I’ve always found it interesting that the same people who always decry “the system”, “the man” (whomever he may be) and “the pigs”, are almost without exception the very same people who are always clamoring for new laws.

Every time some tragedy, or near tragedy, occurs in some part of the country there is the inevitable cry from the soapboxes of “if only” and “never again”. Both sound nice, but are utterly meaningless. If only what? We had another law in place for the offender to break? Never again how?

Last year there was a case involving free speech and hate in Canada that went nearly unnoticed down here in the U.S. A political columnist and author (as well as a magazine his book was excerpted in) were accused by a Muslim group of hate speech and incitement of hatred. There are many interesting things about this case, but the pivotal point was something that should make people who live in supposedly free countries cringe.

I read the book in question “America Alone” in which author Mark Steyn basically makes the argument that while radical Islam attempts to conquer the west, the west in it’s own way, is helping them by not having any children. The recently fashionable 1 child at forty couple and the many who decide not to have any, are decimating the populations of Europe. All radical Islamists really have to do is move into more and more countries and sit around. In another 50 years there might not be anyone left to bomb.

The part that should make people cringe is this: The charges that were brought against the author and the magazine did not need any legal basis of proof. Under “human rights” codes, pretty much anyone can be brought up on charges for saying almost anything. The facts Mr. Steyn used were never called into question. The book was never alleged to be lies. In fact, the facts  were deemed inadmissible as a defense. The Canadian Human Rights Commission and associated Tribunal,  had never before heard a case where the accused was acquitted, and for good reason. Under the CRHC codes, hate speech is so broadly defined as to prove anyone de facto guilty by reason of someone being offended enough to bring suit in the first place.

Mark Steyn and McCleans magazine were eventually the first ever defendants not acquitted, but who’s case was dropped, simply because they used their high profiles to bring so much attention to the case as to outrage Canadians.

Since then the CRHC,  and associated administrations have been working overtime to try and make some sort of rational argument for their existence. As is usual, the lyric gets somewhat tortuous and difficult to follow. Recently they published a report that drew this rather spot-on retort from Mr. Steyn:

“The Canadian “Human Rights” Commission has now published its report, Freedom Of Expression And Freedom From Hate In The Internet Age.

That title is itself quite revealing. “Freedom of” denotes a genuine human right: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement. “Freedom from” (with the exception of “freedom from government control”) denotes not a human right but a massive government enforcement regime: “Freedom from hate” is an especially repugnant concept to a free society, since “hate” is a human emotion and the degree of state policing required to “free” a society therefrom is by definition totalitarian. No one has the right to be “free from hate”.

Freedom is messy.

If you want freedom from your parents you move out of their house. You pay your own way, make your own decisions and make your own mistakes. In a broader sense, if you want to be free as an individual you can’t be free <i>and</i> have Big Brother government there to help you pay your bills, and rock you to sleep in it’s arms when you feel like the whole thing is just too big. The more of a safety net you expect the government to provide, the more easily you yourself get tangled up in it. Government of any form is, by nature, intrusive.

A couple of years ago I had this debate with a Polish woman who had lived in the communist version of Poland. She knew first hand just how controlling big, helpful governments can be.  Oddly, though, she wasn’t giving an inch to this whole American ideal of freedom.

“In communist Poland,” she said to me “I could go where I want at night to be with my friends. Here, you can’t go to the park after 10:00 or they arrest you. Where is this freedom you always talk about. I don’t see it.”

Doh.

Right you are. We have become so comfortable with the idea of Big Benevolent Brother looking out for our best interests, that no one seems to notice just how much say he has in our everyday lives and affairs.

Every time some crime hits the news, or some politician runs for office we cry out for help and then lap it up right along with the manacles. Someone needs to explain to me how in the supposedly freest country the world has ever seen we have, of our own will,  traded so much ineffective, useless, protection for so much basic human freedom that  I can’t even walk in the park after 10:00pm with some cute commie babe.

Seriously. Help me out here.

russian_girl_05

Advertisement