Quote from "The Un-Aborted Obama" by Mike S. Adams

"...4. You been supported by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals throughout your political career. What if I trapped a dog in a cage and dismembered him slowly with a pruning tool I stuck through the bars of the cage? What if I then sucked out the bloody body parts with my Black & Decker power vacuum? Would PETA demand my arrest? Would they succeed? Would this not be eerily similar to what licensed doctors do to babies? Isn’t that more serious than animal abuse? Even more serious than ACORN funding brothels with tax-payer dollars? Is this a procedure we want to nationalize?

5. When a white abortion doctor kills a black baby is it a hate crime?

6. Jesse Jackson was pro-life before he decided to run for president. He switched to the “pro-choice” position because he wanted to be the first black president. This, he thought, would show that America is no longer racist. Jesse still opposes the death penalty because – at least he claims - it is racist. In the American health care system, over 9000 black babies are aborted every week. Has the criminal justice system ever executed 9000 innocent blacks in a single week?

7. A Democrat historian once told me that, during its history, the mostly Democratic KKK lynched almost 5000 blacks. Today, the mostly Democratic pro-choice movement applauds (and even defends as a “right”) the mutilation of over 9000 blacks on a weekly basis. You probably think it is unfair to compare pro-choicers to the KKK. But unfair to whom? Klansmen were never such prolific killers.

8. What would happen if we started shooting unborn babies with guns? Would you then decide to oppose abortion?"

Original article here at Proud to Be Canadian.

Quotable Quote

"How strange it seems that physical science should ever have been thought adverse to religion. The pride of physical science is, indeed, adverse, like every other pride, both to religion and truth; but sincerity of science, so far from being hostile, is the path-maker among the mountains for the feet of those who publish peace."

John Ruskin, "Arrows of the Chase" found in a 1912 book "God and Home and Native Land, The Trinity which Inspires Noble Living in Young and Old"

Interesting Looking Trailer

Event Blogging: Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn before a Parliamentary Committee

House of Commons

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Review of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Section 13)

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a transcript but a summary of the events and speeches in my own words. I wrote it in the first person so that it would flow better but it it a summary, not the speaker's exact words, or even very close to their exact words.

The meeting took place in a rather large room with plenty of seating for the 40 observers and media people who showed up. The committee was seated in a hollow square under "The Fathers of the Confederation". Steyn and Levant sat with their backs to the audience.

Levant began with a ten minute presentation.

He began by thanking the committee and noting with pleasure that it was a bi-partisan one, because freedom of speech and checks and balances in justice are certainly bipartisan concerns.

Last month Athanasios Hadjis of the CHRT ruled that Section 13 of the Human Rights Act was unconstitutional and that the CHRC was "aggressive and confrontational". In a March ruling by another Tribunal member, the Commission's actions were called "disturbing and disappointing". These members, both Conservatives and Liberals, agree that the HRC is abusive and that they will not convict people charged under Section 13.

Before we go farther into talking about what the CHRC does we should cover what it doesn't do. It doesn't help minorities, gays, or Jews.

In the last decade almost all of the Section 13 complaints have been brought by one person, a privileged white lawyer named Richard Warman. Warman worked for the CHRC and began filling complaints with the Commission while working there. This is an obvious conflict of interests. Not content with that, he also got all of his expenses paid by the Commission to testify at trials.

What of the CHRC conduct?

Warman, as it turns out, is a member of Neo-Nazi organizations. He logs into these websites and writes posts saying that gays are a cancer, Jews are scum, and that white police should be loyal to their race. However, shocking as this is, what is more shocking is that he is not alone in this conduct. At least 7 staff members at the CHRC are also members of Neo-Nazi organizations including Dean Steacy, Sandy Kozak, and others. Some of them even hacked into the account of a private citizen, Nellie Hachme, to cover their tracks. The RCMP considers the case unsolved, but the Commission is the only suspect.

The CHRC also lacks a written ethics code.

They hired Sandy Kozak after she was drummed out of the police force for corruption.

They "borrow" evidence from police lockers without a search warrant.

Steacy has defended their actions saying that they are not breaking any rules. There are no rules to break. Jennifer Lynch also defends the Commissions and attacks anyone who would speak against them.

