Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 05:58 PM - Justice
Jackboots at University of Calgary
November 26, 2008
When the federal Human Rights Commission tried to censor Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine, using the Section 13 "hate speech" provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act, media across Canada howled with outrage- and the CHRC backed down. Then members at the Conservative Party convention gave double majority to a proposal to end the use of Section 13.
Many saw those events as victories for free speech in Canada--but don't start celebrating just yet! This precious principle is threatened in the very place where it ought to be most revered: our university campuses. As the late Professor Allan Bloom wrote in his epochal 1987 study The Closing of the American Mind, "political correctness" has become the dominant philosophy of post-secondary education, trumping free debate and open enquiry.
However, some courageous students at the University of Calgary are putting themselves and their academic careers on the line to defend free speech for all Canadians. Campus Pro Life (CPL) has been using graphic images from the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) to provoke fellow students to reflect on the humanity of children killed by abortion.
There is a history to this movement:
* In the 18th century, people of African ancestry were not legally "persons"; that was wrong, so we changed it.
* Until 1929 in Canada, women were not legally "persons"; that was wrong, so we changed it.
* Today, pre-born children are not legally "persons'; that's wrong, and CPL is one of many groups working to correct that injustice. GAP is their "textbook".
But the University has called in its lawyers to silence CPL. They warn CPL that their signs are to be allowed on campus only if they are turned inward, so they cannot be seen. And the lawyers claim Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't apply on a university campus! Really?!?
The University of Calgary's 2008-09 calendar states:
"The University of Calgary community has undertaken to be guided by the following statements of purpose and values: To promote free inquiry and debate- [and] [t]o respect, appreciate, and encourage diversity."
But on a modern Canadian university campus, apparently, "diversity" is limited to ideas the administration's censors deem acceptable.
Jim Hnatiuk, Leader of the Christian Heritage Party, notes that CPL members seek only their legal right to peacefully express their opinions free from censorship that has no basis in law, and no basis in the University's own rules, regulations, policies or by-laws.
The university's lawyers say the administration is concerned that the graphic signs might "trigger violence"; however, in the five years the signs have been displayed on campus, the only violence was from those who tried to prevent the signs from being seen. The administration's new policy means violent thugs can now silence others' opinions merely by threatening violence--and the University will support them! Jackbooted thugs triumph over reason--on a university campus! And the U of C is not the only university where this stifling of free speech is taking place. It's happening all across Canada.
This is not a "university only" or "Alberta only" issue. This is part of a much bigger trend in Canada toward muzzling the free speech of Canadians whose viewpoints are deemed politically incorrect. What is happening on the U of C Campus affects us all.
These brave CPL students at the U of C could face suspension--even expulsion--for taking a stand on behalf of the rights of all Canadians. They could be prevented from completing their degrees. Their display and their courageous stand begin today. They urgently need our support and encouragement - today!
Please take a few moments to join them in their stand by phoning or emailing the Office of the President of the U of C.
To make a donation (there will be legal expenses, now that the University has called in its taxpayer-funded lawyers), send your cheque to:
Campus Pro-Life
PO Box 84065
Calgary, AB, T3A 5C4
To send a message of encouragement, write: prolife@ucalgary.ca
To express your opinion, phone or write:
Dr. Harvey Weingarten, President,
Executive Suite
Administration Building, Room 100
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, AB; T2N 1N4
Phone: (403) 220-5460
Fax: (403) 289-6800
E-mail: president@ucalgary.ca
and/or
Lanny Fritz, Director of Campus Security,
University of Calgary
MSC 260
2500 University Dr NW
Calgary, AB; 2TN 1N4
Email: lfritz@ucalgary.ca
source
| permalink
Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 09:09 PM - Justice
IMPORTANT NOTICE!
Ron Gray on Mike Duffy Live.... Tonight
Tonight, leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, Ron Gray, will be appearing on Mike Duffy Live, CTV Newsnet. (5 p.m. PDT, 8 p.m. EDT, 9 p.m. ADT)
Ron will discuss the legal injunction which the Christian Heritage Party is bringing to halt the Leaders' Debates.
This injunction is because of a violation of both the Canada Elections Act and the Broadcasting Act.
Make sure you tune in for this historic interview.
It can be watched online at http://watch.ctv.ca/news/mike-duffy-liv ... y-sept-23/
| permalink
Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 05:26 PM - Justice
The CHP has filed an injunction in federal court to stop the Leaders' Debate because it violates the Canada Elections Act and the Broadcasting Act.
