Human Rights Commissioner Max Yalden's
latest call for further restrictions on
freedom of expression makes us wonder
about the purpose of his recent visit to
the notoriously repressive rulers of Red
China: Did he go to teach, or to learn?
Banning "hate propaganda"
is not about freedom of speech, he says,
because "denying the Holocaust
is not genuine historical debate but an
incitement to hatred". But who
is to define "hate propaganda"?
Should it not include the propaganda
barrage - now endorsing even arson and
murder! - directed by Yalden's
supporters against all who oppose them?
Then, should questioning _any_ aspect of
their Holocaust-story be translated as
denying the Holocaust altogether? How
can doubting their iconic "6
million", for instance, be thus
regarded _when no reputable historian
today supports that figure?_
And why should doubting the Zionist
version of history be equated with
"hate"? That false
equation, peddled for years by the
Canadian Jewish Congress in an effort to
bully the rest of us into accepting
their story under pain of being called
"anti- Semitic", is
plainly dishonest. Blending emotional
smear with rank illogic, it amounts to
the kind of pseudo-intellectual thuggery
embraced by Nazis and Bolsheviks alike.
Irving Abella, past president of the
CJC, promotes it further by crowing that
Canada is now unique in that "Our
emphasis is not on free speech but on
freedom _from_ speech...We do not allow
people to criticize minorities."
In fact, he says, "we've made it
a crime" to do so. To tolerant
Canadians, this may sound like a good
thing - until they realize that it
invovles the wholesale suppression of
_truth_. Anyone knowing, for example,
that a certain ethnic minority among
immigrants is responsible for a
disproportionate measure of crime is not
allowed to say so, even though it may be
his _job_ to keep us informed. The
reader wondering who benefits from this
needs only reflect how much it helps
those who insist on "open door"
immigration despite the majority's
opposition to it!
Mr. Abella also declares that
Canada's immigration policy up until the
1960's was "racist".
Meaning that her largly Western European
population favoured Western European
immigrants? What is wrong with that?
Doesn't every group quite naturally
favour its own kind? Do we call the
State of Israel "racist"
for welcoming only Jews - and only
believing that Jews at that, as
Christian Jewish Immigrants obliged to
go there from Russia have found to their
cost? Do we call Canadian Jewish
spokesmen "racist" for
lamenting the decline of _their_
collective through assimilation and
we detect a whiff of the old "double
standard" here? In any case,
Canada's past policies seem to have
produced a country - and a culture -
which made her the world's most
desirable destination. What's wrong with
Now, why should Messrs. Yalden and
Abella et al be so hostile to a culture
which their own remote ancestors did
nothing to found and which has, after
all, enabled them to do rather well for