The Whining of the Flatulent Sock-Puppets

Tarek Fatah, stop bashing our fellow sock

In his piece Islamists who have a problem with free speech should leave, Tarek Fatah enlightened the Post’s readers with the name-calling he directs at anyone he disagrees with, which Muslims across Canada have grown accustomed to. This time around the target was our colleague and fellow sock-puppet (as we have come to be known) in our human rights complainants against Maclean’s, Khurrum Awan. 

According to Fatah, by filing a human rights complaint and calling upon Muslims to demand a representative voice in media, this law student qualifies as an “Islamist” allied with Osama bin Laden.

Fatah’s muddled rant reminds us of a December 3rd press release about our complaints issued by Fatah’s Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC), an organization consisting of five individuals and a coffee table: “Mark Steyn’s piece was definitely alarmist, but the answer to his challenge is to write a counter-piece and demand that Maclean’s publish it.” Of course, we had already asked Maclean’s for a counter-piece nine months earlier and been refused. But verifying facts is not a quality that Fatah’s crew is known for.

But Fatah wasn’t done. Following the Ontario Human Rights Commission statement condemning Maclean’s for its Islamophobic content, Fatah told the Post that the statement was the work of “hardline Islamic supporters of Islamic extremism” employed by the Commission. The same day, Fatah’s MCC issued yet another press release informing Canadians that the Commission’s statement was “cause for celebration in Osama bin Laden’s cave and among the soldiers of the world Jihadi movement.”

Apart from the evident ridiculousness of these assertions, it is interesting that Fatah has such insight into the activities underway in Osama’s cave. Perhaps a lengthy interview with CSIS is in order.

On a more serious note, Fatah’s name-calling detracts from the real issue, which is the exclusion of Muslim voices from our national media in a context where Islam and Muslims are a regular subject of discussion. One would think that if Muslims were a topic of interest, our national media would provide some coverage to their perspectives.

In fact, the only Muslim columnists providing some informed perspective on Muslim-related issues are Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star and Sheema Khan of the Globe and Mail. Ms. Khan’s column is only published monthly, and both columnists are frequently subjected to abuse from the likes of Fatah. On the other side of the equation, newspapers across Canada employ multiple commentators providing regular, right-wing analysis on Muslims and Islam.

And that is our point; anti-Muslim prejudice is growing because of pieces like the one that Maclean’s published, and that led to our human rights complaints, in a context where there is an absence of Muslim (or other) voices to challenge the material in question. The limitless free speech model — that the solution to harmful and hateful speech is more and better speech — does not work for minority communities, and our complaints illustrate that: Maclean’s still refuses to publish a response to just one of over twenty articles that even the Ontario Human Rights Commission condemned as Islamophobic.

And that is why free speech is not limitless in our democracy. Section 1 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that all rights in our democracy are subject to reasonable limits. The Supreme Court of Canada (not a bunch of Islamists) properly recognized that free speech is not limitless in upholding our criminal and human rights laws regulating hate speech. In imposing these limits, the Supreme Court noted that hate speech undermines the equality rights and multicultural heritage guaranteed in our Charter.

If however our media would like speech to be limitless, it has an obligation to cover the views of the community it is talking about.

Read more:


One thought on “The Whining of the Flatulent Sock-Puppets”

  1. Canadian Human Rights Commission Goes After Free Speech
    by Adam Daifallah
    June 22, 2011 at 5:00 am

    One of the greatest protections Americans have against Islamists, and the threat they pose, are the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. Never take them for granted, for most countries, even some Western allies, do not benefit from such a bulwark against illiberal forces.

    In Canada, for instance, freedom of speech is not constitutionally guaranteed to the same degree it is in America. And those wishing for a glimpse into how forces sympathetic to Islamism will try to influence (read: stifle) public debate about the Muslim faith should be aware of recent Canadian experiences.

    The weapon of choice for those attempting to muzzle Muslim critics in public fora isn’t guns, but rather the bureaucratic mechanisms of the state – more specifically, entities known as “human rights commissions.” And their victims are free speech and media commentators like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.

    But be careful. The name is a misnomer. These organizations have little to do with protecting “human rights” at all. They are quasi-judicial, politically-correct bodies that have the authority to pursue anyone if a complaint is made based on one of the “prohibited grounds of discrimination” listed in the enabling legislation — race, ethnic origin, age and sex, for example. The law goes on to state specific examples of illegal discrimination, such as communicating anything that “is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”

    Standard rules of procedure and due process are not followed, and just about any complaint is admissible for consideration – as long as the feeling of being wronged is there.

    The list of cases that have been heard by the commission’s tribunals is baffling – as are their rulings, which almost always come down on the side of the plaintiff. (To cite just one egregious example, a British Columbia human rights tribunal ruled in favor of a McDonalds employee who refused to wash her hands.)

    Those who originally conceived of the human rights commissions never intended for them to be used to limit speech.

    They have strayed far from their original purpose, which was to protect minorities from discrimination in situations like job hiring and renting an apartment.

    Two well-known Canadian journalists have found themselves in the crosshairs of these commissions – for discussing Islam. Ezra Levant, a conservative commentator who now hosts his own national TV show, had the temerity in February 2006 to republish the infamous series of Danish cartoons of Muhammad in the pages of his now-defunct magazine, the Western Standard.

    Levant thought he was simply reporting on an issue that was making news. That was his job. But a complaint was filed at the Alberta Human Rights Commission by activist Syed Soharwardy, who claimed the Danish drawings were offensive towards Islam and Muslims. In his grievance, Soharwardy alleged he and his family had been subject to “violence, hate and discrimination” because the cartoons were republished. Amid an outcry from people of all political and religious beliefs (including Muslims), Soharwardy eventually withdrew his action. But it wasn’t until after Levant spent tens of thousands of dollars, and wasted countless hours, defending himself against this assault.

    The next target was Mark Steyn, one of Canada’s best known leaders of thought. Steyn published an article in Macleans, a newsweekly, called ‘The future belongs to Islam,’ which was an excerpt of his best-selling book America Alone. The Canadian Islamic Congress filed a complaint to the British Columbia, Ontario, and Canadian Human Rights Commissions, accusing Steyn and Macleans of spreading “hatred and Islamophobia” in the book excerpt and 21 other articles published over a two year period.

    The Ontario and Canadian commissions rightly declined to hear the case, although the latter issued what amounted to a guilty verdict without trial in its statement, noting that it “strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims” in the magazine. The British Columbia commission heard the case and ruled in favor of the defendants.

    The persecution of these commentators, as ridiculous as they were, has served a useful purpose. Before these sagas, most people had never heard of these commissions – and many of those who had weren’t aware of the dangerously far-reaching powers. It brought together people of different political stripes – many on the left were just as outraged as those on the right. And it put into sharp relief the extent to which radical Islam will go to silence critics.

    Keith Martin, a Canadian member of parliament (he has since retired) from the Liberal party, proposed to change the legislation that creates the national commission to remove the section that enables press persecution.

    “In an open and liberal democracy, we have a right to be protected from hate speech, but we do not have a right to not be offended,” Martin said. The proposed legislation didn’t become law before the last election, but hopefully someone will reintroduce it in the Canadian parliament.

    It is important for all those devoted to free speech and pluralism to be aware of the Canadian experience. Human rights commissions, or various incarnations thereof, exist in America, so watch out.

Comments are closed.