Columnist’s trial for insulting Islam

We have blogged on how the Canadian conservative columnist Mark Steyn has been hauled before a Canadian human rights tribunal for publishing pieces in “Macleans” criticizing Islam. To their credit, Canadians and their pundits seem to be pulling for Steyn and still want their country to have freedom of speech. Here is a good account of how the tribunal has been going. Word is, we may have a verdict later today. I’ll try to update as I have information.

"The question remains, why should wealth be a predictor of anti-Christian bias? Why do you ..."

The Christianophobia of the Rich
"Maybe they'll release a companion volume that functions like volume 4 of Pieper."

The New Edition of Luther’s Small ..."
"This is a major problem for the left. Their theoretical constituency, the working class, votes ..."

The Christianophobia of the Rich
"I'm trying to imagine you making a parallel argument like "Hang on, this isn't an ..."

The Christianophobia of the Rich

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Joe

    This entire situation should serve as a wake up call for the Western World. Speech codes yield tyranny.

  • Joe

    This entire situation should serve as a wake up call for the Western World. Speech codes yield tyranny.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    The premise for these proceedings is that certain speech induces fear among Muslims, or, at the least, hurts their feelings, and the stated aim is to protect them from such.
    But it’s really Muslim activists from among a so-called moderate persuasion using a system-in-place to control what’s said. Period. Nothing moderate in that approach or in its aims, and certainly nothing democratic.
    When people can’t use actual laws to achieve their goals, they’ll use our sensibilities against us: our notions of fair play and respect for others are turned into weapons against free speech.
    Free speech is to democracy–to freedom–as justification is to the Christian church: that upon which it stands or falls.
    I think this is what implosion looks like. Who needs foreign enemies, when we have ourselves?

  • Susan aka organshoes

    The premise for these proceedings is that certain speech induces fear among Muslims, or, at the least, hurts their feelings, and the stated aim is to protect them from such.
    But it’s really Muslim activists from among a so-called moderate persuasion using a system-in-place to control what’s said. Period. Nothing moderate in that approach or in its aims, and certainly nothing democratic.
    When people can’t use actual laws to achieve their goals, they’ll use our sensibilities against us: our notions of fair play and respect for others are turned into weapons against free speech.
    Free speech is to democracy–to freedom–as justification is to the Christian church: that upon which it stands or falls.
    I think this is what implosion looks like. Who needs foreign enemies, when we have ourselves?