Josh Dehaas: There was no sedition, Mr. Carney: Emergencies Act appeal to the Supreme Court shows Mark Carney is not so different from Justin Trudeau after all

Josh Dehaas: There was no sedition, Mr. Carney:

Emergencies Act appeal to the Supreme Court shows Mark Carney is not so different from Justin Trudeau after all

6

Border blockade.
Protestors set up a blockade at the foot of the Ambassador Bridge, sealing off the flow of commercial traffic over the bridge into Canada from Detroit, on Feb. 10, 2022. The Freedom Convoy protests and blockades were nothing police couldn’t handle using the Criminal Code, writes Josh Dehaas. Photo by Cole Burston/Getty Images

There was never any question what Prime Minister Mark Carney thought about the Freedom Convoy protesters in Ottawa. In a Globe and Mail op-ed published on Feb. 7, 2022, the “Ottawa resident and former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England” wrote that the convoy was “terrorizing” people, that women were being forced to “flee abuse,” and that the elderly were “afraid to venture outside their homes.” He accused the organizers of “blatant treachery” and “sedition,” and proposed the government respond by “choking off the money.”

A week later, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau followed Carney’s advice, invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time in history to create shocking regulations that banned funding of or travelling to protests and ordered financial institutions to search for and seize bank accounts of suspects without warrants. This authoritarian overreach echoed around the world.

Still, I held out hope that the findings by a Federal Court judge and three judges of the Federal Court of Appeal that the invocation of the Act was unlawful and that the regulations made under it violated Charter rights would give Carney pause. Perhaps he believes in Charter rights more than his predecessor? If not, I thought maybe he would stand down from an appeal to emphasize a break with his predecessor. Turns out I was foolish to have been hopeful. In an application for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada that landed in my inbox on the last possible day, I learned that Carney is doubling-down on Trudeau’s illegal invocation.

In their application materials, the federal government makes the same basic argument they made before: some Freedom Convoy supporters had blockaded border crossings, and a handful of individuals near the Coutts, Alta., border blockade were found with a cache of firearms, so it was reasonable for Trudeau to take unprecedented measures to shut down freedom of expression and invade the privacy of all Freedom Convoy supporters nationwide.

As alarming as the blockades and the Coutts cache were, they were nothing police couldn’t handle using the Criminal Code. In fact, they had made their arrests and ended the border blockades by the time Trudeau dropped the bomb. As we, at the Canadian Constitution Foundation, explained in the federal courts — with agreement from all four judges who looked at the question — there was no justification offered by Trudeau for declaring a national emergency, suspending the right to support and travel to certain kinds of protests, and temporarily tossing away the ancient right to security against unreasonable searches by freezing bank accounts without warrants.

In their leave application, the government argues that the Federal Court of Appeal decision “hamstrings governments’ ability to respond effectively to future crises,” but this is simply not true. The Emergencies Act is explicit that governments can take extraordinary measures to deal with situations that pose a serious risk of violence and that cannot be dealt with using existing laws.

We must not forget that the Emergencies Act was Parliament’s genuinely noble response to previous prime ministers who had abused their power in times of crisis, including interning Japanese Canadians during the Second World War and denying habeas corpus to innocent Quebeckers during the 1970 October Crisis. It was designed to prevent prime ministers from over-reacting and suspending rights except when genuinely warranted. Like any law, it can be amended if Parliament sees fit. But why bother with democracy when you can roll the dice in the courts instead, I suppose? It turns out Carney is not so different from Trudeau after all. (National Post, March 18, 2026)

Josh Dehaas is Counsel with the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a legal charity that challenged the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the rules made under it in the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal.

Victoria Fireman Josh Montgomery Punished for Speaking Out On Homeless Problem

Josh Dehaas: Firefighter shouldn’t be punished for talking about homeless violence

A Victoria father asked his premier to keep a homeless hub from opening in his neighbourhood — only to be reprimanded at work

Josh Dehaas, Special to National Post

(National Post, Aug 26, 2024)  

175 Comments

Homeless people have set up tents in Harris Green neighbourhood in Victoria on Wednesday Oct. 11, 2023.
Homeless people have set up tents in Harris Green neighbourhood in Victoria on Wednesday Oct. 11, 2023. Photo by Dirk Meissner/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Article content

In July, Victoria firefighter Josh Montgomery wrote a letter to British Columbia Premier David Eby, imploring him to stop the city from relocating a homeless hub where people are expected to use drugs to a new space next to a senior’s residence — and only steps from his own home, where his young daughters play outside.

