Derek Sloan Pledges to Repeal the Compelled Speech Bill C-16 — “Zee” and “Zir” Gender Identity Law

Derek Sloan Pledges to Repeal the Compelled Speech Bill C-16 — “Zee” and “Zir” Gender Identity Law

The one way to beat Justin Trudeau is to offer Canadians a real, clear alternative to Liberal policy in the next election. Not just a “Liberal Lite” version of what Trudeau already offers, but a genuine difference.

I am the one CPC leadership candidate who offers a real difference, and one example of this is the fact that I am the only candidate actively campaigning to repeal Bill C-16. I am the only candidate who has pledged to make repealing this atrocious piece of compelled speech legislation part of our election platform.

In 2017, the Canadian Parliament passed C-16, the Liberal government’s legislation that added “gender identity or expression” to grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The concept of human rights, when first conceived, was intended to liberate people and safeguard them from arrest, censorship, and harassment by government overreach.

Unfortunately, we are in the midst of a culture war, and “human rights” have been weaponized to champion leftist “social justice” values and punish all those who dare to disagree with their view of the world.

C-16 is a prime example of this phenomenon. It gives those who call themselves transgendered and non-gendered the ability to dictate what others can and cannot say.

Forced speech is the most extreme infringement of free speech. It puts words in the mouths of Canadians and threatens to punish them if they don’t comply. Forced speech will force Canadians to say things they disagree with.

Protection from discrimination is not the same thing as wanting not to be offended. If we allow it to, this chronic political correctness will strangle free speech in Canada.

I’ll repeal C-16 because it restricts free speech, enshrines radical gender ideology into Canadian law, and severely infringes on women’s sex-based rights to private spaces.

The Liberals will attack me for this. Justin Trudeau will spew words like “transphobia” and “bigotry”, which are designed to shut down the debate. When he does, we’ll push back. Compelled speech is the opposite of the elemental Canadian right of free speech. Further, Canadian women shouldn’t have their safety threatened by any man who demands access to sex-segregated spaces just because he claims to “feel like he is a woman”.

I’ll keep telling the truth about C-16, and I won’t back down.

My fellow candidates don’t share my views. Peter MacKay and Erin O’Toole are fine with C-16 – they boast about their support for it. Leslyn Lewis claims to oppose it, and I believe her, but she has not made her opposition to C-16 a campaign issue the way that I have.

Sadly, the “Liberal Lite” element in our party will never recognize this threat to the freedom that Canada was built on, and they will never fight for the repeal of C-16.

They will never be able to appeal to Canadian voters who are tired of Liberal assaults on freedom because they don’t offer anything different.

By actively campaigning to repealing Bill C-16, I offer a clear difference.

That difference makes me the only candidate who can defeat Justin Trudeau.

If you want to beat Trudeau, I am the only candidate who you should choose as #1 choice on your leadership ballot.

INCREDIBLE: PROFESSOR’S DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH LEAVES REGRESSIVE LEFTIST LITERALLY SPEECHLESS

INCREDIBLE: PROFESSOR’S DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH LEAVES REGRESSIVE LEFTIST LITERALLY SPEECHLESS

Host claims transgender people have a right not to be offended

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com – JANUARY 17, 2018 187 Comments

0

A clip in which Professor Jordan B. Peterson explains why his free speech is more important than the risk of a transgender person being offended is going viral.

Peterson was previously embroiled in a controversy as a result of his refusal to comply with Canada’s draconian Bill C-16, which makes it a hate crime to not use someone’s preferred gender pronouns.

The video features Peterson, who is currently doing a series of lectures in London, being interviewed by far-left UK broadcaster Channel 4.

Host Cathy Newman asks the professor, “Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?”

First of all, the idea that someone has a right to not be offended is hilarious. No such right exists.

Peterson’s comeback is brutal.

“Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive – I mean look at the conversation we’re having right now – you’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth – why should you have the right to do that?”

“You get my point, you’re doing what you should do,” Peterson continues. “Which is digging a bit to see what the hell’s going on and that is what you should do, but you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine, more power to you as far as I’m concerned.”

The host is dumbfounded, stammering, “So you haven’t sat there and….I’m just trying to work that out” before she falls silent and completely loses the ability to speak.

Peterson leans back and takes a sip of water having achieved a simple yet crushing victory.

Respondents to the video expressed their glee.

“They should probably go back to smearing him on their clickbait blogs. Debating him probably wasnt a very smart idea,” commented one.

“Absolutely demolished,” added another.

“This is legendary,” remarked another.

“I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer,” wrote author Douglas Murray.

Channel 4 is obviously not too keen on seeing the clip go viral. It’s completely blocked on Facebook.

Captain Airhead Strikes Again!

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

The Canadian Red Ensign

SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 2017

 

Captain Airhead Strikes Again!

It has been almost two years since a gullible Canadian electorate was duped into giving the Liberal Party a majority government in the last Dominion election. This means that that government, headed by Captain Airhead, is approaching the half-way point in its four year mandate. It has recently been reported that the Grits have passed less than half the legislation in that time than the previous Conservative government had. This is not surprising. The Prime Minister has been far too busy flying around the world, handing out money, and looking for photo-ops, all at the taxpayers’ expense, to actually do the job of governing the country. John Ibbitson, writing in the Globe and Mailmade the observation that “the amount of legislation a Parliament creates matters less than the quality of that legislation.” As true as that is, the quality of the bills the Trudeau Grits have passed is enough to make one wish that they had, the moment they were sworn in, called a term-length recess of Parliament and sent every member on a four-year paid Caribbean vacation.