Section 13 is illiberal and a threat to human rights. My hope is that this committee will be repulsed by what they have heard today.

Mark Steyn’s 10 minute presentation.

There is something wrong with Canada's conception of human rights. Until last month the Tribunal had a 100% conviction rate. Even show trials in oppressive regimes feel the need to let someone off every once in awhile to keep up appearances.

If you are convicted of a Section 13 crime you can be given a lifetime speech ban.

Section 13 tries people for pre-crimes not crimes.

Until Macleans and I intervened last year the Lemire case was going to be help in secret.

Section 13 is at odds with our legal inheritance dating back to the Magna Carta. It protects pseudo-human rights.

Ignatieff said that collective rights without individual rights ends in tyranny, you cannot make something that is merely desirable into a right, and that freedom of speech is the foundation of all rights.

There are 33 million people in Canada but only one uses Section 13. In England a man by the name of Matthew Hopkins named himself Witch-Finder General and went around collecting witches and turning them in for a pound a head. Richard Warman has now made himself Hate-Finder General of Canada.

The CHRC abuses the extremely narrow definition of Section 13 laid out in Taylor.

There would be no real change in Canada if Section 13 was abolished except that Richard Warman would have to witch-hunt on his own dime. Take Lemire for instance. He was convicted for writing an article that was read by a total of 8 people. In other words, if you factor out Warman and co, no one read it. It would be hard to find anything more unlikely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt. As a matter of fact, there would be less hate speech in Canada if the psychologically disturbed people at the CHRC did not write and publish it.

Sometimes organizations get so riddled with corruption that the only answer is to take away it's powers or disband it. The CHRC is now beyond saving.

A period of questions came next and here I must admit my debt to the Macleans liveblog for the committee member names. I couldn't see them from where I sat and wasn't going to guess at spelling. I also used the liveblog to double check a few facts and to help me figure out which of my scrawled notes had been said by whom.

Brian Murphy: (He talked for a long time but the substance of the questions were) Do you believe there are limits on free speech when it gets into the realm of extreme hate speech? Speech where people are depicted as having no redeeming qualities? Do you believe the Criminal Code laws are legitimate? They have higher standards. Are there any limits on freedom of speech?

Levant - Of course, fraud, forgery, copyright infringement, and death threats are examples of legitimate boundaries on freedom of speech. However in these speech is incidental - the crime is really something else like violence. Section 13, on the other hand, criminalizes thoughts and ideas.

It is also wrong to consider the HRT punishments as light ( A reference to a remark by Murphy that I didn't catch) and there are extreme differences between the procedures in the Tribunal and those in a criminal court.

Justice Dixon upheld Section 13 on the grounds that only evil ideas would be prosecuted. He did not envision today's situation where they are prosecuting political ideas, where there are punitive fines, and they use entrapment. We also have a greater respect for freedom of speech now than then.

Steyn - Dixon had a very narrow definition of Section 13. He didn't think that Macleans and other mainline news media would be prosecuted.

Yes words can be offensive, but repellent ideas need to be brought out into the sunlight where they will whither. This cannot be done in a regime of censorship.

Lynch says that she is committed to abolishing “hate“, but that is impossible because hate is part of what it means to be human. In fact Lynch may harbor a teensy weesny bit of hate for Levant and myself (laughter from audience).

Serge Menard - What are you asking for? You started by saying that 2 Tribunal members had declared the law unconstitutional, what tribunal are you talking about?

Levant - The Human Rights Tribunal

Menard - But only judges can declare laws unconstitutional.

Levant - They declared it was unconstitutional, they did not strike the law down.

Menard - They have no right to strike it down, only the Attorney General.

Are you saying that Section 13 is bad, or that there is a problem with individual people in the HRC? Are you implying that Section 13 is good but people who enforce it are bad?

Steyn - No, Section 13 is badly written. It says anything that is "likely" to expose someone to hatred. There is now a very broad definition of likely and it is being used and abused by ambitious employees of the HRC.

Levant - We should repeal Section 13, leave prosecutions to the Criminal Code, and bring in a Forensics team to evaluate the CHRC

Menard - Who should be the forensics team?

Levant - The Auditor General

Menard - Have you asked the Auditor General?

Levant - No but I will take your suggestion and do so immediately.