He drafted the letter after 60 homeless people swarmed local first responders as they tried to help a paramedic who’d been assaulted by a patient, frightening them so badly that they now refuse to go into that part of the city without police escorts. For speaking up, Montgomery was suspended for a day without pay.

There is strong legal precedent to suggest this violated Montgomery’s expression rights.

Many people believe that public sector employees leave their right to free speech at the door. That’s not correct. Although public sector employees must remain non-partisan, and, like all employees, have a “duty of loyalty” to their employers that prevents them from disparaging their organization, they aren’t required to keep their lips sealed.

In the 1985 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, Chief Justice Brian Dickson wrote that public employers must balance an employee’s duty of loyalty against his or her right to free expression. Our democratic system, he reasoned, is “deeply rooted in, and thrives on, free and robust public discussion of public issues” and as such, “all members of society should be permitted, indeed encouraged, to participate in that discussion.”

Dickson recognized that because so many people work for the public sector, we can’t have the robust public debates needed to self-govern unless public employees can also speak up in certain circumstances.

.

He explained that although public servants cannot engage in “sustained and highly visible attacks on major Government policies,” public employees can still “actively and publicly express opposition to the policies of governments.” This is especially true when those policies jeopardize the “life, health or safety of the public servant or others, or if the public servant’s criticism had no impact on his or her ability to perform effectively the duties of a public servant or the public perception of that ability.”

In the case of senior federal public servant Neil Fraser, the court decided he could not repeatedly compare Pierre Trudeau’s government to the Nazi regime.

Dickson offered a number of examples of speech that public employees may engage in without violating their duty of loyalty. A city bus driver may attend a town council meeting to protest a zoning decision. A provincial clerk may join a weekend protest against the provincial government’s decision to cut funding from a daycare centre or women’s shelter. A federal commissioner may speak at a Legion meeting about a lack of support for veterans.

Dickson also gave an example of speech that would cross the line. Although a low-level government clerk could not be fired for protesting provincial daycare policies, a deputy minister could be fired for speaking “vigorously against the same policies at the same rally.” In other words, the balance may tip in favour of the public employer if the employee is more senior.

The Alberta Court of Appeal applied the Supreme Court’s guidance in Fraser to overturn the reprimand of a social services employee who sent a letter that was critical of provincial policy to a member of the opposition. The British Columbia Court of Appeal considered Fraser when overturning school board directives prohibiting teachers from discussing political issues such as class sizes during parent-teacher interviews.

Surely a firefighter wary of the dangers that come with moving hundreds of homeless and often drug-addicted people into a residential neighbourhood has a right to express his public safety concerns — without being suspended and losing a day’s pay.

Political Prisoner Bill Whatcott in Ontario to Face Re-trial On Hate Law Charges From Criticizing the LGBTQ Privileged People

Photos: Whatcott in Ontario and link to excellent MassResistance article

Amethyst Harbour, 20 minutes east of Thunder Bay

Dear Friends,

I am now living in Toronto and preparing for my second so-called “hate crime” trial, having been acquitted the first time. Ontario’s courts threw out 125 cases last year, including a sexual assault, a murder and attempted murder, and all sorts of lesser crimes due to a lack of resources to try them in a timely manner. But they found the resources to not only prosecute me and take me to trial once for my Gospel flyer but to also appeal my acquittal and try me again. The Ontario Court of Appeals has expressed concerns about timely prosecutions and lack of court resources, but agreed with the Attorney General of Ontario that I should go on trial again even though my “crime” is delivering a Gospel flyer (that is pretty benign, but that I am not allowed to show you) at a homosexual parade full of rude behaviour and is now eight years old. The Court of Appeals reasoning for this second trial is because the first trial didn’t benefit from the testimony of homosexual academic Nick Mule’ whose expertise seems to be kink and queering social work and who argued in his taxpayer funded submission to the court that I committed microgressions against the homosexual pride participants in 2016. These microagressions apparently lead to “minority stress” which if not prosecuted will lead to poor health outcomes for those who read my flyer.

