Time Immortal

Mohamed Elmasry wants you to shut up, O Reader. And he wants me to shut up, too.

Quoted in the National Post, Elmasry stated, “The state should act to empower those who are disadvantaged by hate speech, and that may mean lowering the voices of some in order that others may be heard.” Of course he isn’t talking about lowering voices; what he really wants is to silence them.

It’s a frightening prospect when adherents to any Religion can dictate what is and is not acceptable in public discourse. As a society we have taken strong measures to ensure that government and religion are separated, yet Mr. Elmasry wants to prevent so-called Islamophobes from speaking their mind by classifying anything they may have to say as “hate speech”.

His opposition to the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a section that is so draconian in preventing free speech that even Alan Borovoy one of the driving forces behind the establishment of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, thinks it overly intrusive.

[Mohamed Elmasry] wants to use this law to silence all critics of Islamic fundamentalism, which will impose a chilling effect on freedom of speech in this country. There are no guarantees in our democracy that anyone has the right not to be offended. Indeed, much of what Elmasry says is offensive, especially to those of the Jewish faith. Yet no one is attempting to gag his vitriol, even when he asserts on national television that killing all Jews over the age of 18 in Israel is desirable.

Now, is that a double standard or a hidden agenda on Elmasry’s part?

On the surface it seems odd that a controversial figure like Elmasry would be so eager to empower the state to censor offensive views. Elmasry himself has had issues with hateful words spilling out of his mouth. The CIC has also supported the free speech rights of Sheikh Younus Kathrada…Sheikh Yunus al-Qaradawi…Zafar Bangash…al-Jazeera…

Now, on the surface, it would seem odd that Elmasry would be so pro-censorship given that such a strategy could be self-defeating in that Elmasry and his friends could be caught in such a wide net.

Is this simply a double-standard — free speech for me but not for thee?

Maybe not.

Elmasry has been on record supporting what would be tantamount to blasphemy laws:

On February 23, Muhammad Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress and Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada told the Toronto Star they want to see changes in Canada’s Hate Laws that would make it possible to jail writers who, in their opinion, insult or mock religious beliefs.

Both Mohamed Elmasry and Syed Soharwardy are asking for changes in Canada’s hate laws “so that offensive remarks or depictions of any religious figure are considered a crime.”

Their demand has its origins in Egypt, where Islamists led by Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi of al-Azhar University have been lobbying Muslim leaders to ask the United Nations to write a law that “condemns insulting any religion, including the Holy Scriptures and the prophets.”

Obviously, Elmasry would face much more of an uphill battle if he were pushing for Egyptian-style blasphemy laws.

Maybe it’s not Elmasry who has the double-standard, but that he is merely taking advantage of the double-standard of human rights commissions to sneak in such a law through the back door.

It’s scary to think that such a thing as this — which is tantamount to advocacy for the implementation of at least some aspects of Sharia law — could happen in Canada, but there it is. And the HRCs have been co-opted into the tool of choice for this Islamic agenda.

Of course, the HRCs were already serving to undermine the human rights — free speech is a human right, and then an important one — of Canadian citizens. But at least, when it was just secular leftists and homosexual activists having their way in front of the commission tribunals, nobody was talking about implementing Egyptian legal policy on Canadian soil.

Update: Welcome, Kathy Shaidle readers!