Far Beyond Moral Equivalence

Jihad Watch reports on a recent episode of one of the Law and Order shows: Law and Order shills for Islam. In summary, the episode is about a Christian woman stoned to death for having a Muslim boyfriend.

We need not mention that God does not call for the stoning of adulterers - or, as Robert Spencer points out, that Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery (John 8).

Spencer observes:

And the subtext of it all, of course, is that those who oppose the global jihad and Islamic supremacism are just another flavor of fanatic, not someone who actually cares about preserving Western (and other non-Muslim) culture and civilization, and safeguarding the equality of dignity and rights of all people. Nope. The two sides are completely equivalent and interchangeable.

Spencer is right that those who oppose the advance of Islamism in the West are painted as fanatics in their own right. But the writers are far beyond moral equivalence here. In fact, the two sides are not being treated equivalently and interchangeably. If that were so, the writers for Law and Order would just flip a coin to determine who would be carrying out the stoning - "Will it be the Christians or the Muslims throwing rocks this time?"

But we are quite unlikely to see an episode telling the story of a Muslim father who kills his daughters because they are dating non-Muslims - even though this very thing has happened and can't even be considered anomalous anymore in the West, including Canada. And we are quite likely to continue to see Christians being painted as dangerous fanatics - even though this depiction is contrary to the theology and practice of the vast majority of Christians.

There are two sides to the coin that is being flipped by writers such as those for Law and Order: on the one hand you have their unwillingness to confront - much less portray - the crimes against Muslim women and non-Muslims that actually happen, continually; on the other hand you have their willingness - even eagerness - to denigrate Christians and Christianity by imagining things that do not happen. 

These are the actions of a suicidal society: attacking the values that established it, and submitting to the values that threaten to destroy it.

The 'Secular' State of Egypt

Via Little Green Footballs, here's a three-part video report on the plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt: Treatment of Christians in Egypt. Yes, that Egypt - the one that claims to be secular; the one that claims to uphold freedom of religion; the one to whom the US gives more than $2 million in foreign aid annually.

For more of what's really going on in Egypt, see these LGF posts:
'No Compulsion in Islam' | Egyptian Blogger Quits

Private Member's Motion M-446

The title of my last post - regarding Keith Martin's Private Member's Motion to delete subsection 13(1) from the Canada Human Rights Act - ended with a question mark. To be clear, I think it is great news. But I deliberately wanted to indicate some uncertainty about this development. There are uncertainties: on one hand, this is not a sure thing - it is only the beginning of the process; on the other hand, I wondered, if the resulting bill were to be passed, what consequences it would have for provincial HRCs as well as pending and past cases.

One question I haven't heard asked is why subsections (2) and (3) are not included in this motion. Since they both refer back to subsection (1) are they automatically deleted as well?

But there's another question that's nagging me: What is Martin's motivation? Many bloggers have encouraged readers to write a note of thanks and/or encouragement to Martin for taking the initiative on this important matter. But I'm not so sure. My approval is partly dependent on his motivation. I'd be delighted to know that Martin is an advocate and defender of freedom and that this motion is solely an outworking of that conviction. But as the saying goes, if it seems to good to be true, it probably is. I can't help but think that Martin is doing this for some political gain. If so, the means does not justify the end, and, though I support the means, I won't thank him for using it for his political gain. At NoApologies.ca, Al Siebring asks some of the same questions.

Nevertheless, all Canadians should write to their MPs in support of this motion. NoApologies and Pundita have some great summary material to help us get started.

A Step in the Right Direction?

Ezra Levant broke news today that Keith Martin, Liberal MP for Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca (Victoria), gave notice of his Private Member's motion, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.

It's curious and somewhat disappointing that a Liberal beat the Conservatives to the punch, but as Levant notes, it is also quite advantageous.  It's not the ideal - the entire Human Rights Commission provision has to go. But it is a promising step in the right direction. A few questions come to mind:

• This is a motion in Parliament. What implications would the carrying of the motion have for provincial Human Rights Acts and Commissions?
• What would happen to pending subsection 13 cases?
• What recourse would others have who have lost subsection 13 cases?

In the meanwhile, a few more columns have appeared in the Canadian mainstream media against the HRCs. Among the best is another one from Rex Murphy: 

Mostly I fear, if the HRCs are tied up, Canadians will be reading, unguided, what they choose to read, deciding for themselves what they like and what they don't, will discard a book or pass it to a friend, like a column or curse one - lit only by the light of their own reason. The horror! Before we know it, we'll have an unstoppable epidemic of free speech, free thought, and freedom of the press.

Section 13

The hate crimes complaints against Steyn and Levant are Section 13 complaints, referring to Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. Recent damning evidence has surfaced against current and former HRC investigators of Section 13 complaints. See comments on this development from Levant and Steyn.

Meanwhile, the Pundita blog has done some thorough analysis of Section 13, and by extension the state of human rights and liberal democracy in Canada. Pundita also recommends going after the commissions directly rather than waiting for the legislature do it.

Closed Circuit

An amazing story from NoApologies.ca: an assistant to a Federal Conservative MP recently sent colleagues an email that included the following:

I am wondering if someone might be aware of an issue with the Canadian Human Rights Commission??? I have received a few emails from constituents complaining about the HRC and I don't know whether this is just a blanket complaint or whether HRC was recently in the news....?

The cases against Western Standard and Maclean's are among the hottest stories on the entire North American blog circuit - never mind the Canadian conservative blog circuit. How can a Federal Conservative MP's assistant be oblivious to them? As I mentioned earlier, the mainstream media - who should be very interested in these cases - is also far behind on this scoop. Levant makes the same observation.

What consequence does this lack of press have? What has the average Canadian heard of this issue? And how does that translate into public pressure on legislators? As Al Siebring points out, it can't just stay on the blog circuit. Private support for beleaguered publishers must translate into public support before legislators can effectively take action.

Shackling the Citizen

The blog circuit is buzzing with Ezra Levant's video coverage of his appearance at the Alberta HRC. As he reports at ezralevant.com, his videos have been viewed over 200,000 times. They have also been featured on high-profile blogs such as Little Green Footballs. A study in contrast - and dare I say, evidence of their growing irrelevance - is the mainstream media's lack of coverage of the proceedings. One exception is this offering from columnist Lorne Gunter via the National Post, in which he indicates that the shackling of the free press is a symptom of a larger problem:

Gone is the robust belief held by our ancestors for 800 years that the citizen is sovereign, that he is free to do as he wishes unless the state can show unambiguously that there is an overriding need to limit his liberty temporarily. It has been replaced by the continental notion that nothing is allowed unless it is expressly permitted by the state. The belief that the citizen owes the government an explanation of his actions, not the other way around, has gripped our politicians, bureaucrats, judges and professors.