VIKING HEART

Kurt Westergaard: Heart of a Viking

A

cartoonish rage is sweeping the Muslim world, again. Two years ago, the perpetually offended fundamentalist community had their rage stoked by a conniving imam based in Denmark, who travelled across the Arab lands carrying copies of the twelve Jyllands-Posten cartoons -- plus a few extra-degrading "drawings of Mohammed" he'd sourced on his own (which had not been published as part of the artistic freedom exercise, and actually had nothing to do with Mohammed). And thus, five months after the Danish newspaper published the results of its challenge to artists, a crisis was born. Muslim fundamentalists rioted and burned and killed, leaving at least one hundred dead bodies behind them.

Kurt Westergaard is the author of the most famous and iconic of the twelve images, and he's the Salman Rushdie of our current times. Last month, the Danish police intelligence service (PET) broke up a plot to kill him. This was not exactly unforeseen. A number of death fatwas had been issued by extremist imams, including generous rewards for his killing. The PET had been following this plot for some months, and the 73 year old artist and his wife had been living under their protection since last November.

When the police finally pounced last month, arresting two Tunisians and a Danish citizen of Moroccan origin, many Danish and other European publishers reprinted Westergaard's drawing out of solidarity with him. This was just what the community of perpetual outrage was waiting for. An easy excuse to gin up more protests, feign some more anguish, and demand that secular societies must abide by sharia prohibitions against the depiction of a certain historical figure. Don't tell them that Muslim artists have depicted Mohammed many times throughout history, they won't hear you.

And so Kurt Westergaard and his wife continue to live an unsettled life in a manner reminiscent of Burma's freedom dissidents, a hidden life shifting between safe houses (although in this case, helped by their own government rather than hunted by it). They've been expelled from one hotel in their home city of Aarhus, and his poor wife has been fired from her job as a kindergarten teacher, after a 25 year career.

But this elderly Dane is unrepentant and unafraid. He's no xenophobic provocateur or religious chauvinist -- quite the contrary. He's a man of the left who had even offended some Christians with his drawing talents, as you'll see in the videos below. (Wai AllahPundit at Hot Air)

He was interviewed on the "Danmark Radio TV" program "In All Honesty" in early February, before the arrests were made in the murder plot. Unfortunately, the interviewer is a wooden and highly repetitive character who constantly tries to shift the blame onto Westergaard himself. "How does it feel, as a human being, that your drawing caused all these deaths?" It's worthwhile to hear Kurt's responses to such hand-wringing; or rather, to hear the stoic Danish delivery while reading the subtitle translations.

In a few places the last word of a subtitle is lost behind the YouTube logo, but usually it can be made out. A full transcription can also be found here, along with some very interesting commentary (in English) from a Dane who knows the background of this particular broadcast outlet. Despite the difficulties he had in getting past the agenda of this interviewing technique, he had a message and succeeded in getting it through... barely before he was abruptly cut off by the end of the program. If you're pressed for time then, take part three. But the whole thing is worth viewing.



Several possible fates for his famous drawing are discussed in this news story.

Labels: Free Speech, Terrorism

- posted by Agam @ 1:15 PM 0 comments

 
OFFENDED IMAM: 'OH WELL, NEVER MIND THEN'

L

ast month, we had the story of the offended Imam in Calgary who launched a Canadian Inquisition (nobody expects the Canadian Inquisition!) before an Alberta "human rights" tribunal against the former magazine publisher who had the temerity to defend his right to publish the infamous Mo-Toons.

Now that a conspiracy to murder one of the Danish cartoonists has been broken up by Danish police, newspapers across Europe have re-published the cartoons in solidarity with freedom of expression, and his case has received a little too much international exposure, Imam Syed Soharwardy has concluded that he could do without all the bothersome scrutiny. So after having Alberta taxpayers foot the bill for his prosecution of these thought crimes, while his target is out of pocket about 100 G's or so in defending himself, the Imam is calling it quits.

Before his Emily Litella moment, Soharwardy requested a meeting with the editorial board of the Calgary Herald, in order to rebuff claims that he is a "hate-mongering, anti-Semitic, Wahabi radical who wants to see Canada governed under sharia law," as he put it. Herald staff did a little homework before the meeting, and pulled up some of his published newspaper columns and other works. He published this in 2004:

"Sharia cannot be customized for specific countries. These universal, divine laws are for all people of all countries for all times...

"I am one of the founding members of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice. The mandate of the institute is to resolve disputes within existing Canadian laws by using the principles of conflict resolution from Islamic Law, or sharia."

