YES ANTONIA, THERE IS A THREAT TO CANADIAN FREEDOM OF SPEECH

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

The Canadian Red Ensign

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2017

Yes Antonia, There is a Threat to Canadian Freedom of Speech

Antonia Blumberg, the Associate Religion Editor for the progressive liberal disinformation site that some consider to be the online equivalent of a newspaper, the Huffington Posthas come to the defence of the anti-Islamophobia motion that Iqra Khalid, the Liberal MP representing Mississauga-Erin Mills has introduced into the Canadian Parliament. In doing so she has lived down to the stereotype, popular here in the Dominion of Canada, of the Yankee who spouts off about things of which she knows nothing.

Regardless of whether it is a non-binding motion or a bill, there is a very real threat to freedom of speech here, of which anyone familiar with the Liberal Party’s long war on the traditional rights and freedoms of Canadians would be well aware. There are many parallels between what the Liberal Party is doing now and what it did in the 1970s under the leadership of the father of the present federal premier. Then, as now, it decided that it was the government’s place to combat ideas and attitudes that the Liberals considered to be unacceptable. At the time it was racial and religious prejudice in general, and anti-Semitism in particular that the Liberals were going after. Warning Canadians that the threat of a potential Canadian Fourth Reich existed if these attitudes were not drummed out, stomped down, and extirpated with extreme prejudice, the Liberals, bereft of any sense of irony, established a Canadian equivalent of the Gestapo and the NKVD/NKGB/MGB/KGB in the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Although progressives will undoubtedly sputter with offence and rage at the comparison in the last sentence it is entirely apt and valid. The difference between the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the secret police of the Nazi and Soviet totalitarian regimes is one of degree not of kind. If the Canadian Human Rights Commission brought you before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal you would not end up facing a firing squad or being shipped away to a forced labour camp. At most you would be fined an exorbitant and crippling amount of money, slapped with a lifetime gag order, and have your career and reputation completely and utterly destroyed. Nevertheless, the Canadian Human Rights Commission exists for the same reason its Nazi and Soviet equivalents existed – to track down and punish those considered guilty of what, in Orwellian Newspeak would be called crimethink. It was negative thoughts about those designated as “vulnerable minorities” that the Trudeau Liberals considered to be crimethink, rather than negative thoughts about the regime itself, as was the case in the Third Reich, Soviet Union, and Orwell’s 1984, but it was crimethink all the same, and those charged with crimethink found that there was very little in the way of defence available to them. More perhaps, than was available to the unfortunate victims of the totalitarian regimes, but much less than has been traditionally available to the free subject-citizens of one of Her Majesty’s realms. The Liberals were able to get away with this by classifying the legislation – the Canadian Human Rights Act – which the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal enforced as civil rather than criminal law. Civil law does not come with the same legal protections of the rights of the defendant that exist under criminal law. The progressive supporters of the Canadian Human Rights Act and its enforcing bodies deceive themselves, however, if they think this legislation exists to help people settle disputes among themselves, and not to punish people whose thoughts are considered criminal by the “Natural Ruling Party of Canada” as the Grits so arrogantly designate themselves.

Blumberg, citing the CBC, quotes Justin Trudeau as saying, in defence of Khalid’s motion “You’re not allowed to call ‘Fire!’ in a crowded movie theater and call that free speech.” This is not a valid comparison however, no matter how many times freedom-hating, totalitarian dolts make it. When you yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre, you can create a panic in which people hurt or even kill people in their rush to get out. It is the act of mischief that is proscribed by law, not the idea expressed (“there is a fire in this theatre”). Indeed, if that idea were true, if there actually was a fire in the theatre, we would want that information to be conveyed, albeit in a more orderly fashion.

