WHY HATE CRIME LAWS ARE DANGEROUS

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

GLENN GREEWALD, SALON - Ezra Levant is a right-wing Canadian
neoconservative who publishes Western Standard, a typical warmongering,
pro-Likud journal -- a poor man's Weekly Standard for Canadian neocons.
In February, 2006, he published the Danish Mohammed cartoons, which
prompted an Islamic group's imam to file a complaint against Levant with
the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, charging Levant
with "advocating hatemongering cartoons in the media," and the imam
specifically accused Levant of "defaming me and my family because we
follow and are related to Prophet Mohammed."

Rather than dismiss the complaint as a blatant attempt to punish free
thought and free speech, the Alberta Human Rights Commission announced
that it would investigate. To do so, they compelled Levant to appear
before a government agent and be interrogated about the cartoons he
published, his thoughts and intent in publishing them, and the other
circumstances surrounding his "behavior." Under the law, the Commission
has the power to impose substantial fines and other penalties on Levant.

The hearing was closed to the public -- only his lawyer and wife were
allowed to attend -- but Levant insisted on recording the proceedings
and was directed by the Commission not to publish the video, but he did
so anyway. . .

A similar complaint was recently filed against Mark Steyn, arising out
of the publication in Maclean's of an excerpt from his odious book,
America Alone. That complaint was also filed by a Canadian Muslim group,
claiming that the passage "misrepresents Canadian Muslims' values, their
community, and their religion.". . .

People like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are some of the most pernicious
commentators around. But equally pernicious, at least, are those who
advocate laws that would proscribe and punish political expression, and
those who exploit those laws to try use the power of the State to impose
penalties on those expressing "offensive" or "insulting" or "wrong"
political ideas. The mere existence of the "investigation,"
interrogation, and proceeding itself is a grotesque affront to every
basic liberty.

For those unable to think past the (well-deserved) animosity one has for
the specific targets in question here, all one needs to do instead is
imagine these proceedings directed at opinions and groups that one
likes. . .

Empowering the State to proscribe and punish speech is not only the most
dangerous step a society can take -- though it is that -- it's also the
most senseless. It never achieves its intended effect of suppressing or
eliminating a particular view. If anything, it has the opposite effect,
by driving it underground, thus preventing debate and exposure. Worse,
it converts its advocates into martyrs . . .

There are numerous ways to combat advocacy of rancid ideas. Using the
power of the Government to force people to "justify" their opinions to
government tribunals and face punishment for them is, by far, the most
malevolent -- far more dangerous than the expression of any particular
idea could ever be.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/13/hate_speech_laws/index.html


||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||