During his conversation with the editors, he denied ever asking to bring sharia to Canada, and thus denying his own written words. In another essay in his newsletter, he had condemned Israel's treatment of Palestinians as a worse crime than the Holocaust of World War II. No anti-Semitism there, this was taken out of context, he told the editors.

And following the massive disaster of the 2004 tsunami, he denounced the humanitarian work of Christians in Aceh with another news release, claiming that they were kidnapping Muslim orphans to convert them to Christianity. That also was a lie, which he now denied ever making.

This is the guy who accused Ezra Levant of hate speech, and got the government of Canada to do his bidding.

Yet in his interview with the Herald, he claimed to have launched the complaint because Muslim youth "were getting alienated," not due to anticipated hatred toward himself. Now he wishes to drop his complaint because he realizes how important free speech is for Canada.

The article notes however, that he told The National last week, "People were looking at Ezra Levant as a martyr of freedom of his speech . . . taking this into a different direction that I did not want." He actually expected to be the martyr / hero himself, but it wasn't working out that way. Well, that's very different. Never mind then.

But that's not the end of it. Levant plans to file an 'abuse of process' claim against him (an abuse he's already admitted to), but the Edmonton Muslim Council still has an identical complaint against Levant which is still proceeding. And there's still more.

The Imam has a human rights case pending against himself, lodged last December by three women who attended his mosque. The women allege they were the targets of abusive threats during a November meeting at Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre. This isn't free speech anymore, this is actual abuse. And now, it's not just verbal threats but physical abuse too.

One of the three women, Robina Butt, answered her door last week when the callers identified themselves as members of the press. When she opened it, a man and someone in a burqa forced their way in. They threw her against a wall and assaulted her, leaving her with bruises and cuts all over her body. The intruders fled when they thought someone else was coming to the house.

Butt [Robina's husband] said the male attacker told his wife, "We come from Al-Madinah; if you ever talk anything about Al-Madinah . . . this is the first instalment."

Soharwardy denies all allegations against Al-Madinah.

Levant has photos of the victim, as shown in a Pakistani-Canadian newspaper. Robina was very lucky the thugs got spooked and ran.

Wai Dust my Broom for the Herald links.

Labels: Free Speech, Terrorism

- posted by Agam @ 7:19 PM 0 comments

 
THE POLITICALLY CORRECT AUTHORITARIANS

T

his is the graphic center-piece on the cover of Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism, currently all the rage among American progressives. And I mean that literally -- the rage is astounding, especially among those who've never cracked it open to have a look.

This is not a book review, as I haven't read it yet either. But I have read many extended excerpts at the above link, which is Jonah's "book blog," and it seems he has done quite a bit of scholarly research into the roots of many of the political ideologies whose names are thrown around with wild abandon these days by people who don't really know what they mean. To many folks, the title itself would seem to be an oxymoron (except perhaps for some Canadians, who could relate to it with memories of the Liberal Party's "born to rule" ethic).

These days the label "progressive" has taken favour over "liberal," but I doubt Goldberg would be under less attack today had he titled it "Progressive Fascism" -- even though his delving into the history of the "Progressive Movement" of the early 20th century, and its fascinations with fascism, state power, eugenics and many other aspects of authoritarian do-gooder philosophy are apparently major themes in the book. Why anyone would prefer to be known as a "progressive" today, explicitly recalling that well documented political movement, is quite a mystery if one knows the historical background.

The 'happy face' graphic stirs a lot of anger too, among those for whom 'fascism' is just another word for 'conservatism.' What the enraged don't seem to get is that it isn't Mr. Happyface with Hitler's moustache, it's a Mr. Happyface that someone has scribbled a Hitler moustache on. It seems to me there's a difference in intent between the two. It's grafitti, reminiscent of Hitler-Bush, Hitler-Cheney or Hitler-Condi placards seen at ANSWER rallies. Anybody can be Hitler. All you need is a black marker.

One thing about Goldberg's book that I can say (repeat: haven't read it yet), and that is his timing is impeccable. A near religious revival is sweeping his country, with many otherwise sensible people proclaiming a new savior, whose message to them is, "We are the ones we've been waiting for." He doesn't have supporters so much as he has followers, chanting his Word in eye-glazed adoration while some faint at his feet -- and all fueled by inspiring bromides and platitudes. Policy proposals are so 'last year', and will be irrelevant when The Change happens anyway. It's a bit like Harmonic Convergence (remember that?). We are the ones we've been waiting for.