A law prohibiting so-called “hate speech” is not like this. If the Liberal Party passes a motion condemning Islamophobia and saying that the government must do everything in its power to combat Islamophobia, a hate speech law will be the next step they take. There is abundant evidence in their past track record to show this to be the case. It is the way they think. Such laws exist for one purpose, and one purpose only, to say “you are not allowed to think this or that.” The argument that says that “hate speech” also hurts people like yelling “fire” in a theatre because it can inspire someone to commit acts of violence is spurious, specious and downright mendacious. If one person expresses a negative view of a race, religion, sex or whatever, and another person who has heard this commits a violent act against a member of the group in question, it will not be an immediate, automatic, response like the panic in the theatre. It will involve someone thinking about the negative view expressed, deliberating on it, and concluding that violence is the right way to act on this information. Such a conclusion suggests that there was something wrong in this person’s head already, long before he heard the “hate speech”. Which is why “hate speech” is much less likely to produce a violent crime than calling “fire” in a theatre is likely to produce a panic. It would be more defensible, perhaps, to argue that speech that explicitly calls for a violent response, of the general “kill the ——-s” type, ought to be proscribed, but the “hate speech” that is prohibited by such laws is never limited to just this, and at any rate, this sort of thing was already covered by the laws against incitement that have been around since long before someone dreamed up the idea of laws against hate and which are far better laws being designed to protect everyone and not some designated group.

What the Liberal Party has done in the past in the name of combatting racism and protecting “vulnerable minorities”, however worthy we may or may not consider these goals to be in themselves, is completely unacceptable in a country like Canada. It is now 150 years since men like Sir John A. MacDonald established Canada as a self-governing Dominion under the British Crown, with legislative and judicial institutions grounded in the tradition attached to the Crown, including all the rights and freedoms of the Common Law. The right way to protect “vulnerable minorities” in our country, would have been to do a better job of making sure that the full protection of these rights and freedoms was enjoyed by all of Her Majesty’s citizen-subjects in our free Dominion, whatever their race, ethnic origin, etc. might happen to be. Instead, the Liberal Party opted to give special protection to “vulnerable minorities” and to abridge the traditional rights and freedoms of all Canadians to do so, while doing everything in their power to undermine our British heritage and the tradition from which those rights and freedoms sprang.

It is evident to every patriotic Canadian who loves his country, its true heritage, and its traditional freedoms, and is aware of what is going on that the Liberal Party is preparing to do more of the same, even if an ignorant Yank writing for a silly left-wing trash site is completely clueless as to what is going on.

Political Censorship in Canada: The Thought Control Freaks at the Canadian Human Rights Commission Tried to Prosecute Webmaster Marc Lemire for This Satirical Poem

Political Censorship in Canada: The Thought Control Freaks at the Canadian Human Rights Commission Tried to Prosecute Webmaster Marc Lemire for This Satirical Poem

Satire is the use of humour and exaggeration for social criticism. Few creatures on God’s green earth are more joyless and humourless than the politically correct. Even a jackass occasionally cracks a smile. And there are few people more humourless than the Canadian Human Rights Commission thought police. In a Richard Warman complaint (yes, who else, but the complaint champion?), Marc Lemire was accused of exposing privileged minorities to “hatred or contempt” for publishing what has been referred to as “the Immigrant Poem” on his website, The Freedomsite.

 

This poem in one form or another has circulated around the office water cooler for 30 years. While Marc Lemire was not convicted, that such harmless political satire could ever land a person in trouble shows how bitter is the struggle for the freedom of speech of Canada’s dispossessed European Majority.

 

Luckily, in June of this year, Sec. 13, the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act, was finally repealed by Parliament.

 

CAFE played a major role in the battle to rid Canada of at least this weapon of thought control.

 

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

 

CAFE NEEDS YOUR HELP AGAIN FOR THE FREE SPEECH BATTLES OF 2014

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

 

___    Here is my donation of $_______ to help CAFÉ’s ambitious campaign for free speech across Canada   in 2014, supporting Arthur Topham and other victims of censorship.

___Please renew my subscription for 2014 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

$___  Ken Hilborn booklet order from back of this coupon.

 

Please charge ______myVISA/Mastercard#________________________________________________________________

 

Expiry date: __________ Signature:_______________________________________________________________________________

 

Name:____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Address: __________________________________________________________________________________

 

_______________________________________________________Email______________________________

 

  Ken Hilborn Booklets

Professor Kenneth H.W. Hilborn was an outspoken scourge of political correctness. Over a 28 year period, he wrote 13 booklets for C-FAR’s Canadian Issue Series. Here is a selection you might wish to add to your library.

