Wikileaks is a Threat to All of Us Who Value Free Speech

The world cannot afford to have someone like Julian Assange doing what he is doing. He is destroying the system of international diplomacy, which will make (actually has already made) the world less safe and ultimately will cause more wars and make current ones last longer that would otherwise be the case. If diplomats cannot operate in private, then vital government-to-government communication is inhibited and misunderstandings lead to a higher level of international conflict.

So he will have to be stopped. The question is at what cost.

It seems to me the Wikileaks would like to see the US government try to shut down the Internet. They may mistakenly believe that this would "prove" some wacky conspiracy theories about a neo-con cabal that runs the world and is behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to think that a tiny cabal controls the US government and is totally evil. If only this cabal could be stopped, world peace would break out everywhere because mankind is basically good - apart from the wicked neo-con cabal that controls the US government, of course. That is what I gather they appear to believe from their garbled, juvenile rantings. But who knows. Maybe they are just nihilists. Or maybe they are as dumb as bag of hammers.

ABC News reports:

he arrest and detention of Julian Assange Tuesday on charges of rape and sexual assault was at the least a convenient development for government leaders who've sought ways to contain the leader of the controversial website Wikileaks.

But in an exclusive interview with ABC News' Jim Sciutto, Wikileaks' spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson insisted Assange's arrest won't alter the site's calculated release of thousands of secret government cables, which still continues according to plan. The site published a new slate of cables Wednesday.

"It is not derailing us in any way," said Hrafnsson, adding that a group of five to six people is running Wikileaks' operations in Assange's absence. "This is a turning tide and starting a trend that you can't really stop unless you want to shut down the Internet."

What is with this ridiculous "We are the persecuted minority and the US government is out to get us because they just hate liberty" line? Who can make sense of what goes on in the minds of these people?

The most likely outcome of this fiasco is more censorship of the web - exactly what they claim to be fighting. They are causing what they claim to be against. They are either lying about what they want or they are very stupid. But one thing is for sure:

A people that cannot govern itself by individual moral restraint invites top-down, authoritarian, micro-management of their lives by a government placed there by people fed up with chaos.

That is where this is going and that is a tragedy for all of us who value free speech.

Ezra Levant Calls for the Repeal of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act

Ezra Levant was asked recently what advice he would give the Conservative government and he responded with this piece. I agree with him 100%. Let us hope Stephen Harper is listening.

The Conservative government is getting the big issue of the day right: the economy. Canada leads the G7 nations in almost every measure; we were the last into the recession and the first out, and it was less deep here than in other countries. Not a single Canadian bank failed or had to be bailed out. Contrast that with the ongoing debt crisis in Europe and America's 10 per cent unemployment rate. It's not surprising that Canada's opposition parties and the media have chosen instead to focus on ephemera or spectacles, like the Jaffer-Guergis story.

The government is wise to concentrate on the issues that matter to Canadians and to tune out the chattering class in Ottawa. But there is a policy project they should adopt: reforming the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The CHRC is the largest of Canada's 14 human rights commissions, and it has been the most aggressive censor. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act gives the CHRC the power to prosecute anyone who publishes anything on the internet that is "likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt.” It's an incredibly vague offense, which is why for 32 years the CHRC had a 100 per cent conviction rate on all of their prosecutions, until the law was finally declared unconstitutional last fall. (The CHRC is appealing.)

The government should not wait for the question of political censorship to work its way through the courts. It should act now to repeal Section 13 and to make other badly needed reforms to the CHRC, including bringing in a civil liberties oversight committee to monitor abuses by CHRC staff, who have admitted under oath to publishing anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-gay material themselves in an effort to entrap citizens. A full-scale audit of the CHRC's policies by the auditor general is also in order, especially given the failing grade the CHRC received in a confidential internal government audit.

This is good policy: the CHRC has increasingly used its censorship powers as a political weapon, picking on religious Christians and conservative activists, even as it strenuously avoided prosecuting any politically correct "haters," such as radical Muslims. Simply put, censorship in the age of the internet isn't just ethically inappropriate, it's practically impossible – in other words, a perpetual source of work and expense for empire-building bureaucrats. It should be shut down.