One thing I note about homosexual activists like Mule’, they seem loathe accepting responsibility for the harms caused to themselves and their buddies by their risky sexual appetites and in this case would rather blame their maladies on my Gospel flyer that advised them to repent and keep their pants up. Unfortunately, rather than actually take my advice and keep their pants up, which would no doubt eliminate the harms I warned them about, anal warts, HIV, syphilis, hepatitis, etc…… they prefer to go through another trial to get me in jail, not content with the results of their $104 million class action lawsuit and first criminal trial.

Anyways, the above picture of Amethyst Harbour was taken by me on March 19th, the second day after my arrival in Ontario. The temperature was a frosty -5 Celsius. The harbour is still frozen, the ground was covered in snow and the snow fall the following day was forecasted to be 15 centimetres. As I looked at this beautiful, ice covered harbour leading to Lake Superior, I reflected on the taxpayer funded CBC’s hyperbolic screaming that the “world is on fire” (they showed me a picture in August of a wildfire in Greece as proof the world was on fire) and they warned us that we clearly were all going to burn to death if we didn’t do something (pay carbon taxes and ruin our energy industry) to mitigate Canada’s production of C02, about 1% of the world’s total. I note CO2 was once known as plant food in my grade 8 science class and was considered beneficial to life.

CBC’s picture of a wildfire was somewhat misleading and had my Prosecutor been nitpicking the CBC’s hyperbole, they might have gotten convicted, as the CBC would have lacked truth as a defence. When the wildfires in Greece were burning, the world was not on fire. In actual fact a small percentage of Greece was on fire, 174,000 hectares to be precise, which in reality is under 2% of Greece. For Greece (a geographically small country) the wildfire was pretty nasty but not unheard of. Last year’s wildfire was definitely not the “world on fire.” I note you pay $1.5 billion annually for this fearmongering rubbish that passes for news.

My picture of anal warts shared at the Toronto unGodly pride parade by contrast is a real concern for homosexuals attending the parade. My stats that over 60% of HIV – homosexuals and over 90% of HIV+ homosexuals have HPV of the rectum was found to be true. While I am facing a second criminal trial and the Crown is now asking 6-12 months in jail (they no longer are asking for 18 months) for my sharing of accurate information, I note I gave my accurate information to homosexual Pride attendees free of charge. CBC execs on the other hand receive hefty taxpayer funded paychecks and generous bonuses for sharing misinformation.

Bill with good friends in downtown Toronto

Anyways, this picture is of me with some good friends on Saturday in chilly +2 celsius Toronto, four years into the city’s self declared “climate emergency.” The fellow behind me spent time in jail for beating up a number of Antifa thugs in a Hamilton park who attacked another friend of mine Phil Thomas. During the assault Phil was completely non-violent. He was peacefully preaching in the park against unGodly homosexual pride. Phil’s face was bloodied, but he did not retaliate when punched multiple times by several Antifa thugs, rather he continued to preach while receiving blows. The fellow behind me on the other hand got upset when he saw Phil getting punched and grabbed a helmet and literally clobbered four or five Antifa thugs single handedly. He went to jail for quite awhile, but strangely no one from Antifa ever gets arrested, charged, or incarcerated in Canada though they initiate roughly 100% of the violent confrontations they are involved in.

The bald fellow to my right I met for the first time. I truly enjoyed his company. I discovered he was a former sodomite who has come to Christ. He is now living with my other two friends. The other fellow with the beard to my right is a courageous street preacher who was actually preaching with a group of Christians at the 2016 Toronto unGodly pride parade when I was there. They were abused by homosexual pride attendees for boldly preaching the Gospel, but were not criminally charged like me.

My next court date is Monday, April 8, at 9:00 am. I am scheduled to appear in what is known as “Practice Court.” I assume “Practice Court” is a division of the Ontario Superior Court and should be at 330 University Ave in Downtown Toronto. There will likely be a zoom link too.

