Speaking of…our freedoms. People, we had better start paying closer attention to what is going on. We speak of the Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech, but the fact is, we have already lost it to a certain degree, under the guise of Political Correctness, Human Rights and Hate Laws. A new McCarthyism is alive and well in one of our closest neighbors, Canada, and should be more than a cautionary tale – it should be call to arms.

I’m sure most are aware of Canada’s infamous Human Rights Commission, who, for the crime of saying one thinks homosexuality is against God’s Law, or for drawing a link between Islam and terrorism, can fine, and ensure that an author is never published or able to write or be read in Canada again. You don’t even have to live in Canada, or the piece have originated in Canada, as has been shown by the current case of Mark Steyn. After excerpts of his book, America Alone, were published in a Canadian magazine, he was accused of “subject[ing] Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt” and being “flagrantly Islamophobic.” If the writing, not even the author, appears in Canada, it’s fair game for the CHRC.

If found guilty by the CHRC Tribunal, which he surely will be, as they have a 100% conviction rate, among other things, Steyn will no longer be able to write anything that is published or heard in Canada. While the determination has yet to made on what turned out to be a kangaroo court, Steyn has commented, “I’m done in Canada.” Nor will the magazine, Maclean’s, who excerpted his book and published his column, be allowed to publish it, or any other articles, which may be ”likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”

Note the word “likely.” They may as well have used the word “might.” No one has to prove the writings or words inspired any crime, any assault – or that they are even the genesis of a “hate crime.” Just that perhaps, sometime in the future “maybe” they would. That something that person wrote or said “may” make another look disparagingly at the group or person in question.

In his book, Steyn eloquently discusses the challenges and issues facing the West by Islamic fundamentalism. Many of his columns addressed the same issues.

Rev. Scott Boisoin, a Canandian, was convicted last November by the CHRC because he sent a letter to the editor of a local newspaper critical of the active homosexual agenda. “…this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage…Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate. ”

Just recently the “remedy” was ordered: Boisoin, a pastor, and his organization, The Concerned Christian Organization, have been banned for life to speak or publish “in the newspapers, by email, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.. they … are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about … Lund [the complainant] or … Lund's witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks…[regarding] homosexuals are directed to be removed from current Web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin [sic] and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.,” by the quasi-judicial group, the CHRC.

Boisoin and his group, jointly and severally, must also pay a $5,000 fine to the complainant and $2,000 to the “judge” for her time. Additionally, while he has said he will not do it, Boisoin and his group have been ordered to write a public apology to the complainant, and publish it in the same newspaper that published his letter to the editor.

The funny thing about this is, according to the CHRC, there was “no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward.”

Get that? No actual victim. So the complainant, who alleges he is not gay, and no harm was actually done to him, was compensated, as was the “judge,” a divorce attorney, who laid down the punishment. Curiously, a prominent gay group, and a gay magazine, while not supportive of Boisoin’s sentiments, have both supported his right to express them. Certainly, if anyone would have been a “victim” of Boisoin’s letter, it would have been someone actually in the homosexual community.

 Notice also, no disparaging remarks about homosexuals. That means no disapproval, no reproach, nothing critical or, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, to not “speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way.” The means, Boisoin cannot even read verses from the Bible, which speak against homosexuality.

The CHRCs were established in the 1970s to initially address discrimination in housing and employment. They soon began using their authority, however, “to silence citizens who declined to embrace the new vision of Canada … by then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau: multicultural and pacifist; blindly tolerant; anti-tradition, anti-family and anti-life.”

But, don’t get this wrong – this isn’t about Canada, sexual preference, or religion, or even the people who have been hauled in front of this egregious tribunal. This is about free speech. The right to express one’s thoughts and opinions, even if they go against the grain. Or, “hurts someone feelings.”

This is about the United States, and what is, and has been happening here. While we don’t yet have anything like the CHRC, we have the government and our “anti-intimidation laws”, now in place in 47 states, the courts, and our educational monitors. And, we are hobbled with political correctness – to the point where one cannot tell the truth and must couch it in ambiguities, or fear public or judicial reprisal. 

Generally, it is conservatives who are targeted.

The people, who are concerned about the many problems illegal immigration brings, and want secure borders, are considered racist. Somehow the concerns about the one are translated into a bias against all Latinos.

 Those who question the current global warming hysteria, and “refuse to join the fight,” have been likened to Hitler or to Josef Fritzl in Austria, who locked his daughter and her children in a cellar for 24 years. To be skeptical “about the conventional wisdom on climate change is akin to the monstrous crime committed by Fritzl.” Those who question the veracity of global warming have also been likened to Holocaust Deniers.

The people who fear the encroaching Islamic jihad are called Islamophobic. Those who speak about or discuss the negative and frightening aspects of Islam are accused of religious intolerance, or xenophobia, and are accused of hating all Muslims and all of Arab descent. One must question why Muslims are so sensitive to concerns regarding their beliefs. Christians’ beliefs are questioned and bashed all the time. “It is illogical for a member of a religion to fear the articulation of other beliefs if he is certain of its truth.”

Portions of the Bible are considered by many to be hate speech. Christians are considered to be purveyors of hatred and intolerance if they follow their beliefs. They are often considered extremists and fundamentalists if they believe and follow their scriptures. Historical information becomes a hate issue, rather than what it is – historical fact or detail.

