There is an ominous cloud on the horizon and conservative bloggers (and their readers) should beware. Conservative author, blogger and commentator Mark Steyn is about to go on trial in Canada to face charges of spreading “hate and contempt” for Muslims. A chapter of Steyn’s book “America Alone” was published in Canadian magazine Maclean’s, which drew complaints from Islamic Canadians who disagree with Steyn’s warnings about an encroaching Islamic state in Europe and the West.
In Canada, this type of “hate speech” is against the law. British Columbia actually outlaws any images or language “likely to expose a person…to hatred or contempt” for a variety of reasons, including religion, marital status or sexual orientation. So Mark Steyn now finds himself a defendant before both the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission simply because he wrote a book expressing his opinions about a religion and its impact on the world.
It seems impossible that such “human rights” commissions could ever pass a constitutional test in United States courts. But legislators are weaving an intricate web that ensnares politically incorrect citizens who run afoul of these politically correct commissions.
The first step into this abyss is the codifying of so-called “hate crimes.” As we have witnessed in Congress and the state legislature, hate crimes are the issue de jour in justifying greater control over human thought and behavior. Instead of simply focusing on the fact that a crime has occurred, authoritarians now want to increase penalties based on the criminal’s motivation, especially if the motivation is politically incorrect. This slippery slope is no longer contained in the criminal justice system, but spills over to all sorts of activities where government wants to “enlighten” antediluvian public thought.
The most recent example of this was the case of Philadelphia restaurateur Joe Vento. Mr. Vento was the subject of a discrimination complaint from the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations for placing a sign in his restaurant window that stated "This Is America: When Ordering Please ‘Speak English’." The commission contended that Vento’s sign violated the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance which prohibits “denying service to someone because of his or her national origin, and having printed material making certain groups of people feel their patronage is unwelcome." The case received so much national media attention that the commission voted 2-1 in favor of dismissing the charges against Vento. One wonders what would have happened to Vento without the intense media coverage.
And therein lies the power of these self-righteous commissions: they prey primarily on those who cannot afford to fight a legal battle. But when a defendant with influence or clout is dragged before them, or the media take interest, the commission members are forced to yield to the still-benighted masses they supposedly protect from hatred. In the case of Mark Steyn, the Canadian commissions have so much power that they no longer need to gain acceptance amongst the populace in order to force their will upon the public.
Even internationally respected leaders are being forced to curb their American First Amendment rights because of Canadian laws. Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, recently admitted that his ministry must re-edit radio broadcasts and publications to comply with the standards of our neighbors to the North.
In light of the “human rights” insanity gripping Canada, you would think that American lawmakers would take extra care in protecting our rights to freedom of speech and thought. Unfortunately, California lawmakers are instead following in Canada’s steps.
Assemblywoman Lori Saldana has introduced AB 2799, legislation that will require each county to “either establish a hate crimes commission, or direct an existing board or committee to fulfill the duties of such a commission.” The stated goal of these commissions is to review the “incidents of hate crimes within the county” and ensure that “local law enforcement agencies are responding to hate crimes and reporting these crimes to the Attorney General.”
The bill states that “hate crimes” are “acts of terror meant to intimidate and cause fear in our communities to deter the free exercise of enjoyment of the rights or privileges secured by the United States…” By its very definition, these hate crime commissions are guilty of the crimes they seek to punish. Certainly Steyn, Vento, Dobson and others would consider these commissions intimidating, causing fear, and deterring their First Amendment rights.
AB 2799 is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file. Our state’s budget crisis may actually benefit freedom of thought if AB 2799 fails to make it out of committee for budgetary reasons. But there is a companion resolution, ACR 108 (Eng) that will establish June as Hate Crimes Awareness Month. The resolution calls on all Californians to condemn acts of violence and prejudice because of religion, sex, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. No decent human being wants to see violence or prejudice, but the definition of “hate crime” is increasingly disallowing any nonconformity to liberal ideology, especially regarding religion and moral teachings.
In America, we do not have the right to never be offended, hurt or humiliated, but we do have the right to defend ourselves and speak our opinions. If California emulates Canada by passing AB 2799, conservative bloggers and average citizens should prepare themselves by emulating Mark Steyn: hire a “hate crimes” attorney—the sooner the better.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.