Mark Steyn's trial has begun

Readers may not know this, but the BC Human Rights Council is beginning their prosecution of Mark Steyn today. Macleans, a news outlet in Canada, published excerpts of Mark's book "America Alone" and Muslims went nuts. They accused the outlet and Steyn of perpetuating hatred of Muslims by publishing those pieces. To be honest, the Muslims up north obviously like to cherry-pick parts of the excerpts because anyone who has read "America Alone" (and we have, several times) knows that his argument is based on demographics, and that unless things change in the world, Islam will "win" by default because they are breeding faster than the rest of the world.

Andrew Coyne is live-blogging the whole fiasco all week long. People should take serious note of this because the council, in essence, is arguing for a curtailing of speech because some people are offended.

We have seen similar ideas here in America and they have been defeated because we do have a protected freedom of speech. Granted there are limits to it. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded venue. You can't slander or libel another individual. But you can express an opinion, even stupid ones. In other words, you have the right to make an @$$ out of yourself, but we also have the right to not listen.

In Canada that's not so. They are catering to a minority offended at an opinion, and one that is backed up by demographic fact, and that minority wants a weird, Orwellian form of justice delivered on someone who doesn't warrant this level of visceral disdain. Never once in his book does Steyn advocate any sort of violence or discrimination against Muslims, in general. He does cite the extremists, and discusses how those people are dangerous. What's wrong with that? Anyone who disagrees that the extremists in Islam aren't dangerous isn't paying attention to the world right now. Who are we fighting in Iraq? Who rioted over Danish cartoons? Who threatened to kill the Pope over his statements regarding their religion? Here's a hint -- it wasn't the Amish.

We show our support for Mark Steyn and Macleans by having that tab at the top of our page, just below Chris Muir's Day-By-Day cartoon. We stand in solidarity with him. Andrew Coyne makes a valid point at the beginning of his live-blog:

So we are in, and almost ready to go. As trials of the century/year/week go, this one is decidedly down-market: the courtroom would make a good walk-in closet. Maclean’s legal team is out in force, a phalanx of half a dozen suits. The opposing counsel, by contrast, is one suit and two or three badly-dressed juniors. If I didn’t know the stakes, I’d be rooting for them. Actually I am rooting for them, in a strange sort of way. Don’t tell my employers, but I’m sort of hoping we lose this case. If we win—that is, if the tribunal finds we did not, by publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book, expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, or whatever the legalese is—then the whole clanking business rolls on, the stronger for having shown how “reasonable” it can be. Whereas if we lose, and fight on appeal, and challenge the whole legal basis for these inquisitions, then something important will be achieved. Hang on, we’re starting…

In other words, the fight will continue, and such a fight could easily draw more eyes northward. That's the last thing the BC Human Rights Council wants to have -- prying eyes into their farce of a kangaroo court. We empathize with Andrew Coyne's idea, but we'd rather see Mark Steyn cleared of these ridiculous charges.

Publius II