The Canadian Thought Police
News that a Canadian pastor may be sanctioned for calling gays immoral has been met with surprising silence from most American conservative bloggers, even those in the Christian corner of the blogosphere. Here’s how the Canadian Press describes the situation:
In a letter published in the Red Deer Advocate in June 2002, Stephen Boissoin wrote that homosexual rights activists and those who defend them are as immoral as pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps.
After considering the case for three years, the human rights commission will finally hear a complaint filed against Boissoin by Darren Lund, a University of Calgary professor. Lund contends the letter contravenes Alberta’s human rights law.
The decline of freedom of expression in Canada began slowly but has since escalated. The problem is becoming so bad that Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, thinks “Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated.”
Perhaps Prof. Martin is over the top, but it’s not hard to see where he’s coming from. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts.
But the crackdown doesn’t just happen to Christians; others can feel the pain too. University of British Columbia Prof. Sunera Thobani, a native of Tanzania, faced a hate-crimes investigation after she said that Americans are “bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood.” Thobani, a Marxist feminist and multiculturalism activist, soon realized the Canadian hate-crimes law created to protect minority groups from hate speech can be invoked to protect Americans, too.
The dual edged sword should help Canadians realize the wisdom behind posts like these from Jason Kuznicki, who is an atheist and “as gay as they get.” He writes:
Hate-crimes laws, and all solutions like them, are wrong, but not because the conduct they penalize is good or legitimate. These laws are wrong because they short-circuit the process of discovering what loathsome is; they are wrong because they isolate us from it and thereby weaken the defenders of the good. They are a shortcut that seeks to obtain the results of muddling through, in little victories here and there, without ever having to fight the fight at all, at least not properly speaking.
America is a nation unique in the history of the world. It is not the product of an accident or evolution. It is literally, in the word of the 17th-century European explorers, a “New World.” We can’t expect our unique outlook on liberties to be readily accepted by all, even in Canada. But Boissoin’s case is an important one because the mindset that threatens to fine and admonish him also threatens to gain footing in America.
Josh-
I don’t think there’s really much of a threat of this happening in the US. I think there is a minority that would like it, but our first amendment is squarely against it, something Canada lacks. And if it does happen here, you won’t just have conservative Christians fighting against it, you’ll have a large portion, perhaps a majority, of gay rights advocates as well (Jason is not alone among gay men to be squarely opposed to it, nor am I alone among advocates of gay rights to be so). Indeed, I was writing about this case and blasting this Canadian law months ago. In the US, I’d say there is a greater possibility that the opposite would happen. At least one American state (Alabama, not surprisingly) has openly considered whether to ban books by or about gays from libraries and universities, and that same state is likely to elect a virulently anti-gay governor next year who has written that gays should be imprisoned or put to death (the misreadings of others notwithstanding).
The whole idea is fundamentally flawed, as Canadians of all stripes are beginning to discover.
The problem: the powerless are being targeted with bigotry by the (relatively) powerful
The Canadian solution: illegalize the bigotry
The institution that carries out the law: the government
The people controlling the reins of the government: the powerful (this one is actually a tautology, but no matter)
Guess who tends to get prosecuted under the law? (Hint: not the ones administering it)
Oh, and Ms. Thobani, why don’t you try coming down below the border and calling us Americans “bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood” down here, on our home soil? Come on. Just try it.
No, seriously, I highly recommend coming down here and saying that. We won’t prosecute you for it, although you might get made fun of a lot.
Well Ed, there might be a backlash, but aren’t these hate crimes laws on the books all over the country? It seems the tool is already in place, ready & waiting for some arrogant beauracrat to come along and use it.
I just never understood how motive could be a crime, I thought it was used to help establish who committed a crime.
Scof wrote:
There is a difference between hate crime laws and hate speech laws. In Canada, the speech itself is treated as a crime. Not so in the US. I’m opposed to both types of laws, but they are distinct. The biggest problem we have in the US when it comes to hate speech laws is not laws but university rules. There are lots of hate speech codes on college campuses around the country and the Supreme Court has never had the chance to rule on them and, hopefully, strike them down. There have been two cases that I am aware of, one for the University of Michigan and one for the University of Wisconsin, challenging their hate speech codes and the courts ruled against the universities in both cases, but the rulings were not appealed so they didn’t set a wider precedent (both cases were brought by the ACLU, by the way). I suppose those codes could prove to be a model for a broader public law against hate speech, but if that ever happens you can be assured that folks like me will stand up with you to oppose them. I’m staunchly opposed to such codes and strongly support groupes like FIRE in their work against them.
I do recall some Canadian bloggers blasting the speech laws from the get go (Relapsed Catholic and John the Mad come to mind). As bad as hate crimes laws in the US are, I find it incomprehensible that Canada would have hate “speech” laws. Although there is a difference, both are forms of thought punishment. Not just a New World, but a Brave New World.
Josh,
You are exactly right. It doesn’t take much to see that the same intolerance for Christianity is growing among media and political elites in our nation.
Here in California, there has been legislation proposed to in effect muzzle Christian churches for essentially reading (much less commenting on) passages related to homosexuality.
The homosexual lobby will continue to push the limits. And, if the church does not stand up now, then we will look back and ask (as is the case with abortion now), “how did this happen on our watch?!”
What we have in the US is nearly as bad - self policed private sector speech codes.
You know, Lores, people like you and arguments like yours are precisely what make it difficult for someone like me to write things that I have.
Am I a part of the “homosexual lobby?” I have defended same-sex marriage and gay service in the military on this page and many others. Yet I do not support hate crimes laws and I am especially opposed to the subset of them that penalize speech alone. The first lesson that conservatives should learn about gay politics is that gay people are no more monolithic in their political opinions than, for example, Christians.
If you would like to teach and publish things that I find to be false, offensive, or obnoxious, please, go ahead. I even HOPE that you will, because your very offensiveness gives a useful precedent for my own: Freedom doesn’t mean much unless it includes the freedom to offend, to criticize, and to disagree. And I hope that you will extend the same civic toleration to me in return.
So tell me… Am I a part of the evil gay agenda?
Jason, I do not believe that being homosexual or supporting homosexual marriage makes someone part of the homosexual lobby. Not any more than someone claiming to be a Christian makes them part of the “religious right” or the Republican party.
I do believe that there are people who are, yes, LOBBYING to not only redefine marriage and family but who absolutely seek to silence Christians (and others) who do not agree with them.
That is the group to which I refer, Jason. Of course, you are free to believe and speak whatever you wish. Unfortunately, more and more often we’re hearing “tolerance” as the justification to be absolutely intolerant to Christians. THAT, Jason, is the issue I see.
Free speech should not stop at the doorway of a chapel or mosque or temple. Any group that aims to muzzle any other group from expressing their faith through legislation is dangerous–to you and me!