_____________________________________________________________________
Ron Gray - Leader of the Christian Heritage Party
CHP NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release
Sept. 23, 2008
CHP sues to open leaders' TV debates to all
CALGARY, Sept. 22, 2008 (CHPNews) - The sixth-largest of Canada's federal political parties is going to court to ask that all registered parties be included in the television debates next month.
There are 18 registered federal parties and one eligible for registration.
The Christian Heritage Party applied to be included in the Leaders' Debates Sept 11, after the Green Party had been added to the roster. The consortium of broadcasters organizing the debates turned down the CHP's request Sept. 16, giving no reason.
In Ontario on a campaign tour, CHP leader Ron Gray said today that his party has been asking for ten years for changes to the Elections Act to give first consideration to the right of voters to be provided with adequate information about all options available to them; the Act as written by Parliament focuses instead on the interests of the major parties.
"A democracy requires an informed electorate," Gray says. "That means they must know about the philosophies and policies of all the parties. Limiting their information to only the biggest four or five impairs the democratic process."
The CHP noted that the Supreme Court of Canada's 2003 Figueroa decision, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, stresses the important role smaller parties play an in the democratic process, even if they cannot offer what she called "a government option", by raising issues the major parties may not want to discuss.
"That certainly applies to the CHP," Gray noted. "Our platform includes many issues the big parties would rather avoid, as well as fresh and innovative proposals on problems they're still debating in old terms."
The Chief Justice, in the Figueroa decision, also stressed the right of candidates to make their policies known, and the citizens' need to have adequate access to information-points the CHP has been stressing for ten years as a member of the Chief Electoral Officer's Advisory Committee of Political Parties.
"It's also an issue that when polls are taken, the results are unreliable if pollsters only ask about the three or four biggest parties. Later, most voters will only know about the four biggest national parties and one regional party. We had a survey done in 1996 which showed that three-quarters of the public have never been told about other parties with different policies.
"One way that hurts democracy is that, the people who might support those policies stay home ands don't vote, because they don't know there's any party that represents them."
The CHP's brief in federal court states that if the five radio and television networks give free time to only the largest parties, that free time becomes a campaign donation. Under the revisions made to the Elections Act in Bill C-24 three years ago, donations to political parties by corporations are illegal.
The CHP leader said the party's legal counsel has advised him that a preferential assignment of free air time to the bigger parties violates provisions in both the Elections Act and the Broadcasting Act.
"Two hours of free time, coast-to-coast, is a pretty big campaign contribution," Gray said. "For comparison purposes, consider this: 30 seconds on CTV's prime-time program The Amazing Race costs $63,000.
"And the broadcasters are already aware of the problem," he added. "When we requested a copy of a recorded one-minute free-time television message at the CBC, the producer told us they would have to remove the closed captioning, because that might be construed as a campaign donation.
"If the networks worry that one minute of closed captioning is a campaign donation, what do they think two hours of prime time on three networks is?
"If they include all parties, it's news coverage," explained Gray. "But if they favour only some parties and not others, it's a gift-in-kind worth millions of dollars."
| permalink
Thursday, June 12, 2008, 01:38 PM - Justice
June 12, 2008
It's here... Order your copy of "NO SACRED GROUND" today
Human rights commissions are raping Canada of its Christian tradition of liberty. These "rapists" are brutalizing your culture and threatening the security of your children.
Many of you have seen some of the coverage of the "sock puppets" and British Columbia's "kangaroo court" recently with the BC Human Rights Tribunal hearing against Maclean's magazine.
I have just completed a book on the hideous decision by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal against Christian Horizons. This manuscript is on its way to the printer today, June 12 as most of you are reading this. You can place your order for a copy of "No Sacred Ground: 'Human Rights' Thought Police Clamping Down on Christians" today and take advantage of the pre-publication price.
"No Sacred Ground" exposes nine dangerous elements of liberal thinking in Canada and the Western world. These nine concepts were used by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to ban the unique Christian character of Christian Horizons, a social service ministry to disabled people. This anti-Christian agenda is being repeated elsewhere in Canada, in the United States and in Britain. "No Sacred Ground" gives you the information you need to be a bold and patriotic Christian leader. Christians need to understand these nine ideas, so they can effectively fight back and start winning battles in Canada’s public square.
You can read an excerpt from the book in a previous newsletter that is posted on my website here.
