Today, Jennifer Lynch – the head of Canadian Human Rights Commission – is testifying in front of the same Parliamentary Committee that Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn did. And, her testimony will be carried live at 3 pm EST on CPAC.
It ought to be interesting!
Before I started my blog, I joined a debating site (ConvinceMe) to improve my skills in presenting my point of view.
OK – so I never learned how not to be long-winded…but, I did meet some interesting people there, of all backgrounds, viewpoints and ages. One of them was a kind teen who went by the name of LoneWolf. As the years went by, I have watched LoneWolf grow from a promising, idealistic teenager into a fine, responsible man.
People like LoneWolf give me hope for our future! Recently, LoneWolf has been in touch with me through another channel. With his permission, here is a message he sent me (I inserted the links for clarity):
About the free speech arguements, great!! I have been leading a small, yet pretty effective underground within my community. Basically, anybody who feels the way America is forming is BAD for America has joined. Once I get proper funding, I’m hoping to make it into an interest group which can effectively lobby at congress and get RID of the corruption which plagues my fine country.
One of the things thats been on my mind as of late is the controversy of Obama bringing the fairness doctrine back into effect.( I don’t know if ever was in effect?) Anyway, me and a few friends got together in front of our city hall building and gave a few speeches, about the freedom of speecha nd what our founding father’s reallt intended for this country.
It amazes me that people feel that the best way to be safe is give more power to the government. Agh! I’m called a Christian Neo-Conservative because of both my religious beliefs and my political beliefs, but I’m really not. I’m actually a 18 year old male who really wants life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Call me a freedom fighter but without the violence some bring with the title. America’s first amendment does give us the right to assemble but peacefully.
Which reminds me! Did you hear about the college in Pittsburg that had a protest in which they vandalized shops to get the point across that our government was being unfair and should put caps on how much a person can make?! I was amazed at this. Sadly, I feel America is falling more and more down socialist avenue, and our new Captain, Barrack Obama, is the most ideal candidate to bring that sort of change to the fray.
When it comes to my studies, I’m at a crossroads with what to do. My biggets calling is the seminary. I love to preach and try to make the Word clear and understandable. However, I love law. I love understanding and practicing law. I would love to be a lawyer or even a judge. Then the final branch of the crossroads is I love politics. I really believe the current state of our government is full of old familiar corrupt faces that really need to get out of office. (I do in fact believe in term limits of senators and representatives). However I believe its time to put Sara Palin’s words last election campaign into action when it’s time to clear out the government corruption that has been stagnating within the government.
Anyway, I rant too much when I’m in the mood of a political discusion, but I really must be doing work so I’ll talk to you later.
Take care Xanni!
Lonewolf, or Will…(this really isn’t convinceme lol)
OK – I cannot help myself but to feel proud…even though I know the accomplishment is not mine, but LoneWolf’s. Reflected glory, and all that…
Now that I found out that LoneWolf – I mean, Will – has started a blog of his own, I am glad to share it with you. The opinions in it are honest, heart-felt, and well thought out – and not even a little bit cynical.
A breath of fresh air!
Without further ado, I give you ‘People For A Free America’!
This issue has me so angry, I apologize ahead of time for the inevitably undisciplined rant I am about to unleash on you!
Why?
Because MY Canada is colour-blind, when it comes to race!
MY Canada is gender-blind, when it comes to sexism!
AND – MY Canada is all inclusive, when it comes to children!!!
And, in my Canada, religious affiliation is irrelevant when it comes to judging a person’s record as a human being! Thank you very much!
During the last Ontario election, I could not bring myself to vote for the Conservatives…. Their leader, John Tory, proposed a public education system which was fully segregated on the basis of religion!!!
The very suggestion that a child’s religion – or any other ‘protected grounds’, as per our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ought to determine what school that child may or may not attend is so offensive and un-Canadian that it makes me see red!
The Conservatives lost that election: and rightly so!!!
