Two U.S. media reports about the Congressional caucus panel

I've seen two news items written by U.S. journalists who attended the Congressional Human Rights Caucus meeting where I spoke about Canada's human rights commissions, and how they've been hijacked by a coalition of radical foreign jihadis and domestic politically correct busybodies.

Jack Langer, an editor with Regnery, wrote this item, calling our HRCs the "sensitivity police".

By now, many conservatives have heard of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions thanks to the decision by three CHRCs to investigate hate crimes complaints against Maclean’s magazine for printing -- among other things -- excerpts from conservative writer Mark Steyn’s book, America Alone.

...Many Americans can only shake their heads at the nutty excesses of multiculturalism in Canada. Government investigations for insulting people? That kind of thing could never happen here . . . Right?

Wrong, probably. Multiculturalism may not be as advanced in America as it is in Canada, but it’s on the same path.

...The infrastructure for this sort of action is already in place in many American cities which, though largely unknown to the public, have their own human rights commissions.

Take Philadelphia, for example. Although I am a native Philadelphian, I had never heard of the city’s “Commission on Human Relations” until 2006 when it began investigating Geno’s, the quintessential Philly steak joint, for hanging a sign asking customers to order in English. After spending nearly two years and untold amounts of taxpayer dollars investigating what some apparently regarded as a major hate crime, commissioners voted 2-1 to dismiss the complaint.

..Philadelphia now has the highest poverty rate of any major U.S. city, with a murder rate that skyrocketed by over one-third between 2002 and 2007, even as the city’s police force was reduced by 500 officers in roughly that period. But for the mayor, those issues will be addressed “at some point in time,” after enough resources are allocated to pressing matters like the Geno’s “speak English” sign.  

And Nutter meant business. After the Geno’s complaint ended in ignominious dismissal, he cleaned house at the CHR. To head the commission, he appointed Rue Landau, a radical activist who had formerly co-chaired the Liberty City Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Democratic Club. Landau quickly got to work replacing eight of the nine appointed commissioners with more politically reliable people. Her stated goals include raising the commission’s fines and forcing employees of every city agency to undergo diversity training, especially for issues related to the “transgendered.”

...And Landau has learned from past mistakes. By investigating Geno’s, the Philadelphia CHR made the same mistake that its Canadian equivalents made when it took on Maclean’s and Mark Steyn -- if you’re going to prosecute some outrageous case of political correctness, it has to be against a nobody, who doesn’t have the resources to fight back or marshal public attention. The Philadelphia and the Canadian sensitivity police had no choice but to dismiss these cases because everyone was watching.

Landau knows this -- she insists the HRC should not have taken the Geno’s case, even though she argues that the “speak English” sign violated Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Act, which was the basis of the complaint in the first place.  

...Where is this mania for multiculturalism heading? Again, Canada points the way. As Ezra Levant notes, Canadian authorities recently disciplined an alleged white supremacist for sending her child to school with a swastika drawn on her arm. The penalty? The government took her kid away.

Such an extreme case is unlikely to occur in America for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the oppressive enforcement of multiculturalist diktats in Canada highlights the creepy, logical endpoint of this ideology when it receives state sanction.

America’s would-be sensitivity police certainly have their sights set higher than a mere cheesesteak restaurant in Philadelphia. The Geno’s case should serve as a warning.

And here's Julia Duin in today's Washington Times:

Late last week, I attended a Capitol Hill briefing about an obscure United Nations resolution on "defamation of religions" that some call the "soft jihad."

Lined up in front of a hearing room in the Rayburn House Office Building were six panelists including David Harris, a Canadian who was sued for libel in 2004 by the Canadian branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for remarks he made on a radio show.

Also there was Ezra Levant, the publisher of a Canadian magazine who in 2006 got in hot water - and is the target of several lawsuits - for reprinting the Danish cartoons of prophet Muhammad as part of a news story. "Foreign-born jihadis," he says, "have teamed up with politically correct busybodies to use our own laws to undermine our freedoms, especially our freedom to criticize them."

The chief topic of discussion was a U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolution, backed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, that addresses "the campaign to defame religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities" since Sept. 11, 2001.

Freedom of expression, the resolution says, would be "subject to limitations" to guard the "respect of the rights and reputations of others; protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs."

...Angela Wu, a panelist from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, pointed out the burning of Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran and the torturing of religious minorities in Pakistan - especially those who convert from Islam - hurt plenty of feelings as well.

In the West, one has to prove that one has been harmed physically, mentally or materially in order to win a court judgment. With the kind of worldwide blasphemy laws suggested by this resolution, anybody anywhere could sue for merely having hurt feelings.

"When we talk of injuring religious feelings, what is that?" said a lawyer on the panel. "Is saying 'God has no son' on the Dome of the Rock an excuse to riot? Or dipping a crucifix in urine?"

Maybe it is, said the Pakistani representative.

"The ideal of freedom of speech is precious to you, but it's not value-neutral," she said. "You don't have to hurt peoples' sentiments and bring them to the point where they have to react in strange ways."

Congress has introduced three bills to protect America's interpretation of the First Amendment and protect citizens from being sued in a foreign court if their speech or writings do not constitute defamation under U.S. law. For the moment, those bills are in committee.

hat tip: Free Mark Steyn