Menard - What are you asking us?

Levant - We have the material. The Auditor General can confirm it but it is for the people here to act.

Menard - You seem to be angry more at individuals.

Steyn - No we have a principled and philosophical objection to this. I even opposed Dixon. We knew that Section 13 was bad in theory, now we know that it is evil in practice.

Joe Comartin - Would you be willing to come back in the future to the Committee?

Levant - Yes and I can send documents if you want. When I first heard about what the CHRC was doing I was so shocked I didn't believe it. I thought it was some kind of conspiracy theory but it turned out to be true.

Steyn - Yes, and I share Ezra's concerns. I couldn't believe it when I got an email about the prospective secret trial. Secret trials have no place in this country, not over hate speech anyway.

Comartin - You would be satisfied to leave the Criminal Code laws? Would you be willing to have the government declare that such and such is hate speech but not make it a criminal offence? That you aren't allowed to say hate speech but it isn't a criminal offence?

Levant - I am Jewish but I would stand with the Berlin Jewish (Association?) in support of publishing Mein Kampf. If you try to ban something, you will only glamorize it.

The head of Egale said that there are three reasons to allow hate speech.

1. It lets you know who the bad guys are.

2. Hate speech allows for teachable moments.

3. Banning hate speech outsources personal responsibility to bureaucrats.

Comartin - These theories seem to make sense but Hitler rose to power even though his work was widely published.

Steyn - The problem with that is that Weimar Germany had it's own version of Section 13. The Nazi party was prosecuted 200 times for hate speech and Hitler wasn't even allowed to speak in public some places. This just glamorized them, what is it that is so dangerous that we are not even allowed to hear it?

I think if Hitler came back today he would laugh about anti-holocaust denial laws, because it would show that his ideas still had power.

Rob Moore - What do you think about Professor Moon's report?

Levant - Professor Moon was paid enormous amounts of money, over a thousand dollars a page, by the CHRC to write a report and he still called for the repeal of Section 13. Someone hand picked by the CHRC recognized that things were wrong, that should tell us something.

Steyn - Moon is certainly no friend of Levant and I but he still found Section 13 to be a bad law. It is completely unworkable in the internet age and can only be applied capriciously. Unless we want to regulate the internet the way China does.

Moore - How does the Criminal Code mesh with human rights law? What differences are their in HRT and Criminal trials.

Levant - There are so many differences. You have the right to a speedy trial, as opposed to my trial which lasted 900 days and never even came to a conviction. Another trial lasted for 6 years.

In some provincial commissions you can have warrantless search and seizure.

I focused on the procedural problems to appeal to anyone here who might be in favour of censorship, for I believe even they must be opposed to what is happening now.

There is no legal aid.

The disclosure practices would be laughed out of a real court.

We do not want to wait for 10 years while this makes it's way to the Supreme Court. Parliament should be the one to act.

Steyn - The biggest problem is that truth is no defence. I quoted an Imam, accurately, but I was prosecuted for doing so because it was offensive for me to quote him. This allows people to define their own reality.

Moore - What impact did this have on your financial status?

Levant - It cost me around $100,000. In a real court I would either have had legal aid or my costs reimbursed since I won. However besides that there is an issue of justice, Steyn and I won because we were articulate and we had money to pay for lawyers. Most other HRC targets don't. We do not believe that anyone should be above or below the law but that is what is happening.

Ujjal Dosanjh - Others see redeeming qualities in Section 13, do you?

Levant - No, and neither does Egale, PEN Canada, the CCLU, and every newspaper board in this country.

Dosanjh - Do you believe there should be anything between naked free speech and the Criminal Code?

Levant - No

Dosanjh - What about the school teacher who made all those anti-Semitic remarks, is that acceptable?

Levant - No it is not acceptable, but it should not be illegal either. I fear bureaucratic idiots misusing these laws more than I fear what he said.

Steyn - One problem with this is that there is no equality in the prosecutions. An Imam in Montreal said much worse things but he was not investigated.

Dosanjh - Was the firing appropriate?

Steyn - Yes the school board firing was appropriate as was parents refusing to allow their children in his class and other social answers. But he should not have been prosecuted by the government.

Marc LeMay - I am having trouble following, have you read the Taylor decision? Do you agree with it?

