British Columbia now bans all words and images “likely to expose a person … to hatred or contempt” because of race, religion, age, disability, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.” This sounds like a libel law for groups, except that libel is a misstatement of fact that damages an individual reputation. In the United States, for a public figure to be libeled, the false statement has to be made maliciously or recklessly.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2004404067_steyned10.html

Unless they are Christian, a farmer, in the military, a right winger,…

Yes I called them weasels because they didn’t run the cartoons.  Oh wait I’m not allowed to think like that they must send me to indoctrination centre to learn what I’m allowed to say in this country where free speech is a “FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM”!

Well at least you can cherry pick rights for right wingers, but we hate them this is Canada they have no recourse to the law.

Several readers have asked me to link to this analysis over at Dead Reckoning of the Steyn/Socks face-off. I’m happy to do so as it makes several good points, among them:

Despite the fact that they have come age and were educated in Canada, specifically in the legal tradition of Canada, they still don’t understand the concept of free speech. They think they are entitled to force Mcleans to simply allow them to publish whatever they want, and if they can’t get it by bullying Mcleans they will get a government agency to do it for them.

This is so Muslim. If you want to accuse somebody in an Islamic country of offending Islam, you go to an Imam and get him to issue a fatwa against the offender. In effect, the human rights commissions substitute for the Imams and issue the fatwas.

I think that’s correct. That’s why the abominable drive-by verdict of Barbara Hall and the Ontario commission seems to the Sock Puppets an “historic victory“. If, as the Canadian Islamic Congress does, you look at the OHRC as, in effect, a proto-Sharia court enforcing the official state doctrine, its pronouncement from authority seems entirely natural.

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1248/128/

ezralevant.com

If they pulled crap like this with the hells angels there would be hell to pay.

1. Tara, on May 11th, 2008 at 1:14 am Said:

   ABW, just, God bless you. And everyone else who has made an appearance on the comment roster in support of….actual reality.

   I only made it 1/4 of the way through the comments! I’m worn out already by the Uriah Heep characters who are so mortally offended and cringing that you could be so mean as to call them (personally and directly, apparently!) privileged and responsible. “Wahhh…my life is hard, how dare she call me privileged? Doesn’t she know that my dad is a Martian? Doesn’t she know that my ancestors were part of the underground railroad?”

   ABW, how can you be so mean to me? Don’t you know that my background is Irish, and my relatives were shipped over to Canada during the potato famine because we were poor and starving and oppressed? And that I grew up poor? How can you call me privileged? Hmmm, maybe because I’m white and could fabricate whatever heritage I feel like. Or because nobody will care what my heritage is, since my ethnicity, like my privilege, is invisible to others like me. Or because opportunities grow in my community like godamn dandlilions!

   It’s almost mind-exploding that so many of the white people writing here cannot get it through their heads that the existence of white privilege does not make them de facto evil white bastards. The whole issue with white privilege is that societal systems _organize_ life in a way that screws over other people.

   WHICH MEANS that as long as you (listen up, J Grant) react with defensiveness when white privilege is mentioned or criticized, that is just what you are doing: defending your privilege. The harder you fight, and the more you feel like your poor feelings are hurt by the mean black people, the more you personally deserve every word of anger that is directed at people preserving the system of privilege and oppression.

http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/thank-you-white-people/#comment-31221

So if opportunities grow in my community is that because of all the terrible white people creating opportunities. This person is bitter about things that happened over 150 years ago . Yes blacks were treated terribly but whites were also enslaved before they started with blacks in Europe but the wonderful afrikkaners from the barbary coast also enslaved whites.

So since the evil white folk have spent billions subject themselves to affirmative racism action, don’t have the united Negro college fund, don’t get billions spent solely on their race. As part of my privileged life. And there are no white male activists are there.

If there can never be a reconciliation like 150 yrs after slavery was abolished. Maybe the next billion should be spent freeing the oppressed gangbangers of the ghetto who are worse off then their grandparents who were slaves but had fewer activists about free them and transport them with a pound of gold to Africa. Where opportunities grow like dandelions because there’s no white people.

