Canada is Free and Freedom is Its Nationality

Sir Wilfrid Laurier

Monday, December 7, 2009

Event Blogging the Free Speech and Liberty Symposium: Human Rights Commissions and the Subversion of Law

Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.

Robert Martin is Professor Emeritus, University Of Western Ontario Law School. One of Canada's foremost constitutional experts and a prolific writer, Professor Martin is the author of several books, including The Most Dangerous Branch: How the Supreme Court of Canada has Undermined Our Law and Our Democracy, Critical Perspectives on the Constitution, and Speaking Freely: Expression and the Law in the Commonwealth. His articles and columns have appeared in several newspapers, including: London Free Press, Lawyers Weekly, Law Times, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, National Post, Policy Options, Manchester Guardian Weekly, Canadian Bar Review and Irish Times. Professor Martin is a former candidate for the Federal NDP.

The phrase Nanny State does not begin to capture the nature of the Canadian welfare state. It is more of a Mommy State, it is not something coming in from outside but is imposed from within.

He ran as an NDP candidate at one time, now calls it the Now Defunct Party and regrets that association. The central idea of that party, if it can be said to have an idea, is nothing outside the state.

Contemporary Canada is a totalitarian theocracy. Nothing is allowed to stand in the way of the religion of equality. Freedom has been a casualty.

Looking at multiculti Canada there "ain't none" freedom of speech. This ideology is founded on post-modern lies. They think there are no truths, only different narratives. Canadians prefer lying to truth telling. Canada has embraced the soft tyranny of caring and loving female lawyers rather than jackboots.

Censorship is the norm today in Canada.

Negative censorship involves the state saying you may not say something or you will be punished.

Positive censorship involves the state saying you must say things or you will be punished. Sorry.

In pursuance of equality, Canada has been involved in positive censorship.

Canada imposed positive censorship on global TV by making all these rules about how the handle minorities in reporting/journalism and all sorts of things to make broadcasting equity.

Negative censorship, Canada has a holy inquisition in the HRC. They got into the business of thought police over a nasty man called Taylor. He was involved in the Western Guard Party that established a dial-a-hate message. They spread around leaflets that had the number so you could dial-a-hate message if you want to. As a result of this the law was changed to include Section 13, the hate speech laws.

Eventually Taylor was brought to the CHRC and told to cease and desist. The CHRC decisions have the status of a judicial decision and disobeying them could involve a criminal contempt of court charge. Taylor disobeyed and was brought back twice, eventually being sentence to one year in prison.

Taylor is, fortunately, dead but the HRC continue their thought police role.

Taylor challenged the decision to the Supreme Court relying on the Charter which by that time was in force.

The Court upheld the Section 13. Dixon held that it was so important to ensure that people's feelings were not hurt they were able to override a charter right. This decision has been upheld as divine revelation by subsequent HRC.

In the 1940s Ontario passed laws that signs like "No Jews Allowed" were prohibited. Considering the war they were involved in that made considerable sense. Other laws were later passed banning discrimination in housing and jobs.

Some amusing decisions

A stand-up comedian was heckled by two drunk women who started to throw drinks at him. The comedian, noticing that they were lesbians, made insulting remarks about it. One woman made a complaint to the BCHRC and this is still in progress.

Steve Kindos has a restaurant. Gibson who smokes cannabis for medical reasons was doing so right outside the restaurant. He was asked to stop and the HRT found that that was discrimination. However Kindos was contacted by the Liquor licensing board who told him that he would lose his liquor license if he allowed Gibson to smoke in his restaurant. This seems to be based on a Monty Python sketch.

Less amusing cases:

Boissoin, concerned about homosexual activism, wrote a letter to the editor which was "rude" and "provocative" as Levant said. Darren Lund who is not homosexual brought a complaint. A lawyer involved in this case said that if people were allowed to hide behind the rubric of political and religious debate it would undermine the human rights laws. Boissoin was ordered to cease and desist, was given a gag order against saying anything disparaging about homosexuality, and was ordered to pay Lund and his chief witness $7000. Now people are encouraged to spy on their neighbours.

The question in my mind is, why did the Tribunal stop short of ordering Boissoin burned at the stake? Keep in mind that this cease and desist and gag order was an order to perpetuity.

MacLeans magazine had complaint brought about "Future Belongs to Islam" in 4 Commissions who all dismissed it.

Steyn rebuts the argument that there is no right to cry fire in a crowded theater by saying that if there is a fire you not only may but must cry fire.

Hugh Owens (Saskatchewan) was convicted of an anti-homosexual ad, that was overturned.

Boissoin was just acquitted by Queen's Bench.

This fall the Ontario Tribunal decided that Section 13 of the Act was now unconstitutional. The ability of the Tribunal to level fines undercut everything Dixon had said about Section 13. In a bizarre act the Commission is now seeking Judicial review of it's own order.

The question now is what is to be done? Where did this thought police, the HRC come from. It comes from pseudo-history. This pseudo-history says that Canada's history is nothing but one long litany of human rights abuses, an Auschwitz from sea to sea. Pseudo-history is endless and provides the justification for the thought police because without them Canadians would revert to their natural tendencies for abuse.

What is to be done: An unremitting hostility toward our useless universities who produce an endless stream of illiterate ideologues. (much laughter and clapping)

(Someone yells out the media, Martin responds that there is an unfortunate tendency to blame the media for everything)

No comments:

Post a Comment