mixed feelings here.

I have never liked hate laws in the first place. It has always seemed to me they posed some danger to freedom of speech with no balancing protection of any importance.

But I also dislike Steyn as a dishonest writer who acts, admittedly skilfully as a propagandist while posing as an analyst and commentator. It is not suprising that a magazine which would feature Mrs. conrad black would also hve steyn. I also realize that the law was originally enacted to protect jews from hate literature, and that Steyn, an ardent Zionist, would be the first to forget his principles of free speech and prosecute anybody who wrote about Jews in a way to arouse hate.

Could his article arouse hate? Of course. That's why he wrote it. Seriously, if he wanted to look at population numbers and the possibility of  some group running wild, he would have looked at Hindu India. He chose Moslems because he knew people were uneasy about them, and this would stoke the unease. Fear is the surest path to hatred.

But, no. anti hate laws are just not a good idea.

graeme

Hmm...I haven't seen steyn in Macleans for quite some time...perhaps he may have won but Macleans descided to not risk it again and fired him.

Assalaam Alaiykum

-Omni

Having read the stuff - it is opinion but with problems - there is no way they should have been taken to the human rights - don't agree with the opinion in the article but was an opinion based on some research and from a bias - which all opinion pieces are - did not belong in the human rights but it is an article that should be read and then rejected for what it is.

Thanks for the comments. I had read the article way back, but not realized the journalist had a reputation. I guess we all have a reputation in one way or another.

I try to live as respectfully of people and creatures as is humanly possible. But I tire of the amount of air time given to what some perceive as anti-Islam, Islamophobia. Many of us within other traditions have to 'suck it up' when it comes down to Jesus bashing or God bashing.

When was the last time we heard anything that was Anti-buddhist or Anti Hindu in our media? When was the last time we heard the official religions say something was anti-Christian?

Just my thoughts for the moment.

I agree, but hey, It's a passing thing I would gander.  I mean, its already started to calm down and I haven't seen it's likes again so far...lets hope for the best.

By official religions do you mean...well...what do you mean?

Assalaam Alaiykum

-Omni

Thanks for your comments The_Omnissiah.

By official religions, I mean the institutional church like the Vatican, Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops, The United Church of Canada, The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and on and on. The religions that are under one collective banner, a specific denomination. There are many individual spiritual traditions, unique to that group, but not a denomination with branches here and there.

I gather from what I have read about Islam, are the two main groups, Sunni and Shais and several smaller offshoots. Operations wise, no one person speaks for all Sunni Muslims. The Imans have the authority to speak to the issue, publically or privately. Whereas in these Christian denominations, the person farther up the food chain would issue a statement of protest if needed.

What Now

So your definition of official religions are christian denominations that have people who speak for all of them in one way or another?  Ok.

Your right, Sunnis and Shiites (sunni and shia) are the two main groups.  In fact Islam isn't really all the fractured.  85 % of all muslims in the world are Sunni.   From these two main groups you can also identify as a Sufi.  Basically a Muslim Mystic and Philosopher (I like to think as myself as such a person).  Sunnis have Imams just like Shiites, but we don't recognize their world as absolute.  The Shiites follow their Council of Imams the way Roman Catholics follow the papacy.  In Sunni Islam, Imams are just learned scholars of Islam, who can issue Fatwas (informed and researched interpretations of the Qur'an relating to certain subjects).  These do not have to be followed.  A signifigant bonus in this is that most Sunnis wouldn't follow their Imams if they said something like "lets go blow up the church down the street".  Whereas the Shiites are more likely (still not too high a precentage) to follow more radical Fatwas or Imams.  This is because Shiites (among other things) believe in the divine mandate of the Imams.  They also follow hadiths from the three successive caliphs that took command in succession to Muhammed (peace be upon him).

Yes, so I just thought I'd lightly* touch on that topic.   People cite Muslim decentralization of power as a problem for things like "responses to terrorism, since one cannot speak for all."  Well...one can never speak for all, no matter how you look at it.  And some would also cite the Vatican's supreme power over the RC church as a problem.

We all have our vices.

:)

Assalaam Alaiykum

-Omni

*sarcasm

Thank you for your clarification Omni :)

Most helpful to my understanding of the tradition. Now, it was the Canadian Islam Congress that sued Macleans. It seems like individuals or groups may protest journalism, art, even law as being anti Muslim. I guess the challenge is to find out if such organizations like the Canadian Islam Congress represents the breathe of Canadian muslims, Sunni and Shia, or a specific section of  Muslims.

My fathers' side of the family came to Canada in the 1830's. They being Irish were not well liked, and they faced prejudice with no recourse. Basically, at that time, if you were Irish you had a difficult time getting housing and work. They rather had to suck it up because it was not like they could go back to Ireland. I am sure it was not a pleasant few decades until this family was well settled into this country.

My point being, is that it seems like compared to other spiritual traditions, we have some sensitive Muslims and the media provides air time. I know I am speaking of a few, but the air time is enormous. My forebears were not exceptionally tough people, but newcomers always have a time adjusting to a new land. And the children born in Canada straddle two cultures. It simply is not easy to be different.

 I return to my original question if all this air time is about religious or human rights for anyone in this country? Both are covered in the Charter, but I do not recall hearing about other major religious groups taking media, or school boards, or companies to court.

A most difficutl polemic.

Shalom.

Indeed.  It's embarassing.  But then again, the Irish didn't have divine decree* to follow eh?  :P

But yes, I see your point.  But hey! you'll be hard pressesd to find any Jewish Human Rights complaints...so they might as well fill the TV time with something! lol.

yea...

Assalaam Alaiykum

-Omni

*again, sarcasm.  We need more moderate sunnis spreading the good word.  The one major Drawback of Shiism is that they believe in the divine mandate of the Imams.  Which is bad because they are putting their faith in people who have absolute power (and are humans).  Whereas they should be putting their faith in God, and the Imams who guide the people, not command them.

Hi! 

For an interesting case involving a Christian's duty to refuse to participate in slavery i.e. Ontario Workfare's Participation Agreement, please google "Quixote's Horse">Workfare or "workfare""human rights" . 

Wayne Coppin's case goes before the Social Benefits Tribunal on November 5, 2008 at the Kingston Holiday Inn.  For more information, contact wcoppin@cogeco.ca . 

Of course, Wayne will need the Court Challenges Programme to be restored in order to take his case to the Supreme Court of Canada, but if he wins at the Social Benefits Tribunal level, he will be back on social assistance. 

Wayne's human rights are your human rights.  Fight to win!  Refuse to lose! 

Dianna