I wonder what those old fellows would think of their Muslim-groveling province today? Last week the British Columbia Human Rights Commission put Maclean’s and Mark Steyn on trial for violating Section 7.1 of the hate-speech provision of the BC Human Rights Act. For my American readers, hate-speech is an expression that has the potential to expose a group to hatred or contempt. That means that even if you say something truthful but hurtful, like "Nazis killed 6 million Jews," you are exposing Nazis to hatred and contempt.

So this law is not meant to prevent calumny or slander, but rather to prevent someone from being offended by the truth or exposed to hatred for their contemptible but truthful acts. Say goodbye to freedom of speech.

Here are some of the details:

CBC News, B.C. tribunal hears complaint against Maclean's article

A hearing into a human rights complaint alleging a Maclean's magazine article spread hatred against Muslims began in Vancouver on Monday.

Mohamed Elmasry and Naiyer Habib of the Canadian Islamic Congress complained to the Canadian, Ontario and B.C. human rights authorities after the Toronto-based magazine published the article, titled The future belongs to Islam, in October of 2006.

The article, an excerpt of a book authored by Mark Steyn, talks about Islam being a threat to North American institutions and values. It used statistics to show higher birth rates plus immigration mean Muslims will outnumber followers of other religions in Western Europe.

Habib claimed the article violated the B.C. Human Rights Code by subjecting him to discrimination based on his religion and exposing him to hatred.

It should be noted that the Canadian Islamic Congress is not disputing any facts in the article or the book, but assert that merely reciting the truth exposes Muslims to hatred.

It should also be noted that Dr. Elmasry on the Michael Coren Show of 19 Oct 2004 said, "... everyone in Israel, irrespective of gender, over the age of 18 is a valid target." [Show Transcript] A little hate showing through, eh Doc?

Day by day coverage of the trial can be found on Andrew Coyne's Blog:

• Liveblogging the Maclean’s Trial V: Stand and Deliver


• Liveblogging the Maclean’s Trial IV: Habib and Habib
  


• Liveblogging the Maclean’s Trial III: Die Another Day


• Liveblogging the BC HRT, Day Two: A Day That Will Live in Entropy


• Liveblogging the BC Human Rights Tribunal—Day I, Part II


• Liveblogging the BC Human Rights Tribunal—Part I

Interestingly, the complainants offered other websites as proof that Maclean's magazine did indeed expose Muslims to hate:

The Washington Times, Trial cites U.S. Web sites

Two American Web sites - one conservative, the other Catholic - are at the heart of a Canadian provincial government hearing against Maclean's magazine, Canada's largest national newsweekly.

The magazine was brought before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal after publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn's best-seller "America Alone" under the title "The Future Belongs to Islam." The first part of the hearing began last Monday and ran until Friday afternoon.

The American Web sites introduced by the complainants are FreeRepublic, a popular conservative discussion forum, and Catholic Answers, an evangelism and apologetics site popular among young Catholics. Both American sites are based in California.

Faisal Joseph, an attorney for the Muslim group that brought the charges against Maclean's, introduced discussions on the two U.S. sites as evidence that Mr. Steyn's 2006 article had exposed Muslims in North America to hate. Posters on both forums had commented on the Maclean's article, with some comments expressing strong anti-Islamic sentiment.

Mr. Joseph also cited postings from Five Feet of Fury, the Web site run by Canadian blogger Kathy Shaidle, and the Brussels Journal, a Web site that styles itself "the voice of conservatism in Europe."

Perhaps this is all just an attempt to provoke an incident:

Small Dead Animals, "You are not judges, you are jokers"

"If at all there will be a anti-Muslim backlash, it will be because the Canadian Islamic Congress and Mr. Elmasry contributed significantly to it," Mr. [Tarek] Fatah told the Washington Times.

A practicing Muslim, Mr. Fatah accused the Canadian Islamic Congress of being agent provocateurs for Islamists by trying to provoke such a backlash.

"My feeling is - and I could be wrong - but they're trying to trigger a backlash against Muslims, so that the imams and the Hamas and the Hezbollah people back in the Middle East can say: 'Look, we told you that the West is at war with Islam,'" he said.

There is nothing wrong with hating Nazis, child molesters, murdering psychopaths, or any groups or individuals who are out to destroy you or your country. There is nothing wrong with preventing people who have infectious diseases from entering our country, even if they have the best intentions in their hearts. Islam is a disease whose pathology is the complete destruction of its host country. Muslims are simply vectors of the disease. They may not intentionally mean any harm but they will spread the infection nonetheless. If there were only one or two Muslims in Canada this trial would never have occurred. Once there are enough Muslims, then a trial will no longer be necessary, punishment will simply follow the accusation, as was done in Afghanistan with the Taliban.

Can't happen here? The Feds already ban certain words in government publications that might be offensive to Muslims. Be afraid.