Canada Kowtowing to Radical Islamists

Although this post isn’t explicitly about the persecution of Christians, it tells about an alarming incident that occurred just north of America, in Canadian British Columbia.  It’s alarming because it is a crackdown by a government agency on a magazine’s freedom of the press, instigated by the Canadian Islamic Congress. We’ll call them the CIC. The CIC had a hissy-fit when Maclean’s Magazine ran an excerpt from a book by journalist Mark Steyn. From the editors at National Review Online:

The piece argued that demographic trends indicate that Western Civilization will sooner or later be forced to confront problems associated with radical Islam. We believe that the right to free speech must be defended almost without exception, but it’s worth noting that Steyn’s article was perfectly within the bounds of reasonable opinion journalism.

While only an administrative hearing, the human-rights travesty had the air and authority of an actual trial — except with few of the legal protections usually afforded the accused. Andrew Coyne, a journalist with Maclean’s, live-blogged the farce; his dispatches were as amusing as they were harrowing. The proceedings had no evidentiary rules — new evidence was routinely introduced without warning. Commissioners routinely recessed to determine the eligibility of evidence; legal representation would dash off mid-hearing to print Internet material to introduce as evidence; an “expert” witness was called whose chief credentials were academic papers on Buffy the Vampire Slayer; and still other witnesses were called under the prejudicial direction that “we anticipate that success in this case will provide the impetus for prohibiting discriminatory publications in the other provinces.”

That’s right: This was only a provincial trial. The Canadian Islamic Congress — the radical Muslim complainants — went jurisdiction shopping, so once the trial in British Columbia concludes, Steyn and Maclean’s will find themselves the targets of another witch hunt at the national Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). Both “courts” can impose penalties separate from each other, and the legal costs are likely to be astronomical. (The complainant’s legal representation is conveniently provided by the state at no charge.) Incredibly enough, in 31 years, the CHRC has not once dismissed a charge that has been brought before it. Could the courts in Soviet Russia have boasted of such a success rate?

It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out that this situation could easily be applied to the writings of church leaders in the future. And just as easily, the secularists and humanists in America would love to establish stricter “hate speech” laws that would enable the government to crack down on pastors in America’s pulpits who preach the truth from God’s Word.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: