CHRC: it's OK to say gays should be "beheaded", Jews "spread corruption", Hindus must "be killed"
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has rejected a human rights complaint filed against a radical Muslim imam who published an viciously bigoted book about gays, Jews, women, Christians, and even called for the murder of infidels.
Marc Lebuis, the publisher of the Quebec blog Point de Bascule, filed a complaint with the CHRC back in April, after reading a hateful book called "
Islam or Integration?" "Islam or Fundamentalism" (thanks to reader John for the translation correction.) You can see a copy of the book in its entirety here. (It's in French.)
The book plainly meets all the tests of section 13, including the jurisdictional test -- it was written by a radical Muslim cleric here in Canada, named Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Al-Hayiti, and it was published on the Internet by him, too.
More importantly, Al-Hayiti's book seethes with hate. According to Lebuis's careful notes, it included statements such as these (I've included only a portion of them):
- Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life"
- "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded"
- Most Infidels “live like animals”
- "sending our sons and daughters to the schools of the Infidels has devastating effects on their beliefs, their behavior and their character. For the children of Infidels are the most pervert children. At a very early age, they adopt the behavior of their parents "
Men are superior to women
- "men are superior to women and better than them". In general, "men have a more complete intellect and memory than women"
Muslim women are superior to Infidel women
- "The veiled Muslim woman is a light in the darkness of the 20th century, she carries the torch of modesty, of chastity and of Islamic values"
- “male Infidels will not be happy with us until our women are in their beds, in their magazines and in their dancing clubs !”
- "If a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man ... their marriage is invalid, in fact it is adultery"
Muslims are superior to Infidels
- "... a Muslim must never put his brother in Islam at the same level as an Infidel. In fact, to place Infidels at equality with Muslims is one of the greatest form of ignorance and injustice"
- "The rule is that the most disobedient among Muslims is better than the most virtuous, the most polite, the most honest and the most loyal among the Infidels"
- "It is because of this religion of lies, which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery"
- Jews "spread corruption and chaos on earth"
- Most Jews "seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing"
- "owning slaves is not prohibited"
- "Allah has allowed men to marry two, three or four women, but one who fears he will not be fair can marry only one or have slaves."
Democracy is contrary to Islam. Jihad is a duty of sedition
- "Democracy is a system in total contradiction with Islam"
- "... freedom is unknown in Islam, it contradicts Islam, therefore it is a false concept"
- "[freedom] serves to justify corruption" and "stooping to the lowest levels of bestiality"
- “Anyone who leaves Islam, cut his neck”
- in an Islamic state, Christians and Jews can keep their religion but they must pay a sum of money, the Jizyah. "The purpose of the Jizyah is to humiliate and punish Infidels to encourage them to accept Islam." The other Infidels (Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc.) have no options but to accept Islam or “be killed"
Dear reader, don't get me wrong. I don't believe it should be against the law to have this much hate in your heart. I'd want to make sure that Al-Hayiti's calls to violence (cut an apostate's neck, kill Hindus and Buddhists, etc.) didn't meet the standard of criminal incitement, and I'd hope that CSIS was attending his sermons to make sure he wasn't going even further off the cuff. But plain old-fashioned anti-Semitism, misogyny, anti-gay bigotry, etc., ought to be legal. The answer is denunciation, debate, marginalization, etc. -- not government censorship.
But that's not the approach taken by the CHRC. They have prosecuted Canadians for much less. But they refuse to prosecute anyone who, well, isn't Christian.
As readers will know, I was specifically acquitted of section 13 charges for publishing the exact same words for which Rev. Stephen Boissoin was found to have committed "hate speech", by both the CHRC and the Alberta HRC. That's because I'm Jewish, and Rev. Boissoin's Christian. HRCs have a special hate for Christians.
And, despite the fact that there do exist a number of radical Muslim inciters like Al-Hayiti in Canada, not a single radical Muslim (or radical Tamil, or radical Sikh) hate-monger has ever been prosecuted.
And, so it is again: the CHRC has rejected Lebuis's complaint. The rejection states:
“ ...the majority of the references in “Islam or Fundamentalism” are to “infidels”, “miscreants” or “western women”. These are general, broad and diversified categories that do not constitute an “identifiable group” under Section 13 of the Act. As we have also mentioned, the extracts that identify groups on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination (homosexuals, lesbians, Christians, Jews) do not seem to promote “hatred” or “contempt” according to the criteria set forth in the Taylor case. Therefore, the document on which the complaint is based does not seem to meet the requirements of Section 13 of the Act for a complaint.”
Translation: when a radical Muslim says gays should be killed, Buddhists should be killed, women may be treated like slaves, etc., those victims are not legally considered to be "identifiable groups" -- they have no human rights.
Gays, women, Buddhists, Jews, etc., do have human rights that can be offended only when white supremacists do the offending. When radical Muslims are doing the offending, gays, women, Jews, etc., can just get a thicker skin.
It's B.S., of course. It's an excuse made up out of thin air -- there is no such jurisprudence. The rejection is tarted up to look official, or rooted in some sort of rule of law. But it's not. It's raw politics. In the politically correct war of censorship that the CHRC wages on Canadians, Muslims are exempt from the law (as are Tamils, Sikhs and even Jews).
That's a form of corruption.
This is proof that the CHRC is a political weapon, not a human rights agency, and certainly not an agency that deserves to be called any sort of legal apparatus.
This is proof that the Official Jews have made a grave mistake in being Canada's loudest defenders of HRCs. For HRCs have no problem going after pro-Jewish voices like Maclean's magazine, or Fr. Alphonse de Valk, or the Christian Heritage Party, etc., (even if they're eventually acquitted, for the lengthy, costly process itself is the punishment) but they'll never go after the true haters -- people who actually call for murders.
This is a particularly egregious case, for the offensive work is particularly grotesque, and it borders on criminal incitement (I'm not a criminal lawyer -- it may in fact cross over that border).
The CHRC's hypocrisy isn't new.
Their double-standard isn't new.
What's new is that this is happening in Quebec.
So far, Quebec has largely ignored the human rights battles in the rest of Canada. I'm not quite sure why, but it hasn't been a big issue there. I did note this editorial in La Presse calling for the abolition of section 13, but that's about it.
I think this issue will change it.
First of all, Lebuis is an articulate, smart and passionate bilingual advocate, with an increasingly popular blog.
Second, the story already received good exposure today in Le Devoir (I'll post the whole story when I can find it.) Here's a Google translation of the first part of that story, but the headline says it all:
Canadian Human Rights Commission: attacking gays, westerners and Jews isn't necessarily hateful
I think that would irritate any Canadian who believes in tolerance, equality, peace and freedom. But Quebec is particularly sensitive to the issue, having just gone through a province-wide exercise about how far they should go to "accommodate" radical Islam. That accommodation debate was formally styled as accommodating any minority, but it was really a proxy for dealing with Islam. The answer was pretty unanimous: Quebeckers don't want special rules or exceptions. This headline is therefore doubly powerful: it shouts out the special exception given to a radical Muslim cleric, and it points out that the exception in fact has to do with hating Quebeckers.
I believe the debate on the CHRC has now officially started in Quebec.
Just last week I wrote about a bold decision by Lawrence Cannon, the new Foreign Minister and one of Stephen Harper's key MPs in Quebec, to counterbalance the CHRC by inviting me to an official function. I think Cannon would be a good person to write to, again, about this latest inflammatory decision by the CHRC. It's egregious to all Canadians; but I believe it's especially insulting to Quebec, and their culture of equality for women and tolerance for gays.
Why don't you drop Cannon a quick e-mail, pointing out the hypocrisy of the CHRC, and demanding to know why they permit this incitement to violence, while hounding legitimate political discussants like Rev. Boissoin and Fr. de Valk?
I mean, really: how does Jennifer Lynch, the chief commissar at the CHRC keep her job? The same woman who persecutes Christian clergy for their mild and peaceful rhetoric just gave a free pass to the most vile anti-Semitism, misogyny and, frankly, anti-Quebec rant that I think I've ever read.
I know what they should do:
Fire. Them. All.