From a political point of view, it's a winner for the government. Standing up for freedom of expression puts the government on the side of groups that traditionally have liberal sympathies, from artists and authors to civil libertarians. Even groups like Egale Canada, the gay rights lobby, have called for the repeal of Section 13, along with the likes of PEN Canada and the Canadian Association of Journalists. It would be a win for the government to have them as allies.

Other than those who earn their living from human rights commissions or file complaints there against their political enemies, there are no supporters of Section 13 in the whole political spectrum. I appeared before Parliament's Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on the subject last year, and I was impressed by the concern that all parties had about the abusive censorship of the CHRC. Based on my interactions with various Liberal and NDP MPs, I sense that the opposition would not take a party-line stance against such reforms. Even Ujjal Dosanjh, a left-wing Liberal, hinted to reporters after that meeting that he could be satisfied with repealing Section 13 and keeping the Criminal Code provisions against hate speech, which are not as easily abused.

Repealing Section 13 and deeply reforming the culture of the CHRC is a political winner. It would strengthen the government's civil libertarian bona fides. It would appeal to the party's base, which correctly senses that the CHRC is on an anti-conservative warpath. It would likely garner enough opposition votes to pass – and if an opposition leader insisted on opposing such reforms, it would likely cause splits in those opposition caucuses. (Michael Ignatieff has written against censorship in the past; he would be hard pressed to defend it today.)

Getting the economy right is important. But ending the 33-year record of abuse at the Canadian Human Rights Commission is important, too. It's the right policy decision. It will appeal to the party's base and impress civil libertarians outside the party. It will win support across the aisle – and pose problems for any opposition leader who tries to fight it.

Our Sins Must Be Great . . . For We Find Ourselves Ruled by Cowardly Bullies

This story is about the US government gone mad trying to eradicate Christian prayer in Georgia.

Preston Blackwelder proudly showed off a painting of his grandmother that had hung next to the front door of his Port Wentworth home. She was the woman who led him to God, Blackwelder said Friday. And with that firm religious footing, Blackwelder said it would be preposterous to stop praying before meals at Port Wentworth's Ed Young Senior Citizens Center near Savannah because of a federal guideline. "She would say pray anyway," Blackwelder said of his grandmother. "She'd say don't listen."

But Senior Citizens Inc. officials said Friday the meals they are contracted by the city to provide to Ed Young visitors are mostly covered with federal money, which ushers in the burden of separating church and state. On Thursday, the usual open prayer before meals at the center was traded in for a moment of silence.

The dilemma is being hashed out by the Port Wentworth city attorney, said Mayor Glenn "Pig" Jones. Tim Rutherford, Senior Citizens Inc. vice president, said some of his staff recently visited the center and noticed people praying shortly before lunch was served. Rutherford said his company provides meals like baked chicken, steak tips and rice and salads at a cost of about $6 a plate. Seniors taking the meals pay 55 cents and federal money foots the rest of the bill, Rutherford said. "We can't scoff at their rules," he said of federal authorities. "It's a part of the operational guidelines." Rutherford said the moment of silence was introduced to protect that funding. He said although the change may have been misinterpreted, perhaps his company could have done a better job selling it. "It's interpreted that we're telling people that they can't pray, but we aren't saying that," he said. "We're asking them to pray to themselves. Have that moment of silence."

Mayor Jones said he was outraged by the change and has promised to find a solution. "It was one of the hardest things I ever did as mayor is to look those people in the eyes and ask them to be patient with me and honor their God in a moment of silence until I can have a resolution to this," Jones said. "For me to look at their eyes and tell them they can't thank God for their food, it's unheard of - I can't take it." Jones said he flirted with the idea of ending a contract the city has with Senior Citizens Inc. "Like one lady said, 'You can stop me from speaking, but you can't stop me from praying what's in my heart,"' he said. "But the best answer right now is that we're trying to get the best information possible and legal council is looking at what would happen if we continued to pray."

