CANADA'S DAMNING EVIDENCE AGAINST HATE LAWS
By Harmony Grant
13 Mar 07
If you swallow the Anti-Defamation League’s line, you’d
think that in Canada, where Christians are less free to express themselves,
Jews would also be less free. But this isn’t the case. Jews
are more upfront about their ethnic ties in this nation where Christianity
is more virulently suppressed and denied free expression of conscience.
The ADL’s proudest accomplishment—“anti-hate” federal
laws in Canada and most of Europe—has produced the opposite
of universal liberty: freedom for a privileged few.
In a fascinating article published in Jewish
Political Studies Review (11:3-4, 1999), Irwin Otler contrasts Jewish activism in Canada
with its counterpart in the United States. He argues that Canadian
Jewish organizations differ from their American counterparts in that
they more freely assert their ethnic “tribal” identity.
For instance, they seek government support of Jewish religious schools.
Otler reviews how Canadian Jewish groups led the charge to overturn
the Lord’s Day Act (which required stores to close every Sunday
for the previous 75 years), mandated school prayer, and mandated
Christian “religious education” in Canada. At the same
time, they supported the building of a succa (Jewish religious symbol)
at Toronto’s city hall and a menorah on the grounds of the
Manitoba Legislative Assembly. The Canadian Jewish Congress even
went to court to force the Canadian government to financially assist
Jewish religious education. They said failure to subsidize Jewish
education would deny freedom of religion and equality, as specified
in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, passed in 1982.
Canadian Jews’ boldness should not come as a surprise, given
that Canada has instituted the ADL’s Orwellian “anti-hate” laws,
designed primarily to silence free debate about Jews, Judaism, and
Israel. Christianity has been gagged in Canada, where the Bible qualifies
as “hate literature” because of its condemnation of sin.
At the same time, it is surprising if you have been at all influenced
by the PR mask worn by major Jewish groups like ADL. Such massive
powerful Jewish organizations depict themselves as working benevolently
for freedom and justice. They adamantly support “separationist” church/state
policies as necessary for the freedom of all Americans. They claim
concern for nationwide freedom is their only reason for opposing
Christians' religious school vouchers or Christian symbols on public
grounds.
But Canada shows the real intent and result of ADL hate laws. They
protect Jews from the slightest criticism, while preventing Christians
from expressing our sincerest convictions, our own “tribal” traditions
of male/female married sex, preservation of innocent life, glorification
of Jesus, etc. The very activist forces intent to shield Judaism
(and homosexuality and moral relativism) are intent to erode Christianity
and traditional morality. The forces (spearheaded by Jewish activists)
behind Canada’s Charter and anti-hate laws got a lot of their
political steam from condemning western, Christian civilization for
complicity with the Holocaust (and a heap of deeply mythologized
sins such as slavery, colonial misdeeds, and mistreatment of native
Americans). Many academic elites seem to earn their entire paychecks
by shaming, silencing, and judging our white, western, largely Christian
forebears.
Thus, the ADL and its cohorts aren’t trying to create free
and equal treatment but very unequal treatment—preferential
privileging of Jews and some others and disparagement and silencing
of Christians and western traditionalists. Canadian Jews, for example,
have shaped a nation in which an official orthodoxy about sex is
enforced. A progressive indulgent view of homosexuality is the only
tolerable perspective. The opposing viewpoint, which condemns same-gender
sex on moral grounds, is censored.
Don't Censor My Conscience
This could quickly happen here in the United States. Supporters
of “anti-hate” legislation use the same doublespeak that
occurs in Canada. Supporters of speech bans and hate laws claim that
people who experience others’ moral disapproval are so burdened
and stigmatized that they become less politically free or equal.
Censorship of moral disapproval is the only way to ensure their rights
and political freedom. But this is just a good-sounding justification
for censorship as brutal as a duct-tape gag and a knife blade against
the ribs.
Religious conservatives who judge homosexuality are not declaring
gays to be less politically equal! They are declaring a certain behavior
to be immoral. The expression of moral judgment must not be made
illegal, ever. Think about this: Even the most stubborn moral relativist
(the kind of person who justifies “open” marriages) will
say that Hitler was immoral, was less morally equal. He may or may
not wish to deprive a present-day Hitler supporter of political rights.
But that’s a separate question. The expression of moral judgments
must be separated from the idea of “equality,” which
is swung around like a club with which to knock senseless anyone
who wishes to express moral disapproval.
