Tag Archives: Canadian Human Rights Commission



Posted on by

Canadians Must Stop Bill C-63 by Russ Cooper https://cafe.nfshost.com/?p=9958

Canadians Must Stop Bill C-63 by Russ Cooper – September 18, 2024

https://www.canadiancitizens.org/single-post/canadians-must-stop-bill-c-63

Editor’s note: In this article originally published in the National Post, Barbara Kay rips the façade off Bill C-63  (https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-harms.html) to expose it for the totalitarian, freedom-crushing piece of legislation that it is. Increasingly, Western countries are using hate speech legislation to silence criticism of poorly thought-out government policies on matters such as immigration and multiculturalism and to prevent citizen reporting about their consequences. Canada is positioning itself as a leader in this censorial trend.

The wrapping to make the horror show that is Bill C-63 more palatable includes regulations against child pornography and online bullying, among other items already covered by the criminal code or that could easily be included as amendments. But the meat of the bill is in the proposed regulations that would crush free speech by empowering the federal cabinet to bypass Parliament in creating legislation and encourage grievance-mongers to make frivolous and malicious accusations without consequence, all while  imposing draconian penalties on offenders, or people merely thought (by some anonymous person) to be likely to be an offender. Bill C-63 makes a mockery of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We hope that readers of Barbara Kay’s article will sign our petition for Parliament to withdraw or (should it be passed) repeal this bill (it is now in second reading). We are currently seeking a member of Parliament to agree to authorize the online publication of our petition. We will notify our members when this has been done and also post the link to our petition on our website. We also invite you to write your member of Parliament and the prime minister to express your concerns. For Canadians who believe in freedom, now is the time to stand up.

Barbara Kay: Canadians can’t allow the online harms bill to snuff out free speechby Barbara Kay, National Post – September 8, 2024

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-canadians-cant-allow-the-online-harms-bill-to-snuff-out-free-speech

Bill C-63 would punish mere expression and give draconian new powers to government. It’s unfit for a democracy

The sands of time were already running low for Justin Trudeau’s government. Jagmeet Singh’s just-announced withdrawal from their mutually supportive contract has widened the waist of the hourglass. Parliament resumes sitting on Sept. 16, and the Liberals will urgently seek to pass Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, now in its second reading.

If passed in its present incarnation, this deeply flawed bill will drastically curtail freedom of speech in Canada (which, to be fair, is not an outlier on digital crackdowns in the West. Switzerland, of all places, just passed similar legislation).

We already have hate-crime laws in the Criminal Code that address advocacy for genocide, incitement of hatred and the wilful promotion of hatred. Apart from its laudatory intentions in removing online content that sexually victimizes children, Bill C-63 seeks to curb all online hate speech through unnecessary, inadvisable and draconian measures inappropriate to a democracy.

The law would create a new transgression: an “offence motivated by hated” which

would raise the maximum penalty for advocacy of genocide from five years to life

imprisonment. What kind of mindset considers the mere expression of hateful ideas as equivalent in moral depravity to rape and murder? Such instincts call to my mind the clever aperçu by anti-Marxist pundit David Horowitz that “Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.”

Another red flag: The law would give new powers to the federal cabinet to pass

regulations that have the same force as legislation passed by Parliament, and that

could, say, shut down a website. Unlike legislation, regulations created by cabinet do not require debate, votes or approval of Parliament. They can be decided in secrecy and come into force without public consultation or debate.

Yet another is the restoration of the “communication of hate speech” offence to the

Canadian Human Rights Act, a provision similar to the one repealed in 2012. Frivolous or malicious complaints could be made against persons or organizations, granting complainants significant potential for financial reward at no personal cost, win or lose. Moreover, under this law, a complainant’s sense of injury from published words would trump a defence of objective truth. This is an open invitation for myriad social malcontents and grievance-mongers to swarm the system, with no regard for the inevitable harm done to those who they target.