Not long ago, one of my childhood's favourite Canadians revealed his own potential for extreme authoritarianism, and intolerance for heresy. Dr. David Suzuki told students at McGill University that politicians who don't hew to the global warming orthodoxy, or who don't agree that "the science is settled," should be thrown into prison. If you'd like to see how settled it is, take a look here for both sides of the issue.

David, thank you for The Nature of Things and all that, back when you believed in dispassionate scientific inquiry. But this calls for an update of Jonah's graphic. When a set of science theories become equivalent to religious belief, such that countervailing evidence is decried as heresy to be met with serious punishment, they cease to be science anymore. It's more akin to the Spanish Inquisition (which nobody expects!), a point well made by Canada's leading CBC curmudgeon Rex Murphy. (There should be a wai here,but I forget where I picked that up from.)

The revised graphic will also have to do for the Great Imam of the Church of England, Rowan Williams (although his whiskers of wisdom are considerably bushier than David's). He told his flock recently that Islamic Shari'a Law was to be an inevitable addition to the British legal system. Isn't it nice that fascism, in any of its modern incarnations, always comes with a kind and gentle smile? Of course he didn't mean anything like hand-chopping of thieves, stoning of adulterers or hanging of homosexuals. Only that many British Muslims have no affinity for the laws of the country they have chosen to call home, and Britain would be well advised to make them feel more comfortable by importing some of the laws of the countries they left behind.

After all, these laws are "received jurisprudence" given by Allah to his people 14 centuries ago. What could go wrong? These are laws which are so universal, they haven't changed by even one word in all that time. It's an Archbishop of Canterbury Tale of the times we live in, as depicted in Chaucerian prose so ably by the indispensible iowahawk.

17 Hie and thither to the Arche-Bishop's manse

18 The pilgryms ryde and fynde perchance

19 The hooly Bishop takynge tea

20 Whilste watching himselfe on BBC.

One hundred and one lines of gut splitting hilarity, so don't forget to read the whole thing.

Vigilance means watching for danger where you least expect it.

Labels: Free Speech

- posted by Agam @ 4:59 PM 0 comments

 
NYT [HEARTS] COMMUNIST OPPRESSION

W

hat a surprise: The New York Times Parrots Communist Party Line.

The theater was packed, the crowd gave a standing ovation, and audience members raved in interviews after the show. But according to a story in The New York Times last week, as many as "hundreds" were flocking to the exit doors by intermission...

What made the Times article even more unusual was that its criticisms mimic the line of China's communist regime, which has engaged in a behind-the-scenes campaign to have Splendor shut down.

The Times panned the Chinese New Year Splendor show at the city's Radio City Music Hall, backed by quotes from three audience members (two of them apparently on condition of anonymity), concluding that some find it hard to watch. Those "some" certainly include officials and agents of the Chinese Communist Party, which has tried to discredit the show at every available opportunity -- including Chinese consular letters pressuring US politicians not to attend. Such pressure has been applied in other countries as well, sometimes successfully.

As a document obtained last year, originating from China's "State Administration of Radio, Film and Television" made clear, this is a longstanding policy of the CCP.

"The leadership of the central government has ordered that they [the NTDTV shows] be destroyed by any and all means," said the document, which was dated Dec. 16, 2003, when NTDTV was preparing its first Chinese New Year show.

If that was not possible, orders were to "minimize their impact," the document said.

Displays of true Chinese culture, free of restrictions imposed by Party control-freaks, are not countenanced in the halls of power in Beijing. If the dramatic content contains references to human rights, well, that's not cool in the top floors of the New York Times either, it seems.

And thus the New York Times -- which like other foreign media, is heavily controlled and censored within China -- has become a hit among Party cadres. The negative theatre review was enthusiastically republished by Xinhua, the Party's official mouthpiece, and widely propagated in other state controlled Chinese media.

The sold out shows and reportedly frequent standing ovations were not mentioned in the Times review, and neither has the paper seen fit to publish a letter of clarification from the president of the production company.

"Human rights abuses are indeed a part of the culture modern Chinese have inherited, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the medium through which it was expressed. Whether we like it or not, these abuses are part of today's reality in China.

"One of the basic freedoms central to the United States is freedom of expression. Mr. Konigsberg should not find it so shocking that a Chinese culture show produced in the U.S. includes some reference to China's human rights issues."

The great unmentionable, at least in some circles these days.

But let's keep things in persepective. New York Times. Soviet Union. Pulitzer Prize. Walter Duranty. Heh.

