Magic Statistics

This story has so many tragicomic aspects that one hardly knows where to start.

Two Turkish Muslim theologians have sued a prominent maker of Islamic clothing because they think the name of one of his enterprises capitalises on Islam.  The theologians are described as “liberal”, while the clothier is described as “conservative”, so conservative, in fact, that he is called “Allah’s tailor”.  Confused yet?

Nicknamed "Allah's tailor" by the press, Mustafa Karaduman long ago earned the odium of Turkish secularists for his successful mass-marketing of the brightly coloured headscarves and ankle-length coats that have become a trademark of conservative urban women. What triggered Ilhami Guler and Suleyman Bayraktar's case, though, was naming the company he set up in the 1980s "Tekbir". It refers to the core statement of Islam – "there is no God but God".

Mr Guler said: "Jesus was upset by the sight of the money-lenders in the temple, and I'm upset by the thought of a new generation of Muslims for whom 'Tekbir' means expensive headscarves." He says it was only recently that lawyer friends told him about Turkish legislation forbidding the commercial use of names, "imbued by society with a moral value".

Christians in the West are upset by a new generation of young people, influenced by decadent and debauched celebrities, for whom the Holy Cross of Christ means gaudy bling, but you don’t see Christian theologians suing anyone about it.

But never mind that now.  Hang on to your hats.

A court decision requiring Tekbir to change its name could trigger a host of other cases against countless other Turkish companies with religious names – from Sharia Swimsuits via Medina Travel to Jihad Meat Balls.

I just about fell out of my chair when I read that.  “Jihad Meat Balls”?  Made in Turkey?  The Muslim world seethed and burned over a few cartoons, but no one (until now) complains about Jihad Meat Balls being made, sold, and eaten in their midst?

Where can I buy some of those Jihad Meat Balls anyway?  If someone were to market them in Canada, I’m sure they’d be a huge seller.  I know I’d give ‘em a try.

But the distributor would no doubt risk a “human rights” complaint from some miffed Muslims who “have learned how to manipulate political institutions, to their advantage”.

Previous related posts:

• 82 Kurt Westergaards at risk from terrorists
• Muslims furious over crisps
• Is there anything these people are not offended by?
• Free Piglet

Binks has been listening carefully to the CPAC debate between Ezra Levant, Ian Fine, and Keith Martin that took place in Edmonton on 24 May.  In his prepared opening statement, Mr Fine, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Dispute Resolution Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission, cited with approval an Ontario judge’s remark that Canada has joined a global consensus that rejects unrestricted freedom of expression in the name of preventing hate speech.

Mr. Justice Russell Juriansz of the Ontario Court of Appeal summed it up well in 2005:

It seems fair to say that the American view is becoming a minority one in the world. Canada is part of what appears to be growing global consensus, which observes that careful restrictions of some forms of speech are both desirable and necessary.

That consensus is reflected in domestic law and international law.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN in 1966, provides that freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, ….

The Convention also requires states to prohibit by law:

Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

As you can see, this is not a debate unique to Canada. The international community has come together and reached a consensus on these principles.

Mr Fine does not provide the context of Mr Justice Juriansz’s remark.  Was it contained in a court decision, or was it part of a speech or other unofficial statement?

Asked later for evidence that Canada has truly reached such a consensus, Mr Fine quickly backtracked:

“Uh.. I.. if I said that there was a consensus in Canadian Society, then I mispoke, because I don’t believe that. I think that what I wanted to say at least.. um.. is that there’s consensus internationally.. in the sense that the United Nation– the United Nations through the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, uh, dealt with.. um.. limitations on freedom of expression, and talked about– as you may recall in my opening statement– uh, parameters of free expression and that that Convention has been ratified by a number of, uh, of uh countries. So, I-I certainly didn’t mean to say, and if I did I apologize, that there’s ‘consensus in Canadian Society.’”

These remarks should chill the hearts of freedom-loving Canadians.  What we have here is a powerful, unelected Canadian bureaucrat who sees his legal and moral authority, not in Canadian legislation enacted by our democratically elected political leaders, but in international “covenants” created by unelected foreign diplomats and bureaucrats.  He wants Canada to embrace an understanding of human rights based not on Canadian laws but on agreements written by foreigners.

Mr Fine is a public official who urges acceptance of foreign legal authority and, in his position as CHRC chief counsel, seeks to act in accordance with the diktats of that foreign authority.  Some would call this a treacherous betrayal of public trust.

Clearly, as Binks says, Canada is at stake.

Previous related post: Unelected “experts” destroying credibility of human rights