Earlier today I talked with legal aid. They are requesting I send them disclosure as they decide whether or not I will be able to have legal representation at my trial. If I get legal aid a fine lady by the name of Mindy who worked with Mr. John Rosen and has her own lawfirm has agreed to represent me. If I don’t get legal aid, God might yet provide a Christian lawyer pro-bono, I have no idea who that lawyer would be, but God has done that in times past, or I may go to court with the assistance of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and represent myself.

When you are arrested, don’t worry about how to respond or what to say. God will give you the right words at the right time.” Matthew 10:19

MassResistance wrote an excellent article on my second upcoming trial. You can read it here. https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen5/24a/Whatcott-facing-second-trial/index.html

I would appreciate it if you keep these matters in your prayers.

At this point in time I am not raising money for a lawyer as it is unlikely I could ever raise anything close to the $100,000 needed for another trial and it makes more sense to apply for legal aid and failing that self represent. However, my life is still costing money, especially in Toronto and had to quit the job I had to come here and deal with this second trial. For those who would like to help keep me going you can donate to my cause here:

https://www.lifefunder.com/billwhatcott

In Christ’s Service, Bill Whatcott

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.” James:1:12

Share this:

Canadian Christian forced to undergo second ‘hate crime’ trial after already being acquitted


The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Albertan Christian Bill Whatcott must be retried for ‘Wilful Promotion of Hatred’ for distributing flyers warning against homosexual acts during the June 2016 ‘Pride Parade’ in Toronto.

Featured Image LifeSiteNews


Clare
Marie
Merkowsky

  • 19

Mon Mar 4, 2024 – 4:00 pm EST

Listen to this article

0:00 / 5:31BeyondWords

LifeFunder: Help Canadian Christian Bill Whatcott fund his legal defense.

OTTAWA, Ontario (LifeSiteNews) — An Albertan Christian is being forced to undergo second “hate crime” trial after already being acquitted in 2021.  

On February 15, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Christian activist Bill Whatcott must be retried for “Wilful Promotion of Hatred” for distributing flyers warning against homosexual acts during the June 2016 gay “Pride Parade” in Toronto. 

“The Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision this morning and upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision that my acquittal for ‘Wilful Promotion of Hatred’ be overturned and a new trial be ordered,” Whatcott wrote on his blog.  

Whatcott’s legal battle began in 2016 after he and a half dozen other Christian activists entered the Toronto gay “Pride Parade” under the guise of being members of “The Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association.” 

Whatcott has explained that he and his friends entered the parade as “gay zombie cannabis consumers” because the parade was not accepting of open Christians, figuring if they made an attempt to blend in they would be more effective. 

During the parade, they handed out about 3,000 small packages made to look like condoms that contained Gospel passages and graphic photos of sexually transmitted disease sufferers, warning people of the physical and spiritual dangers related to homosexual practices and sharing the good news that Jesus Christ died for all of humanity, including those who have embraced the homosexual lifestyle. 

Following the parade, homosexual activists announced a $104 million dollar class-action lawsuit, seemingly in a bid to financially ruin Whatcott and to discourage any future activism.

After two years of litigation, the homosexual activists dropped the lawsuit.

However, in 2018, the then-Liberal government of Ontario charged Whatcott with Public Incitement of Hate, contrary to s. 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada, alleging that his flyer was tantamount to criminal “hate speech.”

subscribe to our daily headlines US Canada Catholic

Whatcott voluntarily surrendered to police in Calgary after a Canada-wide warrant was put out for his arrest. He was released on bail, with one of the terms of release being that his flyer faced a publication ban in Canada.  

Whatcott’s case proceeded through the criminal justice system for 3 years before finally being heard in the Superior Court for Ontario in October 2021.  

On December 10, 2021 the trial judge released his judgment finding Whatcott “not guilty,” entering a verdict of acquittal. 

However, the Attorney General of Ontario refused to accept the verdict, instead appealing the decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 21, 2023. 

