|March 10th, 2008||#21|
[Another jew writing about free speech. Which becomes a concern for jews only when the laws jews put in place against free speech are used against jews. Jews didn't care about anti-speech laws until they were used against jews Levant and Steyn.]
Jonathan Kay: The new rule on campus: Free speech for Israel-bashers — but censorship for pro-lifers
March 06, 2008
I've been writing a lot lately about free speech. My view on the subject is pretty basic: You have to tolerate the speech you hate in order to guarantee protection for the speech you love. Once you go down the road of ideologically motivated censorship, it never stops: Government hate-speech laws that are designed to shut up neo-Nazis eventually get used to harass legitimate commentators like Mark Steyn. [Remember all those jew Kay columns about CRITICS of jews being sued and silenced? Me either. Not a word until Muslims go after jew Levant and jew Steyn.]
Of course, censorious activists and lawmakers never actually concede they are engaged in "censorship." Invariably, they try to argue that the speech they are targeting is so offensive as to not even constitute legitimate expression. Consider, for instance, what has been going on at York University, in Toronto. Here's a snippet from a March 5 news item in The Excalibur, a York University newspaper:
"A planned debate on abortion rights at York University’s Student Centre was canceled less than three hours before it was scheduled to begin. At an emergency meeting on Feb. 28, members of the Student Centre Board of Directors ... voted unanimously to cancel the debate that was to be held later that day ... Student Centre vice-chair Kelly Holloway said the debate was cancelled because it was an equal rights issue. 'The reason is that it’s an equity concern for the Student Centre. Having a debate over whether or not women should be able to choose what to do with their own bodies is tantamount to having a debate about whether or not a man should be able to beat his wife,' Holloway said. 'The issue is violence against women, and women in this country have a right to choose what they do with their bodies. They have a right to have an abortion, and we don’t want to validate a debate that wants to threaten that right.'"
According to Holloway, in other words, the millions of pro-life Canadians who would presume to voice their objection to abortion do not have "valid" viewpoints. They deserve to be shut up because all they're doing is expressing de-facto threats against women, akin to urging spousal violence.
What's interesting is that, on another issue dear to her left-wing heart, Halloway is quite capable of sounding like a free-speech purist. Just two weeks ago, Holloway signed her name to a Feb. 21, 2008 letter complaining that the university's decision to ban anti-Zionist "Israeli Apartheid" activities on campus is "a blatant violations of democratic freedoms of speech and dissent." The letter also goes on about the "democratic context of the public university" and asserts that "universities are places where discussions and debates about difficult geo-political questions should be promoted, not stifled."
So what is the confused Ms. Holloway — a censor or a free-speech champion? Both and neither. Rather, she is a symbol of the basic human instinct to permit speech we agree with while shutting up one's opponents — and then finding some tortured logical argument to reconcile the two. The only thing unusual about Holloway is her public hypocrisy. She is a perfect example of why vesting the power to censor in politically correct mandarins — be they from Ottawa or a student government — is always a bad idea.
|March 11th, 2008||#22|
Canadian Thought Police Exposed
By James Joseph Sanchez, PhD
President, European American Issues Forum
Canada seems so much like the United States, only with lots of Sikhs, Chinese and Muslims. In many ways Canada, if you stay out of the massive Somali or Jamaican slums, seems like the United States in the 1950s. But underneath the image lies the fundamental fact that European-Canadians have no rights under the grinding Multicultural tyranny that has been set up in order to destroy the European- Canadian majority and replace it with Third World immigrants.
At the heart of Canada's problem is the complete absence of Freedom of Speech. The absence of Freedom of Speech has been rammed home by Canadian Human Rights Commission officer Mr. Dean Stacey, who observed: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. " This statement was uttered during the "Warman vs. Lemire" show trial, and follows other statements made by Canadian Human Rights Commission tribunal "judges" such as: "The truth is no defense" to lies.
Parenthetically, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and provincial "human rights commissions" are quasi-governmental tribunals, staffed largely by minority supremacists with almost unlimited powers to destroy putative Thought Criminals--people who have committed no crime other than holding opinions hated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. For example, under this regime, one Canadian (Brian Love) spent 18 months in prison for writing a letter to his Member of Parliament criticizing unlimited Third World immigration. The most serious Thought Crime is a believe in Democracy as Majority rule, instead of the new version of what Democracy is supposed to be: Minority Rule.
Simply stated, for a European-Canadian, to love Canada is a Hate Crime.
Victims of the Thought Police can lose their right to political speech for their entire lives, be banned from the Internet, be banned from writing, be imprisoned and be impoverished by massive fines (usually paid to a certain Richard Warman, who is both the usual plaintiff in these cases and an officer of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, when he is not fundraising for the Anti-Racist Action Anarcho-Zionist transnational terrorist network)
Finally, after scores of show trials by the intensely secretive Canadian Human Rights Commission and its provincial counterparts (and please be aware that everyone accused is convicted), a most remarkable set of facts have been revealed in court.
Most of the Canadian Human Rights Commission cases revolve around the Internet, and most involved "racist" postings on websites made by anonymous posters, rather than webmasters or the owners of sites. The game played by the Canadian Thought Police is simple: An anonymous "racist" posting appears in the middle of the night and at almost the same time, the Thought Police bust down peoples doors, arrest everyone and seize their computers to preserve the evidence.
Now, it has been revealed in court that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Canadian "Hate Squad" Thought Police have been making the very racist posts that they have been using as evidence. The postings are made by members of Thought Police "Hate Squads" specially trained in seminars held by the Canadian-branch of Simon Wiesenthal Center and by members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, including the eternal plaintiff Richard Warman. (It is believed that hundreds of Hate Squad operatives have been trained: Have they made millions of postings?) The training includes specific wordings and specific guidance on what racial groups to demonize.
