The lie of "human rights" tribunals

What happens when the intolerant decide that freedom of speech should be one-sided? Those in the United States only need look north for the answer. If you don't think it can happen here, then you haven't been paying attention.

Try this on for size. A minister is fined for expressing his opinion in a letter to the editor.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODNhMTMyYjhhZGNkZGY5OGJhMjQ1YTM4MzEwNGRlODM=

"In June of 2002, a Canadian minister, the Rev. Stephen Boissoin wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper in Alberta condemning the "homosexual agenda." It was in no manner close to what could be construed as hate speech. But for having an unpopular and allegedly discriminatory opinion, two years later an anti-Christian activist brought a complaint about Boissoin was brought before the Alberta "human rights" commssion. In 2007, the Alberta tribunal found him guilty of, well, something. And Just last week they finally handed down their sentence against Boissoin."

If that doesn't strike close to home for you, check out the persecution of one of Canada's largest magazines.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmVmYzFlNGRhNzhhNGJkMzRlZDE0Nzc1NjFjNTg0NTY=

"At issue is a cover story National Review’s own Mark Steyn wrote for the Canadian newsweekly Maclean’s, titled “The Future Belongs to Islam.” An excerpt from Steyn’s bestselling book America Alone, the article highlighted the fact that demographic trends suggest that Muslims may well become a majority in much of Europe and that this obviously represents a threat to Europe as we know it. A few Muslim law students objected to the article and filed multiple complaints with Canada’s national and provincial “human rights” tribunals and presto! Steyn’s opinion and Maclean’s right to print it have now been effectively criminalized."