The Observer, January 25, 2008
Volume XL, Issue 14
Unpopular Reason: Citizens must protect free expression
Free expression is upheld better in the United States than in most of the world, but we still have a long way to go. For instance, the 1972 Supreme Court case Miller v. California essentially stated that obscenity was not a form of expression protected under the First Amendment, which remains legal precedent. And Congress has certainly made many efforts to outlaw the desecration of our nation's flag. Still, the United States does not actually ban any piece of entertainment or art, as happens elsewhere, and tries to protect the rights of journalists. Canada, our northern neighbor that liberals love so much, seems to be having a big issue with this.
In February 2006, a man named Ezra Levant offended the delicate sensibilities of a few Muslims. In Western Standard, one of the leading conservative magazines in Canada, he published the now-notorious Muhammad cartoons. These cartoons so offended a group of anti-freedom citizens that complaints were filed, alleging that he had violated the civil rights of Canadian Muslims and that his publication was injurious to their image and would inspire hate crimes against them.
In a free society, the case would be immediately dismissed. The cartoons were a valid, albeit risqué, social commentary designed to provoke discussion about a topic often deemed taboo. But in Canada, Human Rights Commissions that operate outside of the courts have the power to convict and terrorize those accused of wrongdoing, taking cases that would be laughed at by judges in any court. Because of their legal standing, Levant was just forced to appear before them this past week. The final verdict has not yet come, but if the ruling is against Levant, he has threatened to take the issue as high as the Canadian Supreme Court.
Free expression is the issue here, as Levant brilliantly points out in his opening statement (which can be found on YouTube). The reason he published and the content he published do not matter. It was not defamatory, libelous, or fraudulent in any way. Rather, it was an expression of political and religious opinion. That is something that he, like every human being, is entitled to. The commissions were established as a means to prevent harassment and discrimination against minorities in Canada. They have since been perverted as tools of censorship, being used here to punish a thought crime. If ideas cannot be considered and discussed, how will society advance?
We in the United States would do well to learn from this Orwellian case, and stand up for our freedoms here. Government continues to encroach upon our liberty in an unforgivable fashion. All humans have basic rights that come with birth. We cannot let Human Rights Commissions or any other cause supersede these inherent rights. Let us avoid making the same mistakes that are being made in Canada.
