CAFE Invited to Brian Ruhe Free Speech Picnic at Kitsilano Beach in Vancouver
Brian Ruhe hosted a great picnic on Kitsilano Beach today.. We talked a lot about wider distribution of YOUR WARD NEWS.
Brian Ruhe hosted a great picnic on Kitsilano Beach today.. We talked a lot about wider distribution of YOUR WARD NEWS.
CAFE PROTEST PEEL BOARD’S PROPOSAL TO GAG CITIZEN DELEGATIONS
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
July 25, 2017
THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS
RE: “Bylaw addition would give chairman more power over delegates” (Mississauga News, July 20, 2017)
I fear that, like the ancien regime, the Peel District School has grown out of touch and arrogant.
Recently, they arbitrarily cut off delegations wishing to discuss special treatment of Muslim students.
Now, a new bylaw proposal seems even more ham-handed in stifling opinions they don’t like. It says, in part: “Delegations who use offensive language, make any disorderly noise or disturbance … or behave in a manner that is not consistent with … the Ontario Human Rights Code, may by ordered to discontinue the presence and/or leave the board room … or premises.”
In other words, parents and taxpayers, shut up but don’t forget to send in your August property tax installment that pays for the Board, and make sure it reaches us on time.
“Offensive language” is utterly subjective and, in an increasingly diverse and divided society, someone is likely to take offence at almost any remark.
Even more preposterous is the decision to turf people whose comments, presumably, are not consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code. And the Board chairman is to make a snap decision to cut off a speaker? Nothing is contrary to the OHRC until a complaint has been launched, a hearing held where evidence pro and con and submissions pro and con are made and a finding of forbidden discrimination made.
Chairman Barbara McDougald, ironically, in your report clarifies the sinister censorship aims of this proposed bylaw. “An example of a delegate who could be asked to leave the property would be in individual who publicly describes another person in a ‘hateful way'”. Really? “Hateful” is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. Our community encompasses strong and antagonistic views which will clash.
We’re the taxpayers. It’s the Board who spends our money hugely who should shut up and listen to the taxpayers. And, no we shouldn’t have to doff our caps and bleat, “May I?”
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
NEWS Jun 07, 2017 by Jason Spencer Mississauga News
A recommended addition to Peel District School Board by-laws around delegations would give the chair the power to have a delegate removed from the building if their public address contravenes the Ontario Human Rights Code. – Metroland file photo
A recommended addition to Peel District School Board bylaws tighten control over delegations.
The current board bylaw about delegations indicates, for example, that anyone who comments on the character of an identifiable individual such as a trustee during their delegation could be asked by the chair to stop and/or leave the room.
However, the hornet’s nest that was the Muslim prayer issue in the Peel board this school year has prompted an addition to section G-3 that looks to crack down on delegates who veer into offensive territory.
The suggested addition, which trustees vote on June 19, reads: “Delegations who use offensive language, make any disorderly noise or disturbance, resist the rules of the board, disobey the decision of the chair or of the board, or behave in a manner that is not consistent with board policies and the Ontario Human Rights Code, may be ordered by the chair to discontinue the presentation and/or leave the board room or meeting room or premises.”
If passed, it appears chair Janet McDougald, who does not have a legal background, would then be permitted to determine if a delegate contravenes the OHRC in their delegation — and, if she thinks so, that individual could be removed from the property.
Asked if she is in a position to make that determination, she replied, “I think the chair, as long as they understand what the human rights code says, then they’re capable of interpreting it.”
McDougald told The News she does not have a fulsome understanding of the OHRC, but, if the bylaw addition passes, she would familiarize herself accordingly.
“I won’t know the entire code, but I will certainly understand the parts of the code that would relate to this particular activity of delegations,” she said.
Any issue interpreting legislation, she said, the chair would likely seek legal counsel.
McDougald does not think that having the power to throw a delegate out of the building is overstepping any bounds.
An example of a delegate who could be asked to leave the property would be an individual who publicly describes another person in a “hateful way,” regarding their culture, race or background, she said, adding that delegates should disagree respectfully.
A change to a board operating procedure around how religious accommodation for Muslim students is handled came into effect last September. That change, which involved students no longer being able to write their own Friday prayer sermons, stirred up the Muslim community.