A recent report to congress, the U.S. State Department “Office of Global Anti-Semitism, said “the New Testament record that the Jews had Christ crucified is ‘classical anti-semitism.’ This edict makes millions of bible-believing Christians into ‘anti-semites – potential ‘hate criminals.’ Anti-semitisim is…a hate crime in Canada, Australia, and most European countries, punishable by harsh fines and imprisonment.” The one question one must ask, is why is it anti-Semitism to record historical facts?

In some countries, to deny the Holocaust is a crime, punishable by fines and imprisonment. Frankly, while I cannot understand how one could deny that it took place in the face of masses of historical data and substantiation, it should not be a crime to deny a historical event or evidence.

To think a certain way, and to publicize those thoughts, when not censured due to political correctness, and the fear that it might incite violence, “hurt someone’s feelings” or put someone in a bad light, even if justified, has become a crime. Such nonsense is being bolstered by the judicial system; with the effect that rational dialogue on a number of issues is being quashed.

The courts are being used more effectively than ever before to stifle the dissemination of thought and public discourse on issues. While this is not specifically about Islam, “lawfare,” a legal jihad, which is being waged, is a prime example. The practice is predatory, often without a serious expectation of winning, but used as a means to “intimidate and bankrupt defendants.” It is a method, using the Western democratic court systems to “suppress freedom of expression [and] abolish public discourse critical of Islam…”

“Forum shopping, whereby plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave of ‘libel tourism’ that has resulted in foreign judgments against European and now American authors mandating the destruction of American-authored literary material.”

Rather than face lengthy and expensive litigation, regardless of the merit of the works, “most authors and publishers targeted have issued apologies and retractions, while some have paid fines…” The recent case of Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil, published in the United States, who alleged financial ties between wealthy Saudis and terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, is a good example.

Ehrenfeld, an anti-terrorism analyst and director of the American Center for Democracy, was sued in a UK court, because something like 23 copies of her book were sold online by Amazon. com to people who live in the UK. This is despite the fact neither she nor her accuser lives in the UK. “Ehrenfeld lost on default and was ordered to pay heavy fines, apologize, and destroy her books -- all of which she has refused to do.” Instead, she counter-sued in a New York State court in an attempt to have the UK judgment declared unenforceable in the United States.

She lost the case because the NY court ruled that it “lacked jurisdiction over the Saudi resident who, the court said, did not have sufficient connections to the state.” Afterwards, the Association of American Publishers criticized the ruling “as a blow to intellectual freedom and ‘a deep disappointment for publishers and other First Amendment advocates.’"

When Cambridge Press was threatened with a lawsuit for publishing Alms for Jihad by American authors Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr, the “publisher immediately capitulated, offered a public apology…pulped the unsold copies of the book, and took it out of print.”

There is a real danger in censuring thought and the verbal or written expression of it. We are quickly moving into an Orwellian society. What many in the United States and other Western nations don’t seem to understand yet, when some ideas are censured, others will surely follow. This excludes those who are waging jihad against us, because they clearly understand that. It is their purpose to quash anything that may be perceived as derogatory.

Basically, what has already happened in Europe, Australia and Canada (all which used to have the freedom to express one’s thoughts and ideas), is happening here in the United States. To think a certain way, and to express those thoughts, are fast becoming crimes – or dangerous. Making a statement of fact, if it wounds someone’s sensibilities, can be cause to be fired, fined, and perhaps even jailed. In some cases, people sometimes actually fear for their lives due to community response.

Take, for example, what happened to a teacher several years ago, when, during a public forum, he explained that at his school, it was the male black teenage boys who were causing the bulk of the problems. The audience was aghast, and he was promptly accused of racism. He lost his job, and the media had a field day with him. Ultimately, he was vindicated, but the whole event made one thing clear – even if it was the truth, substantiated by facts, making such a statement could be dangerous and have severe consequences.

It wasn’t politically correct to state, or even imply, that one group was causing problems over another, even if it was true. Rather than being a statement of fact, which it was, it was seen as racist. Which is what has happened with illegal immigration. Rather than recognizing that people are concerned about illegal immigration, which coincidentally happens to be primarily from Mexico, it becomes an indictment of all Latinos. That’s like assuming because a women fears rape, she hates all men. An equally absurd conclusion.

Public opinion isn’t always right. It wasn’t right when people thought African Americans were less than human. It wasn’t right when people thought the earth was flat. Just because a segment of the population, including much of the media, thinks certain things shouldn’t be said because they may somehow physiologically injure someone else, doesn’t make it right. Just because many are convinced of the veracity of global warming, doesn’t make it right. And, just because the courts have decreed someone’s feelings might be hurt by saying something, doesn’t make it right. The intolerance we are now seeing towards “alternative and dissident opinions betrays the powerful anti-democratic impulse” now prevalent in our society.

What is right, however, is to uphold and defend our Constitutionally protected First Amendment right of Free Speech. The expression of our thoughts. Our country was founded on controversy. We broke from the subservience of European thought and edicts when we became a free nation. If we don’t fight for this right on every front, for the right to express our thoughts, we will lose it. It will slip away, unnoticed by many until it’s too late – and the expressions of our thoughts, our words, and our every deed, will be governed by whoever is in power.