Blackwelder said the center's already fragile visitors have been rattled. "This is, in my view, an unnecessary intrusion into the private lives of individuals. It's a bad place to draw a line in the sand."

This is ridiculous. Western liberals who use the government to persecute Christians and attempt to eradicate the public practice of Christianity are cowards. They pick on the elderly, the weak and those committed to peace. But like all bullies everywhere they are cowards who tremble in fear the minute anyone stands up to them.

This is what we have learned from the reaction of Western institutions from Comedy Central to Yale University Press to the government of the Netherlands. Western culture is weak and lacking moral fiber or the courage of its convictions. It is ready to fall over as soon as it is given a good push. Appeasement just feeds the bullies' delusions of invincibility, as Lorne Gunter points out in The National Post.

We ought to be afraid of what may happen to a people ruled by cowardly bullies. Very afraid. Jews, women and homosexuals have the most to fear. The rest of us may be allowed at least to live without being enslaved. Taxed, of course, but not actually enslaved. Although to a free people it may seem like slavery.

I'll give the last word to Mark Shea on the government versus praying seniors story. He says:

"I hope these little old people wave their canes, tell Caesar to go to hell, and wheeze out a prayer that makes the Devil tremble. They are better men that I am, in their virtue of patience with this ridiculous rule."

Ross Douthat on South Park

Ross Douthat has an excellent commentary on the South Park censorship flap in the New York Times entitled "Not Even in South Park?" Here is the ending.

But there’s still a sense in which the “South Park” case is particularly illuminating. Not because it tells us anything new about the lines that writers and entertainers suddenly aren’t allowed to cross. But because it’s a reminder that Islam is just about the only place where we draw any lines at all.

Across 14 on-air years, there’s no icon “South Park” hasn’t trampled, no vein of shock-comedy (sexual, scatalogical, blasphemous) it hasn’t mined. In a less jaded era, its creators would have been the rightful heirs of Oscar Wilde or Lenny Bruce — taking frequent risks to fillet the culture’s sacred cows.

In ours, though, even Parker’s and Stone’s wildest outrages often just blur into the scenery. In a country where the latest hit movie, “Kick-Ass,” features an 11-year-old girl spitting obscenities and gutting bad guys while dressed in pedophile-bait outfits, there isn’t much room for real transgression. Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place.

Except where Islam is concerned. There, the standards are established under threat of violence, and accepted out of a mix of self-preservation and self-loathing.

This is what decadence looks like: a frantic coarseness that “bravely” trashes its own values and traditions, and then knuckles under swiftly to totalitarianism and brute force.

Happily, today’s would-be totalitarians are probably too marginal to take full advantage. This isn’t Weimar Germany, and Islam’s radical fringe is still a fringe, rather than an existential enemy.

For that, we should be grateful. Because if a violent fringe is capable of inspiring so much cowardice and self-censorship, it suggests that there’s enough rot in our institutions that a stronger foe might be able to bring them crashing down.

Read it all here.

The only thing I don't understand is why Douthat is so sure that Islam is so marginal that it poses no threat. Is it good old American self-confidence? Or is it whistling past the graveyard? Well, did the thugs actually get away with censoring South Park or not? You have your answer there.

Are Liberals in on the Muslim Take-over?

Well, you have to wonder. From Hot Air:

"As InstaGlenn says, this is actually the perfect ironic conclusion to the media’s post-Tax Day binge of hyperventilating about tea party extremism. Cranks holding up “Impeach the Kenyan!” signs at a right-wing rally are grist for a thousand NYT op-eds about Oklahoma City, but have jihadis intimidate the parent company of one of the most highly regarded comedies on television into blacking out its shows and it’s essentially a curio for the TV beat."

Is this a particularly weird period of history or what?