The government argued the 2021 ruling failed to properly consider homosexual activist Nick Mules’ “expert” analysis Whatcott’s flyer, alleging it promulgated “homophobic tropes” and “microaggressions.” Ultimately, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided Whatcott must indeed face a second trial. 

“It seems Supreme Court disagrees with my lawyer and Justice Goldstein and they are content to have me go through another trial again with Nick Mule’s input,” Whatcott lamented. 

“So the first trial is voided and we are back to June 2018 when the Canada wide arrest warrant was issued and I will be going on trial again probably some time later this year,” he added. 

LifeSiteNews had launched a LifeFunder campaign to help Whatcott in his legal battles, a fund which is still active. To donate to financially support Whatcott, click here.   

Whatcott being forced to undergo a trial for a crime which he has already been acquitted of came just weeks before the federal Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau introduced Bill C-63, seeking to create the “Online Harms Act.” 

Bill C-63 will create the Online Harms Act and modify existing laws, amending the Criminal Code as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act, in what the Liberals claim will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography. 

In addition to these laudable goals, however, the bill also seeks to increase punishments for existing hate propaganda offenses in a substantial manner, as well as seeking to broaden the scope of the government’s ability to crackdown on speech.  

A top constitutional lawyer warned LifeSiteNews that the legislation will allow a yet-to-be-formed digital safety commission to conduct “secret commission hearings” against those found to have violated the new law, raising “serious concerns for the freedom of expression” of Canadians online.  

The proposed commission’s ombudsperson, along with the other offices, will be charged with dealing with public complaints regarding online content as well as put forth a regulatory function in a five-person panel “appointed by the government.” This panel will be charged with monitoring internet platform behaviors to hold people “accountable.”  

Most worryingly, the new bill will allow it so that anyone can file a complaint against another person with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for “posting hate speech online” that is deemed “discriminatory” against a wide range of so-called protected categories, notably gender, race, sexuality, or other areas.  

Penalties for violations of the proposed law include $20,000 fines and jail time

Remembering A Free Speech Martyr & Christian Author, Malcolm Ross

Remembering A Free Speech Martyr & Christian Author, Malcolm Ross

A friend gave me his treasure trove of tapes and book and pamphlets among which are many recordings of CAFE meetings

I listen to a tape in short segments. 
I am most of the way through the talk given by Malcolm Ross June 25th 1998 “My 10 Year Battle for Vindication.”
I’m pretty sure I bought Ross’ book from you at some point. [The book is Cross-Examination: Christianity on Trial –– BY Malcolm Ross fired for his religious writings on abortion and other issues appealed to Canada’s Supreme Court in 1990. This rare book is available for $25.00 plus $10 postage from C-FAR Books, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, CANADA.]

I will be turning the tape-recording in to a transcript. His explanation of the implications of the ruling of the Supremes is shocking a quarter of a century later — astonishing not a scintilla of genuine “evidence” that any real person felt they were in a “poisoned environment” in his classroom. Yet, the Supremes figured out that it was only reasonable to draw the inference  of such !!

This, I fear, is what’s going to happen to Bill Whatcott, if he goes through the meatgrinder again. The Bible itself becomes ‘hate literature’ if published anywhere outside some little ‘safe space’ of a building properly registered with the gov’t as a ‘charity’ for purposes of income tax receipts

Ross cites a book to do with the doctrines of modern Juda-ism in which the “Holocaust” is understood to be an essential part of that religion.

There isn’t one person in a million who grasps that. I sure didn’t

What that means for Canada, is,    after the recent amendment to section 319 of the Criminal Code, a person can be prosecuted for ‘blasphemy’ against the state-sanctioned religion,  if some one of the Jud-aic persuasion, feels his or her dignity has been impugned by his questioning the Hollywood version of World War II.

