Reverse chill

I don’t know if there is a better writer alive or dead that can come close to Mark Steyn. Writing about the insidious, velvet-booted tyranny that’s taking over Canada, and in some ways, the West. The ability to freely dissent from official dogma has been one of the greatest innovations of liberal democracies. Protesting and attacking the status quo where it is seen wanting has allowed western civilization to evolve. Without free speech and public dissent, you end up with with North Korea. Canadian “Human Rights Commissions” have had a particularly rocky couple of years thanks to Mssrs Steyn and Levant. Steyn, writing about a “human rights” sub-committee hearing in the House of Commons (Canada):

“Professor Martin very politely suggested that free societies do not “establish an official version of history and punish anyone who might deviate from the official version.”

And so it went, the Liberal members declining to engage with the very concept of principle. Indeed, their principal principle seems to be a principled objection to principle: They disagree with what you say but they will fight to the death for the right not to have to listen to it. That’s why we need government agencies to police all these opinions and determine which ones are sufficiently homogenous to be compatible with a diverse society.”

Read the whole thing.

And here’s Ezra on the chief of the Canadian Human Right’s Commision, Jennifer Lynch, and her definition of “debate”:

"When Lynch heard it would be me against whom she would have to debate, she tried to veto my appearance.

She tried to censor me -- and, much more ominously, CTV.

She tried to bully CTV into blackballing me from their show.

She tried to tell them how to run their news business.”

Free speech is more than just a nice side-effect of a liberal democracy, it is perhaps the central tenet from which all other aspects of a democracy are possible. Everyone should have a right to their opinion, no matter how obscene or offensive, and in the same way, be prepared to have said opinions ridiculed and taken apart. State enforced protection from "offense" is both unachievable and pointless. Take any single opinion about anything, and someone will be 'offended' by it. In Canada, they now have star chambers"Human Rights Commissions" that decide what opinions Canadians are allowed to hear. And if you think that these institutions (and the ideas motivating them) are confined to the North American continent, think again.