The Government and Blogs Don't Mix

According to respected pollster, Rasumssen Reports, a recent poll found that 11% of Americans favored government regulation of blogsites. Its scarry that its that high. And 23% were not sure. The Obama administration has been sniffing around this issue for a while now wishing it could intrude on yet another area of life and "help" people avoid wrong thoughts. The same poll also reveals that:

"The Federal Trade Commission this week released new guidelines requiring bloggers to disclose any gifts or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products, and Americans are more comfortable with that kind of regulation. Forty-five percent (45%) think such a requirement is a good idea, but 32% oppose it. Twenty-three percent (23%) are undecided."

Good grief! How about if Obama just would keep his campaign promise not to appoint lobbyists to all sorts of posts in his adminstration? Would not that do more for democracy than getting into the regulation of the Internet? This is just the thin edge of the wedge.

Conservative and liberal bloggers have been a thorn in the side of statist types of all political stipes and that is all to the good. The government can jolly well keep its grubby hands off our little speck of independence. Blogs have been putting pressure on the mainstream media for not covering stories because of political bias and they have made it more difficult for spin doctors to manage the message to the masses. If they keep this up they will make themselves utterly indispensible to the democratic process.

How about a "Keep the Grubby Hands of Our Political Elites Off Cyberspace" ammendment to the Constitution? For heavens sake, if they feel the urge to censor something and just can't help themselves let them take on the multi-billion dollar porn industry and leave us political and religious bloggers in peace. Maybe we should form the NBA: "The National Blog Association" modelled on the National Rifle Association. Charleton Heston, where are you when you are really needed?

Honestly, it makes you feel like moving to Texas, buying a gun, finding an independent church and becoming a libertarian. I still can't believe 11% of Americans think this is a good idea. Hurmph.

The Windsor Star Supports the Scrapping of the Ontario "Human Rights" Commission

Here is an excellent editorial from The Windsor Star expressing support for the crusade to rid Canada of the oppressive, unjust, Stalinist, "Human Rights" Commissions (I just can't call them that without putting "Human Rights" in brackets since they are such abusers of true human rights themselves. You just can't let the Orwellian mandarins define the words. Words are too important.)

Anyway, here is the editorial with my comments in [bold and square brackets] as usual.

"Just how much power should human rights commissions have? It's a question that's been directed at bodies at both the federal and provincial levels, and most recently at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

At the federal level, we have what amounts to two-tier policing of racism and hate speech in Canada -- one through the courts applying Criminal Code and the other through a human rights act. [No one is for racism or discrimination. The issue is how to address it in accordance with principles of natural justice.]

Critics say the Code is all that's needed. They contend that the CHRC, with a bar set far below criminal standards, often adjudicates trivial complaints and serves as a censor of ideas that are not intended to provoke hatred or violence, but to promote controversy and debate. As well, the commission has an almost never lost a case it's prosecuted. [These are just some of the ways the HRC's fail to uphold natural justice.]

Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, counters that the Code and act "serve useful purposes in protecting Canadians from discrimination in today's society."

Lynch's view of freedom on expression is that the "power of words and ideas) while overwhelming positive, can also be used to undermine democracy, freedom and equality." [If you are going to have government officials deciding when to harrass and fine people based on such gloriously vague criteria, it is conceivable that whole political parties and even newspapers could end up banned. This leaves far too much power in the hands of government censors. See further below.]
However, the problem is that the CHRC is essentially the investigator, prosecutor and judge of complaints of racism and hate speech. The burden of proof under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is also subject to interpretation. It says it's an offence to communicate anything "likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt." [All that is needed to get you convicted is that the HRC decides that what you said is "likely" in their opinion to expose a person (any person anywhere - no one in particular) to contempt. Can no one show contempt for anyone anymore? Not even for Wall St. bankers? Not even for George Bush? Or is this vague criteria just a way of putting totalitarian power in government hands?]

Ezra Levant, who was the subject of an unsuccessful complaint before the Alberta after he published controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, says CHRC's standards make it an advocate of censorship. [This is the Orwellian part - usually freedom from censorship is itself considered to be a human right, not the way to ensure human rights!]

"The word 'likely' is amazing. The CHRC doesn't have to prove you've actually done anything, just that you might in the future," says Levant. "And all they have to prove is that you said something that might cause one person to have hard feelings about another." [So, basically, they can harass anyone they want.]

