The year 2008 will be remembered for many reasons, but was certainly one in which the issue of freedom of speech came into the forefront. And as this tumultuous year draws to a close, we’ve been offered two further examples of why this issue has become so galvanizing and at the same time so surreal.
The first came earlier this month–an early Christmas present of sorts for someone who would probably cringe at the notion of such a gesture.
Resident Marc Lebuis that his complaint against the writings of Montreal Imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti would not proceed.
Some of the passages highlighted in the complaint include references to Jews as spreading “corruption and chaos on Earth” and seeking “only mate-rial goods and money” because, otherwise, “they have nothing.”
The language used to describe homosexuals was even more aggressive–the imam accuses gays and lesbians of spreading “disorder on Earth.” He says homosexuals should be “exterminated in this life,” and any gay men caught in a sexual act should be beheaded.
In rejecting the complaint, a CHRC representative claimed “the extracts . . . do not seem to promote “hatred” or “contempt” according to the criteria set forth in the Taylor case” –a reference to 1990 Supreme Court decision narrowly upholding Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
That case has been referenced many times in rulings from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, so the decision to let this imam off the hook seems puzzling in that light.
For example, a 2006 tribunal decision against Glenn Bahr repeatedly cites the Taylor verdict, using it as a means to help establish the meaning of “hatred” and “contempt.”
The ruling refers to anti-Semitic comments in which “Jews as a group are described as unscrupulous, deceptive, dishonest and immoral” and concludes such comments are “likely to evoke extreme ill will against Jewish persons.”
Loading ...
