Free speech wins out

Editorial

The Canadian Human Rights Commission determined last week what reasonable Canadians had assumed: the writings of columnist Mark Steyn are not likely to promote hatred against Muslims.

Steyn, a witty, provocative writer with a talent for cutting through the detritus to remind us of the obvious, refers to himself as a "one-man global content provider." In addition to Maclean's, his work appears in innumerable American, British and other publications. An excerpt in Maclean's magazine of his book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, was the basis for complaints against Maclean's, by the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, in the federal, Ontario and British Columbia human rights commissions.

The Ontario commission criticized Steyn, but concluded it did not have jurisdiction to proceed. A B.C. tribunal held a week of hearings, and we await a decision. Last week, the federal commission dismissed the complaint against Maclean's and Steyn, concluding that his arguments, "when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature, as defined by the Supreme Court."

Despite these outcomes – one complete victory, one default victory and one yet undecided – Steyn has become a cause célèbre for many, even those who do not agree with everything or much of anything he writes. The issue of free expression in Canada, which seems destined to be addressed in a more comprehensive way by Parliament, appears to be tilting in the direction of greater freedom of speech. Still, as some have pointed out in recent days, Maclean's has deep pockets to defend itself in a quasi-judicial process in which the accuser is out-of-pocket nothing. A smaller publication or a less wealthy individual could be ruined by such a process.

Regardless of legalities, by making the case that Western civilization has something to fear from an increasing Muslim population, Steyn and others have an obligation to make clear what that threat is. If Steyn and others who share his views make a mistake, it may be in failing to express clearly just why the massive growth of Muslim populations in Western countries should elicit concern. In this, they could learn from Israel's critics.

Critics of Israel employ an effective tactic. Even when their criticisms cut to the very legitimacy of Israel and challenge the right of Israel to exist, most insist that their criticisms are exclusively aimed at specific policies of the government of Israel. Though the policies of hawkish Likudniks and dovish Laborites – and now the centrist Kadima party – have been condemned as war crimes and every other form of iniquity, Israel's critics continue to insist there is nothing about Israel per se that makes it deserve to, as the Iranian president says, "vanish from the pages of time." Yet, while Israel's critics insist there can be a clear delineation between a people and the policies of their governments, the same people seem oblivious to the idea that some immigrants may be dangerous to pluralist democracies if these immigrants are products of societies that have deep-rooted governmental policies that inculcate potentially violent hatred of Israel and Jews, among other things.

This is not to presume that people necessarily believe what their governments, media, schools and clergy feed them, but it is foolish, on the other hand, to think that consistent hate-filled propaganda has no impact.

The danger, of course, is not in anything innate to Islam. As Canadian Muslims and their allies remind us ceaselessly – as if we didn't know – most Muslims are not radical Islamists. But we have a growing number of immigrants from societies where genocidal anti-Semitism is purveyed through the education system, public and private broadcasters and the clergy, and where parks, playing fields and schools are named after "martyrs" who gave their lives so that others might die. Concerns about the ideas these new Canadians might hold and the actions such attitudes might inspire are legitimate. Already, in Europe, violence against Jews – perpetrated mostly by individual products of anti-Semitic societies – are at distressing levels.

When Canadians express concern over the possible presence of extreme anti-Semitism among some immigrant groups, it is not a people, an ethnicity or a religion that is being criticized, but the policies of those societies that deliberately instil hatred in their citizens. When those citizens become our citizens, it becomes our problem. And what we need on the topic is more open discussion, not less, which makes the federal human rights decision the right one.

^TOP