which happens to be illegal in the good oll USA. If you want to argue from principle you cannot fault them for that without faulting the USA for their race discrimination laws. You can argue about the severity and the lack of a proper trial, but in this case the people involved seem to freely admit they were discriminating.

Ok Sabastian, lets forget race for a moment ... lets equate it to laws against religious discrimination

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Sabastian

Blacks are not the same case as homosexuals. One is the color of your skin the other a behavioral matter.

Don't you know being black is behavioral too? I mean, you have heard of jive talk right? Gangsta rap? Eating watermelon? C'mon now Sabastian, I expected more from you. I'm disappointed.

[RussSchultz]

Thank God we can have yet another thread on the merits/demerits of being gay.

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Don't you know being black is behavioral too? I mean, you have heard of jive talk right? Gangsta rap? Eating watermelon? C'mon now Sabastian, I expected more from you. I'm disappointed.

bah what was I thinking.

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Thank God we can have yet another thread on the merits/demerits of being gay.

Actually this thread is theoretically about freedom of speech. I couldn't agree more however with your pointed cynicism.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Thank God we can have yet another thread on the merits/demerits of being gay.

Seems to be the talk of the town these days don't it?

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by MfA

Ok Sabastian, lets forget race for a moment ... lets equate it to laws against religious discrimination

There is no equivalence there ether.

[Natoma]

To be sure there is no proof that sexuality of all kind does not stem from biological sources. In fact evidence leans to the opposite conclusion.

However, if you are not one to subscribe to that line of thought and you believe that sexuality is a choice, then how could there be no equivalence to religious matters? Religion is all about choice and the environment you grew up in. Sounds like a fair equivalence to me by MfA.

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by Natoma

To be sure there is no proof that sexuality of all kind does not stem from biological sources. In fact evidence leans to the opposite conclusion.

What evidence? Where is the gay gene?

Originally Posted by Natoma

However, if you are not one to subscribe to that line of thought and you believe that sexuality is a choice, then how could there be no equivalence to religious matters? Religion is all about choice and the environment you grew up in. Sounds like a fair equivalence to me by MfA.

God and the search for whatever it is has little in common with society putting a gag order on itself (by force) so that none may make negative opinions with regards to homosexuality, only positive ones are permitted.

[A funny] Enter the homosexual.... A red flashing light comes on saying "you must applaud or be charged with discrimination against humanity".[/A funny]

[Humus]

As long as people didn't choose to become a homosexual there's no reason why it should be treated any different than other non-choice attributes such as color of the skin.