Aside: Of course, before the election, I emailed my local Conservative candidate (now my MPP – Member of Provincial Parliament), Lisa MacLeod, asking her if she was indeed in favour of religious apartheid in our schools. I still have her reply: it angered me to no end to read that if her leader said so, she totally backed it… (Perhaps this is the source of my dissatisfaction with my MPP – the ‘first impression’ she made on me, is rooted in this blatant sell-out of our most cherished freedoms, taking our precious children and sorting them by the accident of their birth! I cannot trust anyone who would sacrifice our children to a doctrine or political party policy!)
And now, the Liberal Premier, Dalton McGuinty, is planning to segregate our schools by sex! You know, like they do in Saudi Arabia!!!
OK – I need to calm down. Perhaps it’s ‘definition time’:
Apartheid:
Any policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
Separation, segregation <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>
Do I need to go on?
Yes. Ever since the British North American Act, there has been a religious apartheid in Ontario’s education: one system for the Catholics, another for the Protestants. Still, over the years, the ‘Protestant’ system has morphed and become secularized, separating the State from the Religion and keeping it out of the classroom. The story is quite different when it comes to the Catholic system: it has become known in Ontario as the SS – Separate Schools!
In my never-humble-opinion, the initials tell the story. The very first public protest/demonstration I ever participated in was to protest the existence of the SS in our schooling!
Even the corrupt UN had recognized – and ruled – that the SS system in Ontario was in breech of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Predictably, the people of Ontario would not be complicit in this enslavement of our kids to their parent’s religious heritage. The Liberals did not ‘win’ the election – as unbelievable it was that the universally reviled Dalton McGuinty could be re-elected, the Conservatives carefully and systematically LOST IT!
So, now, Dalton McGuinty (whose kids attend SS schools, and whose wife was a teacher in this corrupt system where government-funded religious indoctrination pollutes the minds of our children) is in power. Complete control. And, in no uncertain terms, he is instituting apartheid in our schools! Apartheid of HIS own choosing!!!
Yes, he is very clear: religious apartheid has no part in his plan. That is how the Conservatives LOST EVERYTHING!!!
Instead, on his ‘watch’, we have seen the institution of religious apartheid in at least one school – a ‘pilot project’.
More like a ‘Pilate project!”
Unfortunately -yes.
Our school system now has – and enforces, as its ‘core policy’ – racial apartheid!!!
Here, in Ontario!
I wonder what would people like Martin Luther King, Jr. say about this policy of ‘Equal, but separate‘!!!
But, that is not evil enough for Black Boss McGuinty!
Now, he has decided that sexual segregation ought to become the norm in our schools!!!
OK – I had better stop now – I am just so angry, I cannot put a coherent sentence together. Let me just say: fixing our broken school system – but for boys only – is so evil, I don’t know where to start my chain of insults!!! Sorry.
Still …
A person’s a person – no matter how small!!!
Or, how female!!!
Thunderf00t is one of the most vocal free-speech advocates on YouTube.
He is outspoken on subjects he is passionate about – so he has ‘annoyed’ many other people. Yet, while mocking them, he still supports their right to spew their abuse at him…
We are all concerned about protecting our free speech – at least, we ought to be. We are all concerned about how governments seem to be legislating away freedom of speech in the name of the right of the collective not to hear the truth.
But, better minds than mine have warned that the greatest danger to freedom of speech in our future lies not just in government oppression, but in the limits put on us by corporations.
And, I have ranted on this long and often…especially about fascism: fascism can be right or left wing – or an amalgam of the two. But, by the very classical definition of the term, when you have collusion between government and big business, the result of which is the erosion of freedoms of the populace, you have ‘fascism’!
Without more ado, here is Thunderf00t’s warning:
Canadian Centre for Policy Research launches free speech petition:
Defend Freedom of Speech In Canada:
We the undersigned call on lawmakers at all levels of government in Canada to:
A) Examine all legislation within their jurisdiction intended to protect and promote human rights, and
B) To amend said legislation to remove those provisions that prohibit or otherwise limit the free and sincere expression of opinion.
Sweet, short and to the point!
Methinks the text of the petition says it all… I’m off to sign!