These are the chapter titles of the book:
1. Violation of contractual agreements
2. The socialist Tribunal imposes a right to employment
3. So what if Christian Horizons is inconsistent
4. Does the government funding of Christian Horizons matter?
5. Does Christianity matter to Christian Horizons?
6. Forced conversions: If Christianity is unimportant, then so is the right to dissent
7. The dangerous re-definition of "public"
8. What about Connie Heintz’s dignity and mental anguish?
9. Breaking the backs of the churches?
Dr. Michael Wagner, the author of "Standing On Guard For Thee: The Past, Present, and Future of Canada's Christian Right," says this about "No Sacred Ground":
"The historic Western principle of freedom through limited government is under siege. Ironically, the proponents of Big Government are extending the power of the state under the clever disguise of 'human rights.' Persons and organizations that operate on the basis of worldviews conflicting with the official state ideology of sexual diversity will not be tolerated. Public disapproval of homosexuality is virtually forbidden.
"As Tim Bloedow clearly demonstrates in this book, Christian organizations that operate in the public sphere will be forced to deny the implications of their faith or suffer state-imposed penalties. If this socialist-inspired agenda masquerading as 'human rights' continues to proceed, Christians in Canada may soon be faced with the unpleasant choice that faced their brothers and sisters in the early years of the church: to obey God or Caesar."
I have just come from a private screening of the astounding Ben Stein movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." This movie is a sledgehammer on the heads of the freedom-haters in academia; those so fanatically devoted to the religion of Darwinism that they want to ban freedom of inquiry.
"No Sacred Ground: 'Human Rights' Thought Police Clamping Down on Christians" also exposes the ruthless agenda of hate and oppression being advanced by our cultural elites, in this case, through the political inquisition network of human rights commissions.
Many liberals are slimy cowards who want to silence you because they hate the idea of debate. The nine points I discuss in my book give you important ammunition to silence them; arguments that give you the moral and intellectual high ground against secular humanist intimidation.
Order your copies of "No Sacred Ground" today, and we will speed them to you in July as soon as we receive them in our hands.
- 30 -
For more information, please contact us through our website.
Order
your copies
| permalink
Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 02:33 PM - Justice
RCMP launches investigation into CHRC tactics
By Ezra Levant on May 20, 2008 12:32 AM
http://ezralevant.com/2008/05/rcmp-laun ... on-in.html
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have begun an investigation into alleged criminal conduct by members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
The conduct in question was revealed at an extraordinary hearing on March 25th, a hearing the CHRC desperately tried to keep closed to the press.
An officer of Bell Canada, appearing under a subpoena, testified that the CHRC had hacked into a private citizen's Internet account, to cover their electronic tracks as they surfed anti-Semitic websites under the alias "Jadewarr". You can read the transcript of the hearing here -- a transcript the CHRC did not release to the public.
The victim of the CHRC's illegal hacking, Nelly Hechme, told reporters that she was "completely shocked" by the CHRC's conduct. Canada's Privacy Commissioner, who has jurisdiction over the CHRC, is now investigating the matter.
But not even the CHRC's most passionate critics could have imagined that the Mounties would be investigating the CHRC.
According to this letter written two weeks ago by the Ottawa Police Service, a criminal complaint filed against the CHRC by Marc Lemire has now been referred to the RCMP's Integrated Technological Crime Unit. Here is the key excerpt from that letter:
After a full consideration of all aspects of the matter, it is our opinion that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have discussed this matter with the RCMP and the matter has been assigned to Cpl Stephane Turgeon.
I expect that the RCMP will be in touch with you...
So what happens now?
Can the Conservative government really keep using its old talking points, including these two, to avoid dealing with the issue?
· The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are independent agencies that administer the Canadian Human Rights Act, according to procedures specified by the law, without interference from the government.
· The Department of Justice continues to monitor the Commission and Tribunal to ensure that our human rights system remains effective.
Just how bad does it have to get before the government stops saying that the CHRC follows "procedures specified by the law"? We've got the Privacy Commissioner and the RCMP investigating now. What does it take to get the government's attention -- a NATO airstrike?
And how about the claim that the government is "monitoring" the CHRC to ensure that it "remains effective". Effective at what? Hacking Internet accounts? Shredding their records and deleting their hard drives? Staying out of jail? What exactly about the CHRC's conduct could be called "effective"?
Question: when the RCMP investigates CHRC staff, will the CHRC pay for their criminal lawyers? If so, is that an indication that those CHRC staff hacked the website in the course of their duties?
