Time Immortal

Ezra Levant reports that Jennifer Lynch was allowed to place a wreath from the CHRC at the Cenotaph in Ottawa — her disgusting insult to the memory of fallen Canadian soldiers went as planned.

He also includes a photograph that enables one to precisely locate the wreath, and makes a suggestion:

If any reader is in Ottawa, help fight vandalism — remove that filthy wreath from the cenotaph, and place it where it belongs: in the garbage.

This is actually not a bad suggestion for one simple reason: Lynch placed the wreath not in memory of fallen soldiers, whom the Cenotaph commemorates, but to mark the 60th anniversary of the UN declaration concerning human rights (a declaration that is ignored by most UN member states anyhow). It seems to matter not to Lynch that she’s a month early in marking that anniversary, and she evidently thought nothing was wrong with co-opting a national day of remembrance to serve her own agenda.

The point is: the wreath was not placed in memory of fallen soldiers, but in lip service to what might just be the single most often ignored UN document. As such, it doesn’t belong on the Cenotaph, and should be removed.

Remarkably, I’m actually not talking about Jennifer Lynch’s tasteless and tone-deaf plan to lay a wreath at the national Remembrance Day ceremony to mark the passage of a UN declaration concerning human rights that a) most of its member states ignore anyhow, and b) wasn’t actually ratified until a month (less a day) after November 11th.

Although it must be said that Lynch’s gesture is the height of tastelessness. But then, what else might one expect from the lady in charge of the state Censorship organ in Canada. The mere fact that she is laying a wreath, when her very department exists as a mockery of one of the fundamental rights that so many Canadian soldiers sacrificed their lives for, is insulting beyond the ability of words to describe.

But I digress.

No, remarkably, I’m not talking about CHRC tone-deafness today. The tone-deaf group that is the target of my considerable ire today is something called the “Urban Alliance on Race Relations,” who are going after a magazine called Toronto Life for publishing an article on Aqsa Parvez which (gasp!) dares to discuss her brutal murder (at the hands of her father) as an “honour killing.”

There’s even a Facebook page, created by said Urban Alliance, urging people to complain to the editor of Toronto Life, Sarah Fulford.

The article in question, entitled Girl, Interrupted and written my Mary Rogen, presents the facts of Aqsa’s life and final days, and captures the tension that arose in the Parvez household between Aqsa and her father, Muhammad Parvez, who insisted that she wear the Islamic headscarf, the hijab. And when she refused, he strangled her to death.

Rogen’s article says some things which are at once uncomfortable to hear, but which ring true. But that’s the problem with truth, isn’t it? It can sometimes be very uncomfortable to hear:

Aqsa Parvez had a choice: wear a hijab to please her devout family or take it off and be like her friends. She paid for her decision with her life. When her father and brother were charged with her murder, it raised the spectre of religious zealotry in the suburbs. Is this the price of multiculturalism?

…

In the days following her death, Aqsa’s story was widely reported in the Canadian media as well as on CNN and the BBC. Was her murder an honour killing or simply a gruesome case of domestic violence? Worldwide, an estimated 5,000 women die every year in honour killings — murders deemed excusable to protect a family’s reputation — many of them in Pakistan, where the Parvez family had emigrated from.

Canada prides itself on its multiculturalism and, to varying degrees of success, condemns institutionalized patriarchy. But there is growing concern that recent waves of Muslim immigrants aren’t integrating, or embracing our liberal values. Aqsa’s death — coming in the wake of debates about the acceptability of Sharia law, disputes over young girls wearing hijabs at soccer games, and the arrest of the Toronto 18 — stoked fears about religious zealotry in our midst. Is it possible that Toronto has become too tolerant of cultural differences?

The rest of the article gets into a lot of depth, including interviews with many of Aqsa’s friends, and presents a very comprehensive picture of a girl torn between two worlds. Along the way, it gives glimpses into the home life of the Parvez family, and communicates the abject fear that Aqsa felt in her final days.

It also points out that Aqsa was a victim of peer pressure and a desire to fit in with the rest of her friends; she was aware that her religious garb was setting her apart, and took great strides to fit in with the crowd. Seraphic notes that in this sense, the article is “as much an indictment of youth culture in Mississauga high schools as it is of Aqsa’s family,” which I think is very much the case as well. Indeed, the article does a lot to suggest that Aqsa was being led astray by her “friends”, who evidently thought it was Aqsa’s “right” to part ways with her virginity before parting ways with high school.