H/T: Blazing Catfur
We are used to being able to display our political views on our property. During elections – municipal, provincial or federal – we are used to being able to display a sign on our front lawn, or in our window, which proudly proclaims which candidate we are supporting. One election, my in-laws each supported a different candidate: and proudly displayed two political signs on their front lawn!
Now, imagine a place where doing this: displaying your political views (either on your front lawn or inside your window) would earn you a $10,000.00 per day fine… and 6 months in jail! Plus, the police would have the power to come onto your property, inside your home, and remove the ‘offensive’ sign.
Where is this place?
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada – 2010!!!
We are used to being able to protest – publicly – for or against any cause or issue. Sure, we ought to get a permit and obey rules of public order. That is the civilized way to do it. A government has the right to regulating the ‘HOW’ – but only in the respect that the protest does not interfere with public order and safety (like, say, shoving your kids into the middle of a busy highway, to make your point…). It does not, and MUST NOT, have the right to regulate THE SUBJECT of any protest.
Now, imagine a place where all protests regarding a specific subject were 100% banned! A place where people were forbidden to express a specific, non-violent, non-hate-mongering point of view! Where any expression whatsoever which contravened the ‘official line’ was forbidden.
Where is this place?
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada – 2010!!!
Any and all signs (including private ones!) which ‘do not celebrate’ the Olympic Games are banned.
Any protest which might mar the festivities is banned.
Any commercial ‘in, on or above’ the official venues – but whose sponsor had not paid the incredibly high IOC ‘sponsorship’ extortion money (and, they only allow for one ‘sponsor’ in a particular field: if you are a small, local business – how will you compete with the multinationals?) … any such sign is, predictably, banned. (Consider a scenario where you have two restaurants in one building: one sells Coca-Cola, the other a small, local gourmet-made-in-small-batches Cola – and both have neon signs advertising their beverage of choice. If the business below became ‘official venue’ of the Olympics, because ‘their’ drink became the ‘official sponsor’, that business would be allowed to display their signs and attract customers. The business above would be forced to remove or cover up their sign (at their own expense) and would not be allowed to even try to attract customers…. Some law!)
Oh, and just in case you were wondering, non-IOC approved ‘voice amplification equipment’, from private boomboxes to megaphones, are – banned.
These are the rules which the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is imposing on Vancouver while it is hosting the 2010 Olympic games!
Oh – and while they’re at it: they have exclusive ownership of such specific words like ‘winter’ and ‘2010’ !
OK – I have been a very vocal critic of the Olympic Games.
For a long time, I have ranted on and on that this abomination ought to be abolished. And, prior to the Bejing Olympics, I have written about it. Now that they are being held in Canada, I have not changed my mind. To the contrary: I wish this corrupt and corrupting organization stayed out of my country!
In addition to my objections to the Olympic Games on that whole unbelievable institutional corruption basis, I also object on the grounds that it degrades sports and diminishes the spirit of sportsmanship. Sports are supposed to be about being healthy: healthy body, healthy spirit and all that. A balance in life.
Yet, today’s top athletes push their bodies way beyond the point of what is healthy! In their attempt to be the best of the best, athletes do thing to their bodies (both legal and illegal – but, I am focusing on the ‘legal’ bit here) way past what is actually healthy or good. From microfractures in many bones – including the spine (like, say, gymnasts whose pursuit of Olympic ideals delays even the onset of their puberty by years, if not a decade…a summer sport, true, but it is just the tip of the iceberg) which spell a future racked with arthritis to pushing their tendons and muscles well beyond their healthy limits. In a very real sense, we have taken what ought to be a healthy hobby and turned it into a self-destructive, government-funded job. No more, no less…
And as for sportsmanship….please, don’t make me laugh!
It is no longer about a friendly sports game! Winning is now a matter of national pride! How many medals a country wins – or looses – somehow becomes a measure of the whole nation’s worth! No, not how they treat each other, not how well they treat and educate their kids, not how good their economy or how excellent their science programs. No. These things no longer matter. In a very real way, Olympic athletes are turned into weapons in a war!