Until two weeks ago, the Conservative government had plausible deniability about the CHRC's corruption. But not any longer. The Justice Department's 50-page defence of the CHRC's prosecutions under section 13 moved the government from "neutral" into the "pro-CHRC" camp. That was bad policy. And now an RCMP investigation means the government has to do much more than just defend a bad law -- it means it has to defend a scandal. That's bad politics.
The Conservatives have had an excuse for not cleaning up the CHRC's stables: for six months, they've been preparing for an imminent election. Now that Stephane Dion has all but acknowledged that won't happen at least until the fall, it's time for the Conservatives to act, and to act swiftly.
I've got a three-word action plan when it comes to the CHRC: Fire. Them. All.
| permalink
Saturday, April 26, 2008, 11:33 AM - Justice
Please send more complaints
Otherwise how will our taxpayer-funded hate police manage to keep their cozy sinecure?
MARK STEYN
Maclean's
MARK STEYN | April 23, 2008 |
Last week's letters page included a missive from Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., chief commissioner of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission, defending her employees from the accusation of "improper investigative techniques" by yours truly. Steyn, she writes, "provides no substantiation for these claims," and then concludes:
"Why is this all important? Because words are important. Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be given free rein. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred."
Hmm. "History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes." Commissar Lynch provides, as she would say, "no substantiation for these claims." But then she's a "hate speech" prosecutor and, as we know, Canada's "human rights" procedures aren't subject to tiresome requirements like evidence. So she's made an argument from authority: the great Queen's Counsel has risen from her throne in the Star Chamber and pronounced, and let that suffice. Those of us who occupy less exalted positions in the realm might wish to ponder the evidence for her assertions.
It's true that "hurtful actions that undermine freedom" and lead to "unspeakable crimes" usually have some fig leaf of intellectual justification. For example, the ideology first articulated by Karl Marx has led to the deaths of millions of people around the planet on an unprecedented scale. Yet oddly enough, no matter how many folks are murdered in the name of Marxism-Leninism, you're still free to propound its principles at every college in Canada.
Ah, but that's the Good Totalitarianism. What about the Bad Totalitarianism? You know, the one everybody disapproves of: Nazism. Isn't it obvious that in the case of Adolf Hitler, "hateful words" led to "unspeakable crimes"? This argument is offered routinely: if only there'd been "reasonable limits on the expression of hatred" 70 years ago, the Holocaust might have been prevented.
There's just one teensy-weensy problem with it: pre-Nazi Germany had such "reasonable limits." Indeed, the Weimar Republic was a veritable proto-Trudeaupia. As Alan Borovoy, Canada's leading civil libertarian, put it:
"Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."
Inevitably, the Nazi party exploited the restrictions on "free speech" in order to boost its appeal. In 1925, the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Adolf Hitler from making any public speeches. The Nazis responded by distributing a drawing of their leader with his mouth gagged and the caption, "Of 2,000 million people in the world, one alone is forbidden to speak in Germany."
The idea that "hate speech" led to the Holocaust is seductive because it's easy: if only we ban hateful speech, then there will be no hateful acts. But, as professor Anuj C. Desai of the University of Wisconsin Law School points out, "Biased speech has been around since history began. As a logical matter, then, it is no more helpful to say that anti-Semitic speech caused the Holocaust than to say organized government caused it, or, for that matter, to say that oxygen caused it. All were necessary ingredients, but all have been present in every historical epoch in every country in the world."
Just so. Indeed, the principal ingredient unique to the pre-Hitler era was the introduction of Jennifer Lynch-type hate-speech laws that supposedly protect vulnerable minorities from "unspeakable acts." You might as well argue that Weimar's "reasonable limits" on free speech led to the Holocaust: after all, while anti-Semitism is "the oldest hatred," it didn't turn genocidal until the "reasonable limits" proponents of the day introduced group-defamation laws to Germany. 'Tween-wars Europe was awash in prototype hate-crimes legislation. For example, the Versailles Conference required the new postwar states to sign on to the 1919 Minorities Protection Treaty, with its solemn guarantees of non-discrimination. I'm sure Canada's many Jews of Mitteleuropean origin will be happy to testify to what a splendid job that far-sighted legislation did.