One example of this is Bill C-16, which passed its third-reading in the Senate on Thursday, June 15th and which was signed into law by the Governor-General on Monday, June 19th. Bill C-16 is a bill which amends both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. To the former it adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of grounds of discrimination prohibited by the Act. To the latter it adds the same to Section 318, the “hate propaganda” clause of the Code. The Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 318 of the Criminal Code were both inflicted upon us by the present premier’s father in his long reign of terror and it would have been better had the present Parliament passed legislation striking both out of existence rather than amending them to increase the number of ways in which they can be used to persecute Canadians. When, a century and a half ago, the Fathers of Confederation put together the British North America Act which, coming into effect on July 1, 1867, established the Dominion of Canada as a new nation within what would soon develop into the British Commonwealth of Nations, their intention was to create a free country, whose citizens, English and French, as subjects of the Crown, would possess all the freedoms and the protection of all the rights that had accumulated to such in over a thousand years of legal evolution. The CHRA and Section 318 do not belong in such a country – they are more appropriate to totalitarian regimes like the former Soviet Union, Maoist China, and the Third Reich.

The CHRA, which Parliament passed in 1977 during the premiership of Pierre Trudeau, prohibits discrimination on a variety of grounds including race, religion, sex, and country of origin. It applies in a number of different areas with the provision of goods and services, facilities and accommodations, and employment being chief among them. Those charged with enforcing this legislation have generally operated according to an unwritten rule that it is only discrimination when whites, Christians, and males are the perpetrators rather than the victims, but even if that were not the case, the very idea of a law of this sort runs contrary to the basic principles of our traditional freedoms and system of justice. It dictates to employers, landlords, and several other people, what they can and cannot be thinking when conducting the everyday affairs of their business. It establishes a special police force and court – the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal respectively – to investigate and sit in judgement upon those private thoughts and prejudices. Those charged do not have the protection of the presumption of innocence because the CHRA is classified as civil rather than criminal law.

There are more protections for defendants under Section 318 because it is part of the Criminal Code but it is still a bad law. Incitement of criminal violence was already against the law long before Section 318 was added. It is not, therefore, the incitement of criminal violence per se that Section 318 was introduced to combat, for the existing laws were sufficient, but the thinking and verbal expression of thoughts that the Liberal Party has decided Canadians ought not to think and speak.

Bill C-16 takes these bad laws and makes them even worse. By adding “gender identity and expression” to the prohibited grounds of discrimination the Liberals are adding people who think and say that they belong to a gender that does not match up with their biological birth sex to the groups protected from discrimination. Now, ordinarily when people think they are something they are not, like, for example, the man who thinks he is Julius Caesar, we, if we are decent people, would say that this is grounds for pity and compassion, but we would not think of compelling others to go along with the delusion. Imagine a law that says that we have to regard a man who thinks he is Julius Caesar as actually being the Roman general! Such a law would be crazier than the man himself!

Bill C-16 is exactly that kind of law. Don’t be fooled by those who claim otherwise. The discrimination that trans activists, the Trudeau Liberals and their noise machine, i.e., the Canadian media, and everyone else who supports this bill, all want to see banned, is not just the refusing of jobs or apartments to transgender people but the refusal to accept as real a “gender identity” that does not match up with biological sex. Dr. Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto who has been fighting this sort of nonsense at the provincial level for years, and who testified against the Bill before the Senate committee that reviewed it, has warned that it could lead to someone being charged with a “hate crime” for using the pronoun – “he” or “she” – that lines up with a person’s birth sex, rather than some alternative pronoun made-up to designate that person’s “gender identity.” Supporters of the bill have mocked this assertion but we have seen this sort of thing before – progressives propose some sort of measure, someone points out that the measure will have this or that negative consequence, the progressives ridicule that person, and then, when the measure is passed and has precisely the negative consequences predicted, say that those negatively affected deserved it in the first place.

Indeed, progressive assurances that Peterson’s fears are unwarranted ring incredibly hollow when we consider that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has said that “refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity” would be considered discrimination under a similar clause in Ontario’s provincial Human Rights Code, if it were to take place in a context where discrimination in general is prohibited, such as the workplace. Bruce Pardy, Professor of Law at Queen’s University, writing in the National Post, explains that this new expansion of human rights legislation goes way beyond previous “hate speech” laws in its infringement upon freedom of speech. “When speech is merely restricted, you can at least keep your thoughts to yourself,” Pardy writes, but “Compelled speech makes people say things with which they disagree.”

It is too much, perhaps, to expect Captain Airhead to understand or care about this. Like his father before him – and indeed, every Liberal Prime Minister going back to and including Mackenzie King – he has little to no appreciation of either the traditional freedoms that are part of Canada’s British heritage or the safeguards of those freedoms bequeathed us by the Fathers of Confederation in our parliamentary government under the Crown. For a century, Liberal governments have whittled away at every parliamentary obstacle to the absolute power of a Prime Minister backed by a House majority. The powers of the Crown, Senate, and the Opposition in the House to hold the Prime Minister and his Cabinet accountable have all been dangerously eroded in this manner. Last year the present government attempted to strip Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition of what few means it has left of delaying government legislation. The motion in question was withdrawn after the Prime Minister came under strong criticism for behaving like a spoiled, bullying, petty thug in the House but it revealed his character. These Opposition powers are a necessary safeguard against Prime Ministerial dictatorship but Captain Airhead, the son of an admirer of Stalin and Mao, regards them, like the freedoms they protect, as an unacceptable hindrance to his getting his way as fast as he possibly can. Years ago, George Grant wrote that the justices of the American Supreme Court in Roe v Wade had “used the language of North American liberalism to say yes to the very core of fascist thought – the triumph of the will.” This is also the modus operandi of Captain Airhead and the Liberal Party of Canada.