Free speech abroad

Today I have two reports from the front in the global battle for free speech about Islam. Note that in both cases the battle is not between Muslims and Westerners, but between Western authorities and their citizens.

The first, by Dutch lawyer and historian Thierry Baudet, chronicles the torturous path of the trial against Dutch politician Geert Wilders (which I've reported on before). In the first round, public prosecutor Paul Velleman refused to prosecute because he did not consider that various statements made by Wilders (comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf or calling Islam a violent religion) had broken the law. Then judges on the Court of Appeal essentially ruled that Wilders was guilty of hate speech and incitement to discrimination - in other words, pronounced him guilty, not even bothering to preserve any illusion of the presumption of innocence. The District Court in Amsterdam gave in to this pressure and brought Wilders to trial.

At the trial, Vellemans stuck to his original position. The judges disagreed. The trial continued until their bias became so evident that they were dismissed from the case. Wilders isn't out of the woods yet, though, as the case will be retried at some future point.

Nor is Wilders physically safe. As Baudet notes: "while Wilders’s remarks have aroused no social disorder of the sort that the Dutch laws were intended to prevent, he himself receives continual death threats and lives under permanent police protection."

The second case involves the National Archives of Canada. It cancelled the showing of Iranium, a new movie about Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, after receiving threats and two suspicious letters. (Watch the Iranium trailer here.) Fortunately, Canada's Heritage Minister James Moore then stepped in, arguing that cancelation was the equivalent of censorship and ordering the Archives to show the film. So far no date has been set.

How, one wonders would U.S. courts or public prosecutors handle a case similar to either of the ones above? Somehow I can't see Attorney General Holder, President Obama, or New York Mayor Bloomberg rising to the defense of free speech if that speech risked offending Muslims. Can you?

Good news from Canada

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal just ruled that a clause granting the Canadian Human Rights Commission the legal grounds to pursue such people as Mark Steyn for indulging in 'hate speech' is unconstitutional. This is great news - hate speech restrictions may be well-intentioned, but they end up restricting free speech.

As for Mark Steyn, he remarks that similar challenges to free speech lie in wait in the United States, in the form of Obama administration proposals to reimpose Fairness Doctrine restrictions and otherwise muzzle its political opponents.

More on boycotts

Here's a creative response to boycotts of Israeli goods, this time from Canada. The Jewish community in Toronto decided to urge members to purchase targeted goods. The result: the items singled out for boycotting were sold out. Probably the smartest way to respond. (Thanks to Daily Alert.)

To be seen or not to be seen

Last October, an Ontario judge ordered a female defendant in a sexual assault trial to remove the niqab which covers her entire face, except for her eyes. His reasoning: the right to religious freedom was not as important as the right of the defendant to face the accuser in open court.

The judge was also influenced by her explanation that she felt more 'comfortable' in the niqab than without it. Indeed, her driver's license displayed her face. She had argued that it was a question of modesty and honor.

Jihad Watch wonders if the woman's commitment to sharia extends to other elements, such as the standard for testimony under which a woman's testimony is worth only half that of a man. Since there are two male defendants, this would presumably mean her testimony was worth one-fourth of theirs.

The defendant will seek to overturn the judge's ruling at a hearing in March before the Superior Court.

Maternal love

The blog Smooth Stone reports about the fate of a young Moroccan man who converted from Islam to Christianity in Canada. His mother arranged for two young men to throw him off the fourth floor balcony of a mall; he survived but will probably be in a wheelchair the rest of his life.

Hooray

Islamist Watch reports that the British Columbia human rights court has dismissed the case against Canadian news magazine Maclean's for publishing an excerpt from the book America Alone by Mark Steyn. This is the third time that such charges have been brought and dismissed by various human rights courts.

While that is good news, Steyn notes that the court may have been influenced by the fact that he is well-known. Also, had Maclean's lost the case, according to columnist Andrew Coyne, they could have appealed it to a regular court, and sought to change the law.

It is no victory to be told by a shadowy government agency that you will be permitted to publish. This ruling … also prevents Maclean's from appealing the tribunal's decision to an actual court, wherein it might have had the relevant section of the B.C. human rights laws thrown out on constitutional grounds.

(My comment) This may not yet be the end of the story; the Canadian Islamic Congress, which lodged the complaint, may appeal the decision.

Canadian jihad

Remember the 'Toronto 18', arrested on suspicion of seeking to storm the Canadian parliament and behead the prime minister? Well, the first one has just been convicted; the judge apparently found the evidence of a terrorist group 'overwhelming.' See the report here from Jihad Watch.

Of the original eighteen, seven had their charges withdrawn or stayed. Ten are still scheduled to be tried. Other alleged plots of theirs: truck-bombing nuclear power plants and a building housing Canada's spy service.