timeimmortal

…you know, for the hopefully small number of people left in Canada who can’t understand what a grave threat to our freedoms and rights the human rights commissions are.

Isn’t it obvious that in the case of Adolf Hitler, “hateful words” led to “unspeakable crimes”? This argument is offered routinely: if only there’d been “reasonable limits on the expression of hatred” 70 years ago, the Holocaust might have been prevented.

There’s just one teensy-weensy problem with it: pre-Nazi Germany had such “reasonable limits.” Indeed, the Weimar Republic was a veritable proto-Trudeaupia. As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, put it:

“Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.”

…

The problem the Jews found themselves up against in Germany and elsewhere was not the lack of hate-speech laws but the lack of protection of the common or garden laws — against vandalism and property appropriation and suchlike. One notes, by the way, that property rights are absent from Canada’s modish Charter of Rights. The reductio ad Hitlerum is the laziest form of argument, so it’s no surprise to find the defenders of the ever-more-intrusive “human rights” enforcers taking refuge in it. But it stands history on its head. Most of us have a vague understanding that Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag in February 1933 as a pretext to “seize” dictatorial powers. But, in fact, he didn’t “seize” anything because he didn’t need to. He merely invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Republic’s constitution, allowing the state, in the interests of the greater good, to set ? what’s the phrase? — “reasonable limits” on freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom from unlawful search and seizure and surveillance of postal and electronic communications. The Nazis didn’t invent a dictatorship out of whole cloth. They merely took advantage of the illiberal provisions of a supposedly liberal constitution.

Oh, and by the way, almost all those powers the Nazis “seized” the morning after the Reichstag fire, the “human rights” commissions already have. In the name of cracking down on “hate,” Canada’s “human rights” apparatchiks can enter your premises without a warrant and remove any relevant “document or thing” (as the relevant Ontario legislation puts it) for as long as they want it. And without anybody burning the House of Commons or even the Senate.

…

Happily, beginning on July 1, under Ontario’s “human rights” reforms, Commissar Hall will have far greater powers to initiate prosecutions against all and sundry. Under the new proposals, ” ‘hate incident’ means any act or omission, whether criminal or not, that expresses bias, prejudice, bigotry or contempt toward a vulnerable or disadvantaged community or its members.” “Act or omission”? Of course. The act of not acting in an insufficiently non-hateful way can itself be hateful. Whether or not the incident is a non-incident is incidental. I quote from “Concepts Of Race And Racism And Implications For OHRC Policy” as published on the OHRC website:

“The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power over those considered ‘other.’ “

Got that? Your denial of racism merely confirms your racism — because simply by being a “White hegemon” (like Barbara Hall or Jennifer Lynch) you wield racist power. The author, Frances Henry, cites the thinking of “modern neo-Marxist theorists” as if these are serious views that persons of influence in Canada’s “human rights” establishment ought to be taking into account, rather than just the latest variant of an ideology that’s led to the deaths of millions in Russia, China and everywhere else it’s been put into practice. Yet, underneath the blather about “omissions” and “denial” of racism is the bleak acknowledgement that, alas, Canadians just aren’t hateful enough to justify the cozy sinecure of taxpayer-funded hate police. “I would say that for a province as large and as diverse as Ontario, to have 2,500 formal complaints a year, that that’s a very low level,” Commissar Hall said. C’mon, you Ontario deadbeats, can’t you hate a little more?

Some feel that free speech in Canada is dead already, and perhaps it is. Perhaps, in due time, this and every other blog that articulates a dissenting opinion against the received wisdom of our progressive “betters” will be shut down for the greater good of society. Perhaps, in due time, people like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant will not be allowed to publish articles within, if not from within, the Great White North that articulate the same sort of dissenting opinions.

Then, too, perhaps in due time Sharia will become the law of the land. Once one’s freedoms have died, does it really matter whom one’s restrictions and privileges are bestowed by? Is there that much difference between a human rights commissar who can fine you into homelessness and bankruptcy for saying something anti-Islamic, and a pseudo-caliph or imam who can exhort “the faithful” to burn your house to the ground for doing same?

Myself, I remain somewhat hopeful that freedom will prevail, and I am not alone in thinking so. But at the same time, I think pretty much everyone on the “freespeecher” side of the debate can recognize that there’s still a tough slog ahead.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Just insane. Recommendations for how the can be improved include the following:

- ‘hate incident’ means any act or omission, whether criminal or not, that expresses bias, prejudice, bigotry or contempt toward a vulnerable or disadvantaged community or its members. A ‘vulnerable or disadvantaged community’ is any group or community identified as such on the basis of characteristics protected by the Criminal Code of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code, or Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter]

When I read this, I can’t help but think that it means that one could potentially be hauled before a human rights commission not for the crime of articulating a racist sentiment, but for not speaking out against racist speech that one happens to overhear…even though deciding to let the bigot waste his breath, and to not dignify his words with a response, is not a crime.

Perhaps I am being paranoid. Then, again, I re-read the above statement and wonder how exactly “any act or omission, whether criminal or not” is a criteria set to which there is any notable exception.

We come, yet again, several steps closer to the day when we may all yet be under the gun of the HRCs. Except they won’t literally have guns, because progressives hate those.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Not directly, at least. Fortunately, Wordpress keeps an accurate list of inbound links. He has his own blog, and has decided to issue his response to my latest reply to him there. That’s just as well; he wasn’t doing all that well via the contact form.