One group experiencing alarm for their survival under Bill C-63’s proposed strictures is the Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights and Freedoms (C3RF). C3RF educates Canadians about their Charter rights and freedoms, and proposes legislation and regulatory frameworks that guard freedom of expression. They have published numerous critical articles on topics such as gender ideology, critical race theory and vaccine mandates: hot-button issues that are sure to offend some person or group, and that a human rights tribunal might well deem hateful under the online harms law, worthy of punishment sufficient to shut them down altogether.

I’m a fan of C3RF’s founder and director, Royal Canadian Air Force Major (ret’d) Russ Cooper, a decorated CF-18 combat pilot, and an expert in the field of post-9/11 civil aviation security. Cooper came to my attention in 2017, when the House of Commons passed M-103, a non-binding motion, after some controversy. M-103 called for a “whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.”

The government was eager to pass it quickly, but a significant number of concerned citizens balked at their unwillingness to define “Islamophobia.” Was it hatred of Muslims, or of Islam? If it was bigotry against Muslims, why wasn’t “anti-Muslim” good enough? The difference is existential.

As the Liberals’ stonewalling on the definition continued, it became clear to a significant swath of the population that if M-103’s wording was accepted in future legislation, the Trudeau government would effectively have facilitated an Islam entitlement, similar to others in Europe granted by the European Court of Human Rights to preserve “religious peace” (except it hasn’t). Cooper moved so swiftly and competently to harness their collective energy that Conservative MPs received upwards of 900,000 critical emails within a few days of the M-103 vote.

Since then, C3RF’s membership has swelled to tens of thousands embedded within a network of other like-minded freedom- and truth-seeking organizations. As Cooper told me in an email, “If there is one good thing you can say about the draconian measures foisted upon the regular folk of Canada in the days since M-103, it’s that these vexations have unified a whole new cadre of discerning citizens, tired of being pushed around and taken for granted.”

C3RF, in conjunction with allies like Veterans for Freedom and Act! for Canada, are

working on a House of Commons petition calling for the cancellation of Bill C-63. Once a parliamentary sponsor seizes that baton and sets it in motion, I will be sure to alert readers. It would be wonderful if it were signed by every one of the 32 per cent of Canadians a

Online Harms Act threatens free expression in Canada

Posted on by

Online Harms Act threatens free expression in Canada

Posted On: February 29, 2024FeaturedNews ReleasesStatement

Online Harms Act threatens free expression in Canada

On February 26, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Arif Virani introduced Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, in the House of Commons. The Online Harms Act is presented by the government as a means to promote the online safety of persons in Canada and reduce harmful content online. The Online Harms Act would impose severe penalties for online and offline hate speech, including life imprisonment, which is the most severe criminal punishment in Canada. This new legislation would establish a new Digital Safety Commission with power to enforce new regulations created by the federal cabinet. The Canadian Human Rights Commission would acquire new powers to prosecute and punish non-criminal hate speech.

Good intentions should be applauded

Although the Online Harms Act seriously threatens free expression in Canada, there are good intentions behind some of its provisions. It is a laudable goal to force online platforms to remove revenge porn and other non-consensual sharing of intimate images, content that bullies children, content that sexually victimizes children, content that encourages children to harm themselves, and content that incites violence, terrorism or hatred.

Unnecessary duplication of the Criminal Code

However, good intentions do not justify passing additional laws that duplicate what is already prohibited by Canada’s Criminal Code. Additional laws that duplicate existing laws are a poor substitute for good law enforcement. 

Section 162.1(1) of Canada’s Criminal Code already prohibits online and offline publication of an intimate image without consent. Section 163 already prohibits publication of obscene materials and child pornography. Thus, it is already illegal to post online content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor. 

Section 264(1) already prohibits criminal harassment. Section 319(1) already prohibits the public incitement of hatred towards a group that is identifiable by race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and other personal characteristics. Section 59(1) criminalizes sedition: advocating the use of force to achieve governmental change within Canada. Sections 83.21 and 83.22 criminalize instructing to carry out terrorist activity; any online content that incites terrorism is already illegal. 