Or and the author totally misses this point maybe white people make the opportunities and just maybe the author is better off here than across the pond. Nyahhh, I’d be a bigot if I even brought it up.

Hard to imagine what privilege I had when just over 10 yrs ago the most I had earned was 10k/yr.

Oh and speaking of privilege  while I’m there I click on this link and I’m not privileged enough to see anything.

Privilege have you got it?

http://ezralevant.com/T1073-5405%20Warman-Lemire%202008-03-25%20-%20CHRC.pdf

From pages 230-231 See they charge someone with a charge that will not stick then get evidence to trump up a section 13 where marginal evidence is required. Me thinks the police need to be aware if like Steacy says they need a subpoena.

Very clever but it sure smells. PLus on page 230 they say Warman isn’t an investigator with the CHRC but he can go in login to computers etc, etc.

Oh and if what Peter Kuba did was actually bad why was the real hate crime charge from a real court dropped, unlike the section 13 thingies?

Oh and if you think this is long try to just remember it all with no notes when the forces of big government arrayed in their splendor say you are guilty based on a transcript by law they are supposed to give you but chose to email to the press first.

Corrupt indeed.

A few pages later 239 they point out the charges for a “real court” section 319.2 of the criminal code were stayed. So if you want a long list of guilty whites the Criminal code is not a good way to do it. Whereas Human rights commissions will get you a new car if you are sensitive enough.

However in regards to “several cases” they say this is done often to get the police to seize evidence that will later be used by the star chambers.

Criminal code section in the more.
(more…)

first I’ll throw in my 2 cents from the charter of rights that the CHRC have never read apparently,

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=855

Now according to the MSM’s last election these rights are unassailable. Even the notwithstanding clause says you cannot take them away said Paul martin who is very slilent as these rights are taken away.

Now from the corrupt CHRC’s

Does Canada have an equivalent to the First Amendment?

No. Although many Canadians are aware of the United States First Amendment, the Canadian approach to freedom of expression issues is different.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Jurisprudence of the United States’ courts, including the Supreme Court, severely restricts any state action to suppress free expression, including hate speech or propaganda. For example, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-7675.ZS.html, the Supreme Court of the United States found that a municipal law prohibiting the burning of a cross was an impermissible restriction on the First Amendment. The effect of the decision was to allow the burning of a cross on the lawn of the first black family to move into an all-white neighborhood.

An article written by Mr. Justice Russell Juriansz, Ontario Court of Appeal, examines the U.S. approach to hate speech compared to that adopted by other countries, including Canada. The article was presented to a conference on hate on the Internet convened by the CHRC in December 2005. In his article, Combating Hate and Preserving Free Speech: Where is the Line? Justice Juriansz states:

It seems fair to say that the American view is becoming a minority one in the world. Canada is part of what appears to be growing global consensus, which observes that careful restrictions of some forms of speech are both desirable and necessary.

Canadian legislators and courts have tended to seek a balance between the protection of freedom of expression under the Charter and the harm caused by hate speech and propaganda.

In drawing the line between hatred and free expression, the Canadian courts have taken into account other Charter provisions, most importantly section 15, which provides for equality before and under the law and equal benefit and protection of law, and section 27 which provides that: “This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.“

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_initiatives/hoi_hsi/qa_qr/page2-en.asp#22

I like how the morons want to make is an American issue because in Canada Americans are one of the groups hrc’s and other socialists love to hate.

Sorry the USA has the right to free speech as part of our common heritage going back to the Magna Carta. In fact somewhere I have a thread that says the revolution started because they were denied their rights.

Note how they amble on cluelessly without even mentioning the charter of rights when it comes to free speech.

Most of these HRC’s have denied people at some point whether it’s Ezra with freedom of the press or Scott Brockie with freedom of association. They are persecuting the head of the Christian Heritage party for the crime of being Christian. I’ll put them here again.

