Human Rights Commissions (HRC’s) should be closed down because of their failure to fulfill their mandate.
Most agree that it is preposterous that Ezra Levant and others were interrogated about their views, articles and intentions.
However, we need to examine the various HRC’s deranged actions even further.
It is outrageous that Ezra Levant and others were NOT protected by the HRC against people who do not tolerate free speech.
The HRC had a mandate to protect inalienable human rights, free speech being one of them.
Those who do not like or want free speech should have been asked to fly to Alberta at their own expenses and should have been questioned for daring to limit someone else’s freedom.
We have seen this reversal of the HRC’s mandate also in the cases of Ron Gray (for his political opinions), Stephen Boissoin (for Bible verses published in the Star-Phoenix), Mark Steyn (for excerpts from his book published by MacLean’s) and Chris Kempling (for writing letters to a local editor).
The role of government is to defend its citizens’ fundamental rights. By extension, the mandate of any government agency (if any) is NOT to defend its citizen from other people’s opinions, but to defend people’s life, freedom and property from those who attack them.
Legally, free speech can be prosecuted only when it incites to immediate lawless action. For example, in case a church leader or political leader incited his people to terrorism, murder, rape, kidnapping, destruction of property or theft.
These cases are already handled by existing legislation.
Words, articles and political opinions do not infringe on someone else’s right to life, freedom and property. However, killing, beatings, muzzling, incarceration, court decisions, injunctions and fines do.
We used to hear: “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Even popular wisdom showed the demarcation line between the exercise of one’s freedom and the infringing into someone else’s freedom.
Ron Gray is right: The HRC (if one has to exist) should not be about censorship, but should be about freedom from censorship.
Giuseppe Gori, Leader
Family Coalition Party of Ontario
“Is censorship justified against immorality?”
Some behaviours should be proscribed because they infringe on the basic rights of others: For example, child pornography instigates people to hurt children. Drug addiction or drunk driving may hurt others. Dumping chemicals in a river may be dangerous to the life of others.
You may ask: “how do we stop some immoral materials, such pornographic films, publications and internet sites, without censorship?”
We can speak out against pornography and regulate its traffic by showing the links between pornographic addiction and pedophilia, enslavement of women, rape and other acts of violence.
We can reduce pornography by educating others through articles, statistics and other information, so that people will choose not to watch questionable shows, movies and publications.
We can reduce pornography especially by educating our children in the exercise of personal responsibility.
Government imposed censorship however will not work. Think about the prohibition.
Morality cannot be legislated.
You do not go to heaven because you are not able to do evil, but because you are able to choose good.
Doug Bandow, in his preface to Robert Sirico’s book “Toward a Free and Virtuous Society” writes: “…the right to exercise choice, free from coercive state regulation, is a necessary precondition for virtue. …coerced acts of conformity with some moral norm, however good, do not represent virtue; rather the compliance to that moral norm must be voluntary.”
He continues: “…There are times, of course, when coercion is absolutely necessary - most importantly, to protect the rights of others.“