Labels: China, Free Speech

- posted by Agam @ 6:36 PM 0 comments

 
WELCOME TO THE TOTALITARIAN OLYMPICS

In 1936, the England football team was ordered to give the Nazi salute for Adolph Hitler. In 2008, athletes are being forced to kowtow to the Chinese communist concept of political correctness.

T

he Olympic Games set to open on 08/08/08 will apparently be a nostalgic rerun of past games hosted by totalitarian states. Our stalwart friend Freedom of Speech will not be attending, as long as "progressive" national committees have anything to say about it.

First came the Belgian Olympic Committee's announcement, prohibiting its athletes from making any statements of conscience. The order said,

"Not a single participant in the Games will be allowed to give a political opinion at the Olympic venues."

Then the New Zealand Olympic Committee got in on the action, barring Kiwi athletes from free expression in Beijing.

NZOC Secretary General Barry Meister said they, "will absolutely tell their athletes they will not be allowed to have a political opinion at the Olympics."

Evidently it's common practice for New Zealand's athletes to be forced to sign a contract to that effect.

This stance by the quintessentially "progressive" leadership, which has governed New Zealand for a very long time, is pretty rich -- given that PM Helen Clark was so highly principled that she refused to send an official condolence to Indonesia on the death of that country's second president. I didn't like Suharto much either, but Indonesians won't soon forget such official rudeness from their neighbour. Practically the very next day, she was forced to defend New Zealand's friendly governmental cooperation with... the military junta in Burma. Which she did, in a very progressive style.

Canada, possibly because the "progressives" are out of power at the moment (and currently quite embarrassed enough, thank you, over its own Human Rights Commissions' punitive oversight of public speech), has granted athletes their full rights of expression. As does the United States of course, no need to ask.

According to these control-freak committees, belief and/or faith in the fundamental rights of human beings, has now become "political speech." That's news to me. As far as I can tell, the definition of fundamental human rights includes the concept that these rights cannot be given (they are inherent in each person, per the words themselves), but can only be taken away. By political means, and usually known as a human rights violation. Any expression of conscience affirming basic human rights is by definition, not political speech. However issuing orders to remove these rights on pain of punishment certainly is, and more.

Now, bringing shame on the Anglosphere, it's once leading light, the United Kingdom. The UK Olympic team must sign a "gagging order" prior to attending in Beijing this summer.

A new clause in the British Olympic Association’s (BOA) 32-page agreement states they should not comment “on any politically sensitive issues” and refers athletes to the International Olympic Committee charter which bans demonstrations or political, religious or racial propaganda in Olympic venues.

Let's get this straight now. An expression of conscience about the rights inherent in humans, is banned "political speech," according to two western IOC members. The BOA now broadens the net with "political, religious or racial propaganda." Exactly which category does belief in basic human rights fall under again? And why should it be "politically sensitive"?

If the Chinese Communist Party leadership is sensitive about such truths, it's their problem and not anyone else's. There will of course be other participating states which share the Chinese sensitivities, but there is no need to kowtow to them either. They are a shrinking minority of nation states under dictatorships, and in these types of international activities, all should be expected to get with the program.

This is why the hosting of events like this should never be given to unfree countries, unless they promise to behave by basic civilised rules -- such as not restricting the freedom to express a fundamental concept of civilisation itself.

The photo above, of the English football team saluting Hitler at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, was taken from a larger picture on display at This is London. This year's games are bringing back some inconvenient memories. The BOA chairman himself won his silver medal after refusing his own prime minister's call to boycott the Moscow games in 1980. But not all Brits in 2008 are willing to keep silent about China's abuse of its people's rights.

Former Olympic rowing champion Matthew Pinsent has already criticised the Chinese authorities over the training methods used on children, which he regarded as tantamount to abuse.

Young gymnasts told him they were repeatedly beaten during training sessions.

Mr Clegg [Simon Clegg, the BOA's chief executive] confirmed that such criticisms would be banned under the team's code of conduct, which will be in force from when athletes are selected in July, until the end of the Games on August 24.

Mr Clegg said: “During the period of the contract, that sort of action would be in dispute with the team-member agreement.

The Finnish Olympic Committee's secretary general, Jouko Purontakanen, has the issue right way around:

"We will not be issuing instructions on the matter. The freedom of expression is a basic right that cannot be limited."

Exactly. As basic a right as this, is only limited by totalitarian thugs not by civilised people. The article notes that the British contract could potentially mean that any athlete who happens to see someone being mistreated in Beijing would be forbidden from speaking to anyone about it.

