What's that Sucking Sound?

Maclean's Magazine is on trial this week before British Columbia's Human Rights Tribunal. Coverage of the proceedings can be found at Andrew Coyne's blog. The complaint centers around an issue of Maclean's that discussed the future of the West in relation to Islam and Muslims. At the heart of the complaint is the work of Mark Steyn, in particular his book, America Alone.

Opponents have declared that Steyn's book is "Islamophobic", an attack on Muslims, an attempt to portray all Muslims as terrorists. But the book is not firstly about Muslims or Islam. The key point of Steyn's thesis is that many Western nations have become cultural, moral, and demographic vacuums. European nations, as well as Canada, are unwilling to defend the fundamental values and freedoms in and for which they were constituted. They are committing societal suicide. Thus, America Alone is first an indictment of the West.

Steyn reasons this way: The West does not have a strong cultural will or demographic strength and longevity. This creates a vacuum. What fills the vacuum? The easy answer is radical Islam, which has both demographics and cultural will aplenty.

I agree with Steyn's assessment of the West's predicament. But the root of the problem is deeper, as Steyn hints with many references to multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a mindset that is part of a larger worldview - that of moral relativism. In this worldview, there are no absolutes; thus, no basic standards by which to judge anything; thus, no judgments. It is moral relativism that simultaneously causes the West's general reluctance to confront real enemies, and inability to defend its own freedoms and interests.

The issue of freedom of speech and the HRCs is far from unrelated. When there are no absolutes, what is your standard for testing people's thoughts, words, actions? In our times that standard has become feelings. If thoughts, words, or actions cause feelings to be hurt - or, in the case of Canadian Human Rights Acts, if they can potentially remotely possibly cause feelings to be hurt - then forget about truth, fair comment, and other inconveniences; these must be stopped.

The same vacuum that is giving the upper hand of the future to radical Islam is blinding many Canadians to the HRCs' egregious assault on real human rights that are based on timeless absolutes. That sucking sound? That's the vacuum created by a lack of absolutes.

The CPAC Debate

Ezra Levant and Concerned Citizen discuss the panel discussion on the HRCs at the Canadian Association of Journalists conference in Edmonton. I was able to watch all 80 minutes, but Levant also has a few shorter clips of the action.

Ian Fine was pretty brilliant in the way he avoided questions - I don't know why parliament did this or that, We just apply the law. His attempts to appear reasonable - We understand that there is concern, We appreciate that there is another take on the issue, the Supreme Court and Parliament agreed that we needed more protection against hate [italics are my paraphrases], etc. - were severely undermined by his statement of support for more laws against hate.

The big catch to me is that it is not enough just to look at a law and ask what is wrong with it in a legal sense, i.e. the letter of the law. The law, in this case the Human Rights Act, also has to be examined in a practical sense - that is, how the law is being used. In the case of Human Rights Acts, the law is being used in a way that was never intended, which the Supreme Court in the Taylor case did not anticipate - very much against the spirit of the law. When the law is used to prosecute political discourse and victim-less non-crimes, you know there is a problem with it.

The other thing is this idea that hatred needs to be stamped out by the government. This is a way of thinking that is very common, but diametrically opposed to the way our Dominion was conceived. That is the key point, that - as Levant and Martin argued - ideas should be tested, evaluated, and tossed out or retained in the court of public opinion, not by the government. When people seek to have arguments silenced, it is an indication that they have no defense against the arguments.