Levant - Disagree

LeMay - Well, we are stuck with the Supreme Court interpretation, Parliament can only amend or repeal.

Steyn - Yes, but the HRC are not following the narrow interpretation of Taylor.

LeMay - Dixon said it agreed with section 2D of the Charter.

Levant - There is a great distinction between 19 years ago and today. Then they did not levy fines. They were to be mediators, now they are aggressive. They are also political.

LeMay - The hate speech law in the Criminal Code is also worded broadly, would we have to repeal that too?

Levant - No, the Criminal Code doesn't have the same procedural problems.

LeMay - We are not responsible to investigate people, only Section 13.

Steyn - Even with broad language there are traditional protections in the Criminal Code that are not in administrative tribunals.

Brent Rathberger - Do you agree with Moon that language which incites or condones violence should be illegal.

Levant - We have always had laws against violence. Language cannot burn down synagogues of kill people, you need to change real laws before you can do that.

We cannot criminalize emotions or ideas.

Steyn - I agree with the incitement to violence ban, but in Saskatchewan a man was but under a speech ban for his opinion on gay marriage.

Rathberger - Do you think there is any room for costs in getting rid of frivolous lawsuits?

Levant - Yes it would help but there are still too many problems.

Steyn - I agree with Ezra. Common law has been worked out over the ages to arrive at what we have today. While it may be tempting to think that we can shortcut the system and arrive at a better solution, we should not. There are reasons why the law is the way it is.

THE END

To repeat my earlier disclaimer, this is not a transcript and nothing in here should be considered a quote. It is just a rough summary from my notes, pen and paper notes at that since I didn't want to try taking a laptop through security.

White Flag

I know I said I wasn't going to. I didn't have the time to get a Facebook account. I was not going to do it.

And then....when I discovered that I was spending too much time reading my brother's... I gave in.

My justification is that I can use it like a mini-blog, and perhaps increase the readership on my real blog. With any luck.

CHRC Appeals the Lemire Case

The Canadian federal hate speech law, a.k.a. section 13, may be on the verge of being struck down. This law prohibits speech that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of an identifiable ground, such as sexual orientation and religion among others. Section 13, or rather it's provincial counterparts, are the laws responsible for such things as the prosecution of mainstream news media for hate, lifetime speech bans against pastors, and the ruling that public display of certain Bible references is illegal. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which has been responsible for prosecuting section 13 cases, in a stunning decision ruled that the law is unconstitutional because it violates freedom of speech. Now, that decision is being appealed to a real court of law which will almost certainly agree that the law is in fact unconstituitonal. If this goes through, it will be one of the greatest victories for conservatives in years.

http://ezralevant.com/2009/09/tribunal-the-chrc-has-been-bre.html

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/whats_new/default-en.asp?id=570&content_type=2

Round-Up, Shriveling Weeds and Catching Horses

Whatsoever a man sowes, that shall he reap. I love irony. Actually let me rephrase that, I LOVE irony. Particularly this brand. Richard Warman, our serial section 13 hate-speech complainant is being prosecuted for - wait for it - hate speech. You remember all those hundreds of racist, bigoted, anti-semitic comments that Warman posted in an effort to entrap all those other guys who were writing racist, bigoted, anti-semitic comments? And remember the thousands of dollars he was awarded for doing so? Well the HRC has finally had second thoughts about that approach (now that the entire nation of Canada has succeeded in picking it's corporate chin off the ground and is, with the help of time and counselling, getting over it's shock at the antics of Warman and co.) and is prosecuting him for his "disturbing" and "disappointing" conduct (to quote a Human Rights Tribunal). With any luck the ludicrous nature of the whole affair will only help in the effort to abolish hate-speech laws. Which would be poetic revenge at it's best. (Ezra Levant)

To paraphrase a political cartoon I saw a little while ago, the leaves are falling, the birds are flying south, and Canadians are having a federal election. Well, in this case, maybe having a federal election. I am all in favour of an election if there is any chance of the Conservatives getting a majority. We have had minority governments (if you can call a minority a government) for too long. Yes I know Canada wanted a minority but now the honeymoon is over, where do we sign up for a divorce? (Reuters, CBC, Reuters)

