WE MUST HAVE AN OPEN SOCIETY!
by Wallace Klinck,
They have now become so desperate in their attempts to use their arbitrary powers for blatant political agendas--which properly should be the subject of popular and protected public debate rather than being imposed by tyrants--that they have decreed that truth is no defence in their hearings!
Truth is no defence! And no usual established
rights of defence as in a proper court of law! This is madness and a complete
violation of our historic British system of justice under the Common Law. These
Commissions should be abolished outright with a ringing denunciation explaining
to all citizens their essential threat to a free and advancing society.
But better late than never and I hope that the recent criticisms by yourself and others marks the beginning of the end of these kangaroo courts with their suppression of speech and association in this country. Not only suppression of these but the denial of the right also to hear, to know and to make conclusions--indeed, to think--especially feared by the censors. Whether these Human "Rights" people act with complete hypocrisy or assume arrogantly that they are the repository of all virtue and knowledge, the rest of us being either morons or naturally bent toward every evil, is irrelevant. The bullying has to stop. We must have an open society.
We have plenty of laws to protect persons and property both in criminal and civil courts. We do not need, and cannot afford, to have irresponsible and immature people with fragile egos incapable of sustaining criticism, supported by dictatorial censors, exercising an arbitrary influence over the nature of our society. Critical examination is the basis for both personal and social development and honest citizens should welcome it. Thank God that I have been criticized during my lifetime. Crimes against others can be justly dealt with for what they objectively are without being defined by subjective, and deceitful anti-"hate" so-called legislation. I find it difficult to believe that some of the people who promoted this sort of outrage were not fully aware of what they were perpetrating. Now some of them seem to want to "back off" gracefully. I am afraid that this does not wash. Please excuse this long tirade--but I like many others have "had it!" If anyone should be hauled into court for reasons relating to speech, it should be those who have conspired to deny freedom of it to their fellow citizens.
OUT THE LIGHTS ON LIBERALISM
"The Blood Runs Cold" is the
headline of Melanie Phillips' piece in the current issue of the British Spectator:
"The lights are going out on liberal society," her column begins, "and it
is the most liberal societies with their fingers on the switch."
rights laws and agencies were set up in 1977 to protect Canadians against "discrimination"
-- say, basing an appropriate act (hiring) on an inappropriate motive (gender)
unless properly appropriated by affirmative action. They were to safeguard an
ostensibly free society against politically incorrect conduct. Or thought crimes.
In short, they were to be liberal society's defence against liberty.
Many liberal-minded social activists thought they could regulate conduct without affecting speech -- except maybe such dreadful expressions of intent to discriminate as "help wanted male." How could prohibiting discrimination in employment and housing, they asked, turn into censorship in the media? Yet it required no imagination, for the evidence for it was there at the outset.
In the summer of 1977, shortly after it came into being, Manitoba's Human Rights Commission took it upon itself to caution Maclean's for Barbara Amiel having used the word "Hun" with reference to Germans in an article about the war-years. The Commission felt it had a mandate to express a government-sanctioned disapproval over a journalist's choice of words. The post-liberal state's action against Maclean's and Steyn comes on the 30th anniversary of the post-liberal state's warning against Maclean's and Amiel. This doesn't show a liberal agenda hijacked or kidnapped; it shows an illiberal agenda that was there right from the beginning.
Considering that Canada had civil courts to use against slanderous or deceptive speech, and criminal courts to use against speech deemed to be fraudulent, seditious, treacherous, or pornographic, it ought to have been a mystery to Borovoy and his colleagues what Human Rights Commissions could possibly be used against if not free speech, or speech previously regarded as free. Which is precisely what happened. It happened several times during the last 30 years, sometimes to nasty little scribblers and publications, but occasionally to nicer and bigger ones. The newsweekly Maclean's and the brilliant Steyn are the best and biggest to find themselves in the jaws of the Human Rights Dragon, not the first.
Maclean's and Steyn may be big enough for the Dragon to choke on, which would be a blessing. The liberticidal monster should have been strangled at birth -- but better late than never. By now Human Rights Commissions are populated with officials who speak disparagingly of "fundamentalist liberals" and describe free speech as an "American idea" with no weight in this country. They're dragging magazine and writer into their rank dragon's den for allegedly suggesting that Islamic culture is incompatible with Canada's liberalized, Western civilization. By doing so, they prove Melanie Phillip's point about the hand on the light switch.
any culture is incompatible with liberalised western civilisation, it is clearly
Canada's," offers the author of 'Londonistan'. I'm afraid she's right -- assuming,
that is, that there's still such a thing as a liberalized western civilization.
Perhaps what we should say is that a liberalized western civilization is becoming
incompatible with itself.
The New Times Survey: The full edition of the New Times Survey is available from The Australian League of Rights, Box 1052, GPO Mebourne 3001 for an annual subscription rate of AUS$25.00. Send chequeand/or Money Order today to secure your mailed monthly copy today.