Gordon Watson

Jordan Peterson ruling empowers woke bodies everywhere to discipline members who express unpopular opinionseverywhere to discipline members who express unpopular opinions

Jordan Peterson ruling empowers woke bodies everywhere to discipline members who express unpopular opinions

Howard Levitt: The question that should have been put to the court was whether the college’s code of ethics overreached Author of the article: Howard Levitt Published Aug 25, 2023  •  Last updated 1 day ago  •  4 minute read 59 Comments

Jordan Peterson was ordered by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to undergo a coaching program on professionalism in public statements.
Jordan Peterson was ordered by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to undergo a coaching program on professionalism in public statements. Photo by Chris Williamson/Getty Images

I can predict one thing with certainty about anyone who reads this week’s Ontario Court decision about Jordan Peterson and the College of Psychologists: they will be stricken with overwhelming boredom.

As the court put it, “The issue in this case is whether the panel’s decision to order Dr. Peterson to complete a SCERP (remedial re-education) was reasonable.” Advertisement 2 Story continues below

The decision essentially states the court will not overturn the College of Psychologists’ decision because, whether it agrees with the decision or not, it did not meet the test of being so patently unreasonable that the court would second guess the college. According to the court, the college, not the court, is the expert body within its domain.

That is the proper legal test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, in a case called Vavilov, for the review of any administrative tribunal’s decision, whether it be the Labour Board, Immigration Appeal Board, Landlord and Tenant board or any other administrative body.

But there are two significant problems with this decision and result. First, it is not the test that should have been applied to this particular case (which may, in fairness to the court, have been a function of the arguments made before it by counsel). Second, the impact of this decision is to empower woke bodies everywhere to discipline members who express unpopular opinions that cause someone “offence.” Of course, if prevailing political sentiments change, others will be next in that firing line.

This decision will inevitably motivate political enemies of any member of a regulatory body — whether it be one of lawyers, osteopaths, engineers or, well, psychologists — who have no legal basis for any claim otherwise, to harass that person by filing complaints about their expressed opinions or writings.

If someone, for example, complained about this column, they could file a Law Society complaint and make me spend money, time and stress defending myself. There is no real remedy as it is difficult legally to sue someone for filing a disciplinary complaint as such complaints are privileged — that is, protected from a lawsuit for defamation.

This decision will encourage such future complaints. The decision also answers the wrong question.

The issue should not have been whether the College of Psychologists’ decision was transparent and reasonable given its code of ethics (and which it found Peterson had arguably violated), but whether the college even has the legal jurisdiction to develop a code of ethics in the first place that prohibit the free expression of its members, unrelated to their clinical psychological practice, particularly if that free expression breached no laws — that is, wasn’t criminal nor defamatory.

The court’s starting point was that the college did not act unreasonably in concluding Peterson had violated its code of ethics in some of his political statements. But the real question should have been whether the legislation creating the college empowered it to go so far as to create a code that limits its members’ free and lawful speech.

Regulatory professional bodies are, after all, legislated into existence for the purposes of educating their members, ensuring competence and protecting the public from malpractice in their selected fields. Peterson’s political statements attacking Justice Trudeau, Gerald Butts, etc., had nothing to do with any of those legislative mandates. And they had nothing to do with his practice of psychology (which he has not practiced for several years). None of the complainants were even his patients.

The court in this case appeared to take the college’s code of ethics as a given, something that it had the right to impose and therefore supported the college’s right to force Peterson to take remedial re-education at his expense as a prelude to potential future discipline if his re-education does not curb his future “offensive” political comments. The question that should have been put to the court was whether the code of ethics itself overreached and was beyond the college’s legislative mandate.

My advice is that Queens Park should review this decision and enact legislation preventing regulatory associations from curtailing the otherwise lawful free speech of their members. That is the simple solution to this. Otherwise, those whose opinions are different from those of their governing bodies, and who lack the resources of Peterson to fight back, will be quickly silenced in a manner antithetical to our liberties.

Hey, Kelowna, Leave Our Rallies Alone

 
Hi everyone.

Here is the flyer for the Tuesday, June 20, 2023 rally at Kelowna City Hall to oppose their Petition to ban our rallies.

City Council will be sitting on this date starting at 3:00 p.m. Let’s be there early to greet them!!!

2:00 – 4:00 p.m.

We need to get as many people as possible to come out for just a couple of hours and oppose what the City is doing as the implications will be felt by everyone if they are successful.

I would be grateful if you can please forward this to your lists ASAP and encourage everyone to come out. Please encourage everyone to make their own signage as well.