Here is one "hate" posting made by Plaintiff Richard Warman, high official of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as reprinted and as cleaned up by the National Post ( a newspaper that had supported the tribunals until recently):
"Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is a Negro, she is also an immigrant! And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt. She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced their bullshit down our throats. Time to go back to when the women *** imports knew their place … And that place was NOT in public!"
This was posted on the dissident website freedomsite.org by the Honorable Richard Warman. (The specific wording and targeting of English- and German-Canadians surely comes directly from the teachings of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.) Warman then took this posting to his employers, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and complained that as a Jew he was deeply offended and that the freedomsite.org and ts owners should be dragged before the tribunal and face lost of speech rights of all kinds. And be required to pay a massive fine to a certain Richard Warman. And people lose their jobs and are blacklisted by communities living in the fearful shadow of the secret police, and under the watchful eyes of Minority- Supremacist activists.
The hate crimes of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its provincial branches have been hidden from the Canadian people by intense censorship (almost all Canadian media is minority owned--can any democracy survive when the Majority is excluded and demonized by the media?) and by secretive, closed meetings: One recent policy planning meeting of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (which was effectively a joint meeting with the Canadian Jewish Congress because their membership overlaps so much) was held in a Vancouver, BC, synagogue, ringed by heavily armed riot police.
What is the penalty for an official of the Canadian Human Rights Commission issuing the following statement?
"Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is a Negro, she is also an immigrant! And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt. She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced their bullshit down our throats. Time to go back to when the women *** imports knew their place … And that place was NOT in public!"
Well, so far no punishment. The "human rights" Attorney Richard Warman, who openly finances ARA goon squads that stage physical attacks on real human rights activists in Canada (with the willing support of the mass media conglomerates of Canada, which cheerfully censor reports of Warman financed terrorism) probably need fear no police response to his open hatred of English-Canadians and German- Canadians... hatred that the National Post itself pointedly shares. Sadly, at the end of the National Post article that expresses outrage at Warman's hateful, terroristic acts, the National Post affirms its support for Hate Squad persecution of dissidents.
There remains no intellectual space for dissidents in the Canadian Thought Policed state. So what happened to Warman and his well rehearsed scam of Jewish outrage at "racist" postings of which he, himself, was the author.
Simply stated, Warman overstepped himself because for the first time, the Canadian Human Rights Commission targeted a Jew, a certain Mr. Steyn, who is openly and explicitly critical of the Jewish- Multiculturalist policy of promoting mass Muslim immigration throughout the West. There is no pretense that European-Canadians have civil or human rights, but the civil and human rights of Mr. Steyn, well.... that is a bird of a different color. Steyn, naturally, cares nothing for the civil or human rights of the eroding European-Canadian Majority or the eroding European-American Majority or the eroding Majority of any European country, but he is convinced that Muslim mass immigration, coupled with Multiculturalism and Affirmatve Action, will threaten Jews, who have specialized for centuries in securing their safety, wealth and power in what were once Christian countries and what are now known as Judeo-Christian countries. Of course, Steyn is right. And the bizarre project of creating a Judeo-Islam as subservient to Jewish interests as Judeo- Christians are to Jewish interest is.... well, it's not going so well.
It is worth noting that these tactics, like the Internet, spread across national boundaries. One Canadian Hate Squad officer has testified in court that he made many posts on Stormfront in the United States. Widely denounced by the minority-controlled media in the United States, it turns out that the vilest racist sentiments posted on Stromfront are products of the fevered imaginations and secret police networks directed by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Next time you see some vicious hateful posting on the Internet, stop and realize that it may well originate with some powerful and honored Rabbi, or some Thought Policeman who slavishly follows his orders. This network of hate is similar in intent to the surreal antics of the comic book National Socialist Movement Nazis of recent years, a group entirely created by the FBI and (probably) Southern Poverty Law Center to remind everyone that European-Americans are hateful and deserve no rights, or to the largest mosque in northern Virginia apparently having a member spray paint swastikas on it so their Imams could stand with area rabbis to denounce White racism.
The hate crimes of the Canadian Hate Squads and the Canadian Human Rights Commission (and their ilk in the United States), should reinforce our awareness that the civil and human rights of European- Americans, like European-Canadians remain targeted by tyrants. Yet sometimes, truth does prevail.
|March 14th, 2008||#24|
Resignation of Terry Nelson as Chief of Roseau River First Nation and immediate return of David Ahenakew's Order of Canada medal
To: Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations
This petition addresses the comments made by former Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, David Ahenakew, and Roseau River First Nation Chief, Terry Nelson.
In December of 2002, David Ahenakew made the following comments during a speaking engagement before the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations:
"During the speech, he complained about bigotry in Canadian society and accused the media of creating racial conflict. When asked by a reporter to clarify his comments, he said the Holocaust was justified.
"How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?" he said. "The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe.
"That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the God damned world. And look what they're doing. They're killing people in Arab countries."
During his subsequent trial for promoting hatred in Canada, Ahenakew said that,
"‚€¶‚€¶.he still believes Jews were the cause of the Second World War.
The former head of the Assembly of First Nations and member of the Order of Canada is charged under the Criminal Code with wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group. "So you still believe today, in 2005, that the Jewish people started the Second World War?" Crown prosecutor Brent Klause asked Ahenakew.
"Yes," he responded."
He also claimed that the reporter who taped his remarks should have been the one charged with a hate crime for filing his report and publishing it and, finally, he claimed that the reason for his outburst in 2002 was that he had mixed diabetes medicine with wine the previous evening:
David Ahenakew's lawyer says diabetes, extra medication and wine led his client to make the anti-Semitic remarks for which he is now on trial.