The board reversed its decision in January, which then drew the ire of those opposed to the Muslim faith, or any religion in public schools.
The intensity rang out over the next four months, as board meetings were packed with critics who wanted Muslim prayer out of Peel board schools.
The board continually reiterated that they were required under the OHRC to provide religious accommodations to the point of undue hardship.
Disruptions eventually tapered off in April when new security measures required attendees to provide photo identification before entering a meeting.
Board bylaws and policies are examined annually by the trustee review committee.
Another recommended bylaw change involves the chair being able to determine the length of the public question period at meetings.
M-103 – Kevin J. Johnston Arrested in Mississauga under M-103
Here is what I can say:
+ I was arrested today at my home.
+ The charge is WILFUL PROMOTION OF HATRED 319 (2) C.C.
+ I was released today prior to 4PM
+ Toronto Star, CP-24 and Global News were outside the courthouse and they got to film me tying my shoes. I jumped into a cab and didn’t answer their questions.
+ The Peel Regional Police were Polite, Professional and very quickly got me in and out of the court house without incident.
+ The PEEL POLICE did NOT assault me in any way. DO NOT believe the media. The Police acted perfectly and I could not be any happier with my treatment.
+ I can talk about almost none of the case, so above will have to do until I can sit in with my lawyer.
IN CASE YOUTUBE KILLS US, FOLLOW ON BITCHUTE: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/kevinjjohnston
DONATE TODAY at FreedomReport.ca
Kevin J. Johnston
Her Enemies Failed to Stop Memorial for Barbara Kulazska: Free Speech 1; Censors 0!
On June 15, we lost lawyer Barbara Kulazska to lung cancer at age 64. [An obituary will appear in THE FREE SPEECH MONITOR next month.] Barbara was one of the most important free speech lawyers of her generation. She worked closely with Douglas Christie in Zundel 11, in the Zundelsite case and did fantastic work with Marc Lemire in fighting Richard Warman and getting Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship) declared unconstitutional.
However, the dark forces of thought control and censorship could not leave this formidable woman alone in death. The Canadian Association for Free Expression organized a private memorial on July 12 at the Richview Branch of the Toronto Public Library. Word leaked out on July 10. The enemies of free speech — Warren Kinsella, a major antagonist in the YOUR WARD NEWS mailing rights appeal, Richard Warman (many of whose libel case victims she had defended), the usual Jewish pro-censorship groups, Bernie Farber , assorted street thugs and even John Tory, Mayor of Toronto, demanded that the memorial be cancelled. The library hung tough and laid on extra security. A senior manager sat in to make sure there was no “hate speech” (What a pathetic nation we’ve become!) Metro Police sent three masked Antifa street urchins, one allegedly a masked female, packing. The emotional farewell proceeded quietly and respectfully.
The voices raised to cancel the meeting were marked by their vehemence and rage. “Warren Kinsella, a Toronto-based political consultant and commentator who is a staunch opponent of Fromm’s, disagreed. ‘Public services are not supposed to be used to promote discrimination. The library in Etobicoke is doing that.'” (CBC News, July 12, 2017) How is honouring a dead lady “discrimination”? You’d suspect such lack of logic more from the Antifa street losers who’d sucked too long on their crack pipes. “‘It is truly shocking that individuals who spread hatred, deny the Holocaust and have ties to neo-Nazi groups are being provided a permit by the Toronto Public Library to host an event inside a public building,’ [Councillor James] Pasternak said. “Those tied to hate and bigotry have no place in our libraries.” Pasternak, who likely did not hail from County Tipperary, clearly supports political discrimination.
And then, of course, Bernie Farber, for years an executive with the Canadian Jewish Congress and now a CEO with multiculti Mosaic, who also seeks to have YOUR WARD NEWS shut down added his two shekels worth: ” “In my view, Barbara Kulaszka was, like her late predecessor and colleague Doug Christie, a fellow traveller of those neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and hatemongers for whom she acted as legal counsel,” Bernie Farber added. When the censorship efforts failed, long time leftist Farber was still given a column in the “right-wing“ Toronto Sun (July 16) to moan and groan. He claimed he`d no longer feel safe in a library. “Be prepared folks for this is only the beginning. neo-Nazis, racists, bigots and bullies will now use Toronto Libraries as their official meeting place. Libraries will no longer be that haven of calm, peace and safety I so well remember as a child.`
Beside itself that it hadn`t been able to shut down the memorial, elements of the lamestream media took their revenge.
