Mark Steyn - Lights Out

7) I was flattered to see that the Government of British Columbia has chosen to mark the criminalization of my opinions by burying western civilization. From a local news report:

Tourists were shut off from the B.C. legislature’s rotunda this week as work began to hide four historical murals behind walls.

MLAs voted in 2007 to remove the murals and display them elsewhere, because some people find the colonial depictions of aboriginal people to be offensive… The four murals were commissioned in 1932 as a gift to the province from Provincial Secretary S L Howe. They were completed by artist George Southwell to depict Howe’s desire to illustrate the ‘establishment of civilization’ in B.C.

• ‘Labour’ shows the building of either Fort Langley in the 1820s or Fort Victoria in the 1840s.

• ‘Justice’ shows colonial Chief Justice Matthew Baillie Begbie holding court in Clinton during the Cariboo gold rush in the 1860s.

• ‘Courage’ depicts the meeting of captains Vancouver and Quadra at Nootka Sound in 1792 to turn over Vancouver Island territory from the Spanish to the British.

• ‘Enterprise’ shows Hudson’s Bay Company official James Douglas landing at Clover Point to select the site of Fort Victoria in 1843.

Perhaps it would be quicker just to wall me up with the buried “Justice” mural.

8) Finally, skedaddling out of Vancouver on Saturday, I got to the airport to find my flight had been delayed two hours. So I did what I normally do in such circumstances – went to kill time by heading to the gift shop to buy some crummy souvenir knick-knacks for my kids. And, as soon as I got to the first amusing “Beautiful BC” T-shirt, I thought: Why the hell would I want any souvenirs of the lousy jurisdiction that wants to end my career in Canada? So I put the bills back in my pocket and made a mental note to buy a couple extra “Live Free Or Die” T-shirts back in New Hampshire.

The Canadian state’s assault on free speech has never made the front page of the Dominion’s leading liberal newspaper, The Toronto Star , nor of The Globe And Mail , nor even of The Vancouver Sun , when the show trial was happening right under their noses.

But it is on the front page of today’s New York Times , and above the fold, too, which is a once-a-decade event. Never mind the goofy pic of me auditioning for the opening titles of the next Bond movie; here’s how the piece ends:

Mr Steyn, the author of the article, said the Canadian proceedings had illustrated some important distinctions. ‘The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they’re not about facts,’ he said in a telephone interview. ‘They’re about feelings.’

‘What we’re learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins,’ Mr Steyn added. ‘Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the US, not just from Canada but from the rest of the western world.’

For as long as that lasts.

ON THURSDAY, the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission (very quietly) dismissed the Canadian Islamic Congress complaint against Maclean’s re America Alone – and without even giving the Socks the consolation of an Ontario-style drive-by verdict. The decision of the Jennifer Lynch mob includes the following:

The Steyn article discusses changing global demographics and other factors that the author describes as contributing to an eventual ascendancy of Muslims in the ‘developed world’, a prospect that the author fears for various reasons described in the article. The writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Overall, however, the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision. Considering the purpose and scope of section 13 (1), and taking into account that an interpretation of s. 13 (1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a Tribunal.

For these reasons, this complaint is dismissed.

Here’s the official reaction from my colleagues:

Maclean’s magazine is pleased that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed the complaint brought against it by the Canadian Islamic Congress. The decision is in keeping with our long-standing position that the article in question, ‘The Future Belongs To Islam’, an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s best-selling book America Alone , was a worthy piece of commentary on important geopolitical issues, entirely within the bounds of normal journalistic practice.

Though gratified by the decision, Maclean’s continues to assert that no human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial decisions of the nation’s media. And we continue to have grave concerns about a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to say nothing of the inconvenience. We enthusiastically support those parliamentarians who are calling for legislative review of the commissions with regard to speech issues.

Faisal Joseph, lawyer to the CIC and Mohamed Elmasry’s vicar on earth, is not happy. He accuses the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission of caving in to “inappropriate political pressure”. And he’s entirely right about that. Had Maclean’s and I been as impoverished and poorly connected as the average victim of the Section 13 thought police, we’d have wound up just like them: guilty, fined, subject to lifetime speech bans, and damned in public as Haters with a capital “H”. So dear old Faisal is quite right to be cheesed off.

We now await the decision from the pseudo-judges of the British Columbia tribunal.

MANY YEARS ago, I proposed a feature to an editor about a new trend – as I recall, it was celebrities wearing cravats. I wanted us to be first with the big “The Cravat Is Back!” weekend pictorial. Anyway, she demanded to know the evidence for this trend. And I cited Ted Danson wearing one to the Emmys and Roger Moore wearing one to go snorkelling in Belize. Or possibly vice-versa.

“And…?” she said coldly.

“Er, what do you mean – ‘and’?”

“Mark, Mark, Mark,” she sighed. “How many years have you been in journalism? It takes three to make a trend.” And she sent me away with a flea in my ear and an undertaking not to return until Prince Edward had been spotted wearing a cravat at a gala performance of The Phantom Of The Opera . Or vice-versa. I’m making a general point here, so let’s not get hung up on details.

Here’s the thing: Two years ago, the Supreme Islamic Council of Canada took The Western Standard to the Alberta “Human Rights” Commission for republishing the Danish Mohammed cartoons. A few months back, the Canadian Islamic Congress took Maclean’s to the Canadian, Ontario and British Columbia “Human Rights” Commissions for publishing an excerpt from my bestselling hate crime, America Alone . Last week, the Centre for Islamic Development took The Halifax Chronicle-Herald to the Nova Scotia “Human Rights” Commission for publishing an editorial cartoon of a, ah, person of an Islamic persuasion.