Canadian Human Rights Commission OKs slurs to gays, lesbians, Jews, Hindus, etc.

A guy in Canada has complained to the Canadian Human Rights Commission on account of a book published by a Motreal imam, which he thinks breaks the Canadian hate law rules.

The commission refused to look into the case since they didn’t think any identifiable groups have been exposed to hatred or contempt.

Saying these things is OK by Canadian hate speech laws:

Homosexuals

  • Homosexuality is a “perversion”
  • Homosexuals “spread disorder on earth”
  • Homosexuals and lesbians should be “exterminated in this life”
  • “Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded”

Infidels

  • Most Infidels “live like animals”
  • “they are evil people, they love perversity”, and “they are our enemies”
  • "sending our sons and daughters to the schools of the Infidels has devastating effects on their beliefs, their behavior and their character. For the children of Infidels are the most pervert children. At a very early age, they adopt the behavior of their parents "
  • “Moreover, attending schools with Infidels may lead to friendship in their heart for Infidel children, which contradicts the foundations of Islam. Because Islam prohibits befriending even the closest relatives if they are Infidels”
  • “there is no doubt that it is not permissible for a Muslim to love or to take as friend whoever follows a religion other than Islam”
  • “Infidels say they are open-minded, but in reality they have opened their mind to garbage and filth, and closed it to all that is pure and right !”

Men are superior to women

  • “men are superior to women and better than them”. In general, “men have a more complete intellect and memory than women”
  • “Infidels acknowledge this reality, but they do not want to accept the truth because they are blinded by their passions”

Muslim women are superior to Infidel women

  • The consequences of immodesty are “rape, venereal diseases, AIDS, herpes, single-parent families, crime, poverty, ignorance and many others”
  • “… male Infidels wanted to liberate women only for economic reasons (cheap labor) and to sexually exploit them”

**Ethnic groups are not equal **

  • “Can we doubt the superiority of Islamic principles over the corrupt principles of Eastern and Western cultures ? Culture is based on the beliefs of a nation. The superior culture is the one closest to the revelation of Allah !”
  • “This is the reason why ethnic groups are not equal”

Muslims are superior to Infidels

  • “… a Muslim must never put his brother in Islam at the same level as an Infidel. In fact, to place Infidels at equality with Muslims is one of the greatest form of ignorance and injustice”
  • “The rule is that the most disobedient among Muslims is better than the most virtuous, the most polite, the most honest and the most loyal among the Infidels”

Christianity

  • “It is because of this religion of lies, which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery”

Jews

  • Jews “spread corruption and chaos on earth”
  • Most Jews “seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing”
  • Jews “unjustly occupy” Palestine for the sole purpose of “filling this land with corruption and transgress the laws of Allah in the name of secularism”

& etc.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission refuses to investigate the complaint filed by Marc Lebuis, director of Point de Bascule

  • what a joke. I personally believe all such writings should be legal, but as long as there are laws against such hate-speech this just shows how absurdly biased such laws are upheld. Apparently different standards apply. Well I sincerely hope it sets precedents.

That’s what they get for having hate speech laws.

I agree, but if you have a law, and you apply a law, then you should apply it in an unbiased manner. You can oppose the death penalty, for instance, and still wonder why a disproportionate number of poor black people are executed.

lol@Canada

The irony (if that is a sufficient term) is that Muslim groups in Canada have not hesitated to use “hate speech” legislation for their own purposes.

With the exception of instances where someone is calling for a specific violent act (i.e. lynching) I see no role for these laws in a free society.

Agreed. Saying “You’re free to speak your mind so long as what you say isn’t deemed offensive” is another way of saying “No free speech here.”

So what are we seeing in this case? Kowtowing to Muslim extremists or a restoration of free speech to Canadians?

Quite possibly the former in the immediate/short term and the latter in the medium/long term. Unexpected consequences and all that…

I think it’s called doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons.

If you’re going to have laws that potentially limit free speech, I would think you would want to apply them only in the most extreme cases - e.g. when public order or people’s safety are legitimately and tangibly threatened.

If that’s not the case here, then the decision was fine with me.

The problem is that hate speech laws have been prosecuted aggressively by the Human Rights Commissions for much weaker ‘hate’ speech than this - but only when the speakers are Christian and/or conservative. The CHRCs are a political weapon wielded by the far left against the right. They have nothing to do with hate speech.

I think minorities have a stronger claim to the protection of such laws than the majority. Its really hard to tyrannize the group thats in power and has the most population

Could we get an example of when the hate speech laws have been enforced?

Daniel

Although it’s easy enough to tyrannize individual members of that group. In any case, that rationale hardly applies to the quoted text about Jews and homosexuals, unless there’s a lot I don’t know about Canada.

There’s only a couple of things I’d like to see prosecuted from that list in the OP, which are the few lines like “homosexuals should be exterminated” which urge violence. Saying “muslims are superior to infidels” isn’t a direct call to violence.

From Wikipedia:

It should be noted that the Steyn and Levant cases were only dismissed after the commissions faced powerful legal teams and their methods and practices were highlighted as a public scandal in Canada. Almost every newspaper turned against the Commissions, once they started actually going after large newspapers and magazines. So the commissions quietly dropped the cases, preferring instead to attack those who could be counted on to be railroaded and not be able to mount a serious and expensive defense.

Here’s another where a Pastor was charged with Hate Crimes for saying homosexuality was wicked: Pastor, Christian coalition violated human rights law, Alberta panel rules

I think this was the case that was resolved by the pastor being ordered that he could no longer quote bible passages deemed anti-homosexual, even in his church, and it was a lifetime proscription. Can you imagine? The man’s religion says that homoxexuality is wrong, and he’s no longer allowed to quote those passages from his own bible. I’m pretty sure that would be against not just the 1st Amendment in the U.S. on free speech grounds, but probably the establishment clause as well.

I could go on. The Commissions in Canada have a history of entertaining every complaint issued against conservatives and Christians. And until the Levant and Steyn cases, they had a 100% conviction rate.

I hope it goes without saying that I find the anti-gay rantings of some of these defendents despicable. But I find the Human Rights Commissions even more despicable.

Out of curiosity, could you provide an example or two of *liberal * or non-evangelical “hate speech” you think should fall under the Commissions’ charters? Something that would help demonstrate this bias you allege to be real? :dubious:

When Der Trihs says he would kill all of the coalition soldiers in Iraq if he could, I think that would qualify.

I don’t know if that’s “liberal” or just whacked out. Anway, he’s not a Canadian. I was pressing Sam on his assertion of anti-right bias on the *Canadian *Commissions’ part. *Surely *he must be basing that on an analysis of actual fact, right?

I don’t think any speech should fall under their charter. But you have the case stated in the OP, in which the CHRC refused to hear the case against a Muslim Imam, whose ‘hate speech’ goes much further than anything any of the Christians who have actually been prosecuted ever came close to. None of the Christians who were charged every uttered anything close to a call to murder homosexuals or Jews as the Imam did. And yet, they refused to hear his case.