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
Saturday, April 19, 2008, 02:52 PM - Morality
I believe that all Christians should be supporting their Christian worldview by supporting the only federal political party which supports the Judeo Christian foundation which our country was founded upon. This heritage made our country one of the freest countries in the world.
I'd like to take a moment to show you the importance of you supporting the CHP again.
Canadians have many opportunities to vote for political parties which will support the killing of 110,000 preborn children in Canada annually. There is one baby aborted in Canada for every four children which are born alive.The Liberal & New Democrat Parties are staunchly in favour of abortion on demand. The Conservative Party has declined to allow the issue of abortion to be spoken on by their candidates. They have also declined to allow abortion to be brought before their Conservative Party convention. They do not wish to touch this issue because it may cost them their roles in the Canadian Parliament. There is no point voting for a Political Party which will not take a stand or moral issues. Humans were created in the image of God. It is not within our human mandate to take the life of an innocent person. Pro life Canadians have only one political party which is committed to ending this slaughter of our children. That party is the Christian Heritage Party.
Canadians have many opportunities to vote for political parties which endorse same sex 'marriage'. The Liberal and New Democrat Parties are both staunchly in favour of same sex 'marriage'. The Conservative Party paid 'lip service' to their election promise to revisit the same sex 'marriage' issue by asking Parliament to vote on whether they wanted to readdress the same sex 'marriage' issue. There's a vast difference between putting something on the table and asking if MP's want it put on the table. Marriage was instituted and clearly defined by God to be between one man and one woman. It is not within our human mandate to change that definition. There is only one party which supports the traditional, God given, definition of marriage. That party is the CHP.
These are just two of the issues where Christian Canadians must vote according to their beliefs. Otherwise they are voting against Christian precepts. We have been made stewards of one vote with which to glorify God. We must use it to vote according to His precepts.
In Canada, those who publicly state Christian viewpoints on morality are in danger of facing charges by both Federal and Provincial Human Rights Commissions. Prime examples of these are:
- Dr. Chris Kempling, a clinical psychologist employed as a teacher in British Columbia. He has been charged for writing a letter to the editor during the same sex 'marriage' debate in Canada. He has been charged for offering counselling within his clinical practice for people struggling with their sexual identity. He has been charged for running as a candidate for the CHP and stating the policy of the CHP on marriage. These charges violate Dr. Kempling's rights to freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom of political affiliation, and freedom of religion, all of which are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
- Ron Gray, Leader of the CHP, the CHP, and the CHP Skeena Bulkley Valley Electoral District Association, have all been charged for posting information from an online news site regarding homosexuality. The material posted were reports according to the Stanford Law Review and were factual medical information. Thee charges, placed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, violate Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 3 which is our right of political involvement. If these cases are lost then political freedom in Canada has been lost. These charges also violate Section 2 freedom of religion, conscience, thought, speech and expression.
Some past Human Rights Commission cases include:
- Hugh Owens who was charged for placing an ad in the newspaper with Scripture verse references to homosexuality. The judge, in her ruling, said that the Bible, on the issue of homosexuality, borders on hate literature.
- Scott Brockie who was charged for declining to print pro gay material at his own print shop.
Further ongoing Human Rights cases:
- Ezra Levant & Western Standard Magazine have been charged for printing the "Danish Cartoons". These charges violate Ezra Levant and the Western Standard's right to Freedom of the Press.
- Mark Steyn & Macleans Magazine have been charged for excerpts printed from a book which Mark Steyn had written. These charge violate Mark Steyn & Macleans Magazine's rights of Freedom of the Press & Freedom of Opinion.
Human Rights Commissions decide not on fact or law but according to the feelings of the complainant. The HRC are not required to gather evidence, the only evidence necessary was whether a person's feelings were hurt. The CHRC website assures us that "truth is not a defence". That is a scarey thought!
As you can see there are many threats in Canada to our freedoms. These threats must be fought! The only political party with a will to take up the battle on behalf of all Canadians is the Christian Heritage Party. There is no better time to support the CHP than today.
It is time for all of us to come together and make a stand for the Judeo Christian heritage on which Canada was founded. If we will not defend our freedoms then we will lose them.
You may find more of our policies at our website at www.chp.ca . We have a political position on many things as you will be aware.
There is also opportunity to sign up to make monthly donations and take out a membership.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
| permalink
Tuesday, April 8, 2008, 09:14 PM - Miscellaneous
If you're interested in attending any of these functions, please contact the EDA representative listed at http://www.chp.ca/en/events/events.html
April 9 - Joint meeting hosted by York Simcoe & Simcoe Gray in Barrie, Ont.
April 10 - Meeting with MP Maurice Vellacott in Ottawa.
Addressing the Parliamentary Internship Program.
Joint meeting of Sarina and Lambton-Kent-Middlesex in Wyoming, Ontario
April 11 - Joint meeting of Haldimand-Norfolk, NiagaraWest-Glanbrook, St. Catharines, and Welland EDA's in Smithville, Ontario.
April 12 - Family Coalition Party Banquet details at http://www.familycoalitionparty.com/Inv ... 0flier.pdf
April 14 - Radio interview in Perth Wellington
Meeting of Perth Wellington EDA, Listowell Ontario
April 15 - Meeting of Huron Bruce EDA.
April 16 - Elgin Middlesex London EDA.