The likelihood of having to kowtow to the standards of a repressive one party state was at the root of opposition to giving the Olympics to Beijing. Assurances and promises were made at the time, that China would look very different seven years down the road. Yet over that period, suppression of conscience and religious expression have actually intensified in an effort to keep the lid bolted securely down, with an eye to gaining big national face from this very event. The Chinese Communist Party leadership should simply never be trusted to keep its word. This western collaboration in their efforts will bring nothing but shame.

UPDATE: Officials to review gag on Olympic athletes

Labels: China, Free Speech

- posted by Agam @ 11:16 AM 0 comments

 
BREAKING: FREE SPEECH OFFENDS COMMUNISTS

Chinese paramilitary police watch over Beijing's Bird's Nest Olympic Stadium. Photo: Reuters

I

t isn't only fundamentalist imams and Canadian thought police who are offended by free speech these days. Count China's communist rulers among the grievance club.

Actually that's a bit unfair, for the touchy imams and the western opinion-vetters are all late-comers to this party. The CCP has been launching childish tantrums over free speech for as long as anyone can remember. And nobody can do it better than a Beijing mouthpiece. And boy, is that People's Daily ever pissed.

The 2008 Olympic Games were awarded to Beijing only after the CCP had politicised them, solemnly promising that in return for such recognition, great strides would be made toward openness, freedom and the human rights of her citizens. It was a deal, a handshake agreement with the IOC, and this organisation now knows what any observer of China's one party rule has known for decades: their word can never be taken at face value. And they really dislike being called on it.

China attacked those it accused of seeking to politicise this summer's Olympics yesterday, predicting that attempts to use the Games to change national policy were doomed to failure.

The rare outburst from the usually secretive Government appeared in an angry opinion piece in the People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party. It offered an insight into increasing sensitivity within the leadership towards criticism by international activists of its policies, ranging from freedom of religion to independence for the island of Taiwan.

And their colonial rule and occupation of Tibet, suppression of Chinese democrats, etc.

China would not be cowed, the article insisted. Its author wrote: "They believe they can exert enough pressure on the Chinese Government to force China into a situation where it cannot but do their bidding. These people have made the wrong calculation."

The wrong calculation was yours, Mr. Party. You bought the games with sweet promises you never intended to keep, and now feign offence because others are reminding you of your pledge. Remember? Something about "democratic reforms," giving your people the human rights they are owed -- things they should have had long ago, had the CCP not been keeping it from them? No one is "bidding" you to do anything other than keep your own promises.

"There is no country in the world hosting an Olympics that would compromise on its own core interests."

There is no country in the world which should be allowed to host an Olympics, whose core interests include propping up murderous thugs like the ones ruling Sudan and Burma, ruthlessly suppressing the freedom of conscience of its own people, and obliterating one of the oldest civilisations on earth with colonial policies. If those are your core interests, then you are disqualified from your bid to showcase yourself as a "great power" and "leading nation" of the world.

While China was open to criticism and shouldered its share of taunts and harsh nitpicking, it could not accept being dragged into a miasma of politics, the piece said. Critics were hurting not only the feelings of 1.3 billion Chinese, but were dragging the Games into a whirlpool of politicisation. That politicisation may have started as early as 2001, when China's own Olympics bid committee argued that awarding the Games to Beijing would help the development of human rights.

The last sentence there is true, and would never appear in People's Daily but is a comment by the Times writer. Again, the "miasma of politics" began when political promises from Beijing were trusted (a silly mistake which should never have been made). This is CCP boilerplate, especially the bit about anything they don't like causing "hurt feelings" of 1.3 billion Chinese. I've heard it a hundred times in various other contexts.

A crackdown on dissidents has been ongoing, and will intensify in the months before the games. They must be taken "out of circulation" before the guests arrive. Restrictions on journalists are far from the openness which was promised. Every possible vent for non-permitted views must be bolted down tightly, and don't even contemplate a side trip to Tibet. The rulers are very concerned that something might come up between now and August 8 -- Burma, Sudan, Taiwan, Tibet, Chinese democratic movement ... or something unexpected. All must be kept quiet for the next six months, at any cost.

"If at each subsequent Olympics people stand up and use politics to maliciously attack the host nation, and use ideology to draw up boycotts, where does that leave the Olympic spirit?"

That one's easy. If the host nation (see Nazi Germany or Soviet Union) maliciously attacks the basic freedoms of its own people, supports regimes around the world who do that and worse to their own people, and imposes its own totalitarian colonial presence on a neighbouring country for half a century while constantly increasing its grip through massive population transfer, then "drawing up boycotts" is just one way to show there's still life in that old Olympic spirit yet.