But, those are not the reasons for this particular rant. No, my fear here is about something much, much greater than some public funding of private hobbies or glorification of physical self-mutilation… I speak of nothing less than our freedom of speech!
The IOC – an organization which has, over and over and over, been demonstrated to be corrupt to its core – is now in charge of what free citizens of a supposedly free country may – or may not – express! On their private property, none the less!
If I am still not making myself as clear as I ought to (and, I do know that is my weak spot), let me approach it from a different angle…
Some people have experienced how the ‘Patriot Act’ south of our boarder had, in the name of security, taken some serious ‘liberties’ with the American citizens freedoms (pun intended), as guaranteed them in the US constitution, see how the ironically named Human Rights Commissions are trampling over real human rights in Canada (and other places, too), and fear that ‘governments’ are a serious threat to our freedoms in general, freedom of speech in particular.
Others have pointed to the oppressive copyright laws – the ones which treat all consumers as criminals, before any evidence is even gathered – and other corporate ‘protections’ will be the greatest threats to our freedom of speech and expression to us in the future. Frankly, I agree with this point of view: the evidence is overwhelming…
In the Olympic Games, the worst aspects of both of these are rolled into one: there is a political body which is suppressing all opposition to itself, silencing all criticism of it. At the same time, this same political body had sold exclusive rights for commercial activity and advertising to a select group of large multinational corporations and is willing and able to persecute any and all small businesses (or, indeed individuals) who refuse to submit to its ‘regulations’.
There is a word which defines collusion of government with big business in order to control the marketplace and silence opposition. That word is fascism. By definition.
And I, for one, do not want any fascism in Canada!
UPDATE: Canadian Centre for Policy Studies launches Free Speech petition:
We the undersigned call on lawmakers at all levels of government in Canada to: A) Examine all legislation within their jurisdiction intended to protect and promote human rights, and
B) To amend said legislation to remove those provisions that prohibit or otherwise limit the free and sincere expression of opinion.
(via BCF)
School is supposed to be a place for learning.
A place where kids feel safe.
A place where all possible care is taken to make learning possible.
Yet, at least one school had set up a committee to decide whether or not to allow a disabled child’s guide dog to accompany her to school.
What?
Our society is rightly supportive of disabled people, and doubly so for those who work hard to succeed despite their disability. Since different people have different needs and preferences, we have developed a myriad of tools to aid them.
One such ‘tool’ – perhaps ‘the classical one’ – is the guide dog.
These canines are not just some loving pets. They go through a screening process which permits only the most intelligent, non-aggressive animals to be entered into a rigorous training program. And only the best of the best ever graduate to become certified guide dogs.
And that is not the end. Now that the dog has become a highly trained professional, it is carefully matched with the person whom it is to assist, to ensure compatibility. And there are courses to teach the disabled person and the dog how to communicate with each other, as well as to teach the dog the skills which it will require to aid this specific person.
That is doubly so in the case of a guide dog assigned to a child!
Cargo made it through all that training! Fully trained, graduated and certified as an official guide dog, Cargo was assigned to a young girl named Annika Merner. A ‘feel good’ story, right?
Except that,Colchester North Elementary School in Essex, Ontario, where Annika is a grade 4 student, will not permit Cargo to enter school property!
Why?
Well, some kids might be allergic to dogs…
Please, do not misunderstand: I am not making light of allergies, especially serious ones. They could affect a child’s ability to learn – no question about it.
But, surely, in a civilized society, we can figure out a way to accommodate both! The school and the parents of all the affected kids could sit, talk, figure out a workable solution based on the level of allergies of the individual students that were affected and their relative location in the school.
Could they not?
Why wouldn’t they?
But that did not happen. Nothing like that. Just a simple ‘No dogs on school property – no exceptions for guide dogs!’
Only after Annika’s parents pointed out that this is not only unfair to their child, but actually against the law – guide dogs are exempted from ‘no dog’ rules – the Greater Essex County District School Board formed a committee last November to examine the issue…
Now, eleven months later, they have still not come up with any decision – and little Annika is still going to school without her guide dog.