The Criminal Code, meanwhile, has clear sanctions to deal with true hate speech -- which must clearly encourage or incite hatred and violence. This is far different than making individuals account for expressions of thought that are controversial, offensive or deemed to be politically incorrect. [Completely different.]

Last year, an independent report by the University of Windsor's Richard Moon said the Canadian Human Rights Commission should be stripped of its power to investigate online hate messages. That job, says the free speech expert, is best left to police, prosecutors and Internet service providers. [The Canadian HRC paid for this report, didn't get the outcome it wanted and so buried the report.]

"Censorship of hate speech should be limited to speech that explicitly or implicitly threatens, justifies or advocates violence against the members of an identifiable group," Moon said, having concluded that the commission's current mandate to probe Internet postings "likely to expose" complainants to hate was just too broad. The commission didn't agree with Moon's recommendation. [Why not? Unless they are not really committed to human rights.]

In Ontario, new Conservative Leader Tim Hudak is calling for the scrapping of the province's Human Rights Tribunal, which hears complaints similar to the federal CHRC. Hudak also feels the courts are the right place to deal with human rights issues. [Hudak gets my vote in the next election on this issue alone. It is about time. And the Liberals better get onside on this one or they will regret it.]

We agree and, at least Ontario, there is going to be a debate. It's one that should also be going on in Ottawa." [Now if only Ontario's other "Star" could see the light - the Toronto Star. Fat chance of that, I'm afraid. But if the Toronto Star wants to be against human rights in the name of political correctness and statism, well that is its choice. One gets the sense that this issue in not going away.]

Ezra Levant, Human Rights Commissions and Free Speech: Some Updates

The campaign to ban these quasi-judicial kangaroo courts and the odious censorship and arbitrary abuse of human rights that they perpetrate continues. How long will it take for Canada to reform this shocking anti-democratic wart on the body politic? Which politician(s) will end up getting credit for doing the dirty job? Which party will hold out to the end in support of this horrible example of political correctness and state power run amuck?

Here are some encouraging straws in the wind.

Ezra Levant's Opening Statement at the Alberta Human Rights Commission
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8
The other parts of his 90 minute interrogation are here too; well-worth watching.

Rex Murphey on the Western Standard Cartoon Controversy (highly entertaining as well as completely right)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaQiGnR2Xw0&NR=1

Tim Hudak, Ontario PC Leader Candidate Opposes HRC (2 of 4 leadership candidates so far)
The Globe and Mail Story
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090516.ONTTORYOTTART2216/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/
Ezra's Comments From His Blog
http://ezralevant.com/2009/05/tim-hudak-proposes-to-abolish.html

Review of Shakedown by the Winnipeg Free Press (the Free Press lives up to its name)
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/entertainment/books/human-rights-commissions-called-chilling-influence-45248792.html

A good opinion piece in the May 19 The Globe and Mail by Tom Flanagan
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.wcorights19/BNStory/specialComment/home

Ezra's book, Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights, is currently at #4 on the Globe and Mail Canadian Bestseller List (hardcover). It is currently (May 19) sitting at #41 on the Amazon.ca bestseller list. At this rate Ezra might just make back the $100,000 he spent defending himself from the outrageous charges brought against him by the Alberta Human Rights Commission. I hope so. There probably will be more legal battles ahead.

I believe:
1. Freedom of speech and of the press is a non-negotiatable, fundamental human right backed by 800 years of English common law, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

2. There should be no such thing as a "thought crime." The government has no business monitoring what free people think.

3. Freedom of speech means that we all will be offended sometimes by what we hear or read. It is actually everyone's duty to be offended from time to time in a democracy. It is the price we pay for freedom and part of living in a democratic society. Anyone who does not like it can lump it or move to a country that has no free speech.

4. The best way to handle racists and bigots is to argue with them, refute them, mock them and get public opinion against them. That is how democracies function. We don't need the police to interfere as long as we all do our public duty to speak out. That is why the last thing we need is a "chill" on free speech.