Only on rare occasions will the current Chinese leaders ever admit they lied. During the spread of SARS in 2002-2003 the entire world knew they were lying about it, and still they insisted they weren't. When foreign health officials visited Beijing to check things out, and Chinese officials conducted an episode of "Keystone Medics" with ambulances racing around the city carrying SARS patients (in order that they wouldn't be found in the hospitals), the government insisted that contrary views were "hurting the feelings of 1.3 billion Chinese." Now we hear that at least 10 workers have been killed in Olympic facility construction, again giving lie to previous assurances that nothing of the sort ever happened.

A record of deception like this is what makes me suspicious to hear that two elderly Tibetan monks were recently found hanged in Tashilhunpo Monastery, seat of the disputed Panchen Lama. The two monks were involved in the recognition of the boy who Tibetans still recognise as Panchen Lama, who was quickly apprehended by the communists and replaced with their own selection. The Chinese Panchen visits the monastery rarely, while the Tibetan Panchen's whereabouts are still unknown 13 years later. Tashilhunpo is now solidly under the control of a Communist Party "Democratic Management Committee," and the two dead monks are said to have been "humiliated and ostracised." No suicide notes were found. They both would have been part of the monastic team who would have searched for the next Dalai Lama.

Labels: China, Free Speech

- posted by Agam @ 8:02 PM 0 comments

 
PUBLISHER FACES A CANADIAN INQUISITION

Ezra Levant (L) is compelled to explain himself before the Alberta "Human Rights" and Citizenship Commission, for causing offended feelings in Syed Soharwardy (R). Photos: CTV News

N

OBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! But I'll bet that NOBODY expected the Canadian Inquisition either, whose three chief weapons are fear, surprise, an almost ruthless efficiency and a fanatical devotion to...

Alright, no more joking about this -- so figure out your own substitution for "the Pope."

With Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine about to be hauled before the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and the British Columbia HRC (as noted in the previous article here), it turns out there is a preliminary bout on the card. The former publisher of the former Western Standard weekly magazine (still an online publication), Ezra Levant has been compelled to explain himself before the Alberta HRCC ("Human Rights and Citizenship Commission"). His offence? He allegedly hurt the feelings of a local radical Islamist cleric in Calgary, Imam Syed Soharwardy.

There was no immediate word on whether any normal Canadians were offended by Imam Syed's advocacy for Islamic Shari'a law to become the law of Canada. Undoubtedly, all these Canadian HRC's would have rejected any such frivolously offended feelings and would probably instruct any such complainant to just go home, calm down, and stop being so intolerant.

In 2006, at the height of one of the major stories of the year -- Islamist rage over the Danish cartoons of doom -- only one publication offered Canadians the opportunity to see what all the fuss was over. The Mo-toons themselves were a result of a very public fuss in Europe, in which a children's book author was unable to find an artist to illustrate her newest work, an inoffensive 'life of Mohammed' for kids. Although Islam's founder had been artistically depicted by Muslims in history, it's currently a major taboo (really fundamentalist types reject any artistic depiction of any person - the basis for the Taliban's banning of television).

Some Danish cartoonists decided to challenge the silliness and made various pictographic statements about their feelings on the matter, leading to rioting, burning and killings by fanatical loons in several countries. This reaction had been delayed by 6 months or so, until after some Euro-Islamists made a trip to the Middle East bearing a few extra cartoons which hadn't been published by the Danish newspaper, including a porcine "Mohammed" (which was a mis-labelled picture of a Frenchman at a pig-squealing competition). The violence was contrived long after the actual Danish cartoons had been largely ignored.

But after the cartoon-rage killings and riots became a major international story, a very few news outlets actually showed their readers the objects of all this ridiculous anger. Only one of them was in Canada -- the Western Standard. For this effrontery, Mr. Levant is now called to the carpet by Alberta's thought commissars, where he must account for himself and his intentions. He appears before them under compulsion of law, and as he says to the commissioner, under his own protest.

Imam Syed, the offended complainant, had first approached the Calgary police to take action against Levant, but they told him "That is not what Canadian police do." So he went to the HRC thought police instead, where he had a much more profitable reception. When a complaint is accepted, the complainant need not spend another dime -- the cost of the "prosecution" is borne by the taxpayers of Alberta (taxpayers of Canada and of British Columbia, in the case of Mark Steyn's upcoming inquisition). The "defendants" will of course bear all costs of their own defence.

Lately it's become apparent to me that I have one or two friends back home whom I would no longer recognise. I understand that the past 6 or 7 years has been tough on a lot of friendships, and even families, when opinions diverge. That's life. But dude, what have you done with my country? It was still there the last time I looked! The True North Strong and Free -- what happened?