Further, Section 22 of Canada’s Criminal Code prohibits counselling, procuring, soliciting or inciting another person “to be a party to an offence.” Any person who counsels, procures, solicits or incites another person to be a party to an offence will be found guilty if the person receiving such counsel commits the offence in question. This applies to terrorism and other violent crimes, and even to minor criminal offenses like shoplifting. Further, section 464 of the Criminal Code criminalizes counselling another person to commit an offence even if that offence is not committed.

Those who support the Online Harms Act should explain why they believe that existing legislation is inadequate to address “harmful” online expression.

New government bodies to censor online speech

If passed into law, the Online Harms Act will create a new Digital Safety Commission to enforce compliance with new regulations created by the federal cabinet. This Digital Safety Commission will have the power to regulate nearly any person or entity operating as a “social media service” in Canada. Any person or social media service found to have permitted “harmful content” would face penalties. The severity of the penalties would be established by the federal cabinet. The creators and users of online content will self-censor to avoid the risk of running afoul of the new regulations and government-imposed censorship. The Online Harms Act provides that an Order of the Digital Safety Commission may be converted into an Order of the Federal Court and enforced like a Court Order. This could result in people operating social media services being fined and imprisoned for contempt of court if they refuse to censor Canadians’ speech.

Pre-emptive punishment for crimes not committed

The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will add section 810.012 to the Criminal Code, which will permit pre-emptive violations of personal liberty when no crime has been committed. This repudiates centuries of legal tradition that rightly reserved punishment for what a person had done, not for what a person might do. Under this new provision, a complainant can assert to a provincial court that they “fear” that someone will promote genocide, hate or antisemitism. If the judge believes that there are “reasonable grounds” to justify the fear, the court can violate the liberty interests of the accused citizen by requiring her or him to do any or all of the following:

  • wear an ankle bracelet (electronic monitoring device)
  • obey a curfew and stay at home, as determined by the judge
  • abstain from alcohol, drugs, or both
  • provide bodily substances (e.g. blood, urine) to confirm abstinence from drugs or alcohol
  • not communicate with certain designated persons
  • not go to certain places, as determined by the judge
  • surrender her or his legally owned and legally acquired firearms

In other words: a citizen who has not committed any crime can be subjected to one or more (or all) of the above conditions just because someone fears that that person might commit a speech crime in future. Further, if the person who has committed no crime fails to agree to these court-ordered violations of her or his personal liberty, she or he could be sentenced to up to two years in prison.

Our criminal justice system is not supposed to function this way. Violating the liberty of citizens through pre-emptive punishment, when no crime has been committed (and quite possibly when no crime will be committed), is a radical departure from centuries of common law tradition. The respect that our legal system has for individual rights and freedoms means that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by way of a fair trial, held before an independent and impartial court. We do not punish the innocent, nor do we restrict their liberty based on what they might do. The mere fear that harmful expression may occur is not a legitimate basis for court-ordered imprisonment or other conditions that violate personal liberty.

Life imprisonment for words spoken

For the existing Criminal Code offence of advocating for genocide, the Online Harms Act would raise the maximum penalty from five years in jail to life imprisonment. Free societies recognize the distinction between speech and actions. The Online Harms Act blurs that distinction. 

Considering the inherent difficulty in determining whether a person has actually “advocated for genocide,” the punishment of a five-year prison term is already an adequate deterrent for words alone.

Federal cabinet can censor speech without input from Parliament

The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, would give new powers to the federal cabinet to

pass regulations (which have the same force of law as legislation passed by Parliament) that place prohibitions or obligations on social media services. This includes passing regulations that impose fines or other consequences (e.g., the removal of a licence or the shutting down of a website) for non-compliance. New regulations can be created by the federal cabinet in its sole discretion, and do not need to be debated, voted on or approved by Parliament. Parliamentary proceedings are public. Any political party, or even one single MP, can raise public awareness about a Bill that she or he disagrees with, and can mobilize public opposition to that Bill. Not so with regulations, which are deliberated in secret by the federal cabinet, and that come into force without any public consultation or debate.

Apart from a federal election held once every four years, there is no meaningful way to hold cabinet to account for the draconian censorship of social media services by way of regulations and the harsh penalties that may be imposed for hosting “harmful content.” The federal cabinet can also decide what number of “users” the “social media service” needs to have in order to trigger federal regulation of content, or the federal cabinet can simply designate a social media service as regulated, regardless of the number of its users.