Not that this excuses the fate she arrived at. And for all the threads it plucks at, the article leaves very little doubt as to the probable motive behind her murder — her death was, as the article notes, Toronto’s first honour killing. Or, at least, the first one to become public knowledge.

But let’s come back to the Urban Alliance folks and their tone-deaf campaign against Toronto Life. While there hasn’t been a human rights complaint filed yet, their clear opposition to the right of the magazine to publish content of its choosing comes across, and the usual points get missed. As Kathy notes, the group seems to be “more upset about Islam being “insulted” and “misrepresented” by the violence perpetrated by its own members (and by a mere infidel’s decision to publish an article about it) than by the actual dealth of a young girl.”

And much like the tone-deaf Jennifer Lynch, they opted to launch their campaign on Remembrance Day. Because hey, who cares about those 60,000+ dead Canadians anyhow?

This is why I can’t stand “professional victim” groups and grievance-mongers: they are unabashedly narcissistic, and think nothing of co-opting even solemn national holidays to serve their own narrow-minded ends. It’s Remembrance Day, you tasteless losers! Would it have been so hard to just wait until the 12th? Did you just have to attack a magazine’s right to publish content of its own choosing on the day that marks the sacrifices of thousands of Canadian men and women made in the cause of that very right, and others like it?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Think I’m overstating the case?

Jennifer Lynch, Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), plans to lay a wreath during the Remembrance Day ceremony in Ottawa tomorrow. This despite the fact that she and her department are committed to the very antithesis of the ideal of freedom for which so many Canadian men and women gave their lives in war.

(And, as Ezra Levant points out, despite the fact that the CHRC is essentially the biggest purveyor of neo-Nazi rhetoric in Canada today, which only gives additional insult the the memory of the men and women being commemorated who gave their lives in the cause of defeating Hitler’s dark regime and ideology.)

The kicker in all this, though, is that Lynch plans to lay her wreath to mark the 60th anniversary of the UN’s “universal declaration” concerning human rights. Which includes the right to freedom of expression. Which is the right that Lynch and her ilk seek to deny to Canadians.

So she’s not even laying the wreath because its Remembrance Day, nor is she laying the wreath to mark the sacrifices that we are supposed to be remembering on the solemn day that is November 11th, Remembrance Day. She’s laying it to mark the ratification of a UN document that most UN member states ignore anyhow, and which she herself does not fully give heed to.

This warrants a letter of complaint to an MP, methinks.

Update: For the record, the declaration of human rights was ratified by the UN on December 10, 1948. Not only is Lynch’s gesture tone-deaf, it’s just plain incorrect.

Apparently not.

Ezra Levant is back to blogging, and has just posted an update of his latest dealings with the CHRC, this time over his publication of an opinion column by Red Deer pastor (and HRC victim) Stephen Boissoin, who was ordered — in effect — to renounce at least some of the tenets of his faith in public (specifically pertaining to his views on homosexuality).

Anyhow, Rob Wells has filed a human rights complaint against Levant for re-printing Boissoin’s words. Levant has, of course, submitted his statement of defence to the CHRC…but get this: the CHRC officer assigned to his case, Natalie Dagenais, actually redacted (read: censored) part of Levant’s statement prior to passing it on to the commissioners!

Which, of course, was a big mistake, given that this is Ezra Levant we’re talking about.

But still…is that even legal! Not only does the CHRC have almost absolute power to censor any Canadian person or publication, but they even have power to dictate to you what you can and cannot say in your defence, to the point of redacting any documents you submit prior to their submission to the commission and, presumably, the tribunal that may follow?

This is not “justice” according to any legitimate definition of the word. This is farce! One would stand a far better chance in front of one of the much-vilified inquisitions of centuries past! And one would get a fairer hearing in front of those old courts, no doubt!

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

I guess the Olympic Games only ushered in a temporary period of openness on the part of China’s government. Looks like they’re going back to the “same old, same old” of limiting access to sites on the internet, and even taking it one further: patrons of Internet cafés will now have their photos taken, and will have to submit their ID card for scanning.

Now, one expects this sort of crap from the Chinese, as surely as one expects it from any essentially dictatorial government that depends, in part, on the ignorance of its citizenry in order to remain in power.

But could it happen in Canada?

