Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Another frivolous law suit against those who criticize the true-believers, under the guise of “Human Rights”. Apparently only Muslims and Gays can sue for hate-speech hurt and pain. www.Freedominion.ca – a supposedly “Right-Wing” political information site- has been sued by a Montréal Lesbian, who found comments on Islam distressing. Instead of discussing the merits or demerits of various postings with the posters, authors, or the website moderators, this aggrieved activist, so distraught and emotionally traumatized by the Anti-Islamic rhetoric, has decided to use the full panoply of the State’s Anti-Free Speech legal code, to shut down the site; destroy its entrepreneur owner; and close down any opinions contrary to her own. Ridiculous.
In the past few years Gays and Muslims have been abusing the legal system, under the Rubric of “Rights” to destroy alternative views. These mindless lawsuits always reference “hate”. In most cases hate is not involved, and in many instances those who are being sued possess rational, detailed and well-sourced information to support their comments. The Western Standard, National Post, Clear Channel, Fox News and Sundry Authors and Commentators in Europe (Oriana Fallaci for instance) or in North America (Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant), have been served legal notice that their atypical, non-mainstream viewpoints somehow contravene Human-Right Charters. It is obscene and extraordinarily dangerous.
This absurdity, of setting up Rights Documents, always leads to State abuse, and restrictions on freedom and opinions. And it is always implemented unevenly. Imams in Toronto can tell their flock of faithful Muslims that Islam and the Koran will dominate the world, and that lesser races including “Saturday” and “Sunday” peoples, will submit. This supremacism, which is mild by Muslim standards, is apparently alright. But web sites postings depicting the historical Mohammad as violent and bloody (which he was), are somehow hateful. Web site comments questioning Islam and its claim to be peaceful, religious, or even compatible with Western history, given 1400 years of incessant war and violence; with 300 million dead non-Muslims killed in war and subjugation is not permissible? What a foolish and legalistically immoral culture we live in.
The same holds true for Gays and Lesbians. Surely some web postings are derogator, and slander, unnecessarily, alternative sex habits. These comments need to be edited or removed. But there are many good reasons why the Gay lifestyle can be criticized and rejected. Reasons include matters related to what constitutes a family; the tax system; welfare payments (for whom and why); culture; democratic processes (marriage is a non-state institution, and cannot be changed by legal dictate); and the impact on 2000 years of successful societal traditions. Do these concerns imply hate? Of course not. They suggest that many systemic and cultural factors are in play when homosexuality is discussed. Most critics of Gays and Lesbians have little interest in the private matters or characters of homosexuals. They are (or at least should be), more concerned with how the sanctification of homosexual behavior impacts the morals and institutions of society. In this regard arguments can be made on both sides, for and against about for instance, Gay marriage. What is the problem with informed debate?
The same holds true for Islam. Why do Muslims need to sue, or riot, or become angry when their ideology is questioned or even “attacked”? Are they so insecure, unintelligible, misinformed, or incompetent that they can’t debate or reason, without recourse to displays of anger and intolerance? Why do Human “Rights” Charters allow intolerant activists to quell free speech and critical commentary? Shouldn’t Muslims and Gays also be sued, silenced and publicly flogged so to speak, for their comments about heterosexuals; Jews; Americans; Christians or other groups whom they feel are anathema to their “cause” and ideological cant?
How about this? Muslim groups such as “Cair” (see www.anti-cair.org), or homosexual activists and their publicly funded pressure groups (such as Egale), should open up their records and tell us who is funding them. These organizations, who misuse legalistic “Rights” Charters, seem to possess a lot of money for lawsuits and court cases. A Montreal Lesbian sues a politically incorrect website. Who is behind her? How does she fund the lawsuit? What monies does she hope to make or extract from this process? Why are tax-payers, who partially finance Islamic and Gay lobby groups, funding non-constitutional attempts to shutter freedom of speech and legitimate commentary? Is that where society is headed? Are we to erect a politically correct fascist state run for the benefit of tender souls, and sensitive cry babies who fervently believe in Islam, homosexuality or global warming? Insanity.
Legitimate actions against real hate speech are valid. But few lawsuits by Gays or Muslims against critical opinion pass the common sense, or reasonableness tests. These groups and the State, have no business in regulating thought; rewriting history; or engaging in activity that removes voices from the Public Square; destroys entrepreneurial energy; or distorts reality. Frivolous law-suits against non-mainstream is yet another good reason why Human “Rights” Charters are wrong.
