This is how one of the lawyers for Maclean’s ended his closing arguments, according to Andrew Coyne:
Putting all these together, what is going on here? “These complaints are not about hate speech at all. These complaints seek a fundamental change in speech regulation by human rights authorities which would empower tribunals across the country to force magazines and newspapers to publish replies at equal length” to articles that some group disagrees with — ie a statutory right of reply.
This is not a new movement. There were attempts to legislate such things in the past. They’re contrary to the constitution, and this tribunal is not the place to try to invent such a doctrine….(Source)
In reading Coyne’s remarks, I’m not sure if the lawyer said “doctrine” above or maybe it was Coyne himself, but I found its use very telling. Doctrine. As in religious doctrine. Indeed, that’s what’s going on right now in Canada. We have the beginnings of the New State Religion. Oh, of course, being semantically and politically correct, we don’t call the Human Rights Tribunals religious courts or their rulings doctrine, but I submit that that’s what they are. That’s why I have affectionately referred to the Human Rights Racket as the “Canadian Religious Authority“. In their case against Mark Steyn, just think about what role they are playing in “ruling” that someone cannot be critical of another religion or ideology (for that is what religion really is).
Doesn’t that make them the arbiters of religion in Canada, at least to some extent?
Yes, it does.
The only thing that’s different is that they are not a conventional religion. Their religion is a recent concoction, finding its animus in multiculturalism and whose prime directive is that there is no truth (that’s why “truth” is not a defense for its priests) and no religion is superior to another. With such a directive, it’s easy to see that criticism should be banned. Why accept that citizens should be able to criticize ideologies and religions if truth does not exist? Criticism is, among other things, a way of getting at the truth of the issue. But if there is no truth, then there’s no real need for criticism either, is there? Besides, criticism has lots of messy consequences associated with it, including a lot of angry people. So there’s no upside to it now that truth has been sent packing. It’s all about Shangri-La and holding hands and living in harmony….when no real harmony exists. The multi-cult establishment is to genuine culture what artificial insemination is to natural release.
Unlike most religions, of course, whose edicts and disciplines are restricted to their own membership, the Canadian Religious Authority does not have to deal with such silly boundaries. The whole country is their oyster and we’re all members of this new religion whether we want to be or not. This should serve as a wake up call to the secular propagandists out there who see no role of religion in public life. The more religious (i.e. Christian) our country is, the less of an influence the State can have over its citizens in inseminating an artificial and depraved view of man.
Check out this interesting and timely article on Fr. de Valk, the editor of Catholic Insight Magazine who has run afoul of the Canadian Religious Authority. He makes some keen observations about the necessity of a return to genuine worship of God to avoid the fascist encroachment of the State. Man will end up worshiping something or someone.
In a scathing editorial in the most recent issue of The Catholic Insight (CI), Fr. Alphonse de Valk, the editor-in-chief of the magazine, argues that the ideology of the “divinization” of the state that has historically been called “fascism”, is fast encroaching on the rights and freedoms of religious believers in Canada.
This view, says Fr. De Valk, is in direct contradiction to Judeo-Christian teaching, which has always said that the state is a tool made to serve man in order to bring man to God. “Man is made by God and for God. The state is the servant of man, a mere instrument, to help him in this world.” To divinize the state, to make of it the supreme arbiter of what its citizens may do or say or think, goes against the entire Judeo-Christian tradition.
Fr. De Valk then goes on to quote from one of the most powerful sections of Pope Benedict’s address to the United Nations at length.
“Human rights, of course,” said the Holy Father at that time, “must include the right to religious freedom, understood as the expression of a dimension that is at once individual and communitarian – a vision that brings out the unity of the person while clearly distinguishing between the dimension of the citizen and that of the believer….It is inconceivable, then, that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves – their faith – in order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights. The rights associated with religion are all the more in need of protection if they are considered to clash with a prevailing secular ideology or with majority religious positions of an exclusive nature. The full guarantee of religious liberty cannot be limited to the free exercise of worship, but has to give due consideration to the public dimension of religion, and hence to the possibility of believers playing their part in building the social order.” (Source)