Well, yes, quite possibly. Already, the CRTC is looking for ways to expand its regulatory control, and is considering turning its sights on “the new media” (read: the Intertubes). Among the questions they are asking:

• Are incentives or regulatory measures necessary or desireable for the creation and promotion of Canadian broadcasting content in new media?
• Are there issues concerning access to broadcasting content in new media?

Which, to my mind, translates out as a question as to whether the CRTC needs to “step in” and regulate the content posted to e.g. private blogs, like this one and thousands of others. Now, admittedly, that’s not the same level of Censorship that China is prone to exercising; bloggers probably won’t be required to submit personal photos to some massive state-run database. Then again, if the government is going to impose regulations on private websites as to what forms of content are and/or are not acceptable, that’s not exactly a step in the direction of human rights and freedoms, is it?

Ah, well…at least our brothers and sisters in the United States won’t have to put up with this crap, right?

Yeah, about that…

Barack Hussein Obama stands a good chance of winning the next presidential election. Okay, caveats: polls aren’t exactly meaningful, and it’s not like John McCain is out of the race, nor is he even close to being out of the race. But there’s still a good chance of an Obama presidency. Which has some really negative implications for the freedoms that American bloggers currently enjoy.

And I’m not just talking about the Fairness Doctrine (the currently-not-on-the-books law that stipulated that media outlets — a category which, pace the CRTC’s investigations, could be expanded to include private websites, under the label of “new media” — must present, at all times, balance in their analysis and portrayal of controversial topics. Which sounds, on its face, reasonable…until one considers that it would be used, by an Obama administration, to force pro-life websites to publish content which, for example, treated Planned Parenthood in a favourable light, or to force conservative websites to publish content expressing positive opinions about progressive political initiatives.

In other words: the end of freedom of expression. Or, at least, severe limitations on it, which is practically the same thing.

Think I’m being unreasonable? This is the same Barack Obama who has openly stated that he thinks that most Americans are “basically decent…basically sound,” provided they’re not listening “to the wrong talk radio shows” or watching “the wrong TV networks.” This is the same Barack Obama who does nothing to rein in (and perhaps even tacitly gives encouragement to) his supporters when they attempt to co-ordinate organized vilifications of those critical of Obama or his policies, when they aren’t trying to get people who disagree with Obama arrested.

Suddenly, China’s wanting to take pictures of Internet users sounds…almost reasonable by comparison.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

As I predicted, the kangaroo court blinked.

Mark Steyn writes:

Their Marsupial Majesties at the British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal have dismissed El-Mo’s complaint against Maclean’s and voted unanimously to acquit the hatemongers:

The panel has concluded that the complaints are not justified because the complainants have not established that the Article is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt on the basis of their religion. Therefore, pursuant to s. 37(1) the complaints are dismissed.

We’ll post the full ruling as soon as we can (the piece of wet string holding together New Hampshire’s Third World Internet service fell down down during the night so we have a few technical problems). I’ll be discussing the verdict later today after 6.30pm Mountain Time with Rob Breakenridge on 770 CHQR Calgary.

So the BCHRT opted to bury their dismissal of the “charges” against Maclean’s magazine — the central facet of which was Steyn’s article about the growth and spread of Islam in the world — in the hopes that the Thanksgiving weekend and the coming federal election would help keep the acquittal under the radar. And to be sure, most media outlets probably won’t carry the story, or will carry it only as an afterthought.

But that’s why we have blogs, isn’t it?

If thus can be publicized to a sufficient degree, it will make for a victory for human rights in Canada because of how it shames the BCHRT. If the story gets buried, it’s a victory for the other side; they’ll have gotten away with it.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Breaking news!

In a lame attempt to piggyback off The Tyranny Of Nice book launch, the British Columbia “human rights” Tribunal will announce its decision in the Maclean’s case at 12 noon Pacific Kangaroo Time tomorrow.

Which, of course, has Tyranny of Nice author Kathy Shaidle planning some mischief with which to mark the occasion.

She’s quite right, I think; the BCHRT is trying to slip this one in before the Thanksgiving weekend, hoping that nobody will notice. Certainly, with an election coming up next Tuesday, the media will mostly turn a blind eye to it.

Which probably means it’s going to be a “not guilty,” methinks. Still, either way good Reader, please take the time to spread the word about this a bit. And stay tuned to Mark Steyn’s website for updates on or about noon, Pacific Time.