The problem the Jews found themselves up against in Germany and elsewhere was not the lack of hate-speech laws but the lack of protection of the common or garden laws — against vandalism and property appropriation and suchlike. One notes, by the way, that property rights are absent from Canada's modish Charter of Rights. The reductio ad Hitlerum is the laziest form of argument, so it's no surprise to find the defenders of the ever-more-intrusive "human rights" enforcers taking refuge in it. But it stands history on its head. Most of us have a vague understanding that Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag in February 1933 as a pretext to "seize" dictatorial powers. But, in fact, he didn't "seize" anything because he didn't need to. He merely invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Republic's constitution, allowing the state, in the interests of the greater good, to set — what's the phrase? — "reasonable limits" on freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom from unlawful search and seizure and surveillance of postal and electronic communications. The Nazis didn't invent a dictatorship out of whole cloth. They merely took advantage of the illiberal provisions of a supposedly liberal constitution.
Oh, and by the way, almost all those powers the Nazis "seized" the morning after the Reichstag fire, the "human rights" commissions already have. In the name of cracking down on "hate," Canada's "human rights" apparatchiks can enter your premises without a warrant and remove any relevant "document or thing" (as the relevant Ontario legislation puts it) for as long as they want it. And without anybody burning the House of Commons or even the Senate.
As for "freedom of the press," in her now celebrated decision to dismiss the Canadian Islamic Congress complaint against Maclean's, Barbara Hall of the Ontario "Human Rights" Commission acknowledged that she did not have jurisdiction over magazines. So she ruled that, while she didn't have the power to toss us in the clink, she'd certainly like to and we certainly deserve it. Commissar Hall suggested that if my words had appeared on a sign rather than in a magazine article, she would be free to haul my hatemongerin' ass into the dock. Makes sense to me. So I've now put the offending excerpt from my book on a placard and I'll be in Toronto in the first week of May to drop it off at her office. I look forward to the prosecution. Given that we've already been found guilty, I don't think I've got much to fear from the trial.
Happily, beginning on July 1, under Ontario's "human rights" reforms, Commissar Hall will have far greater powers to initiate prosecutions against all and sundry. Under the new proposals, " 'hate incident' means any act or omission, whether criminal or not, that expresses bias, prejudice, bigotry or contempt toward a vulnerable or disadvantaged community or its members." "Act or omission"? Of course. The act of not acting in an insufficiently non-hateful way can itself be hateful. Whether or not the incident is a non-incident is incidental. I quote from "Concepts Of Race And Racism And Implications For OHRC Policy" as published on the OHRC website:
"The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power over those considered 'other.' "
Got that? Your denial of racism merely confirms your racism — because simply by being a "White hegemon" (like Barbara Hall or Jennifer Lynch) you wield racist power. The author, Frances Henry, cites the thinking of "modern neo-Marxist theorists" as if these are serious views that persons of influence in Canada's "human rights" establishment ought to be taking into account, rather than just the latest variant of an ideology that's led to the deaths of millions in Russia, China and everywhere else it's been put into practice. Yet, underneath the blather about "omissions" and "denial" of racism is the bleak acknowledgement that, alas, Canadians just aren't hateful enough to justify the cozy sinecure of taxpayer-funded hate police. "I would say that for a province as large and as diverse as Ontario, to have 2,500 formal complaints a year, that that's a very low level," Commissar Hall said. C'mon, you Ontario deadbeats, can't you hate a little more? Or complain a little more? To modify Brecht, we need to elect a new people, if only to file more "human rights" complaints.
Oh, and again, isn't that kind of a Nazi thing to do? Exaggerate the threat in order to justify government powers to deal with it?
Well, look, the defenders of the present "human rights" regime started this whole free-speech-leads-to-the-Holocaust line. I'm not saying that Canada's thought-crime enforcers are planning to murder millions of people, only that (as Jennifer Lynch might put it) history has shown us that extraordinary government powers in the name of "reasonable limits" often lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. Whether or not I'm the new Fuhrer and Maclean's is Mein Kampf, Commissars Lynch and Hall are either intentionally inverting the historical record or, to be charitable, simply ignorant. But, if it's the latter, why should they have extraordinary powers to regulate public discourse?
I don't have as low an opinion of Canadians as Barbara Hall and Jennifer Lynch do. I don't believe your liberty is the conditional discretionary gift of hack bureaucrats advised by Marxist theorists. You defeat bad ideas — whether Nazism, Marxism, jihadism, Steynism or Trudeaupian pseudo-"human rights" mumbo-jumbo — in the bracing air and light of day, in vigorous open debate, not in the fetid corridors of power policed by ahistorical nitwits.
It's not a left/right thing. It's not a gay/straight thing. It's not a Jew/Muslim thing. It's not a hateful Steyn/nice fluffy caring compassionate Canadian thing.
It's a free/unfree thing. And the commissars are on the wrong side.
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/ ... 1672_31672
| permalink
Next