Use the contact information to check for registration information.
| permalink
Tuesday, April 8, 2008, 09:03 PM - Miscellaneous
Ron Gray will be guest on the Michael Coren Show at 8 p.m. tonight, April 8. It airs on Crossroads. Check your local listings at...
http://www.ctstv.com/
| permalink
Thursday, March 20, 2008, 03:00 AM - Miscellaneous
NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release
March 18, 2008
Vicki Gunn named CHP Executive Director
The Christian Heritage Party today announced the appointment of Vicki Gunn as Executive Director.
Vicki has been actively involved with the CHP since 2004, when she first stood as the CHP candidate in York-Simcoe, where she ran again in 2006.
Vicki was previously active as a local organizer in both York-Simcoe and Newmarket-Aurora, as well as holding the following positions within the CHP:
CHP Finance Critic since 2004
Secretary of the Christian Heritage Party York-Simcoe Electoral District Association Since 2005
CHP Intergovernmental Affairs Critic since 2006
Ontario Provincial Prayer Coordinator since 2006
National Campaign Team Trainer since 2006
Her enthusiasm to restore respect for Biblical principles in the public life of our nation—coupled with her diligence, hard work, determination, and her articulate and ardent communication of CHP policies—quickly earned Vicki the attention and respect of the Party leadership across the country.
Vicki, eagerly embracing her new position, says, "I'm excited about this opportunity to work full-time in the only federal political party whose worldview is supportive of life, family and morality.
“I welcome the opportunity to cooperate with the many organisations which support the pro-life, pro-family worldview.
"I believe that many Canadians are ready to support a political party which will empower families to raise their children in Canada's moral traditions. More Canadians need the opportunity to know that such a party exists, and bringing that good news to them will be a key challenge.
"Canadians have a rich moral heritage. It's the foundation of this society, and it has given Canadians more freedom and prosperity than people who live under any other worldview. I anticipate working to restore this heritage to all Canadians, whether they are Canadian by birth or declaration."
At their meeting in Regina earlier this month, the National Board of the CHP was unanimous in expressing their enthusiasm at adding Vicki Gunn to our national team.
=30=
Contact: Larry Spencer, CHP National President,
(Toll-free) 1-888-868-3247
| permalink
Friday, March 14, 2008, 02:28 PM - Justice
In January, after the revealing of the HRC complaint against Ezra Levant, The Western Standard, Mark Steyn, MacLeans Magazine, Ron Gray, The Christian Heritage Party, CHP Skeena Bulkley Valley EDA, more charges against Dr. Chris Kempling, etc, etc., I wrote a letter to House Leader, and MP for York Simcoe,Peter VanLoan. I copied in P.M. Steven Harper. This letter called for the defunding of the CHRC because of abuse of their power and the violation of Canadian's rights to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Political opinion.
Mr. Van Loan responded with a letter which did not address my concerns. Here is my response to that letter, copied to: P.M. Harper and Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson. I assume their responses are 'in the mail'.
Feb 15
Dear Mr. VanLoan
Thank you for your letter dated January 28th regarding the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
You spent considerable ink explaining for what the CHRC was established, however, in all this detail, you fail to include: that they may convict on hurt feelings; they may convict on perception; they may convict on what could have happened; they may convict violating the fundamental freedoms outlined in the CCRF. That alone should cause a lawyer, like yourself, to pause and reflect on their purpose.
I noticed that you followed the directive outlined in:
""Talking points re: CHRA & CHRC"
"If asked about the Steyn / Levant cases:
"It is not appropriate for me to comment on particular matters that might be before the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal."
I did not ask you to comment on any of the matters. What I asked you to do was defund the CHRC because they are a violation of our guaranteed rights in both the CCRF and The UN Declaration of Human Rights of which we are signatories.
I mentioned 10 cases currently before Human Rights Commissions and you chose to limit your response to Mark Steyn and MacLeans Magazine. You have pointed out that they are charged by the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
Ezra Levant & Western Standard charged before Canadian Human Rights Commission
Stephen Boisson charge before Alberta Human Rights Commission
Dr. Chris Kempling - BC Human Rights Commission - repeatedly
Catholic Insight Magazine - Canadian Human Rights Commission
Ron Gray, CHP, CHP Skeena Bulkley Valley - Canadian Human Rights Commission
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Political beliefs are all violated by these and the many other cases across Canada which stand before both Canadian and provincial HRCs.
You are a federal leader. It is your job to oversee human rights nation wide! If the Alberta Government violates the rights of Canadians it is up to the Federal Government to ensure that the matter is dealt with and Canadians receive their CCRF acknowledged rights. These are not privileges which Canadians may be granted.... They are RIGHTS!
I appreciate that you "feel it may be appropriate ...a broad review" however, feeling and action are two different things. Either you will support the call for a review or you will sit back and "feel it may be appropriate". I would like my MP to take action.... not "feel".
You say that "a fundamental review by Parliament is needed to ensure that the commission remains true to the intentions of Parliamentarians", however was the intention of Parliamentarians: to muzzle Canadians; to direct what they may believe; to direct their political viewpoints; to control what the press may report to Canadians? I assure you that was not the intent of Parliamentarians.
The CHRC is violating all of these fundamental rights so there is a problem! Any time there is a process which allows conviction without the principles of justice there will be a problem.
I again appeal to you to do the job which you were elected to do, govern this country. I am not interested in my MP being gagged when asked about a matter, nor prevaricating, nor offering platitudes.
There is a problem in this country with the Human Rights Commissions! I appeal to you to fulfill your responsibility as an elected Member of the Canadian Parliament and deal with it.
Sincerely Yours
Vicki Gunn
| permalink
Back Next