Speaking outside court Wednesday afternoon, Doug Christie told reporters that he will present evidence that proves his theory as he brings forward his case over the next two days.
"He was certainly not feeling well that day and wouldn't have said these things if he was feeling well," Christie said.
"His medication had recently been doubled caused clearly by a chemical imbalance in the blood being related to diabetes. In addition to that he had two glasses of wine the night before.
"I think in those circumstances it's pretty obvious that he wasn't measuring his words the way he would normally do."
In December, 1978, David Ahenakew was awarded the Order of Canada medal, "Canada's highest civllian honor, awarded to those who adhere to the Order's motto Desiderantes meliorem patriam meaning "they desire a better country."
The decision on the case will be handed down June 10, 2005
As the Ahenakew trial was reaching its conclusion, Roseau River Chief Terry Nelson sent a letter to the Winnipeg Free Press, dated April 9, 2005, asking,
Why is David Ahenakew angry at Jews? Why is he stating that the "Jews would have owned the goddamned world‚€¶They're killing people in the Arab countries". Jews do in fact own a lot of media and it is how they manage what Canadians view that angers many people. Look at how the National Post treats native issues or Arabs, the condemnation of Jewish controlled media is in black and white evidence. Real hatred of other people is clearly evident by their own words and actions, long before Ahenakew statements became public. CanWest Global Communications a Jewish owned multi-national owns two hundred media outlets throughout Canada and the world. Does anyone ever examine the hatred that this group teaches about First Nations people in Canada?
Charles Adler, a Jewish immigrant from Hungry, the voice of Jews, a man paid by Global to be a spokesman of the Asper empire, given tremendous access to mainstream Manitoba media through CJOB, the Winnipeg Sun and now Global National television wrote and spoke hatred of indigenous people. Not once did he get condemned or reprimanded by his Jewish employers. Why does David Ahenakew scream that he is a victim of a holocaust? Listen to what is printed and said of indigenous people by Jewish people who pay to publish these opinions, and not once are these people charged by RCMP nor are they ever condemned in Jewish controlled media.
Terry Nelson is a convicted criminal who attempted to bribe the residents of his First Nation with gasoline for voting in the 2004 Canadian Federal election. In 1997, he was convicted of operating illegal gambling machines. In 1998, he visited Iraq and compared the plight of Iraqis to Canadian Aboriginals.
When he apologized for the anti-Semitic remarks, he placed the blame on the fact that he had written the letter "‚€¶.at 1 a.m. and did not spend enough time reviewing it properly.'" He also added, "‚€¶‚€¶he didn't know what was anti-Semitic about his remarks. And he continued to suggest that Jews were somehow implicated in an alleged media conspiracy against aboriginals.
"I do not intend to sit back if Jewish writers continue to write hateful articles or air hatred against my people," Nelson said.
"Is it anti-Semitic of me to challenge Jews who attack First Nations? If it is, then I am anti-Semitic and there is nothing I can do about it because I have no intention of letting anyone, Jew or otherwise, attack my people." (Winnipeg Free Press, April 19,2005).
This was not the first anti-Semitic outburst by Terry Nelson, In a 2003 letter addressed to CanWest Global Communications, he wrote:
Charles Adler is a Jew, the voice of Jews, a man paid by Global to be a spokesman of the Asper empire. He has tremendous access to mainstream Manitoba media through CJOB and Winnipeg Sun. Show me where Charles Adler wrote or said anything positive about indigenous people and yet he continues to be paid to express the hatred he feels towards my people.
Terry Nelson and David Ahenakew are pathological anti-Semites. They subscribe to the most vile, atavistic forms of anti-Semitism, taken straight out of such forged documents as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as well as the basic tenants of Nazi ideology.
We are asking for the immediate resignation of Terry Nelson as Chief of Roseau River First Nation. Canadian taxpayers should not have to provide the funding that finances an individual with such hatred, and an obvious lack of reason.
We are also asking for the immediate return of David Ahenakew's Order of Canada medal. Past winners of this accolade include Nelson Mandela, Wayne Gretzky, Terry Fox and beloved children's entertainer, Mr. Dressup.
The continuing inclusion of David Ahenakew in this order is an international embarrassment for Canada.
[jews; assorted worthless semitically correct douchebags]
|March 20th, 2008||#25|
[CJC tries to pretend it opposes censorship. Hate speech does not exist. There is only free speech or censorship.]
Targeting hate--in all its many forms
Rabbi Reuven Bulka and sylvain Abitbol, National Post
March 20, 2008
In recent weeks, the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) has been attacked for its support of anti-hate-speech laws. A recent article on these pages by writer Michael Ross ("Human rights make for strange bedfellows," March 17) is a case in point.
|March 20th, 2008||#26|
[College student's free speech opinion, followed by my letter to McGill Tribune (typo left in)]
TINTED GLASSES: A real education includes free speech
Issue date: 3/18/08 Section: Opinion
If I was so inclined, this column could abuse the government. It could articulate the most distasteful opinions around; it could even call for a collective uprising against the authorities-and no one could do anything about it. I can say pretty much whatever I want, because that is part of what being a Canadian is about. Freedom of expression is, for better or worse, a fundamental part of Western democracy and civilization. We hold our right to free speech as dear as we hold our right to due process-and any perceived challenge to said rights arouses fierce opposition and fury. For proof of this one need look no farther than McMaster University, the site of a recent free speech rally following the university's controversial decision to prohibit the display of a banner containing the words "Israel Apartheid."