He seems to be clinging to insisting that all Religions are basically the same (a common fallacy among atheists, I have learned). To which I can only say, again, what I said to him before: “While you see a distinction between various sports, as an non-sports fan I simply don’t see those as significant. Honestly, the difference in rules and methods between almost any two sports is virtually meaningless to me. I don’t see a massive difference, in many ways, between playing golf and playing football…”

(All I’m doing in the above quote, O Reader, is repeating a statement Joel made about religions, re-dressed to cover an alternative topic; the absurdity of Joel’s stance is pretty clear.)

Joel posits thusly:

Once you believe in an all-powerful supernatural entity that controls the universe and his divine son that was killed and then rose from the dead, any distinctions between particular interpretations of these beings and stories really does fall by the wayside**.

For example, lets suppose I’m schitzophrenic. And I believe that the dog is talking to me telepathically. Would you see any real difference between me and the other schitzophrenic that believes the dog is talking to him vocally?

Of course not.

Once again, Joel’s ignorance shows through: there could be any number of differences between two schizophrenics talking to the dog. The question of the magnitude of symptoms comes up — of what duration, and what severity, are each person’s episodes? The question of medication comes up — is either person medicated? What kind of medication, and in what strength, is each person on? Is it perhaps time to adjust each person’s medication? The question of response comes up — should we let each person continue talking to the dog? Should we inform someone? Should we call the police? We might even ask what kind of dog is being addressed. Are the two schizophrenics speaking to the same dog? Is the dog (or “are the dogs”) responding, in any way, to either schizophrenic?

The point is that there is more to the scene than just what the eye glimpses at first. There is not only room for, but a need for, greater inquiry, because we cannot understand the situation until we ask some follow-up questions. And I might also point out, since Joel seems of a mind that atheists should “do something” about the pervasiveness of religion in America (”the battle we fight,” he termed it), the only way to properly respond to any situation is to dig a little deeper in order to better compose your response in a manner that is specifically tailored to the person being dealt with.

In other words, the proper response to schizophrenic #1 might be wholly different than the proper response to schizophrenic #2 — if we treat them both the same, there is a risk of doing unnecessary damage to at least one of them, until and unless we allow our actions and responses to them to be informed by additional inquiry. Dismissing them as just another couple of schizos is simply unacceptable, in addition to being dishonest.

Not that Joel seems to care all that much: he flogs the death of a single child as an indictment against all religion, even though the parents of the child were members of a cult widely derided and disavowed by mainstream Christianity. Had Madeline Kara Neumann been born to Catholic parents, she’d probably still be alive — whither Joel’s big issue* then? Moreover, whither Joel’s point that all religions are the same — there are religions out there in which young Madeline would have easily survived, grown up in, and thrived in.

But Joel has no interest in digging any deeper than he has to, and cares not for the fact that even though he himself is not a member of anything he would recognize as a religion, the vast differences that exist between the different religions are not a side point in the debate; they are the debate. Because what is atheism, if not a rather odd — and somewhat counter-intuitive — form of religion (in that it is a philosophical conjecture, a belief in a universal negative)? Funnily, I’m pretty sure that Joel would be offended if I called him a racist, and would rush to disprove the charge. At least, I would hope he would.

But if one thinks about it, O Reader, how is what he has said any different from the sort of bigotry that necessarily informs Racism? His basic contention, at least as regards Madeline Kara Neumann, seems to be that if a religion has at any point caused the death of a person, all religions are to be held accountable. Applying similar logic, we could argue that we should jail all black people the next time a Jamaican gang banger guns someone down on Jane Street in Toronto.

Hmmn…and here I thought it was us theists who were supposed to be closed-minded and bigoted (not to mention uninquisitive).

Joel also asks:

Its sort of like trying to talk with someoine who believes magic runs every little bit of the world. How could you talk physics?

Numerous science fiction authours demonstrate a rather handy fusion of physics and magic in their works, O Reader. Not that I believe in magic, of course — I merely observe that several works of speculative fiction nicely bridge the two concepts. But then, realizing that would require a person to have an inquiring mind, wouldn’t it?

Amusingly, one of the people commenting on Joel’s article added this nugget of “wisdom”:

To the point where they can’t actually understand anyone who might find their beliefs to be, well, insane.

Their very identity and that religion are so intertwined as to be inseperable.
Therefor, no significant dissent is really allowable.
(oh, you might allow it, but you treat it as if it were spoken by children)

What moleboy doesn’t realize, of course, is that much the same can be said both about atheism and those who follow that particular philosophical conjecture, and about the way many Catholics — including, more than occasionally, myself — wind up having to speak to them because of it.

But then, that shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. There is no such thing as someone who does not believe, after all. The great question is not whether we shall believe, but what we shall believe, and atheism is just one more entrant in list of beliefs that can be found the world over. And everyone who believes — every human being, then — is rather strongly wedded to their beliefs. Joel and moleboy’s identities are strongly intertwined with their atheism, and I’ve already had to speak to Joel…well…if not like a child, than at least like an intellectual inferior. I don’t really enjoy doing so, preferring discussions to be between equals whenever possible. But that hasn’t been possible in this case.