When just a short few months ago I was gripped with the deepest admiration for a people determined to get out from under a fascist boot, just a very short distance from where I'm writing this, where they defied the longest odds and their country's own historical record with the faith and hope that they could achieve even a fraction of the freedoms that Canadians take for granted -- and today Canadians will kowtow to opinion enforcement? When for many years in Canada (and the rest of the "west"), insulting Christians and their beliefs could be an acceptable hobby, proudly engaged in and earning one bragging points for "edginess" -- and today, Canadians must observe the taboos of a different ("The Other") religion? And enforced by the State, to boot? I hate quoting Michael Moore, but dude, where's my country?

We have the temerity to lecture Communist China on human rights? These tribunals could have been modeled after the Party organs responsible for correcting incorrect and unhealthy thoughts. And I don't just mean Mao's thamzing sessions of the Cultural Revolution. Such "thought correction" programs are rife in Tibet today, and in future I'll find it very difficult to hold up my country as a better example.

Ezra Levant is writing about his corrective experience here, and posting videos of the proceedings. The commission didn't want any recordings done, but his lawyer insisted on it for possible future use in a court appeal. The commission also insisted that no recordings be made public. Heh. He's got six up now, and I've put them into a playlist. When he adds more, I'll add 'em too.

I love the way he addresses this banal bureaucrat, with all the contempt her position requires. Her best line comes at the end of #6 when, following the reception of one of his uncompromised opinions, she quips "Well, you're entitled to your opinion." It's such a cliche in our modern societies, isn't it? Almost an automatic response when one hears something one disagrees with (and much better than getting all offended, eh Bruce?). But the point is, it isn't true in this setting -- and Ezra nails her with it.

I wish he'd said "Well if that were the case, I wouldn't be sitting here now, would I?"



UPDATE: Muslims Against Sharia points us to an online petition supporting the free speech rights of Canadians here.

Labels: Free Speech

- posted by Agam @ 4:47 PM 1 comments

 
COMING SHOW TRIAL IN CANADA

Image: Western Standard / Rob Kelly

T

here is a dust-up brewing in my former home over the issues of freedom of speech and freedom of the press -- or rather, whether the state has the responsibility to protect each and every Canadian from the possibility of feeling offended by someone else's speech or writing.

The Canadian Islamic Congress, and certain Osgoode Hall law students acting on its behalf, are certainly easily offended by Mark Steyn. This is one Canadian (me) who is offended by thin-skinned control freaks who apparently can't handle life in a (relatively) free country.

They've launched charges of hate speech against Steyn and Maclean's news magazine for publishing an excerpt from his book "America Alone" in October 2006. Nobody has challenged the factual content of the article, but have only made claims that feelings were hurt -- and Maclean's must pay them lots of money. Oh, and Maclean's must also allow the CIC to design its own counter cover story for the magazine, so their hurt feelings would be assuaged. The publisher says he'd rather go bankrupt than to have a such a grievance group take over editorial control.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the B.C. Human Rights Commission have both accepted the case, while the Ontario Human Rights Commission is still considering its merits. In the CHRC's 30 year history, the commission has never found in favour of a "defendant." The costs to the complainant is nothing.

Do Canadians wish to ask permission of the government before being allowed to read a Mark Steyn column? If he loses, will they then burn his books -- the source of the excerpt? Are there still advocates of freedom of speech in Canada? There may still be a few left. I hope. The story so far, as summed up by Reuters.

I first became aware of this story a couple of months back, but the complaint seemed so frivolous that I didn't believe many Canadians would stand for it. How out of touch I must be over here.

Surely any self-respecting commission, no matter how PC oriented, would laugh it out of the hearing room after examining the particulars. The only thing that possibly could be construed as offensive was a quoted statement actually made by a UK Islamist, to the effect that Muslims in the UK were "breeding like mosquitoes," and would thus ensure an Islamic future for Britain. (Some air-head blogger in Canada took aim at Steyn's "racism," for this statement made by an Islamist kook.)

But after seeing what Mark wrote the other day on the Corner, it's much more serious than I thought. Quoting from a transcripted hearing before the CHRC, which gives an idea who these thought commissars really are, he introduces us to Dean Steacy, the principal "anti-hate" investigator for the commission. His response follows.

MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?

MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.

MS KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.

MR. STEACY: It's not my job to give value to an American concept.