The event does raise some crucial questions about free speech on university campuses. A university should ideally be an inclusive environment that fosters open discourse and fruitful academic debate based on mutual respect. The expression of certain sentiments and opinions may detract from-rather than add to-this mission. Ironically, however, when universities choose to prohibit free expression in order to stop protest, they usually end up causing it.
There's no such thing as hate speech. There's either free speech or censorship.
Hate speech laws were created by jews to ban all criticism of themselves.
Canada in fact does not have free speech, far from it. It has witch hunts carried out by "human rights" commissions pointed in the right direction by the Canadian Jewish Congress and its catspaws such as Richard Warman.
Men who have been fined or imprisoned for using their speech to criticize jews or minority groups use[d by jews] to destroy the White majority include:
More free-speech martyrs here:
Yes, all these men and women have been fined, jailed or had their credentials yanked for nothing more than criticizing jews or saying things jews don't want said. In other words, for protecting their own people: the Whites who founded and formed Canada. Go ahead and google their names.
Ms Gibson, there is no basis whatsoever for your claim that Canadians enjoy free speech.
|March 20th, 2008||#27|
Michael Ross: Canadian Jews should worry less about neo-Nazis and more about Islamic fundamentalism
Posted: March 17, 2008, 1:41 PM by Marni Soupcoff
In Israel, Jews who emigrate from other countries are regarded with a degree of disdain by the nation's native-born establishment. The attitude is rooted in envy: Jews growing up in Israel have to endure such hardships as mandatory military service, while their Diaspora counterparts enjoy a life free of Hamas missiles and suicide bombers. Unlike Israelis, Jews living in such safe countries as Canada have the luxury of concerning themselves with negligible problems like neo-Nazi material on the Internet.
This perception recently has been reinforced, in my mind at least, by the Canadian Jewish Congress' attempts to justify the censorship powers of our human rights commissions. Only by suppressing freedom of speech, CJC officials have argued in the National Post's pages and elsewhere, can Jews and other minority groups be protected from the isolated eccentrics who prowl the web.
Within the Mossad, Israel's secret intelligence service, there is a small department of intelligence analysts who monitor and report on incidents and trends relating to anti-Semitism and violence perpetrated against Jewish communities worldwide. During my 13 years with the Mossad, I was privy to the reports of this department. They invariably concluded that modern anti-Semitism has very little to do with the reawakening of National Socialism, and everything to do with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Western countries -- with occasional collusion from elements of the radical left, not the radical right.
|March 22nd, 2008||#28|
Note that my comment above was not allowed to appear in the McGill paper. Only this comment from a jew was allowed.
posted 3/18/08 @ 5:28 PM EST
It's disingenuous to suggest that curtailing inflammatory hate speech only produces more.
Holocausts and ethnic violence don't begin with sticks and stones,they begin with words.
Both the Canada Human Rights Act and the Canada Criminal Code define the legal limits of inflammatory and hateful expression.
The McMaster incident was something of a debacle to the perpetrators of a hateful agenda who were required to curtail a nominal amount of their virulent expression.
At the heart of this protest is a radical core of anti-semitic activists who have been couching their zealotry in the sheep's clothing of "criticizing Israel."
These "revolutionary cadres" and their seek nothing less than mass murder and the disenfranchisement of perhaps 7,000,000 people.
McMaster University is to be commended for their small but bold move towards upholding Canadian and academic values in our society, and recognizing these loathsome rabble rousers for what they are.
[Essentially the jew is arguing that Israelis ought to be able to force the Palestinians into concentration camps, shoot them at will, and if any Canadian dares to discuss 'Israeli apartheid,' he should be censored.]
|March 26th, 2008||#29|
[Jew Kay deliberately hides from his readers the fact that the hate laws in Canada were set up by jews specifically to wage ethnic war on normal Whites. Which they are trying to do away with by opening the borders to the third world and jailing Whites who write about the predictable consequences. There is no such thing as hate speech. It is a term coined by jews who hate free speech and intend to destroy it.]
How to turn a neo-Nazi into a free-speech martyr
Jonathan Kay, National Post Published: Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Marc Lemire is a former leader of Canada's neo-Nazi Heritage Front. He helped distribute flyers informing Canadians that "Immigration can kill you." On the internet he acts as webmaster for a variety of anti-Semitic organizations.
In short, he is a bigot -- a poster-boy for all those who claim that racism is still alive and well in modern Canada.
But when Lemire faces off against representatives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) later today, I will be rooting for him -- and so will thousands of other Canadians who are otherwise contemptuous of Lemire's way of thinking. It may seem impossible that decent, ordinary people could be convinced to take the side of an alleged neo-Nazi. Yet, somehow, Canada's "human rights" establishment has managed the task.
There is only one way to get people to support a despised outcast such as Lemire -- and that is to turn him into a martyr for a larger principle -- in this case, the principle that Canadians should be able to express themselves without subjecting their opinions to the judgment of heresy-sniffing bureaucrats. At today's hearing, Lemire will be interrogating two HRC employees who are investigating whether he violated Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits Canadians from electronically communicating "any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of [their group identity]." As Canadian Civil Liberties Association general-counsel Alan Borovoy told National Post reporter Joseph Brean, Section 13.1 could theoretically be used to censor a book detailing widespread German complicity in the Holocaust, since such a book would be "likely to expose" Germans to hatred.
Some modest limitations on free speech can be tolerated in a free society -- libel laws, for instance, or prohibitions on speech that would actually incite imminent, lawless action. But ideological litmus tests such as Section 13.1 are never acceptable. Whether directed at "traitors," blasphemers, pacifists, communists, racists or otherwise, history shows, these tests always mushroom into full-scale censorship campaigns against enemies of the government or of its orthodoxies. The cases against Maclean's and The Western Standard were entirely predictable manifestations of this fundamental rule.
