The New York Post: Canada’s Thought Police.
December 16, 2007 — Celebrated author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian judicial panels on charges linked to his book “America Alone.”
The book, a No. 1 bestseller in Canada, argues that Western nations are succumbing to an Islamist imperialist threat. The fact that charges based on it are proceeding apace proves his point.
Steyn, who won the 2006 Eric Breindel Journalism Award (co-sponsored by The Post and its parent, News Corp), writes for dozens of publications on several continents. After the Canadian general-interest magazine Maclean’s reprinted a chapter from the book, five Muslim law-school students, acting through the auspices of the Canadian Islamic Congress, demanded that the magazine be punished for spreading “hatred and contempt” for Muslims.
The plaintiffs allege that Maclean’s advocated, among other things, the notion that Islamic culture is incompatible with Canada’s liberalized, Western civilization. They insist such a notion is untrue and, in effect, want opinions like that banned from publication.
Two separate panels, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, have agreed to hear the case. These bodies are empowered to hear and rule on cases of purported “hate speech.”
Of course, a ban on opinions - even disagreeable ones - is the very antithesis of the Western tradition of free speech and freedom of the press.
Indeed, this whole process of dragging Steyn and the magazine before two separate human-rights bodies for the “crime” of expressing an opinion is a good illustration of precisely what he was talking about.
If Maclean’s, Canada’s top-selling magazine, is found “guilty,” it could face financial or other penalties. And the affair could have a devastating impact on opinion journalism in Canada generally.
This cartoon is based on the poster for the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt.
MajorityAP.com: NBC Lawyer Who Blocked Pro-Troop Ads Gave Generously to Dems.
The NBC lawyer who refused to allow a non-profit group to air an advertisement thanking American troops for their service has donated at least $45,000 to a host of Congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and the campaign committees of House and Senate Democrats, research by the Majority Accountability Project has found.
According to a Fox News report, Richard Cotton, the general counsel for NBC/Universal, was one of two network officials who decided not to sell ad time to Freedom’s Watch, which describes itself as “a nonpartisan movement dedicated to preserving, protecting, and defending conservative principles and promoting a conservative agenda.”
Freedom’s Watch prepared a series of television ads thanking American troops stationed abroad for “their service and for spending time away from their family and friends this Holiday season.” The ads will run from December 6 until December 21, and while CNN and Fox are both airing the group’s commercials, NBC refused to sell airtime on their cable networks, MSNBC and CNBC.
According to the Fox report, NBC will not sell airtime unless Freedom’s Watch removes their website address from the commercial. The group’s website address, www.freedomswatch.org, appears at the end of the 30 second spot, under a banner that reads “thank you…”
While NBC’s rejection of a Freedom’s Watch ad from August was never explained, according to the group, Federal Elections Commission (FEC) records are sure to raise eyebrows.
According to FEC records, Cotton has been a generous donor to Democrat campaigns and liberal causes. Earlier this year, he donated $1,000 to the political action committee (PAC) of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and last year gave the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) $7,000.
Over the past decade, Cotton has contributed at least $45,000 to Congressional Democrats, including $2,000 each to Clinton and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).
….
NBC Nightly News’ Brian Williams announces his nomination for Time Magazine’s Person of the Year:
My nominee for 2007 Person of the Year is a woman–a woman with a history of abuse, a woman who has never run for elective office, someone we all know, someone who makes her presence known on a daily basis in all our lives and, for my money, is better than any male alternative. That woman is Mother Earth. I think the environment is the compelling issue of our time.
Thanks to Atomic Trousers for the collection of worst liberal bumper stickers.
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
“You know why there’s a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.” — Rush Limbaugh
….
United Press International: Supreme Court To Decide On Gun Rights.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether individuals have a right under the Second Amendment “to keep and bear arms.”
In a case that will probably be heard in March and decided before the end of June, the District of Columbia asked the high court to review an appeals court decision that struck down a Washington gun ban last year. The appeals court ruled the amendment does contain an individual right to bear arms, at least to protect one’s home.
A ruling in the Supreme Court case could affect gun laws and bans across the nation.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
From the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page:
The dispute arises from the first four words of the Second Amendment, the full text of which reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If the first two clauses were omitted, there would be no room for ambiguity. But part of the legal controversy has centered around what a “well regulated militia” means.
Judge Silberman’s opinion argued, with convincing historical evidence, that the “militia” the Framers had in mind was not the National Guard of the present, but referred to all able-bodied male citizens who might be called upon to defend their country. The notion that the average American urbanite might today go to his gun locker, grab his rifle and sidearm and rush, Minuteman-like, to his nation’s defense might seem quaint. But at stake is whether the “militia” of the Second Amendment is some small, discreet group of people acting under government control, or all of us.
The phrase “the right of the people” or some variation of it appears repeatedly in the Bill of Rights, and nowhere does it actually mean “the right of the government.” When the Bill of Rights was written and adopted, the rights that mattered politically were of one sort–an individual’s, or a minority’s, right to be free from interference from the state. Today, rights are most often thought of as an entitlement to receive something from the state, as opposed to a freedom from interference by the state. The Second Amendment is, in our view, clearly a right of the latter sort.
(h/t: LaJuntaBlog)