Social judgment is a fact of life, and not a bad one, either. Almost
everyone (at least this side of the Atlantic) agrees that pedophiles
deserve public disapproval. Dateline NBC now markets this verdict
with their ultimate shaming program, “To Catch a Predator,” which
airs with disturbing frequency. In these episodes, NBC’s host
makes would-be pedophiles sweat during sting operations. Millions
of Americans tune in to unapologetically despise, squirm over, and
marvel at these creeps (many of whom look like the guy next door).
Nobody steps up for the perps; no public outcry demands that NBC
stop “defaming” or hurting the feelings of this very
identifiable group: child predators. Moral judgment about this behavior
is completely widespread throughout society, almost unanimous.
But sometimes (in fact, frequently) one or two courageous individuals
must take the part of prophet, challenging social stasis by expressing
moral disapproval of something that is not unanimously judged. This
was the case with slavery. William Wilberforce, a valorous 18th-century
Christian, spoke out against slavery in England at a time when it
was not universally condemned. He didn’t express a broadly
accepted viewpoint, like NBC’s “Predator” show.
Instead, he heroically championed a position of moral and Biblical
truth that had been covered with a sludge of justifications and excuses.
Wilberforce spoke much like the critics of Christian Zionism today,
who dare to criticize Judaism and Christian support of Israel in
a time when America has fallen prey to false theology and ruinous
foreign policy.
What if “anti-hate” laws had been around in the time
of Wilberforce? Imagine “anti-hate” legislation wielded
by the Anti-Defamation League of British Slave Holders, who demanded
Wilberforce stop damaging the feelings of this very “identifiable
group.”
Protect America from Hate Laws
Today, in an era of increasingly globalized and concentrated power,
laws against the expression of conscience have never been more dangerous.
We can’t give the government (meaning whoever’s in
power) the tools to silence the expression of conscience. Religious
and political speech is the most volatile, controversial, feelings-hurting
kind. It’s also the most valuable because it incites, leads,
and justifies individual and national action.
At this point, an ivory tower debate about speech is a little lame.
We’ve already got on-the-ground evidence about “anti-hate” laws’ architects
and their political motives and about the establishment and use of “anti-hate” legislation.
We have 37 years of damning proof from Canada.
“Anti-hate” laws are a political weapon designed to
silence certain segments of the population—primarily conservatives,
Christians, and critics of Israel and Judaism. They are intended
to shut down free political and religious speech, enforcing by law the current orthodoxies of unconditional support of Israel, moral
relativism (particularly about sex), unlimited immigration and cultural
relativism, and denunciations of the United States, God, and our
western, Judeo-Christian heritage.
Let’s face it: Hate laws won’t make public discourse
any more polite or any kinder and gentler. That’s not why they
were designed. They have almost nothing to do with protecting innocents
from hate. They are about censorship. The ultimate aim of “anti-hate” laws
is exemplified by Israel, the world’s foremost religious, racist
state. There, Jews have the ultimate freedom to express their “tribal” identity
while denying Arab rights and also the expression of Christianity
like crosses and evangelism. The Zionist spirit is shared by Jews
who support Israel and ADL around the world. It is certainly the
reason Canadian Jews want Christian pastors to be penalized for expression
of conscience, while simultaneously requiring Christian taxpayers
to actually pay for Jewish religious education.
Recently I visited a small boutique in downtown Portland with my
sister. The store’s glass windows were posted with several
signs saying that “derogatory remarks of an ethnic, homophobic,
or sexist nature” would not be permitted in the store. But
inside, shelves were filled with smutty giftware defaming the President,
the Vice President, and men in general—calling them profane
names and depicting them naked, as monkeys and asses. The shop was
a perfect capsule of “anti-hate” laws’ double standard.
Far from purifying society from hatred and bigotry, “anti-hate” laws
protect the prejudices of the powerful while eliminating the freedom
of speech and thought that enables pursuit of truth. “Anti-hate” laws
aren’t used to elevate public conversation or ban offensive
speech. They’re used to silence some people and ban some viewpoints
while permitting free reign to others. “Anti-hate” laws
actually empower and institutionalize hate. There are no laws more
dangerous than these. There is nothing more worthy of our attention
and energy.
If you want “anti-hate” laws, move north of the border.
Hands off the land of the free! That’s the message we must
send to the House and Congress, which are now reviewing a slew of "anti-hate" legislation
that would bring ADL’s chains to our federal government and
destroy our unique and precious First Amendment rights. Please call
your House and Senate representatives now and tell them to say no
to hate laws in any and every shape!