The sleazy National Post (July 13, 2017) devoted almost a full page to the memorial. Its headline screamed `Far-right extremists converge at memorial. `The reporter wasn`t there and chose to use the weaponized words to signal that the attendees were `bad`. As if to illustrate this was a large picture of three goons in black masks. The caption read: `Three masked people stood outside the Richview branch of the Toronto Public Library while a memorial for Toronto lawyer Barbara Kulazska was held. `One might reasonably conclude that these thugs were guards or attendees. In fact, they were Antifa who had shown up to protest and were told by the police to get lost. And, not to be picky, Miss Kulazska was not a `Toronto` lawyer. However, the controlled media never let the facts get in the way of a good smear.
And the supposedly “right wing” Toronto Sun (July 13, 2017) ran a rant by Liz Braun “Don’t blame library for hate gathering.” The headline was a lie. The memorial was NOT a “hate” gathering. Hate, sadly is a criminal offence in this country. No one at that meeting was charged let alone convicted for anything said that night. The meeting was to celebrate the life of a brave diligent woman. It wasn’t about hating anybody. Braun had not attended the memorial but described the attendees as ” pathetic anti-Semitic/anti-black/anti-f
Yasir Naqvi, Ontario’s Moslem Attorney General had to approve a Peel Region Police request to lay “hate charges” under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code against Kevin Johnston, a former mayoralty candidate in Mississauga. Interestingly, Johnston is an outspoken opponent of special treatment for Moslems in the Peel District School Board’s schools. He also strongly opposed Motion-103, the anti-Islamophobia motion by Mississauga Moslem MP Iqra Khalid
The Toronto Star (July 25, 2017) reports: “A Mississauga man who has been charged with willful promotion of hatred says he’s ‘not going anywhere,’ and that he intends to run for mayor of the city. The charges come after ‘a lengthy investigation into numerous incidents reported to police, involving Kevin Johnston and concerns information published on various social media sites,’ Peel police said in a news release Monday.
Johnston, 45, was released on bail after a brief appearance in court Monday. The conditions of his release included an order to have no contact with three people, whose names are under a publication ban. He was also ordered to stay 100 metres away from any mosque or Muslim community centre in Ontario, except for when travelling on the road.
Johnston, wearing a blue polo shirt and jeans, sat calmly in court as the details of the case were read in court.
Outside the courtroom, he was defiant.
‘I’m going to run for mayor against Bonnie Crombie next election,’ Johnston said. ‘She can’t stop me through the courts.’ …
Johnston has previously ran for mayor, and lost to Mississauga Mayor Crombie in 2014. He is best known for his strong views about the Muslim community, having opposed the construction of a mosque in Meadowvale, offered prize money for videos of students praying on Fridays, and protested against the federal anti-Islamophobia motion, M-103.
Last year, a story published on the Mississauga Gazette site resulted in Crombie filing a hate-crime complaint with Peel police. It was not immediately clear if that complaint prompted Monday’s charges. …
At Queen’s Park, Attorney General Yasir Naqvi said the government “takes allegations of hate crime very seriously. Ontario prosecutes these cases vigorously, where there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. ‘In a multicultural and inclusive province like Ontario, the promotion of hatred stands in direct opposition to our fundamental values of equality and diversity. Hate divides people and communities,’ Naqvi said Monday.”
“Inclusive”, ah, yes, but not of critics of Moslems. “Diversity”, yes, but not for people who fear the Islamification of our society. It’s never been clearer that “diversity” is a code word for anti-White.
Image result for kevin j. johnston freedom report
CITY-TV’s report (July 24) added several more chilling details; “He was released on his own undertaking, under a number of conditions including not being allowed within 100 meters of any mosque of Muslim community centre in Ontario.He has also been ordered not to communicate with Muslim lawyer Zoya Alam, Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie and Liberal MP Iqra Khalid. He was further ordered not to posses firearms and not to reveal any details of his case to anyone outside of his own legal counsel.”