You'd think that human rights types would understand the power of empathy. A short while back, I attended a Toronto awards dinner for something called the Canadian Centre for Diversity. Out in the lobby, the organizers unfurled some of their latest public service announcements. In one, a black man intones: "I am a woman when I am confronting inequality." In another, a Chinese man says "I am a Jew when I am learning about the Holocaust." An able-bodied woman says "I am a person with special needs when I am realizing how inaccessible our world is." As Lemire goes up against the HRC, a similar set of aphorisms suggest themselves: "When the law bans obscenity, I am a pornographer. When a fatwa bans blasphemy, I am an infidel. And when a human rights commission prosecutes internet hatemongers for hate speech, I am a neo-Nazi scumbag." If Lemire and his ilk have a secret scheme to render neo-Nazis into sympathetic figures, they could conceive no better weapon than Section 13.1.
"There art two cardinal sins from which all others spring: Impatience and Laziness," Kafka pointed out. So it is with the campaign to eradicate hatred. The activists, NGO types, censorious government mandarins and law school profs who champion Section 13.1 [in fact is jews driving this, but of course the jew writing this article and the jew publishing it want to hide the fact from you] declared their fealty to hyper-tolerance as a state creed many years ago, and are impatient for the rest of us to recite the same pledge of allegiance. It sickens the censors that anyone, anywhere, no matter how marginalized, entertains private thoughts at variance with their enlightened attitudes. So they create Star Chambers that make examples out of fringe kooks. They are too lazy to go out and argue these people down in the marketplace of ideas -- so they use the powers of the state to shut them up.
Not everyone is so lazy. Last week, a group of neo-Nazis called "the Aryan Guard" staged a march in Calgary. On the blogs, the hysterical carnival-barkers in the pro-censorship camp cited the march as evidence that Section 13.1 serves a desperately needed purpose. But turnout at the event tells us just the opposite: Just two dozen "Aryans" showed up. In fact, the march was dwarfed by a counterdemonstration put on by about 200 anti-racism activists. "Our message is that there's strength in numbers," said Anti-Racist Action organizer Jason Devine. "[The message is] that the community is united, that racism will not be tolerated, that it shouldn't be tolerated and that we shouldn't just turn from it."
That's exactly the right attitude. If you want to fight racism, don't hide behind the skirts of government censors. As the Lemire case shows, that is not only lazy, but counterproductive. Instead, do something about it. Despite all Marc Lemire's nauseating views, the least that can be said for him is that he is willing to fight for his ideas. It would be nice if his enemies had the same courage.
|March 26th, 2008||#30|
Canadian Human Rights Commission Employees Admit to Misconduct
CHRC's attempt to hold incriminating hearing in secret fails
By John Jalsevac
OTTAWA, March 25, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An important victory was won by critics of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) after it was decided on March 20 that a controversial hearing (held yesterday) into suspect activities on the part of CHRC employees would be open to the press and the public. The hearing, part of an ongoing human rights case against Marc Lemire, investigated allegations that a number of CHRC employees have routinely used the dubious tactic of anonymously posting on racist and "far-right" websites.
The CHRC had originally obtained permission to hold the hearing in camera (in private), citing concerns for the safety of the employees in question, and for national security.
A number of online posts about CHRC employees that the Commission said were "threatening in tone," were presented as the justification for the invocation of section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act, which allows a Minister of the Crown to decide that information may be withheld from the public. Section 37 is typically invoked for matters of national security.
However, leading critics of the Commission, including popular columnist Mark Steyn, and Canadian publisher Ezra Levant, mounted a campaign to have the hearing opened to the press and the public, arguing that the CHRC was doing nothing more than obstructing justice and seeking to protect itself and its employees by invoking faux security concerns. They also pointed out that the CHRC has a history of holding "secret" hearings that completely contradicts the Western tradition of judicial openness.
"Free societies do not hold secret trials except for the most serious reasons of national security: mid-level servants of the Crown who get their jollies by posing as racists on unread websites do not fall into that category," wrote Steyn on his website several weeks ago.
Macleans magazine, which has itself been the target of a human rights complaint by Muslim activists, for having printed an excerpt from Mark Steyn's latest book, also filed a formal legal challenge to the holding of the hearing in camera. Macleans' factum outlined numerous Supreme Court cases that have upheld the importance of the "openness principle" - the idea that in a modern democracy the judicial process should be accessible to the public, except for the most serious of reasons.
"The public can only tell how justice is being protected," wrote Macleans to the presiding tribunal official, Athanasio Hadjis, "if it can see and read of your reactions, the nature of the court, the attentiveness of the participants. After all, the keyhole to justice requires eyes."
In the end Hadjis overturned his original decision, agreeing with Steyn and Levant that concerns about security were overinflated.
Hajdis wrote in the March 20 decision, "I am not persuaded that the witnesses are exposed to a real and substantial risk that undue hardship will be caused to the persons involved...nor that there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of a person will be endangered."
Yesterday's hearing was attended by a contingent of reporters, including Macleans journalist Kady O'Malley, who blogged about the event throughout the day in real time. Mark Steyn was also present.
CHRC employee Dean Steacy testified yesterday that, indeed, he and a number of colleagues shared an online alias known as "Jadewarr", under which pseudonym they routinely posted on so-called "far-right" and white supremacist websites. This admission seriously bolstered the case of Marc Lemire and those seeking reform of the CHRC, who have pointed out that the tactic of posing as racists on racist websites effectively means that CHRC employees have contributed to the very "crimes" that they have later prosecuted.