Further proof that feminism does not want equality. On another note, if these women are really "stars" then why do they need reserved seats? Do they really want to win by slipping the ace out of their sleeve? (CBC)

In the war against poverty, any bets that the left will address this issue? (MercatorNet)

We are mourning the slight. (Reuters)

Can you imagine how this might affect children adopted from China? To wonder all their lives if they were abandoned, or kidnapped from families which might still grieve them? Or parents who adopted? Not to mention the obvious, parents who lost their children. The tragic result of government taking on the role of family planner, what do you do when reality isn't that conformable? Worse, as the west is figuring out, what do you do when reality IS that conformable? (Family Edge)

Related to my last post, another success story where active individuals changed things through the power of media. (MercatorNet)

Why do I have this nasty feeling that someone, somewhere, is somehow going to see the solution to this problem as abortion on demand. (Demography is Destiny)

Anyone who didn't suspect the existence of this type of thing (and much worse) has not studied human nature to much effect. There is a quote in Fiddler on the Roof that, to paraphrase, says, "If the rich could pay the poor to die for them, we would all make a very good living."

Funny how the left is not running through the streets screaming that they do not condone such behavior. At least they haven't that I've noticed anyway. Why does the left get a free pass while the right is always having to apologize? Just not "fair".(LifeSite, Sentinal)

This would be disturbing on a few different levels if I had any respect or concern for the United Church. The last time I was in a United Church (Don't even ask....) they had changed the hymn "This is My Father's World" to "This is God's Wondrous World", and the "sermon" was about butterflies.....or something. But shouldn't even they have second thoughts about this? Then again, why would they? When you appoint Madeline Basset as your high priestess and chief theologian (as Credenda would say) what else do you expect? The First Church of Gaia has small concern for humanity. (National Post)

The HRC are in damage protection mode. So, after seven years, the Edmonton Journal and Calgary Herald are off the hook for their hate speech which "catalogued several allegations of duplicity, manipulation, atrocity and hypocrisy on the part of Palestinian leaders in their dealings with Israel." The Calgary Herald is NOT helping the HRC out with their damage protection scheme. Key point, if you want public support, don't alienate the media. (WLCU, Herald)

Jim Corcoran "firstly bringing the attention to me once again and, secondly, identifying me as an abhorrent, disobedient Catholic." How about this, firstly: Who brought the complaint in the first place?! and secondly: a) If the shoe fits, wear it. b) Just what do you think church authority is for anyway? c) Well when a Christian uses a secular agency to attack and vilify his church..... My congratulations to Bishop De Angelis for his brave and principled stand against the Canadian government rewriting church law. The church is not subject to the decrees of the Dominion of Canada where it interferes with church doctrine (barring, say, murder). The church is a foreign embassy of another Kingdom. That is why they are tax exempt and why refugees have sanctuary in a church. Would the Canadian government really go into the Sudanese embassy to make sure they weren't engaging in religious or sexual discrimination in their hiring practices? I didn't think so. (LifeSiteNews)

Whatever happened to "If you are offended, just walk away"? Whatever happened to the right to evangelize? Whatever happened to all those nice people who assured us that laws against evangelism were only delusions in the mind of paranoid right-wing conspiratorial nutcases who indulged in illegal vegetation? If it comes to that, whatever happened to equality under the law? Because I dare any British Christians to try using this against, for example, Richard Dawkins. (Vlad)

Related: No evangelizing AND no crucifixes. If the Church of England had any conviction they would remove the word England from their name. But they don't. Except for the conviction that apologizing to Darwin is a Christian duty. (Vlad)

At least Canada walked out. That is something to be proud of. (Salim Mansur)

Here's to the (too many) idiots left on earth who still think that blaspheming Christianity is something bold, new, and rebellious, you're so square you don't even realize there's a box. However it is rather sad. (Albert Mohler)

It reminds me of Screwtape Proposes a Toast, where everyone has to be pulled down to one level in the name of "democracy" and "being like folks". If everyone has to "be like folks" obviously people who want to choose lifestyles traditionally considered inferior have to make their choices the new norm. (Barbara Kay)

10 ways that normal people can help to save civilization. (David Warren)

Learning: Lessons for Social Conservatives from the Free Speech Movement in Canada