 

__ The Cult of the Victim $5.00

__ The Quest for “Equality” , $5.00

__  Sins of the “Liberal” Left: A Study of Myths, Misdeeds and Misconceptions  (1998) , $5.00

__  Liberty Under Attack: Crimes, Follies and Lunacies that Threaten  Our Freedoms, $5.00

__  Fighting Bad Ideas: Thoughts of Fools, Fanatics, Conspirators & Spies, $5.00,

__  Nightmares and a Dream: A Story of Future Threats to Western Liberty and How Liberty Might Win,  $7.00

__  In the Cause of the West: Thoughts on the Past, Present and Future of A Threatened Civilization, $7.00

__  The Trouble With Truth, $7.00

 

[Tick booklets you want here and indicate the number and enter dollar amount on the other side of this coupon.]

 

 

 

 
I cross ocean, poor and broke.
Take bus, see employment folk.

Nice man treat me good in there.
Say I need to see welfare.

Welfare say, ‘You come no more, we send cash right to your door.’

Welfare cheques – they make you wealthy! Alberta Health Care – it keep you healthy!

By and by, I get plenty money.
Thanks to you, you Canadian dummy!

Write to friends in motherland.
Tell them ‘come fast as you can.’
  
They come in turbans and Ford trucks,
And buy big house with welfare bucks!

They come here, we live together.
More welfare cheques, it gets better!
       
Fourteen families, they moving in,
but neighbour’s patience wearing thin.
Finally, Canadian guy moves away.
Now I buy his house, then I say,
 
‘Find more immigrants for house to rent.’
And in the yard I put a tent.

 

 

 

Everything is very good,
and soon we own the neighbourhood.
      

We have hobby, it’s called breeding. Welfare pay for baby feeding.
Kids need dentist? Wives need pills? We get free! We got no bills!
Canadians crazy! They work all year, to keep the welfare running here.
We think Canada darn good place.
Too darn good for that white race!
If they no like us, they can scram. Got lots of room in Afghanistan!

Canadian Human Rights Commission Spreads Lies and Anti-White Guilt

Canadian Human Rights Commission Spreads Lies and Anti-White Guilt

 The passage below is from a document Human Rights in Canada: A Historical Perspective that is on the website of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It contains outright historical lies and is nothing but the usual anti-White guilt mongering politically correct poison. Sadly, the Canadian Majority has to pay for this.

Even the title of this section reveals anti-White bias: “the plight of immigrants” Really? These people were not kidnapped or press ganged. They eagerly and willingly came to Canada to seek a new life and opportunity in a land that offered them a chance and, not like today, a handout,
The article states: “Immigration is funnelled to the West in order to settle and farm the wide  tracts of Prairie land. The profile of the preferred immigrant is white and  British; as stated by Minister Clifford Sifton, “stalwart peasants in  sheepskin coats“. If British immigrants are not available, other white  immigrants will do. White immigrants from Eastern Europe are reluctantly  accepted in large numbers.” Outright lies.  In fact, English settlers were  most decidely not wanted in Western Canada where they were widely seen as effete and  dilettantes.  This mendacious piece of White bashing reworks  Minister of the Interior Clifford Sifton’s great comment about Ukrainians —  “stalwart peasants in  sheepskin coats” — so that it  seems to refer to the English!  In this stunning misdirection, the author distorts the fact that Sifton was praising and welcoming the Ukrainians.http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/getBriefed/1900/immigrants.aspSee More