Not allowed “to reveal any details of his case to anyone outside his own legal counsel”? Who imposed these Orwellian conditions, an Ontario Court or Kim-Jong-un of North Korea?
“Memorial for lawyer draws controversy, July 13
I find it astonishing that such vitriol should be poured out over a remembrance service for a member of the legal profession who passed away so tragically and at such a relatively young age. She broke no laws in her representation of persons whose opinions are not “politically correct” and her actions were no more reprehensible than those of criminal lawyers who specialize in representing those accused of breaking the Criminal Code. Barbara Kulaszka’s professional activities were of considerable assistance in breaking the anti-democratic stranglehold over free speech exercised by the notorious Section 13 and we owe her a debt of gratitude for that. Jeff Goodall, Oshawa” – Toronto Star, July 16th, 2017.
The absolute deluge of vile hatred and venom over Barbara Kulaszka’s remembrance meeting at Toronto’s Richview public library shows the fanatical intolerance and loathing the “politically correct” elites have for anyone daring to disagree with their point of view.
It has been said that leftists always express their firm belief in the rights of others to hold different opinions, but then go into a state of severe shock – followed by rage – when they discover to their amazement that there are, in fact, other opinions…
Far too many columns and editorials have been spewed out on this issue for me to list them all, but I will identify four of them – one in the Toronto Star quoting “victimhood” professional Bernie Farber (1) – which was far “better” than his column in the Toronto Sun, by the way – one by none other than Elise Hategan of “Race Traitor” fame writing in the Canadian Jewish News (2); and, particularly noteworthy for her vicious, stereotypical hyperbole, is the Toronto Sun’s Liz Braun (3).
Plus, there is an interesting item in the National Post worthy of quoting (4).
Bernie Farber rather confusingly states that “Barbara Kulaszka was a fellow traveller in hate groups in this country. She provided legal counsel to neo-Nazis, racists and bigots, and in fact ensured, through some of the work that she did, that hate laws and neo-Nazis and even Nazi war criminals would not be prosecuted in this country.”
Surely the successes that he accuses her of clearly demonstrate that the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada, very often agreed with her well-argued cases – you need to do better than that, Bernie! Saying that “Her legacy, if she has one, is one of increasing and permitting hatred in Canada” is obviously the sour-grapes whining of a loser.
Hategan’s item is headed by a photo of an Aryan Guard street action in Calgary ten years ago, and the article quoting Farber (and the National Post item) is headed with a photo of three masked toughs dressed in black who stood across the street from the library.
They refused to identify themselves, never tried to enter, and may well have been “planted” to create a false atmosphere of potential violence in hopes this would cause the meeting to be cancelled.
While Hategan does little more than re-hash her “Race Traitor” experiences and try to tie them in to the Kulaszka remembrance, Braun goes to town with such gems as “Kulaszka’s thing was freedom of speech cases; it is a widely held view that she was philosophically on-side with many of her clients” – Braun offers no evidence – and she refers to the attendees as “These pathetic anti-Semitic/anti-black/anti-female/homophobic/Islamophobic/etc. garden variety bigots…”
And, while harping on Mayor John Tory’s “deep concern”, she fails to mention that his involvement was, according to a number of MSM reports, actively solicited by Jewish interests.
I don’t doubt at all that Kulaszka’s work editing Zundel’s book “Did six million really die?” was a professional engagement intended to avoid legal problems arising from the wording of the book; there is no reason to believe she agreed with the contents, or that she did anything other than check it over and edit it for legal risks to her client.
In his article “Far-right extremists converge at memorial for Toronto lawyer” in the National Post on July 12th (4), which was headed with another photo of the unidentified “goons”, Joseph Brean observes that “Kulaszka, who died last month aged 64 but whose death was not publicized until Tuesday, is famous among the Canadian far right for winning acquittals under the law for people charged with hate crimes, or even undoing the laws used to charge them… She was largely responsible, for example, for the fact that Canada has no law against false news and no human-rights ban on internet hate speech, and for the fact that no Nazi has been convicted in Canada of war crimes.”