CHRC critics have compiled a laundry list of grievances against the Commission, including numerous allegations of unprofessional conduct, and incompetent and biased judicial processes that would never hold up in Canada's courts of law. Only last month a Canadian federal court overturned a CHRC decision and blasted the Commission for incompetence. Justice Michael Kelen said the tribunal had "unreasonably ignored the factual reality" in deciding that there had been wage discrimination based on gender at Canada Post.
Judge Kelen also condemned the extreme length of the Commission's proceedings, saying, "This case offends the public conscience of what is reasonable and responsible".
Marc Lemire, a self-admitted white supremacist who has nevertheless garnered widespread support for his quest to protect his right to freedom of speech against the CHRC, was brought before the Commission by former CHRC employee Richard Warman. Lemire was accused of running a white supremacist website on which participants posted racist comments. Steacey's admission yesterday, however, that some of the members of the website who posted offensive comments were in fact incognito government employees added significant weight to Lemire's argument that he cannot be held accountable for what others post on his site.
Lemire and his supporters were further incensed that the complainant in the increasingly convoluted case, Richard Warman, was himself not present at yesterday's hearing, making it the twentieth straight hearing in a row that he has not attended.
Warman, a former CHRC employee, has a lengthy history of filing human rights complaints under subsection 13(1) of the human rights act. Over the years Warman has been awarded tens of thousands of dollars for having been "offended" by those he has hauled before the Commission. Subsection 13(1) makes it a "discriminatory practice" for individuals or groups to communicate messages that are "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt". Critics of this section of the Act have long said that the clause creates the precise equivalent of a "thought crime". Furthermore, currently the CHRC has a 100 percent conviction rate for those who have been accused under section 13(1).
Mark Steyn wrote today on his website about yesterday's hearing, saying that the tribunal official Athanasio Hadjis seemed bent on continuing that 100 percent conviction rate in the current case. "Athanios Hajdis was brisk but impatient," he wrote. "He knows how he's going to rule, and he appears eager to add Marc Lemire to the mound of Section 13 losers. 'We're done,' he said at several points during the day. I don't get the impression he's planning on letting Mr Lemire buck the 100 per cent Section 13 conviction rate."
Steyn concluded his analysis of the hearing, saying, "It's important to keep the pressure on the CHRC - to make them understand that they can no longer take their routine expectations of 'secret trials' for granted, and that any such order will be met with legal motions emphasizing that, notwithstanding their assumptions, they can still be compelled to submit to the norms of the Canadian justice system. This battle to restore ancient liberties (like the presumption of innocence) will be won in the open air not in the fetid 'hearing rooms' of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal."
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Prominent Canadian Publisher Denounces Human Rights Commissions at HRC Hearing
Liberal MP Launches Motion to Stop Human Rights Commission Squelching of Free Speech
Canada Catholic League Calls for Halt to Use of Human Rights' Commissions in Free Speech Cases
Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Rules Against Christian Pastor Boissoin
Christian Political Party Before Human Rights Commission for Speaking Against Homosexuality
Canada's Human Rights Commission Used to Target Conservative Website With "Hate Speech"
Christian Pastor Hauled Before Human Rights Tribunal For Letter on Homosexuality
Pastor Facing Gay "Hate Speech" Tribunal Allowed to Publish Prof.'s Complaint
Growing Support for Alberta Pastor Facing Human Rights Hearing Over Letters Against Homosexuality
Gay Human Rights Complaint Against Calgary Bishop Dropped - Was All About Getting Media Attention
|March 28th, 2008||#31|
Jonathan Kay on Marc Lemire, Dean Stacy, and Tuesday's landmark disaster for the Canadian Human Rights Commission
Posted: March 27, 2008, 2:09 PM by Jonathan Kay
Earlier this week, I argued that Canada's human-rights censors have managed a seemingly impossible task: They've found a way to rehabilitate the public image of alleged neo-Nazis, transforming them from the odious dirtbags we know and hate into principled free-speech martyrs. Consider this role reversal: At this week's much-anticipated human-rights hearing in Ottawa, a team of journalists and bloggers were campaigning openly in support of hatemonger Marc Lemire. The villains were Canadian Human Rights Commission Dean Steacy and the other Ottawa apparchicks who've made a career out of parsing Lemire's phobic web postings.
Tuesday's hearing probably won't change the outcome of the case against Lemire: Like a five-star hotel that guarantees its guests full satisfaction, the CHRC provides its handpicked complainants with a 100% success rate on hate-speech cases. Better than that: The Commission actually lets complainants waltz into their Ottawa facilities to fiddle with the evidence-gathering. Ezra Levant, who is presently locking horns with various human-rights agencies over his decision to print the Danish Mohammed cartoons when he published the Western Standard, puts this lack of professionalism in its proper context: "If this were a real investigation of a real crime with real police, and the alleged 'victim' were to walk right into the crime lab, hop on the officers' computers, and poke around the evidence, a judge wouldn't have to throw the case out — prosecutors would be too embarrassed to even bring the case to trial. Not so at the commission."
But even if the CHRC nails Lemire, Tuesday's eight-hour hearing will still be remembered as a landmark disaster for the commission. Despite efforts by Steacy and others to stonewall on specific questions of CHRC procedure, observers were nonetheless able to extract a fairly detailed picture of work practices at the Commission. The impression that emerges is an overstaffed shop in which bored, unionized desk jockeys sit around "investigating" obscure web sites in search of some scrap of actionable hatred. And when they don't find anything actionable, they try to stir things up by logging in and participating under their own house alias — a practice Lemire describes as a form of entrapment.
