UPDATE: The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has struck another blow for unfreedom of speech. The offending words?
“I don’t care if it’s a religious thing or not, if you don’t want to follow our rules, even if it is taking off your scarf thing for one lousy picture, then stay out of my effing country!”
Canada has a legal system more closely attuned to that of England than ours. The recent actions by militant Muslims to suppress any criticism have found sympathetic hearing in Canada. I previously posted about such an action in Britain. Now the campaign spreads to Canada. Mark Steyn seems to have had it right and is even becoming an example of the attempts to suppress dissent. The most recent outrage is a father murdering his daughter because she wished to wear western dress. To the Toronto Star, however, it is a ” violent dispute[s] between a 16-year-old girl in Mississauga and her father over her desire to show her hair and live a “normal” lifestyle” which ” raises questions about tensions between parents and children in the Muslim community.” I don’t ordinarily call murder a “tension.” but what do I know ? Here is more from a Canadian who shows that some of them are worried about freedom. Not enough, it seems.
Tags: Canada, freedom of speech, honor killing, Muslim
The legal systems are at the heart of the matter. Both in structure and practice. Is there any hope of logic and common sense to ever return to any advanced legal system in a developed nation? As long as the principals involved are intent on preserving their domain and expanding their reach, I cannot imagine we’ll witness a return to reality, or even a sense of justice in the original meaning of the word. Watching the legal professionals at work is like watching a rat squirm through an impossibly small hole. Reminds one of the long ago ‘discussions’ of how many angels can fit upon the head of a pin.
In fairness, it still beats the hell out of systems overseen by the Putins, Castros, and mullahs.
It’s shocking, and I mean that, to realize that Britain and Canada do not have freedom of speech. Shocking. Thank God for the Revolution. All day.
It may not differ that much from the mullah’s system before long.
The Islamic fascists are taking advatage of the apathy of the general public. By the time the average British or Canadian citizen realizes what has happend they may be powerless to stop it. The very freedoms one would dare not give up by force end up being taken ever so slowly as people are lulled into complacency.
It is so strange to me that we are so willing to give away what could not easily be taken by force.
This was just horrifying. Again, the religion of peace evidences a parent’s unconditional love. Disgraceful. If Britain and Canadians don’t see what is happening we better buck up and realize we’re no different here. This election will be telling as to whether or not hajibs will become haute couterie in the good old U.S.
“The legal systems are at the heart of the matter. Both in structure and practice”
To this I would ask: isn’t a legal system designed to protect the people it serves? And in turn, doesn’t it reflect the spirit of the people, too?
It is the quite conscious asymmetry that bothers me no end. The Muslims involved agitate for the “right” to practice every aspect of their faith—ranging from drivers’ licenses with women who do not show their faces to honor killings.
Yet these same people make no bones at all that they would not (and do not) wish non-Muslims to practice their own faith and freedoms in Muslim lands.
They must think we are very stupid. And the sad part, we may well be that stupid.
You caught that nutjob that verbally attacked Cathy Seipp on the Dennis Miller Show out and out telling Hugh Hewitt that he would not dare criticize a Muslim, but had no compunctions about attacking a Mormon.
Since the Mormon would not respond with violence. Complete cowardly hypocrite, yes, but that in a nutshell is what we are up against.
Eric, I didn’t know about the “nutjob” attacking Cathy Seipp in the past. I watched that train wreck on Hot Air and couldn’t believe what I was seeing!
Brett, if you go to Cathy Seipp’s old website, and do a search for:
“Lawrence O’Donnell explains it all for me”
You will find the appropriate entry. I can’t get a permalink, otherwise I would just send you there. The photograph of Cathy looking at Scary Larry acting like a bullying loon is fantastic. Such courage and style.
Recommended reading!
“To this I would ask: isn’t a legal system designed to protect the people it serves? And in turn, doesn’t it reflect the spirit of the people, too?”
Dana, the short answer is ‘structural’ is an ongoing process. The design wasn’t hammered out in any meeting room by concerned leaders intent on a coherency of logic and common sense, as we have essentially inherited parts of it, added to it, subtracted some of it, and have given the participants freedom to continue fine tuning. To me there are inherent weaknesses in the structure as it stands that are being exploited by the participants because they have the benefit of being the controllers of the system. These insiders on the admin side of the legal system also have ‘friends’ on the legislative side. What is it, about 70% legislators are law grads? Have no definite figure, but we all know it’s the majority in the legislatures at the national, and probably state levels. And any reform to correct those weakness has to go through the very people who more than likely have made or will make a living from the law, or have friends and associates who do.
Don’t even have to address the practice side of the law. You can get your fill of the aberrations on any blog, or MSM source for that matter. Even reading Patterico and Volokh you can see where they turn themselves into pretzels trying to do the right thing, yet stay inside the dotted lines of a haphazardly designed system. Extremely seldom you see any comment by them that the LAW is flawed, not the practice. Even rarer that they say anything about how to correct it.
You know what they say, a lawyer gets a code, we all start sneezing.
“It is the quite conscious asymmetry that bothers me no end.”
Amen.
I was gagging through a left wing blog the other day, and on the topic of constitutional rights for non-citizens, someone offered that the rights are given to ‘persons’, so they apply to everyone in the world. I thought that this notion would come from an American liberal, with his belief in infinite resources. I’m sure no liberal Saudi suggests that the protections of Islam should apply to all world residents–they are a little more discerning upon whom they lavish resources.
It struck me that Islam arose in the arid middle east, where natural resources were rather scarce and confined to select areas, so one often got ahead by hoarding and stealing. Europe, on the other hand, more often had a resource rich frontier, so one could get ahead by striking out on his own and working hard. So I’m thinking Western Civ. has come to be more open and tolerant, because we tend to think there is enough for everyone, if we can just get a Hilary Clinton in power to write good policy. Islam, on the other hand, came to be an Arab Cult of Domination over Scarce Resources, so keep an eye out for any angle, including the Canadian Human Rights Commission.