Mr Steacy is wrong. It is not "freedom of speech" that is the kinky foreign imposition but his own Orwellian "human rights" regime, set up in the late 1970s and wholly alien to Canada's legal tradition. Why he is so unacquainted with English law as to believe "freedom of speech" is an "American concept" is something I look forward to exploring with him face to face. I happen to believe that freedom of speech is a Canadian right and, if Dean Steacy and the Islamic Congress think it's "their job" to take it away from Canadians, then let's have the dust-up and settle it once and for all.

Apparently the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is featured on the back of our $50 bill, although I haven't seen one in quite a while. I seem to recall that the Declaration says a few things about freedom of expression and of conscience, and nothing much about freedom from being easily offended.

Being out of Mr. Steacy's jurisdiction, I feel empowered enough to say that he's a dope. This reflexive, almost Pavlovian anti-Americanism is usually a dead giveaway (as well as an unfortunately common Canadian trait). Things don't look good for Steyn and Maclean's vs the HRC thought police, but I'd love to be in that hearing room when Mark and Dean get to exploring the issue "face to face."

Labels: Free Speech

- posted by Agam @ 2:54 PM 0 comments

 
GUILTY: OF SPEAKING HIS MIND

Ronggyal Adrak: guilty of thought crime. Photo: Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy

S

ummer is the Tibetan season for outdoor festivals and horse racing competitions, but even these cultural events are not free of politics in an occupied country.

On August 1 of this year, such an event was held near the town of Lithang, in eastern Tibet (now subsumed into the Chinese province Sichuan - about two-thirds of historic Tibet has been carved off and distributed to various Chinese provinces).

A Tibetan nomad named Ronggyal Adrak took to the stage and addressed the throng of Tibetan horse racing enthusiasts, calling for the return of Dalai Lama to Tibet. After he was detained by Chinese police, Lithang residents and visiting nomads beseiged the town in large numbers, demanding his release. Thousands of Chinese troops then descended on the region to quell the protests.

Now Ronggyal Adrak has been found guilty in a Chinese court. The Tibetan nomad defended his choice of words to the court.

“The main reason was that there is nobody in Tibet who does not have faith in, loyalty to, and the desire to see the Dalai Lama,” he told the court. “On the contrary, the Chinese government sends out propaganda saying that the Tibetans inside Tibet have no desire to meet him and have lost faith in him.”

“That is wrong, and we have no freedom to say so.”

The judge told Ronggyal Adrak that his crimes were “very severe.”

“You committed the crime of subverting the People’s Republic of China. The Dalai Lama, for whom you called for a long life and his return to Tibet, is the same person who is conniving with different foreign leaders and organizations to split our country through a variety of means and methods,” the judge said.

Speaking his conscience was a "very severe" crime. Judges must of course be members in good standing of the Communist Party, which is why they sound like government spokesmen. Dalai Lama has not called for independence since the late 1970's, and has consistently asked for discussions on genuine autonomy within China ever since.

The judge also slammed Ronggyal’s nephew, Adruk Tseten, for “talking to all kinds of media in the world and responding to their questions,” actions which had damaged China’s international image, he said.

It sounds like the judge would like to make "responding to media questions" a crime too. Of course, the worst crime in the world for the forever-ruling Party, is to damage China's image. When will the Party understand that no one damages China's image more than themselves?

The Chinese authorities conducted a massive "Patriotic Education Campaign in Lithang at the beginning of September, featuring mandatory political training in Chinese communism for monks and nuns. The indoctrination involves forcing "trainees" to write denunciations of Dalai Lama and to accept that Tibet has always been a part of China. They are "educated" to accept that the Chinese "peaceful liberation" of Tibet has been of tremendous benefit, and that under the Communist Party's patronage, Tibetans are now leading a happy and contented life.

There have been more arrests (and torture) of monks in the area through September and October for outwardly expressing disagreement with the indoctrination, or for having pictures of Dalai Lama or the true Panchen Lama (who the Chinese have held hostage at an undisclosed location for 12 years) on their private altars. Many monks and nuns have been expelled from the monasteries, and even children attending a school managed by Lithang Monastery were expelled and sent home.

And some people think the Cultural Revolution is over.

The Chinese government lambasted Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper a few days ago, with words they wouldn't dare use on Angela Merkel or George W. Bush. Harper's meeting with Dalai Lama (now an honourary Canadian citizen) was dubbed "disgusting conduct" which had "seriously hurt the feelings" of Chinese people.

Very excellent, Stephen. That's one you should frame for your office.

Labels: Free Speech, Tibet

- posted by Agam @ 3:29 PM 0 comments