Barbara Kulaszka was a credit to her profession who served her clients well.
(1) – See “Memorial goes ahead at Toronto library for lawyer who represented far-right extremists” here.
(2) – See “The Toronto Public Library’s tolerance of intolerance” here.
(3) – See “Don’t blame library for hate gathering” here.
(4) – See “Far-right extremists converge at memorial for Toronto lawyer” here.
YOU OWE US AN APOLOGY
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
Liz Braun, Columnist, firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Ms, Braun:
Your article “Don’t Blame Library for Hate Gathering” (Toronto Sun, July 13, 2017) is a disgrace. Of course, I agree with your conclusion that the library should not discriminate among various political or historical views.
However, you heap defamation and smears on the attendees at the Memorial for lawyer Barbara Kuazska. First, you were not there. You are relying on conjecture or, worse, the lies of mortal enemies of freedom of speech.
Your headline is a lie. The memorial was NOT a “hate” gathering. Hate, sadly is a criminal offence in this country. No one at that meeting was charged let alone convicted for anything said that night. The meeting was to celebrate the life of a brave diligent woman. It wasn’t about hating anybody.
You describe the attendees as ” pathetic anti-Semitic/anti-black/anti-female/homophobic/Islamophobic/etc. garden variety bigots” Nothing at the meeting was said criticizing Blacks, women, homosexuals or Moslems. Indeed we were honouring a woman!
As for Jews, the truth is that major Jewish lobby groups (Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Friends of the Simon Weisenthal Centre, and former Canadian Jewish Congress spokesman Bernie Farber) were in the forefront of those trying to arm-twist politicians and the library into cancelling the memorial. We know many Jews support free speech but these official free speech haters give the Jewish community a bad name.
Too bad you were not there, Liz. You might have seen several coloured folks in our ranks honouring Barbara Kulazska. I suppose they were White supremacists too!
The Sun owes us an apology and its readers the truth.
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Don’t Blame Library For Hate Gathering
by Liz Braun, The Toronto Sun
July 13, 2017
|Don’t blame library for hate gathering
The city is up in arms over a memorial held Wednesday for a lawyer whose name was synonymous with hate groups.
TORONTO – The city is up in arms over a memorial held Wednesday for a lawyer whose name was synonymous with hate groups.
The usual suspects — white supremacist types Paul Fromm and Marc Lemire — gathered at Richview Library in Etobicoke to honour Barbara Kulaszka, who provided counsel over the years to Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, Nazi rocket scientist Arthur Rudolph, accused war criminal Imre Finta and others of that ilk.
Kulaszka’s thing was freedom of speech cases; it is a widely held view that she was philosophically on-side with many of her clients.
At any rate, people were aghast, and rightly so, that any such meeting of hate-mongers was permitted at a branch of the library. Advocacy groups (such as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs) were outraged that persons with known neo-Nazi ties were allowed to book space at the library, and even the mayor waded into the controversy saying he was “deeply concerned” by the gathering.
As a result, the Toronto Public Library says they will be reviewing their policy. They did not endorse the event, a library spokesman said, but they were legally unable to get out of it.
Let’s be honest here. The person who rented this space for Kulaszka’s memorial probably had no idea who and what was involved. A group of old white people? That could be anybody in that part of Etobicoke. These pathetic anti-Semitic/anti-black/anti-female/homophobic/Islamophobic/etc. garden variety bigots could only raise 25 people to gather on behalf of Kulaszka, and far more of them codgers than boogie men.
Could we please not blame the library? The libraries in our fair city are increasingly the drop-in-centres-of-last-resort, trying to keep the world literate even as they deteriorate into ad hoc old folks’ homes, psychiatric waystations, homeless shelters and day-care alternatives. Libraries are among the few places left where those on the fringes of society may freely enter, and that’s what happened Wednesday night when a group of old nutcase hate advocates gathered to swap yarns of fear and ignorance.
As we enter a new dark ages, racism and hatred are on the rise globally, fuelled by stupidity and liberated by the anonymity of social media. And those who gathered on behalf of Kulaszka are representative of all that, but the library is not responsible.
