Canada's government is currently deciding whether or not an article in Maclean's, a major magazine north of the border, broke the law by offending Muslims. In the publication there was an article that Muslims found offensive, because it discussed how "extremist" Muslims will become "a successor population" in Europe, given their high birth rate. He wrote that the "the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be."

The Ontario Human Rights Commission agreed that the author's views were unaccceptable hate speech and both the author and the publication are facing sanctions of some sort.

It is an American freedom, to be able to say or write things that are provocative, critical, even false--to a point. It has been a bottom line freedom and a defining ideal of our polity.

The issue is where does legitimate commentary and criticism cross the line into aggression producing hate speech, when do vulnerable groups or individuals need the protection of the law? In the past, inflammatory statements about taking over the world have often been the distant early warning signs of war and genocide.

What is the difference between a hurtful lie and an uncomfortable truth? It is true that the Muslim birth rate is far greater than that of established western Europeans. Has anyone been potentially harmed by pointing out that fact? And the historical trend that has pointed to successor peoples in a particular geographical area? History can name quite a few, though not often by birth rate alone.

Do we hold fast to the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights)? Many people reading them re-worded into modern English have considered them "too radical" and "leftist".

Are our freedoms too liberal?