The image of these busybodies acting out their amateur-hour version of The Wire would be funny — if they weren't spending millions of dollars, and turning the lives of the accused upside down. I don't consider myself a libertarian, and I don't have any problem with the government running electronic surveillance on, say, drug gangs or terror suspects — or even hatemongers, if there's any proof that they're engaged in actual violence. But of course, that involves the messy inconveniences of showing probable cause, and getting a judge to issue a warrant. Human-rights types aren't into all that. That would require real legal training, which they don't have. In fact, for an organization that is supposed to promote "human rights," the HRC's agents seem curiously oblivious to basic aspects of Canadian constitutional law. In one famous on-the-record exchange during the Lemire case, Steacy was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?" — to which he replied "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value … It's not my job to give value to an American concept."
I guess Section 2 has been excised from his copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — no doubt, because it might serve to arouse "hatred" against human-rights commissioners.
Privacy is another value that the CHRC seems to find confusing. The most scandalous disclosure to emerge on Tuesday involved the manner in which investigators logged on to Lemire's web site. In what appears to be a ham-fisted attempt to avoid broadcasting the Commission's IP address to Lemire, they tapped into the unsecured wireless Internet hub of a 26-year-old woman who lived down the street from the Commission's 344 Slater Street headquarters. On Tuesday, a Bell Canada employee read out the woman's name, address, and phone number. A National Post reporter contacted her and found that she'd never heard of Lemire, Steacy, or his investigations. Unless she is a brilliant actress who is secretly working undercover for the Commission (in which case, I suppose this counts as her Valerie Plame moment), it appears that the Commission cynically invaded the privacy of an innocent citizen in order to pursue an obscure web-trawling vendetta; and then caused her name to be read out to the Canadian public, thereby identifying her as a conduit to neo-Nazi web sites.
Nice work. No doubt, the privacy commissioner will be having a chat with Dean et al in coming days.
This is the beginning of the end for Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act, the legislation that (nominally) mandates this kind of fishing expedition. For years, Canadians have averted their eyes to the sort of shenanigans going on at our nation's human-rights commissions under the theory that any means used toward such a noble end as "human rights" must somehow be justified. What we saw this week turns that conceit into a pathetic joke.
|July 13th, 2008||#32|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Canada's "human rights"
Just remember "truth is no defense" in NWO Canada.
MKUltra in Canada - (Drugs, Torture, Mind Control) Part 1
MKUltra in Canada - (Drugs, Torture, Mind Control) Part 2
MKUltra in Canada - (Drugs, Torture, Mind Control) Part 3
MKUltra in Canada - (Drugs, Torture, Mind Control) Part 4
Last edited by George De Vaus; July 13th, 2008 at 02:55 PM. Reason: found new info, corrected fact
|July 21st, 2008||#33|
Child Services Seizes Children from Parents in Bizarre Manitoba Case
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski and John Jalsevac
WINNIPEG, July 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The bizarre story of a Winnipeg mom who had her children seized last March by Manitoba's Child and Family Services Ministry, after her daughter went to school with a swastika drawn on her arm, has become a focal point for the debate over how much say government should have in how parents raise their children.
Conservative commentators who believe that Canada's courts and governmental authorities are becoming dangerously overzealous in their interference in the affairs of private citizens are condemning the decision to remove the children from their home, despite their parents' public and unapologetic adherence to white supremacist philosophies.
Others have defended the decision, saying that the children were emotionally endangered by the nature of their parents' ideological affiliations.
Manitoba Child and Family Services snatched the children because of "concerns that the parents' conduct might endanger the emotional well-being of the children...and that the children may be at risk of harm due to the parents' behaviour and associations," according to an affidavit from a child welfare worker.
The affidavit also says "there were concerns regarding drug and alcohol use," although recent coverage of the case has put scant emphasis on these concerns.
The mother of the children told CTV last week that she is not a neo-nazi, despite her use of the swastika, and that she is simply proud of her European heritage.
"It's OK to be proud to be a native, it's OK to preach black power," she said, adding, "But when you're white and you're proud, it's wrong."
Manitoba Child and Family services is attempting to gain permanent guardianship over the children.
On Friday, conservative commentator Ezra Levant sparred against Toronto area lawyer Jonathan Rosenthal in a heated CTV Newsnet debate on the issue.
Levant, who is becoming an increasingly well known figure in Canada, largely for his central role in seeking the eradication or radical restructuring of Canada's human rights commissions, argued that "having odious political views is neither a crime in itself, nor a legal reason to break up families."
Parents' rights to have and raise children as they wish, said Levant, trump the government's beliefs about what children should or should not be taught. "In Canada, everyone has the right to have children," he said, observing, "If we have a political test for the state to break up parents, no-one is safe."
Referring to the swastika drawn on the girl's arm, Levant agreed that it is a powerful symbol of an evil ideology. However, removing children from their home because their parents are alleged neo-nazis, he said, is equivalent to punishing the parents and children for a thought crime.
"[Child services is] basically saying that there should be a political test now for whether or not you get to keep your children," he argued." You don't have to do anything to hurt them. You don't have to be a bad parent. But if you have the wrong political ideas, you can have your kids taken away as a punishment to you and them."
Rosenthal responded to Levant by arguing that, given that the swastika is a hate symbol that is associated with the massacre of millions of individuals, the children of parents' who allow them to go to school with a swastika on their arms are "in serious need of serious protection."
"A seven-year-old should not be wearing a universal sign of hatred anywhere," said Rosenthal. "And if the parents don't understand that, that's a very dangerous thing. They can have that view, but to put a swastika on a seven-year-old, and to let her go to school, if you don't think that's disgusting sir [Levant], you're very troubled."
