He Is Not Amused

Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress has tested the waters of Canadian justice and found them rather luke-warm, not at all to his expectations of fairness to his rather singular cause. Which is to hold to account any news media who dare publish facts or opinions that he personally holds to be critical of Islam.

As though it is remotely possible to be ignorant of all that transpires in the world today as a result of militant Islam.

There are, without doubt, countless Muslims in Canada and elsewhere in the world who find the violent assaults against Muslims and non-Muslims alike repugnant beyond belief, who assiduously strive to remove themselves from the warped ambitions of Islamists, who detest that miserably blood-seeking jihadist mentality that besmirches the honour and reputation of ordinary Muslims, let alone the religion they hold dear.

They may wince in recognition of the truth of some of the jaded observations of writers who denounce renegade fundamentalist Muslims who claim to be doing the work of Allah in victimizing thousands of innocents around the world in their quest for a global Islamic renaissance, but they don't, generally speaking, claim that Islamophobia has overtaken reasonable discourse.

Yet Mr. Elmasry claims in his submission to Richard Moon of the University of Windsor, a law professor tasked by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to review its online hate speech mandate that "the state should act to empower those who are disadvantaged by hate speech, and that may mean lowering the voices of some in order that others may be heard". Stifle free speech.

In point of fact, the state already has acted to empower those disadvantaged by hate mongering. We have well-used laws against just that. Anyone convinced they are the victim of hate-mongering can lay criminal charges and have their day in court. Those who practise their ideologies of hate are not celebrated in this country for their good citizenship.

And it should seem obvious, even to Mr. Elmasry, that what he contends is hate speech is his very particular view, while others perhaps more temperate and reasonable, understand that the guarantee of free speech enables, even encourages the airing of reasonable debate in the public sphere, on any side of any question.

Mr. Elmasry himself has famously indulged, in public, in hateful statements betraying his very personal bias toward violence against those with whom he disagrees. His is not a neutral voice of persuasive reason. But rather a shrill voice - claiming to represent the community of Muslims within Canada - of opposition to some of the core values of the country.

A person, moreover, who sees nothing amiss in embroiling this country in the affairs of another region of the world entirely. People living in Canada from diverse backgrounds have no need to be encouraged to erect barriers of misunderstanding between one another. In fact, if a useful dialogue can take place - as indeed it does in some quarters - the outcome can be useful in a broader sense, elsewhere.

Mr. Elmasry's claim that "political pressure" was involved in encouraging the Canadian Human Rights Commission to refuse to bring his complaint against Maclean's magazine to a tribunal has no basis in fact. The political powers that be in this land stood aloof from interfering in the process.

It was the concerted and concerned agglomeration of private citizens and the news media that may have exerted some influence on the decision-making of the CHRC, but perhaps not at all.

His claim likewise that the complaint process as practised through the auspices of the country's human rights commissions do not have the effect of placing an undue burden on the accused is abusive of our intelligence.