As a lawyer once told me years ago, the first line of defence is to deny everything…make sure people don’t get heard.

That is what the City is now attempting to do.

The Petition that the City filed and all supporting affidavits are located on our website at: https://clearbc.org/city-of-kelowna/

Once our materials are done, they will be posted on our site as well.

Thanks kindly In freedom

David
CLEAR
 

Call It What It Is — Legalized Anti-White Discrimination: Canada’s Legal System is Hostile to Whites

Human rights tribunal says the quiet part out loud

  • National Post
  • 22 Mar 2023
  • BRUCE PARDY Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University.

In June 2021, an Ontario high school student tried to sign up for a summer program. He was rejected because he was white. The “Summerup” program, sponsored by the Ontario government, was open only to Black students. His father filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal alleging racial discrimination. Last November, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint, saying the quiet part out loud. White people, wrote the Tribunal, cannot claim discrimination.

The law appears to say otherwise. Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, every person has a right to equal treatment without discrimination. The Code, however, has a loophole. “Special programs” are exempt. Special programs give special treatment. They discriminate “to assist disadvantaged persons or groups to achieve or attempt to achieve equal opportunity.” A government, company or organization like a school board can apply to designate a discriminatory program as a special program.

The Summerup program had not been designated as a special program. But the Tribunal determined it met the requirements anyway, which the Code empowers it to do. If a program discriminates against the “correct” groups, it will fit within the exemption as a matter of course. The Tribunal wrote, “an allegation of racial discrimination or discrimination on the grounds of colour is not one that can be or has been successfully claimed by persons who are white and non-racialized.” The statute that purports to prohibit discrimination authorizes it instead.

It’s not just the Human Rights Tribunal. For almost 40 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has eviscerated legal equality. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. But the Court has given it the opposite meaning. Like the Human Rights Code, the Charter has an equity exception, and like the Tribunal, the Court has made the exception into the rule. The Charter, the Court insists, requires not equal treatment between individuals but equal or comparable outcomes between identity groups.

The Charter does not merely allow discrimination against certain groups, the Court has said, but sometimes requires it. For instance, in 2020 the Court declared unconstitutional a RCMP job-sharing scheme that enabled employees to work part-time if they wished. The voluntary program was open to men and women. Since part-time employees worked fewer hours, they earned lower pension entitlements. More women than men chose to enrol, and as a result more women than men ended up with lower pensions. The program was unconstitutional because the rules of the program were the same for men and women.

Other courts, of course, have followed suit. In December 2022, the Ontario Divisional Court declared a standardized math test for teacher candidates unconstitutional. East and southeast Asian and white candidates passed the test more frequently than Black and Indigenous test-takers. Therefore, the Court concluded, the test was discriminatory, “which occurs when neutral laws have a disproportionate impact on members of enumerated or analogous groups.” The Court did not care why different groups passed the test at different rates. The fact of disparate success was enough to bring use of the test to an end.

Justice is supposed to be blind. Blind justice means that the same rules and standards apply to everyone without arbitrary distinctions. When the law treats people as individuals rather than as members of groups, it does not matter whether they are Black or white, man or woman, straight or gay, rich or poor. The law should not care who you are.

Unlike Canadians, Americans have a right to equal treatment, at least in principle. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 require it. The American legal system still contains within it the essence of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of a society in which people are judged by the content of their character (as evidenced in their actions) rather than the colour of their skin. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide a challenge to Harvard University’s race-based undergraduate admissions process, which complainants allege discriminates against Asian and white applicants. In the U.S., “equal protection” is still the legal test.

In Canada, legislatures, courts, and tribunals have rejected equal protection, but they are not the only ones. Professional regulators, universities, and other public institutions have piled on, too. The Law Society of Ontario insists that in the practice of law there are too many of certain kinds of people and not enough of others. It aims to socially engineer the profession’s demographic makeup and to require lawyers and firms to comport with mandatory “equity, diversity and inclusion” measures. Universities offer admission processes, support programs, and faculty positions for which only certain races are eligible. Government agencies offer grants and other benefits to specific identity groups.