Good news: in two weeks, the committee might come out with a decision which might permit the use of a guide dog on school property.
Ah, the mighty ‘might‘!
How grand of them!
This – in my never-humble-opinion – is indicative of a much greater problem in our society. We have lost the ability, desire – or both – to get along with each other amicably without long and convoluted sets of rules, whose application often blurs the line between accommodating a real, physical disability and frivolous grievances which are a matter of choices and opinions.
It is precisely to deal with situations like Annika’s that the Human Rights Commissions (Tribunals) (HRCs) were formed! Their whole ‘raison d’etre’ was making sure that people were not discriminated against based on things they had no control over, like their race or disabilities.
After all, one cannot simply choose to no longer be disabled. A person cannot become a member of a different race by changing their opinion or belief. These are not a matter of choice!
To discriminate against someone because of something one cannot change, one cannot choose to change, to deny a person the best possible chance to start out from ‘ as level a playing field as physically possible’ – that is wrong! And we, as a society, must not tolerate it. Ever.
Of course, we can never overcome a disability someone else has for them – but we should and MUST do our best to permit disabled people the tools to help them overcome it as much as possible. Even if it means allowing their guide dogs access to places where pet dogs are not permitted. Like, say, school…
That is a reasonable accommodation!
Instead, we – as a society – have lumped ‘accommodation’ based on ‘choices, opinions and/or beliefs’ and given them equal or greater importance than accommodation because of real disabilities.
In 2006, Canadian Supreme Court unanimously decided that even though knives of all kinds are banned on school property, a Sikh boy can carry a 10cm blade because he believes his religion requires it. This, despite the testimony of Sikh religious leaders who stated that carrying a picture of the ceremonial dagger is sufficient to satisfy the religious requirement.
In effect, the Supreme Court of Canada said that religious belief is sufficient grounds for weaponizing our schools!
Please, contrast the two cases: one child, based on ‘belief’, is permitted to bring weapons to school… while a disabled child’s certified guide dog is banned!
We have, with the HRCs acting as enforcers, elevated people’s choices and opinions into a place which is supposed to be reserved to stop discrimination based on things people have no control over!
Certainly, we must tolerate other opinions and personal beliefs – but we should not be obligated to accommodate them to as high a degree as if they were something the person could not exercise a choice over. Like, say, one’s race or physical disability…
If you are a political junkie, or somebody who values their freedom, you are familiar with ‘The Treaty of Lisbon‘.
If not, then, very briefly, here is the background:
The Lisbon Treaty is the constitution-type-document-thingie which would finally establish the EU as a legal, supranational political entity which can act independently. Most EU countries have already ratified and signed the Lisbon Treaty (though the English opposition – if they gain power in the next election, plans to withdraw England’s support – if they can…), so the EU is already planning to act as a full legal entity, entering into international agreements on behalf of its member nations (read here ‘and no longer requiring their approval to do so’).
However, freedom-loving people – and people who care about children – have some serious problems with the Lisbon Treaty. In no uncertain terms, the Treaty of Lisbon legalizes pedophilia.
Yes, pedophilia.
If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, no person can be persecuted (and prosecuted) based on ‘sexual orientation’ – including the ‘sexual preference for raping children’.
Read it and weep – I did!
VictimlessCriminal explained it rather well in his video.
Whatever else may be contained in the Lisbon Treaty, its legalization of pedophilia disgusts me and makes the whole document, in my never-humble-opinion, bad, evil and every other negative term you’d like to attach to it.
Ireland has just ratified it: the Irish people have allowed the promise of cash to sell out their kids, just like most other Europeans have already done.
There are still two holdouts: the Polish and Czech president have steadfastly refused to sign. There are rumors that the Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, will sign the Lisbon Treaty this coming Sunday (though, his brother claims the rumors are false). As for the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus – well, the story gets more interesting.
President Klaus (author of ‘Blue Planet in Green Shackles’) has told the Swedish Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, that he would sign – provided they agree to insert a footnote into the ‘Fundamental Rights’ section of the Treaty!
Of course, I hope it will be a footnote that prohibits pedophilia.