It was a motley party from the beginning. A confusing mess of Jews and Neo-Nazis, die-hard social conservatives and liberals (not to mention libertarians), gay rights activists and priests and pastors who have dedicated their lives to opposing gay rights activists. The weapons of choice were blogs and publicity stunts, but mostly blogs. You know, those online diaries where people pontificate around like their opinions are the most important things in the world and usually have a readership of -well- not a lot. This collection of rag-tag fire-breathing radicals was attacking a decades old law and a nicely established government department. A government department moreover that monopolized most of the feel-good words. Human rights, anti-hate, reconciliation, arbitration, anti-discrimination, and had a whole host of feel-bad words to toss at their opponents, hate-mongerers, bigots, racists, Nazis, regressive, anti-human rights, right-wing extremists, unfeeling, marginal, obnoxious.

No bookie would have given this collection, held together with as much duct tape and Tim Horton’s coffee as anything else, better than very long odds on getting the Human Rights Commissions to acknowledge their existence, much less anything more. It looked like another tedious social conservative-type stand-off where a few “radicals” stormed around talking a lot and achieving nothing while the status quo slipped blithely along without registering more than an occasional little ripple to give some interest to an otherwise boring monotony.

But this time it was different. This time they got publicity. This time they got the attention of their opponents and had them squealing in short order. This time they gained momentum. This time, although it is far to early to be sure, eventual victory is starting to look very likely, if not almost certain. This time they aren’t withering in obscurity, they are not on the defensive, they are on the offensive and the enemy is retreating and deserting rapidly.

How could this happen and what can we learn from it?

The Power of the Active Individual: Okay so this is very clichéd but do I get extra points for it being true? Every cause needs a hero to rally around or, failing that, a martyr. Most if not all social justice movements have rallied behind a person or a few people. The free speech movement got a major boost when the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal made the worst mistake in their history. They accepted a complaint by Imam Syed Sohawardy against lawyer and editor Ezra Levant for reprinting the Danish Mohammed cartoons. The old saying that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church is a very broadly applicable principle. Levant, as well as others, took theorizing to the level of practical action. They were willing to risk prosecution and spend their time and money to advance a cause that they believed in. Without them, people could have chattered about theories forever, but cases like Levant and Steyn and Boissoin and more forced people to sit up and take notice. Levant won his case, or rather got it dismissed (Which, as he explains, is not really a win), but the experience opened his eyes to the direction that the HRC were taking and once he started talking the government quickly realized that he was impossible to shut up.

The Power of a Dedicated Minority and the Media and/or Alternative Media: You can have individuals making heroic stands but if no one ever hears about them they are done for. In this case the bloggers and friendly journalists took the stories from the individuals to ordinary people. People who could donate money, talk to their neighbours, write to their politicians, start blogs of their own, and just generally begin to form the core of a growing minority. A minority that was active and concerned. What percentage of Canadians are gay? What percentage of Canadians opposed gay marriage? Who won? Not the majority, the minority that was willing to spend time, words, and money like water to advance their agenda. Another point to remember is that the established media is still more widely respected than blogs. One article in a major city newspaper is almost certainly worth more than a hundred blog posts. Social conservatives are facing an uphill, and probably futile, battle as long as the media is their enemy.

The Power of Polemicism: This idea I stole unapologetically from Mark Steyn. Some people feel annoyed and uncomfortable with extreme political speech, however it serves an invaluable service in the sphere of political and ideological discourse. The vast majority of people do not want to be seen as extreme radicals. They want to be seen as left of centre or right of centre. Therefore the extremists on both sides are not really effective in persuading the majority to agree with them, but they are effective in moving the centre. Most people may not be comfortable with the idea of a Fire. Them. All. approach but because of it they may be emboldened to advocate for reform. After all, they aren't like THOSE extremists.

The Power of Scratching Below the Surface: In today’s society we have an ingrained set of politically correct responses to any issue. Hate speech laws, well of course we don’t want people spouting hateful speech all over the place. Human Rights Commissions, well isn’t it good that we have an organization to look after human rights? But if you scratch below the surface and start to explain to people what these things are really about, they can have an entirely different response. Hate speech laws, you are censoring who for saying what?! Human Rights Commissions, you mean I could get in trouble for doing that?!