Manitoba Child and Family Services guidelines allow child welfare workers to investigate any situation where there is concern for the safety or well-being of a child, including cases involving "religious or political practices...if those practices could be harmful to the child," said Nadine Delisle, communications co-ordinator for Family Services and Housing.
The heavy-handed tactics of various child welfare organizations, often directed at children from religious families, has been documented by LifeSiteNews over the years.
In 2002 Valerie Wise, lawyer for a Mennonite family in Ontario who had their children seized by Family and Children's Services of St. Thomas-Elgin, said "if snatching children from their home was even remotely considered 'ordinary conduct' for a children's aid agency, then Canadians all have great need for concern." She added: "We have to guard against abuse of power by all state actors."
In 2000 LifeSiteNews reported on the aggressive actions of Ontario's Children's Aid Society (CAS) when they took nine children away from a Christian family in Ottawa because of the mother's refusal to allow CAS workers entry into her home.
Internationally, cases where children are being removed from their homes due to their parents' beliefs are also increasing in number, particularly in Germany, where several families have been broken up by child services, due to the parents' insistence on homeschooling their children.
Read related LifeSiteNews.com articles:
AYLMER TRIAL REVEALS CHILDREN UNHARMED, AGENCY OVERZEALOUS
Lawyer warns "We have to guard against abuse of power by all state actors"
AYLMER SOCIAL WORKERS VIOLATED CHARTER RIGHTS, LAWYER ARGUES
LIFTED PUBLICATION BAN CONFIRMS AYLMER SOCIAL WORKERS WERE OUT OF LINE
Nine Children Taken From Ottawa-Area Family
Parents seek redress from aggressive Children's Aid agents
|June 13th, 2009||#35|
Join Date: Nov 2004
A new report by the CHRC delivered to parliament recommended improving on the Canada Human Rights Act to create a statutory definition of hate as it pertains to the Internet.
|June 13th, 2009||#37|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Don't know. He looks like a metrosexual. The human rights commissions are full of sexual deviants and creeps.
Last edited by F.W. Braun; June 16th, 2009 at 06:34 PM.
|June 13th, 2009||#38|
White - European - Aryan
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Excellent find F.W. Braun, thanks.
It's news to me that the CHRC wants to take out the defence of truth out of the criminal code. Talk about murdering freedom. Also it's news to me that CHRC spent additional ~$100,000 on a new 'report' because they didn't like Mr. Moon's report.
Below is a list of Canadians (or immigrants living in Canada) that I know of (perhaps there are more) that have been either: persecuted, prosecuted, jailed, fined thousands of dollars, burdened with thousands of dollars in court and lawyer costs, demonized in the media, fired from their jobs, etc., etc., not for any violence they themselves committed, not even for any violence (which never happened anyway) they might have caused but for merely expressing their politically unpopular ideas and opinions. Most of those ideas and opinions are in fact true or hint at the truth so 'our' government had to shut them up.
John Ross Taylor
Alex Di Civita
William James Harcus
Bobby James Wilkinson
James Scott Richardson
Fr. Alphonse de Valk
Mayor Brad Woodside
Mayor Diane Haskett
John David Beck
Non Whites like imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus al-Hayiti have more free speech.
|June 13th, 2009||#39|
White - European - Aryan
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Does this London Free Press article promote hatred and contempt toward the Congolese?
|June 16th, 2009||#40|
The Truth is not enough—in Canada
by Grant Havers on June 16, 2009
Psychoanalytic historians of the future will have to make sense of the schizophrenic behavior of democracies that want to export their ideals to distant lands while they tighten and squeeze civil liberties at home. The latest dreary news to come out of Canada’s notorious human rights commissions is that the latter want to further increase their powers over freedom of speech. While Canadian soldiers are fighting and dying in Afghanistan to build a decent democratic regime (or at least one infinitely more humane than what the Taliban has to offer), the apparatchiks back home are moving to increase statist intrusions into what liberals used to call the private realm of life.
At present, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) already gives its tribunals the power to punish anyone who “likely” exposes a person to “hatred or contempt,” as the judges define these practices. In short, all they need prove is that your comments, blogs, or e-mails might cause a person to feel harshly towards another person. To date, only individuals with politically incorrect views have been brought before these kangaroo courts. Needless to say, the CHRC would shut down Takimag in an instant if it had a chance!
Despite considerable public criticism of this nonsense, the guardians of the CHRC want to strip Canada’s Criminal Code of any free speech defenses, and thereby add to its surveillance powers. Under the present Code, those who are accused of a “hate crime” can defend themselves on the grounds that they were either telling the truth or sincerely believed that they were doing so. If the CHRC has its way, the truth will no longer be enough to protect a citizen from its clutches, as long as that truth is deemed “hateful.” Some of Canada’s top schools are already garnering the dubious distinction of being havens for the suppression of academic freedom, and this proposed measure will only add fuel to the fire. (Anybody who writes or teaches on Islam from a critical perspective in Canadian universities should take special note of this ominous development.)
It would be comforting to believe that evil triumphs when good (that is, conservative) men and women do nothing. To date, however, conservative governments in Canada have not only tolerated but even expanded the powers of these commissions, in the vain hope of winning votes from leftists. If politicos on the Right refuse to strip these commissions of their powers, who will do so? To be sure, the Canadian Left—which generally supports the CHRC—would predictably accuse, in good Stalinist fashion, the Right of protecting the freedoms of alleged xenophobes and fascists if these tribunals were demolished. It may come as a surprise to the so-called conservatives who want to protect the CHRC, but the voters who support these star chambers are unlikely to vote Tory anyway.
In short, what has the Right got to lose? Restore liberty to Canada, and tear down this tyranny now!
[lots of links in the above]