Gosh our fundamental freedoms int eh charter of rights sound a lot like the USA’s first amendment if they got that right. So they don’t post this on their website, wonder why is it because they are that incompetent or is it that the thugs are so intent on overriding our fundamental freedoms.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

We have hate laws in the criminal code in this country if people do something that hateful why not charge them with a crime?

H/T if memory serves, Blazing Cat Fur

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is a kangaroo court that requires no demonstrable burden of proof to arrive at a conviction.

It’s disturbing — and somewhat ironic — that so few are speaking up and raising concerns about the human- rights racket in this country.

Commentators were livid during Brenda Martin’s Mexican legal ordeal, questioning the spending of tourism dollars in a country with a legal system so flawed that a person is guilty until proven innocent.

In all honesty, I’d like my chances in a Mexican courtroom over a Canadian human-rights interrogation any day.

In Mexico, the accused has some rights and is occasionally acquitted.

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/editorial/story.html?id=a0388a2a-c589-4ad4-aa89-7f90cc384124

Three complaints have been filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against the Christian Heritage Party and its leader, Ron Gray, alleging “hatred” and “contempt” in the Party’s 20-year-old policy of opposing special rights for homosexuals.This case may be the most significant of its kind to date, for it seeks to silence even political criticism of homosexuality.If the only federal political party that opposes the ‘gay’ agenda can be silenced, who will be left to speak for you?

Previous similar cases have included Hugh Owens (punished for a newspaper ad that cited chapter and verse references to Biblical condemnation of homosexual behaviour); Scott Brockie (who refused, on moral grounds, to print promotional materials for the Gay & Lesbian Archives); Dagmar and Arnost Cepica, a retired couple in PEI who refused to rent a room in their home (a B&B) to two homosexual men; and Dr. Chris Kempling, punished by his employer for writing letters to the editor of his local paper expressing his concern—as a teacher and registered counseling psychologist—about indoctrinating students in the public schools to consider homosexuality as ‘normal’; and as a CHP candidate, for declaring his Party’s opposition to same-sex ‘marriage’.

Those Canadians were all persecuted for expressing their moral convictions. That’s a clear violation of Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says

“everyone has the right to
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication…”

In the case of Dr. Kempling, Ron Gray and the CHP, not only are those Section 2 rights being violated; so are their Section 3 Charter rights:

“Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.”

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2003 that Section 3 Charter rights must include the right to communicate a political party’s policies. These complaints to the CHRC are an attempt to end that right; and an attempt as to silence Canadians’ freedom to hold and express political and religious convictions.

If Ron and the CHP don’t have those rights, no Canadian has!

http://www.chp.ca/en/case.html

Well they need to be shut down. Even EGALE who I pay for says they’ve gone too far. Luckily Richard Warman et al don’t have to show up to watch those he fingers squirm under the weight of government bureaucracy.

TODAY, please prayerfully consider the most generous contribution you can make. Please send your cheque as soon as possible to:
Ron Gray Legal Defense Fund
c/o Ronald McDonald Law Office
406 Stafford Dr. S
Lethbridge AB T1J 2L2

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Hey look it’s above the mean.

http://ezralevant.com/T1073-5405%20Warman-Lemire%202008-03-25%20-%20CHRC.pdf

As I noted in March, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing into the abusive and corrupt investigatory practices of the CHRC was not transcribed by a court reporter — unlike every single other day in the Warman v. Lemire case. The one day when the CHRC was on the defensive was the one day that the respondent — and any interested members of the public or reporters — had to make do with their own notes. The Tribunal made an audio recording of the hearing, which is next to useless in terms of searching for key words, skimming pages, etc.Imagine my surprise when, today, I received a copy of a beautifully-transcribed court report of the March 25th hearing. I received it — but Marc Lemire and his lawyer have not.

I got it from a reporter who had received it from the CHRC itself. How did he get it? Did he make an Access to Information request? Did he pull a Jadewarr, and hack into the CHRC’s computer and steal it?