New censorship powers for Canadian Human Rights Commission

The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will give the Canadian Human Rights Commission new powers to prosecute and punish offensive but non-criminal speech by Canadians if, in the subjective opinion of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, they deem someone’s statement to be “hateful.” The Online Harms Act will empower Canadians offended by non-criminal expression to file complaints against their fellow citizens. 

Those who are prosecuted by the Human Rights Commission cannot defend themselves by establishing that their supposedly “hateful” statement is true, or that they had reasonable grounds for believing that their statement was true.

Those found guilty by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can be required to pay as much as $50,000 to the government, plus up to $20,000 to the person(s) designated as “victims” by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. These significant financial penalties will discourage or eliminate necessary discussion on controversial but important issues in our society.

Advocates for censorship often stress the fact that human rights prosecutions are not criminal. It is true that those found guilty of violating vague speech codes by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal do not suffer the consequences of a criminal record. However, those who are prosecuted for expressing their beliefs face the difficult choice of having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal bills or having to issue an abject apology. Regardless of whether they choose to defend themselves against the complaint or not, they may still be ordered to pay up to $20,000 to the offended party or up to $50,000 to the government, or up to $70,000 to both.

Many Canadians will continue to exercise their Charter-protected freedom of expression, but many will self-censor to avoid the risk of being prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Anonymous complaints: no right to face one’s accuser

The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will allow complaints to be filed against Canadians in secret, such that the citizen who is prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission loses the ancient and well-founded right to face and question one’s accuser. This repudiates centuries of common law tradition requiring the legal process to be public and transparent. 

The pretext for eliminating this necessary and long-standing legal protection is that some complainants might be subjected to “threats, intimidation or discrimination.” This ignores the fact that threats and intimidation are already Criminal Code offences, and any illegal discrimination can be addressed by way of a new and separate complaint. Those filing complaints about expression should be accountable for their decision to do so; this is an inherent and necessary component of both criminal and civil legal proceedings. 

No need to establish that someone was harmed

If the Online Harms Act is passed into law, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will not even require a victim in order to prosecute a citizen for what she or he has said. For example, a man in Vancouver can file an anonymous complaint against a woman in Nova Scotia who made disparaging online remarks about a mosque in Toronto, regardless of whether that mosque’s members were harmed, or even offended, by the post. No actual victims are required for the Canadian Human Rights Commission to find guilt or to impose penalties. Nor does a victim need to prove that he or she suffered loss or damage; feeling offended by alleged “hate” is all that is needed to become eligible for financial compensation. 

Conclusion

For reasons set out here above, the Online Harms Act will harm freedom of expression in Canada if it is passed into law. Many Canadians will self-censor to avoid being prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Canadians who do not self-censor, by practicing courage and by continuing to exercise their Charter-protected freedom of expression, will still see their online expression removed from the internet by the operators of social media websites and platforms. These operators will seek to avoid running afoul of Mr. Trudeau’s new regulations. Everyone will live in fear of the Digital Safety Commission.

The Justice Centre urges all Members of Parliament to vote against this legislation.

Online harms act makes hate speech akin to murder

Posted on by

: Online harms act makes hate speech akin to murder

Promoting genocide would carry a maximum penalty of life in prison, but no one can agree on what genocide actually means

Published Feb 28, 2024  •  Last updated 2 days ago  •  4 minute read

422 Comments

Censorship
Under the online harms act, those guilty of hate speech could face up to life in prison. Photo by Getty Images

When I was a kid, we used to say that, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt.” Nowadays, offensive speech is considered violence. Silence is violence. And those whose words are deemed by the state to be most egregious will be treated like serial killers.

“All of us expect to be safe in our homes, in our neighbourhoods and in our communities,” said Justice Minister Arif Virani, after tabling Bill C-63, the online harms act, in the House of Commons on Monday. “We should be able to expect the same kind of safety in our online communities.”

