Balanced Reporting as a Restriction of Free Speech
In Thursday's National Post, Naseem Mithoowani, Khurrum Awan , Muneeza Sheikh and Daniel Simard explained why they were filing a human rights complaints with the B.C., Ontario and federal human rights commissions against Maclean's with respect to its October, 2006 article, "The Future Belongs to Islam," written by Mark Steyn. The reason, they say, is because Maclean's refused to allow them to publish a counter piece to Steyn's article. They write that what they were asking for was "an opportunity for the Muslim community to participate in the ‘free marketplace' of ideas. It is our belief that in its truest form, freedom of expression results in a lively debate among all interested parties -- not just among those who play by their own exclusionary rules. If Maclean's wants to publish articles alleging that many Muslims are ‘hot for jihad,' it has to provide an opportunity to respond."
I'm sorry but Maclean's does not HAVE to do anything of the sort! This is the essence of free speech; the right to say (or not say) whatever one wants. If Maclean's wishes to publish such a response, it can. But it cannot be forced to; not without violating the very essence of free speech at least.
Having failed to silence those who would criticize Islam through the use of defamation laws, the Canadian Islamic Congress is now trying a new tactic; using the human rights commissions to force their critics to give them a voice (at the critic's expense, of course). I only hope that the human rights commissions will see this tactic for what it is; an insidious violation of freedom of expression. I am not hopeful, however. Is there is anything more "Canadian" than the urge to be viewed as "balanced"? This sort of suppression of freedom would be just so "Canadian" that it might be considered acceptable.
This same mentality presently compels (under CRTC requirements) only single-faith religious broadcasters to provide balance in their programming by providing broadcasting time for other faiths as a condition of obtaining a broadcast licence. Heaven forbid that these blatantly discriminatory regulations (which result in an undue restriction on freedom of expression and are financially harmful to Christian broadcasters) would be forced upon other media providers. It's wrong to require this of religious broadcasters; it's wrong to require it of any media.
If Mithoowani and the gang want "an opportunity for the Muslim community to participate in the ‘free marketplace' of ideas" let them express their freedom of expression like everyone else and compete to be heard, using their own resources and developing their own communications medium. But to expect others to give such opportunities to you on their dime and on their time; well, that's not a right. That's presumption.
Posts
6 comments:
Sure, Maclean's doesn't HAVE to allow anyone the privilege of writing in their magazine. However, when Maclean's consistently publishes material with the same hate-filled tone, the state must intervene to protect its people from a variety of harms.
Moreover, have you been taking note of the reaction of Steyn and his followers? There is a network of conservative bloggers who sworm on first sight of the opposition and its supporters. It is more than disturbing that anyone can support such behaviour. It is obvious who the real 'bad guys' are in this battle; just carefully examine how the ostensible 'defenders' of Charter rights are going about their bees-ness.
Consistently publishes material with the same hate-filled tone? Really? Not the Macleans I have read. I suspect that neither have you. Indeed, Macleans is hardly a conservative magazine. That's what makes this case so unusual.
I have no idea what you are talking about in your second paragraph but I thank God that I live in a society that allows for the free expression of opinion. If you want to call that swarming, fine. I just find it hilarious that liberals, who claim such ownership of Charter rights, seem bound and determined to take those rights away from anyone who says things that offend them. And being offended is not a harm that people need state protection from.
Yes, really, Maclean's hate filled tone.
Yes, really, conservative magazine. Or did you forget that when Mr. Whyte came over from the National Post he virtually revamped the editorial staff with a conservative tiwst. Or is it perhaps that, like many of your compadres, you are so dense that you will even argue that writers such as Amiel and Steyn are left of centre or centrists. Or finally, maybe you are just reading a different Maclean's which would help make sense of the entirety of your last post.
Second paragraph, too complex?
What a surpise, downgrading the seriousness of speech which spreads hate and contempt to speech that someone might find offensive. The gap between overshadows the Grand Canyon.
In elementary school I was able to grasp the principles of this case. The person with the loudest voice (popular kid) expresses his views with respect to the shy introvert (nerd), with no chance to rebut, and the nerd then gets ostracized, picked on and further bullied.
Many like yourself would learn a lot more than just this by going back to this level of education.
Dear Anonymous,
I originally deleted your comments as I could see no value in publishing what amounted to little more than slander and insults but decided to let others see just what kind of free speech you support. Since you hurt my feelings, however, I am considering whether I should run to the Ontario HRC and file a complaint! :)
Could I ask if perhaps you could actually debate the issue at hand beyond accusing defenders of free speech of being proverbial schoolyard bullies? I would like to actually like to read something from you that moves beyond innuendos and insults. However, if this is the extent of your argument, I will exercise my right as the publisher of this blog and pull the plug on this.
As for the "complexity" of your second paragraph, it had more to with your use of innuendo and cliches that I am sure would make sense to someone who knows you; I don't. Frankly, no, I have not been taking note of Steyn and his followers; at least not before I wrote this article. Hard to believe that someone would have a conservative opinion without being part of conspiratorial network?
I think many people do not understand why a complaint was filed against Macleans Magazine. The following YouTube link provides an interview from Khurrum Awan *himself* on the Mike Duffy Live Show explaining the facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeenAJx-Zjk
Thanks for the link as it confirms what my blog was saying. This fellow and his friends mistakenly think that the right to freedom of expression means that you can force others to lose theirs. As I said in my blog, if these students want "an opportunity for the Muslim community to participate in the ‘free marketplace' of ideas" let them express their freedom of expression like everyone else and compete to be heard, using their own resources and developing their own communications medium. But to expect others to give such opportunities to you on their dime and on their time; well, that's not a right. That's presumption.
Post a Comment