Wayne Sumner, a University of Toronto professor emeritus specializing in ethics and freedom of expression, has already said that the library did well to err on the side of free speech. He told CP that barring such events as the memorial, “raises disturbing possibilities of picking and choosing among points of view and what sort of speech is allowed and what sort of speech is not.”
If things deteriorate into hate speech? That’s a police matter, said Sumner, not a library issue.
The library did its best by having a staff member monitor the meeting.
This led one memorial attendant — who wished to remain anonymous, as these sad-sacks always do — to complain that there was a spy in their midst.
“What kind of country are we living in?” she asked, to which a librarian might have answered, “The kind in which people know their history, particularly if it involves book burning.”
Liz Braun, Toronto Sun
Free speech is the cardinal right – the right that underpins all others. Yet how casually we brush it aside.
This week in Toronto, a small group held a memorial service at a public library branch for a lawyer who had defended Holocaust deniers and other figures on Canada’s far-right fringe. Spokesmen for Jewish groups said they were outraged that the Toronto Public Library would provide a platform for such a gathering. Mayor John Tory was “deeply concerned.” Members of city council said they were shocked. “Those tied to hate and bigotry have no place in our libraries,” Councillor James Pasternak said.
They seemed entirely oblivious to the threat to freedom of expression. If the library takes it upon itself to decide who has the right to speak, where does it end? If it denies space to a far-right group, what happens when a far-left group comes along? What would it say to the many Canadians who suffered under communism if someone who denies the crimes of Stalin or Mao wanted to hold an event and was denied? What would it say to Toronto’s large Tamil community if extreme Sinhalese nationalists were not permitted to hold a study meeting at the library about the crushing of the Tamil separatist movement in Sri Lanka?
It is precisely to avoid making these judgments that the library takes a neutral approach to those who book its spaces. It doesn’t demand to vet their opinions in advance. As long as they follow basic rules of conduct, they get the space. So it is absurd to suggest that the library is somehow endorsing or countenancing the views of those who held this week’s memorial.
Critics of the event seem especially upset that it took place in a “public space,” under the roof of a publicly funded institution. It is not hard to see where that dangerous argument could lead. If people whose opinions are deemed beyond the pale are to be kept out of the public libraries, why not the public parks, the public squares, the public streets? Who gives them the right, some might say, to wave their nasty placards where all can see, or publish their rank opinions where all can read? Surely public spaces are where free speech, however outrageous or obnoxious, should be allowed to flourish. That is the principle behind the famous Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park, where people of every opinion and background get the chance to sound off in public. No one says that because the authorities allow it they are giving their stamp of approval to what is said.
Libraries, in particular, should be havens for free expression. They are the places citizens go to learn about the world in all its complexity. Librarians are always facing pressure from one group or another to ban books that they say might corrupt morals or spread hate. They are right to fend off such attempts. Librarians are guides to the world of knowledge, not arbiters of it. They should be equally impartial about who meets in library spaces.
Banning objectionable speech short of direct incitement to violence is always a mistake. Those who object to this week’s event and gatherings like it have other ways to respond. One is to protest. If a hate group holds a rally, hold a rally condemning hate and praising tolerance. Another is to correct. When deniers spout nonsense about how many died or didn’t die in the Holocaust, fight back with the undeniable facts.
The last option – perhaps the best when it comes to the tiny, miserable group of cranks who are Canada’s white nationalists and Holocaust deniers – is simply to turn away. They feed on publicity like this week’s fuss. Instead of fulminating against them or attacking the library for giving them space, ignore them. They don’t deserve even a minute of our time, much less all the air time and headline space they got this week.
No matter how we choose to respond to offensive opinions, it is important to remember the danger of suppressing them. Even in a blessed place such as Canada – a strong, stable democracy with a respected Charter of Rights and Freedoms – freedom of speech can be a fragile thing. We saw that just recently, when three editors left their jobs after an angry pile-on over the complicated issue of cultural appropriation.
In a 1945 essay on free speech and the profusion of it in Hyde Park, George Orwell wrote: “The relative freedom which we enjoy depends on public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper of the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.”
On the evidence of the library affair and other events lately, public opinion in the Canada of 2017 is sluggish indeed.
MEMORIAL FOR BARBARA KULAZSKA — TORONTO, WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2017
July 8, 2017