The Power of a Greedy Enemy: The Free Speech movement took off the ground because the Human Rights Commission moved too fast too soon. They thought that they had carte blanche to deal with “hate-mongers” and didn’t realize that there was a Canada beyond the doors of their office building which might have different ideas. It was the atrocious cases where they tried to prosecute pastors and popular, mainline media that provoked the storm of outrage. No one really wants to publicly defend a neo-Nazi, but MacLeans? Or your local priest? That is something that people can defend and feel good defending.

It is not enough for conservatives to have good ideas. Ideas are a dime a dozen and everyone has their dog in the fight. The ideas that really change the world are those which can win the hearts and minds of the cab driver and mechanic. The ideas and issues that get discussed over coffee at work. The ideas that inspire professors and lawyers to speak and write. The ideas that get airtime on every TV and radio network. The ideas that creep into our education system. The ideas that a dedicated minority push in every possible way until they become in the minds of your average Joe to be self-evident truth. Women have a right to their own bodies, well I guess that kinda makes sense. People shouldn’t fill newspapers with Nazi propaganda, yeah I agree with that. We shouldn’t interfere with what people do in their bedrooms, well I guess not.

Certainly these points are hardly original. However, I believe that we need to focus on victories as well as defeats. We need to study winning strategies. We need to know why we win and why we lose. To use a popular saying, if we do not study history we are doomed to repeat it. Let’s not repeat the mistakes which have given us 40 years of legal abortion. Let’s not repeat the mistakes that have lost us almost every war we have tried to fight. If the liberals and social engineers can alter the heartbeat of a nation so that abortion, gay marriage, and censorship becomes the normal status quo, we can alter it back.

Remember: Politicians want to get elected. If they start to loose elections because of their stance on Human Rights Commissions do you think they won’t notice? I promise you, they will.

Sorry for the long time no write. Call this my vacation, I am going camping tomorrow.

Havel and the HRC

Quotes from The Power of the Powerless by Vaclav Havel in blue.

The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies:

government by bureaucracy is called popular government;

The Ontario Human Rights Commission was established in 1961 to administer the Code. The Commission is an arm's length agency of government accountable to the people of Ontario through the legislature. OHRC

(Except when Commissioners won’t appear before Parliamentary committees.)

the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class;

And those are just the cases that go all the way to a ruling. 90% of Alberta's human rights targets fold without a fight -- they just can't afford the fight, either in terms of time (I'm well over 800 days in their prosecution of me for publishing the Danish cartoons) and money (I'm at the $100,000 mark -- thank you to my online donors for saving me from ruin Ezra Levant

(Small businesses are frequent targets of HRC. In the name of protecting vulnerable people the commissions have become an attack force against vulnerable people. After all few people are quite as vulnerable as a small entrepreneur.)

the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his or her ultimate liberation;

Freedom of expression is recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. It promotes many societal values and has a role in individual self-fulfillment, attaining the truth, securing participation by members of society in social and political decision-making, and maintaining a balance between stability and change in society.... Freedom of expression should be exercised through responsible reporting and not be used as a guise to target vulnerable groups and to further increase their marginalization or stigmatization in society. OHRC

(These freedoms are protected by the government publicly accusing people of racism, sexism, bigotry, hate, or some other degrading label)

depriving people of information is called making it available;

However, other hearings have been held in secret, as Ms. Lynch has admitted, supposedly for the “safety” of a witness but contrary to the ancient right of being able to face one’s accuser in court. Indeed, in the ongoing case of beachesboy@aol.com vs. drumsaremybeat@aol.com, the commission hasn’t even revealed the identity of the complainant. Russ Hiebert M.P.

We value an INFORMED PUBLIC
We are committed to:

• a strategic approach to public education, because we believe that an informed public contributes to the elimination of discrimination in society OHRC

(I always thought that government education was a rather euphemistic way of saying propaganda. Now I admit that such propaganda can be either good or bad, true or false, but it is definitely not truly free and open minded.)

the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power,

First, there has been no suppression of speech. No complaint has been filed against Steyn, who is free to express his views and has being doing so with regularity in multiple venues. The complaints against Maclean's magazine ask for the right to more, not less, information by demanding publication of the "other side" of the story. Pearl Eliadis