Like · · Share
The article then trots out the usual discrimination smear: “Originally, male Chinese labourers were allowed         into Canada to work for low wages in British Columbia’s gold mines and         on the trans-Canada railroad. They sent most of their earnings back to         China to help support their families. Chinese workers will accept lower         wages than white workers.” Yet, the Chinese continued to pour into Canada, despite the low wages. They saw Canada offering desirable advantages and opportunities. Indeed, early Chinese called Canada Gum Shan or “Gold Mountain.” Wikipedia notes:  “British Columbia  came to be referred to as “Gold Mountain” following the discovery of gold in the Fraser Canyon in the 1850s and the spread of Chinese settlers in British Columbia (which they also referred to as “The Colonies of T’ang” i.e. China.” This latter sentence suggests that the European population of British Columbia, then quite sparse, had every reason to fear the Oriental influx.
One sentence — that’s all there is in “Organized Hate” — labels any opposition to the mass Asiatic invasion as “hate” : “The San Francisco-based Asiatic Exclusion League, dedicated to preventing         Asian immigration to America, opens up a number of new chapters in Canadian         cities such as Vancouver. Victoria has its own Anti-Chinese Association.” So, any effort to prevent one’s homeland from being radically changed is “hate.” White suicide is good; efforts to preserve the European character of one’s country are bad, no “hate”! This passage clearly demonstrates the truth that “anti-racism” is a fraud and is really anti-White.
For a more accurate discussion and description of the Asiatic Exclusion League’s activities in British Columbia before World War I, you might consult one of the booklets below.
C-FAR is proud to have published three booklets by the Bob Jarvis about the Komagata Maru and the opposition to mass Asiatic immigration.  You may wish to buy them and order them from C-FAR Books, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, CANADA.
__  The Workingman’s Revolt”: The Vancouver Asiatic Exclusion Rally of 1907 by Robert Jarvis. The fascinating story of the broad-based and, indeed, union-led protests against mass, uncontrolled Asiatic immigration to British Columbia. $5.00
___ The Komagata Maru Incident: A Canadian Immigration Battle Revisited by Robert Jarvis. The story of an intrepid government undercover agent William Hopkinson, who infiltrated Sikh radicals and developed the information that led the government to expel the Komagata Maru illegals in the summer of 1914. Shortly, afterwards Hopkinson was assassinated by a Sikh terrorist, Mewa Singh, whose portrait still hangs in some Sikh gurdwaras in Vancouver. $5.00
___Harry Stevens: Immigration Reformer, Reconstructionist, Canada Firster by Robert Jarvis. the story of a real Canadian hero and immigration reformer who, as a young MP, helped stir the Dominion Government to expel the shipload of Indian illegals on the Komagata Maru in 1914. $6.00

The Plight of Immigrants

From 1867-1891, Canada was open for business, from an immigrant’s point         of view. There weren’t many restrictions on who could enter the country,         except for a head tax on Chinese immigrants, which was introduced in 1885.         Eastern and Central Canada was the destination of choice, with British         Columbia attracting many people from Asia.

By 1900, Minister of the Interior Clifford Sifton’s immigration policy         is more restrictive.

Immigration is funnelled to the West in order to settle and farm the wide         tracts of Prairie land. The profile of the preferred immigrant is white         and British; as stated by Minister Clifford Sifton, “stalwart         peasants in sheepskin coats”. If British immigrants are not         available, other white immigrants will do. White immigrants from Eastern         Europe are reluctantly accepted in large numbers, but black and Asian         immigration is discouraged. Chinese immigrants are subject to a head tax,         which requires every Chinese immigrant to pay a special $50 tax upon entering         the country. Although relatively few in number – there are only 23,000         Chinese people in Canada in 1900 – arrivals from Asian countries are resented         by the white majority. Originally, male Chinese labourers were allowed         into Canada to work for low wages in British Columbia’s gold mines and         on the trans-Canada railroad. They sent most of their earnings back to         China to help support their families. Chinese workers will accept lower         wages than white workers, and this causes resentment in the white population,         especially when jobs are scarce. The populace generally perceives Chinese         people to be immoral opium addicts. There is no official policy restricting         Blacks from entering Canada, but the unofficial policy is to discourage         it whenever possible. As a result, there are far fewer black immigrants         than there may have been otherwise.

In 1899, Canada admitted 44,543 immigrants. Between 1894 and 1899, 154,613         immigrants came to call Canada home. In the five year period between 1991         and 1996, well over 1,000,000 immigrants will arrive. Between 1896 and         1907, Canada admitted 1.3 million European and American immigrants. Less         than 900 Blacks were included in that number. In fact, the black population         of Canada decreased from 50,000 in 1860 to 17,000 in 1911. In the lumber         industry, Chinese workers are paid only between 25% and 50% of the wages         paid to white labourers for the same work.

Organized Hate

The San Francisco-based Asiatic Exclusion League, dedicated to preventing         Asian immigration to America, opens up a number of new chapters in Canadian         cities such as Vancouver. Victoria has its own Anti-Chinese Association.