Preferential measures, distinguishing between people by their colour, lineage, gender and sexuality, are becoming the order of the day. It is time to say the other quiet part out loud: Canadians have not agreed to be treated unequally.

THE LAW SHOULD NOT CARE WHO YOU ARE.

Canada Claims Authority to Censor Your Internet Searches

Not Canadian? Not in Canada? It doesn’t matter, according to its supreme court.

[While Justin Trudeau, the Trust Fund Kid, was dancing and prancing with his LGBTQ… constituency this past weekend, a media distraction, the unelected tyrants of the Surpreme Court were leeching away Canadians’ freedoms to search the Internet. — Paul Frromm]

|

CensorshipGeorge TsartsianidisThe Canadian Supreme Court today ruled the country has the authority to demand Google censor and remove links to certain web pages or online content.

The idea that governments can force Google to deindex links to pages is unfortunately not new (see the European Union’s “right to be forgotten“). What matters internationally in this case is the government is forcing Google to remove links from searches regardless of where the Internet user is. That is to say: Canada is demanding the authority to censor the internet outside of its physical borders and control what people who are not Canadian citizens can find online.

Today’s court ruling declares that because the Internet doesn’t have any borders, when Canada decides Google has to censor content it should be a global order: “The Internet has no borders — its natural habitat is global. The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates — globally.”

The case involves copyright and intellectual property claims. A tech firm was accusing another firm of stealing and duplicating one of its products and selling it online. Google was asked to deindex the links to the firm accused of stealing so that it wouldn’t show up in search results. Google complied with court orders, but only for searches from within Canada.

Canada’s Supreme Court sees geographical limits (even virtual ones) on its ability to censor speech as “facilitating” illegal commerce rather than a speech issue. Here’s a paragraph from the ruling that should give folks pause:

This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders. We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods.

Canada has hate speech laws. Does it follow that Canada should require Google to deindex pages containing what it deems “hate speech” in the United States? If Canada does not because it acknowledges limits to its reach as a nation is it “facilitating” something unlawful?

The court notes Google removes links due to court orders based on content and still doesn’t seem to see an issue in a country’s boundary of authority:

[Google] acknowledges, fairly, that it can, and often does, exactly what is being asked of it in this case, that is, alter search results. It does so to avoid generating links to child pornography and websites containing “hate speech”. It also complies with notices it receives under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2680 (1998) to de-index content from its search results that allegedly infringes copyright, and removes websites that are subject to court orders.

The court, in justifying its ruling, is unwittingly bringing up problems with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is intended as a tool for fight online piracy and intellectual property theft by making it easier to remove copyrighted material through an ownership claim process. It is also prone to abuse.

People abuse the DMCA’s “take down” process in order to try to censor speech, critiques or commentary, they find objectionable. It can be as minor as trying to censor critical video game reviews, or extend as far as criticizing another country’s leaders. Ecuadorian officials once attempted to use the DMCA to censor criticism of government actions. Google itself has stepped in to try to help users fend off abusive DMCA take-down requests.

Invoking other forms of legally recognized internet censorship is not, perhaps, the defense Canada’s Supreme Court is looking for. A closer examination highlights the potential for abuses. And claiming the authority to censor Google links everywhere in the world is a decision begging to be abused.

Read the court’s ruling here. France has attempted similar international censorship methods.

Inheritance Rights Attacked: McCorkill Case Lost

Inheritance Rights Attacked: McCorkill Case Lost
 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eQ1634BmFI
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaM3woqKqag
 
 
Paul Fromm explains how free speech and property rights took another hit at the hands of the Supreme Court of Canada in not hearing an appeal in the McCorkill inheritance and free speech case, which he discussed in previous videos with the host, Brian Ruhe. Paul is Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression and Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994.
 
 
 
 
Donations to offset CAFE’s legal costs can be sent by PayPal to
cafe.nfshost.com
 
Paul Fromm explains how they lost the McCorkill inheritance and free speech case, which he discussed in previous videos with the host, Brian Ruhe. Paul is Di…
YOUTUBE.COM

Donations to offset CAFE’s legal costs can be sent by PayPal to
cafe.nfshost.com