There is an awesome and insightful analysis of this (not the pedophilia bit – rather, the ‘political dancing’) from Lubos Motl of The Reference Frame:
I have always thought that the Czech president is a kind of an ingenious politician. He believes in great ideas and principles and he is courageous enough to defend them. However, as far as I understand, he’s also playing politics like chess and he’s often able to defeat seemingly stronger and more numerous foes.
…
I actually think that the footnote won’t be related to any particular Czech issue.
It will be more universal in its character, it will be somewhat innocent, and its content won’t matter much. I think that the point is that the footnote would have to be approved at least by the EU Council (and who knows, maybe even a new Irish referendum). But even an innocent footnote will split this group. Some of them will say “No way, Klaus has no right to add new delays or modify the treaty” while a few of them will say “Why not, it’s a great chance to pay a small price and put the treaty to life – and a president must surely have the right to add at least a footnote, as long as we’re a democracy.”
…Of course, Klaus may also want to demand a non-trivial footnote that significantly changes the content or the validity of the treaty. Well, such things are usually not written in the footnotes. If this were the case, it would mean that Klaus is determined to fight against the treaty to the very end, in very transparent terms.
Interesting – especially considering, as Mr. Motl points out, that President Klaus is enjoying over 70% approval ratings in Czech.
Let’s hope the Czechs save the kids of all of Europe!
The following is a letter I have just emailed to my MP, and which I have copied to all the members of the Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is asking some questions about the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its activities:
Dear Mr. Poilievre!
When our paths intersected at a public event last summer, I mentioned that Mr. Ezra Levant was facing yet another nuisance lawsuit from a disgraced ex-CHRC employee – so I know that you are aware of and concerned about the current issues with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
To be honest, I was rather thrilled when the Human Rights Tribunal itself acknowledged that Section 13(1) of the Human Rights code (better known as ‘Thought Crime Section’) was unconstitutional: it gave me hope that the system can indeed be salvaged.
However, my hope was short lived.
It seems that even though it has acknowledged that Section 13(1) is unconstitutional, the CHRC is continuing to prosecute other cases under this section!
How could this be?
Is it even legal for them to do this?
How can a government agency prosecute people under a law which the Tribunal has ruled unconstitutional? Perhaps it is because I am not educated in the subject of law, but, just as an ordinary person, this does not seem legal to me. I would love it if you could make some public comment about this (of course, I understand that it cannot be immediate – you need to get the wording right and all that), perhaps an informal comment on a radio station (I have heard you speak on CFRA before), which would explain how this is possible. After all, if I am wondering this, there must be many other people who also do not understand how a government agency can prosecute citizens under a law which had been ruled to be unconstitutional.
I’m sorry if this comes across too stark or starchy or snarky – it is not meant to. I’m just trying to get to the heart of things quickly.
Also, there is currently a Commons Committee of Justice and Human Rights: Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have already answered some questions for this committee, Ms. Jennifer Lynch and others will come to answer some questions, too. (I am cc-ing (is that the proper word?) the members of this committee on this email.) I am certain that there will be many questions the committee members will ask about the substance of Section 13(1) and related issues of freedom of speech, thought, conscience, and so on. That stands to reason.
And, I have great trust that they will be thorough!
However, I would also like them to ask about the expenses at the CHRC…
Not only has it been revealed that during these trying economic times, the CHRC employees have traveled first class on airplanes, stayed at extremely expensive hotels, and so on. They may be employed by an ‘arm’s length agency’ – and ought to stay politically neutral, of course, but they are still all civil servants and they must adhere to all the rules and regulations regarding expenses which all civil servants are bound by. The optics on this have failed.
I would like to know if it truly is just the optics of the situation (it does look pretty bad that Ms. Lynch can rack up expenses from just one trip which are greater than many Canadians’ annual salary), or if there is a deeper problem there. There has even been a report that Ms. Lynch has not supplied the receipts to support her enormous expense claims, because she thought it was unreasonable and would have interfered with the operation of the CHRC!
Is this true?
What is going on?
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 