No. He got it because a CHRC spin doctor called him up, and tried to spin his newspaper that the CHRC wasn’t all that bad. He tried to show how the CHRC really hadn’t gone online under a pseudonym to post bigoted comments — even though the CHRC has admitted to doing so a half dozen times, under oath. The CHRC spin doctor used the transcript as “proof”.

I have no problem with the CHRC engaging in desperate spin attempts. I love it, in fact — the more they open their mouths, the more discredited they are, and in ways that their critics, like me, could never achieve. Again, I refer to Barbara Hall, who I’d put on a national speaking tour if I could.

No, I think the CHRC should do more spinning. I love that they’re trying to brazen it out — to tell reporters not to believe their lying eyes and ears, to have them ignore subpoenaed evidence from Internet companies, to have them ignore the Privacy Commissioner’s looming investigation — and to believe the desperate, desperate CHRC.

I love it.

But isn’t there something corrupt about the CHRC having a transcript of the hearing, not disclosing it to the respondent, but using it against the respondent with reporters who have no formal standing in the case?

While the respondent has to hand-transcribe the audio recording of that hearing — or pay out of his own pocket for someone to do so — the CHRC has a transcribed version. But they don’t turn it over. They try to use it as a PR weapon. (Good luck with that.)

…

If a real police force or prosecution was caught in the unethical conduct of the CHRC, the cops and lawyers involved would be taken off the file, and Internal Affairs would be brought in to clean things up. But there is no Internal Affairs office at the CHRC.

There is no oversight.

Here is that missing transcript. The fact that I have it before the respondent does, the fact that it is being used to bash the respondent in the media by CHRC spin doctors, is appalling.

Fire. Them. All.

http://ezralevant.com/2008/05/i-accuse-the-canadian-human-ri.html

The Nighthawk hosted a bachelor’s panel on why so many young North American men are either delaying marriage, or in some cases, avoiding it altogether.

…

People today are more self centered than previous generations. That’s the reality. So if marriage is going to become an attractive prospect for young men, there’s going to have to be something in it for them. If there isn’t, we can expect more bachelors like those who were with us on air last night.

 http://www.cjob.com/blogs/Nighthawk/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=2491

Well they’ve made it punishment for men in most cases.

If you’ve pissed her off look out because the courts aint nice to guys.  One article I read I think in readers digest says if you are a guy just put on a helmet and hope for the best.  Imagine if they said that about sentencing black people well it’s ok to have a systewm thats harder on you. But guys mostly white guys it’s ok there is no recourse to the law section 15.2 of the Trudeaupian charter says so.

I remember hearing Gerald Fast on the radio years ago saying that when he had his children for a month in the summer he had to pay his wife child support even though he was paying to feed/clothe them etc.

WE need to straighten out divorce

There should be mandatory counselling like in Alberta.

There needs to be joint custody unless one of the parties is a crack addict etc,

Plus there needs to be fixed child support rates, if there is no joint custody, thus you earn 50k/yr and have 1 child you pay x dollars etc.

And women should only get alimony for a couple of years.  There should be an onus on them once the children are in school to find work.  Plus I’ve known several to live with a new sugar daddy but people paying alimony are scared shitless to say anything in case they are not allowed to see their children ever again.
Their addresses need to be checked for co habitation, as well as cars registered to them that were free, etc, etc.

While it is difficult to support Boissoin’s right to spew his misguided and vitriolic thoughts, support his right, we must.

Before highlighting have a guess.

No It’s not the litigious duo Warren Kinsella or Richard Warman,….

Well mine is gone, if yours isn’t do something nice. Or something not nice any attention is better than none.

Here’s my mom shortly before passing away, I wish I could see her for another mothers day, I’ve recently been throwing out/sorting mom/dads old correspondence which brings back many memories especially since most of the people who wrote them are now dead.

It brings home in a big way that we are leaving an era, now people send fewer cards or letters it’s all email so my children are unlikely to get box after box of letters when they probably will not have access to the email.

At the restaurant this AM it seemed remarkable how many people are taking their moms out but how few have their own children there. But as long as they can say I was an accountant that’s more fulfilling than being a parent right?