(It is merely a public spirited desire to have both sides of the story told. Which I will believe the day that the HRC forces Xtra to publish an article condemning homosexuality on religious grounds.)

and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code;

As is the case with all administrative law bodies, they ensure that all parties are protected by the rules of natural justice, and that frivolous complaints are efficiently disposed. Canadians expect fairness and efficiency from their human-rights system, and we must continue to offer both. Jennifer Lynch

And, so it is again: the CHRC has rejected Lebuis's complaint. The rejection states:

“ ...the majority of the references in “Islam or Fundamentalism” are to “infidels”, “miscreants” or “western women”. These are general, broad and diversified categories that do not constitute an “identifiable group” under Section 13 of the Act. As we have also mentioned, the extracts that identify groups on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination (homosexuals, lesbians, Christians, Jews) do not seem to promote “hatred” or “contempt” according to the criteria set forth in the Taylor case. Therefore, the document on which the complaint is based does not seem to meet the requirements of Section 13 of the Act for a complaint.”

Translation: when a radical Muslim says gays should be killed, Buddhists should be killed, women may be treated like slaves, etc., those victims are not legally considered to be "identifiable groups" -- they have no human rights.

Gays, women, Buddhists, Jews, etc., do have human rights that can be offended only when white supremacists do the offending. When radical Muslims are doing the offending, gays, women, Jews, etc., can just get a thicker skin. Ezra Levant

Human rights commissions have been set up as a kind of parallel police and legal system, yet without any of the procedural safeguards, rules of evidence, or simple professional expertise of the real thing. Human rights investigators can search homes and offices without warrants. Tribunals can accept hearsay evidence, or ignore disclosure requirements, at will. Common law defences such as fair comment do not apply. Complainants have their costs paid for, even if they lose, while their targets must fend for themselves. None of this is accidental. It’s deliberate—protecting “human rights” was considered too urgent a matter to be constrained by old-fashioned notions of due process. Andrew Coyne

the repression of culture is called its development;

"We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands.” That is effectively the new policy position at Yale University Press, which has eliminated all visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad from Jytte Klausen’s new book The Cartoons That Shook the World. Yale made the unusual decision not only to suppress the twelve 2005 Danish cartoons that sparked organized protests in many countries but also historical depictions of Muhammed like a 19th-century print by Gustave Doré. They are not responding to protests against the book; they and a number of their consultants are anticipating them and making or recommending concessions beforehand. American Association of University Professors

(Okay so not exactly the fault of the HRC but part of the same issue)

the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed;

No person shall publish or display…any representation, including any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, article, statement or other representation that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground. Saskatchewan Human Rights Code

It is up to legislators and courts to find the appropriate balance that best protects the human rights and freedoms of all citizens. Canada has an enviable track record in this regard, and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is viewed as a model for other free societies to emulate. Human-rights commissions and tribunals provide access to the justice system and remedies for those who believe they are the victims of discrimination. Jennifer Lynch

(Currently taking bets as to how long it will be until anti-discrimination produces a situation where the most officially discriminated against people are Christians. Oh wait... never mind, bit late there.)

the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom;

Some who disagree with this notion would have Canada weaken its human-rights system, taking the view that freedom of expression is the paramount right in Canadian society, over and above the right of all citizens to be protected from the harm that can be caused by hate messages. In fact, there is no hierarchy of rights with some rights having greater importance than others. They work together toward a common purpose. Jennifer Lynch

(When do I get protection from being called an unsocialized "retard" for being a homeschooler?)

farcical elections become the highest form of democracy;

(At this point, the HRC do not see the need to have even farcical elections)

banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views;

Christian Horizons also faced sanctions for asking Heintz to consider Christian counselling to restore her to her previous faith.

The OHRT ruled "the attempt of 'restoration' for persons who are gay or lesbian is profoundly disrespectful and oppressive.' Canadian Christianity

(We aren't even mentioning the evolution word, just give the HRC time)

military occupation becomes fraternal assistance.

(The HRC only wishes... However attempts to occupy magazines in the name of freedom for all might be considered somewhat analogous)

Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus.

It pretends to respect human rights.

It pretends to persecute no one.

It pretends to fear nothing.

It pretends to pretend nothing.

Blue quotes from The Power of the Powerless by Vaclav Havel