Except many Canadians don’t feel safe in their communities anymore. Last summer, Statistics Canada reported that the police-reported crime rate in 2022 had increased by five per cent compared to a year earlier. The homicide rate rose for the fourth consecutive year, reaching its highest level since 1992.

Rather than focusing on the type of crime that puts Canadians’ property and physical safety at risk — the “sticks and stones,” if you will — the government has chosen to focus on the words being transmitted to our smartphones and laptops.

To accomplish this, the Liberals propose burdening “social media” platforms with heavy-handed regulations; creating a giant censorship bureaucracy to force compliance; and re-empowering kangaroo courts to persecute people for thought crimes.

Bill C-63 establishes a new digital safety commission, digital safety ombudsperson and digital safety office (to assist the commission and ombudsman), which will be responsible for ensuring revenge porn and child pornography are taken offline within 24 hours. (Though child porn is already taken seriously by social media platforms and, if history is any indication, it won’t be long before the new bureaucracy’s mission expands).

Platformed

This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

Websites will be responsible for ensuring they have tools that allow users to flag posts and systems in place to determine whether they meet the definition of “harmful content,” which includes “content that induces a child to harm themselves,” “content used to bully a child,” “content that foments hatred,” “content that incites violence” and “content that incites violent extremism or terrorism.”

While social media companies will be required to submit data on the volume of harmful content found on their sites to the new digital safety commission, enforcement will be punted to the courts and the human rights tribunal, where the penalties are much steeper than merely having a post arbitrarily deleted.

e

The bill would reinstate parts of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which will once again put decisions over what constitutes online hate speech in the hands of the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

It would also increase the penalty for anyone who “advocates or promotes genocide” to a maximum of life in prison — the same sentence, it should be noted, as was handed to Robert Pickton, one of Canada’s most prolific serial killers and rapists. And it specifically prohibits website operators from notifying users when they have been reported to law enforcement.

Although the Criminal Code uses the standard definition of genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group,” there is no longer any consensus — within government or society — on what the term “genocide” actually means. This could have profound implications for how the online harms act is enforced.

Even the strict legal definition could be muddied by the fact that Trudeau accepted the conclusions of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, “including that what happened amounts to genocide” — even though what took place doesn’t meet the legal definition of genocide.

As law professor Bruno Gelinas-Faucher told The Canadian Press in 2021, “A court could say … that the state has accepted responsibility under international law for the crime of genocide” — which is “a big deal.”

Even though prosecuting and enforcing penalties for the crime of promoting genocide would be left to the courts, vindictive users looking to punish those whose views they disagree with will be empowered to flag content, which websites will then have a responsibility to investigate (and possibly incentivized to censor in order to look as though they’re complying with the spirit of the law), and to submit frivolous complaints with the Human Rights Commission.

Do we trust the ideologues working for the HRC or the left-wing activists churned out by universities and scooped up by tech companies to determine whether any given social media post or online video meets the strict legal definition of promoting genocide? How could we, given that the term has been so watered down, no one seems to agree on what it means anymore?

Since Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre, Jews and other supporters of Israel have been claiming that protesters chanting “from the river to the sea” are advocating genocide because a Palestinian state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean would necessitate the destruction of the Jewish state. On the other side are people who erroneously claim that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza and that anyone who supports its war against Hamas is therefore advocating genocide.

I’ll let you decide which group is more likely to end up on the wrong side of Trudeau’s new censorship regime.

Marc Lemire No Longer Works for the City of Hamilton

Posted on by

Marc Lemire No Longer Works for the City of Hamilton

Marc is another victim of Cultural Marxist hit squads & cowardly politicians. CBC reported: “Kojo Damptey, interim executive director for the Hamilton Centre for Civic Inclusion, said Lemire’s departure was ‘a minimal step.'”

“Inclusion” but not for different points of view!

[More details will follow.]

Marc Lemire being presented with Freedom Award by Paul Fromm of the

Canadian Association for Free Expression for his long battle for Internet freedom

imperilled by the thought police at the Canadian Human Rights Commission

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

Posted on by

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 Post, has 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.

POSTED BY AT 6:25 PM 

LABELS: , ,, , , , ,, , , , 

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.