More corporate fascism for squashing freedom of speech

October 19, 2009 — xanthippa

In my short post yesterday, Thunderf00t’s video demonstrated how easy it is for a large corporation – specifically Google, which controls how the vast majority of information on the internet is accessed – could easily collude with politicians for their own benefit…and to the detriment of us, the ‘little people’.  In addition, Thunderf00t demonstrated how, through YouTube, Google had already demonstrated that they do censor (by not allowing their search engines to ‘pick it up’ and thus making it ‘virtually dissappear’) information which is critical of them…

The desire, means and ability:  it’s all there!

Sadly, that is just the tip of the iceberg!!!

From Michael Geist:

… the Electronic Commerce Protection Act comes to a conclusion in committee on Monday as MPs conduct their “clause by clause” review. While I have previously written about the lobbying pressure to water down the legislation [to protect consumer rights] (aided and abetted by the Liberal and Bloc MPs on the committee) and the CMA’s recent effort to create a huge loophole, I have not focused on a key source of the pressure. Incredibly, it has been the copyright lobby – particularly the software and music industries – that has been engaged in a full court press to make significant changes to the bill.

…

The DRM [Digital Rights Managament] concern arises from a requirement in the bill to obtain consent before installing software programs on users’ computers. This anti-spyware provision applies broadly, setting an appropriate standard of protection for computer users. Yet the copyright lobby fears it could inhibit installation of DRM-type software without full knowledge and consent. Sources say that the Liberals have introduced a motion that would take these practices outside of the bill.

…

Even more troubling are proposed changes that would allow copyright owners to secretly access [personal] information on users’ computers.

(my emphasis and notes)

OK – let’s sum up:

Large multinational corporations are lobbying (and succeeding, with Liberal and Quebec PMs) to allow changes to the proposed  Electronic Commerce Protection Act which will permit – in the name of protecting their copyright – manufacturers of products (from video games to music CDs to just about anything else that is ‘electronic media’) to install and run programs on your computer, which would gather personal data about you and your computer use.  And, it would allow them to do it without your permission – and even without your knowledge!!!

If there really are people out there who think this is something that only concerns people who steal music or movies, please, think twice.

Do we permit the police – who, at least, are accountable to the citizenry – to wiretap our phone ‘just to make sure we are not breaking the law’?  NO!  They must prove, to the satisfaction of a judge, that there is a cause for surveillance, get a court order, and only then can they listen in.  If it ever gets to court, the police are obligated to disclose all that they have.  And, so it should be.

This lobbied-for change would, in effect, permit private corporations – who are not accountable to anyone but their own BOD and shareholders – to ‘wiretap’ your computer, monitor every keystroke, access data in every bit of memory.  Without any judicial oversight, without any requirement that they disclose the information they collected – or what it was they were collecting in the first place.

This would permit corporations to install ANY SPYWARE  THEY WANT on ANY computer… and this software could attack any program or data it deemed to be in breech of DRM.

And, you have no say in it.

Remember what happened to all those Kindle users, who woke up one day and found books they legally purchased deleted, because somewhere higher up the chain, people were bickering about digital rights?

Well, this would become the norm:  anyone who had any claim to a copyright could install software on your computer – without you even knowing about it – and if this found anything it considered breeched its DRM, it would delete it.  Even if you bought it legally.  Because if there were any dispute anywhere along the line, their ability to delete ‘the content’ would be supreme.  Really.

Is this reasonable?

Is this the fair balance of rights?

And if you don’t think this is happening already, you are wrong!

Even Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, warns of the impact these changes would have to the privacy rights of Canadian citizens:

Technological advances hold out the promise of greater convenience, but sometimes at a cost to human rights such as privacy and the ability to control our personal information.

Meanwhile, governments and businesses have a seemingly insatiable appetite for personal information.

Governments appear to believe – mistakenly, I would argue – that the key to national security and public safety is collecting mountains of personal data. Privacy often receives short shrift as new anti-terrorism and law enforcement initiatives are rolled out.

Personal information has also become a hot commodity in the private sector. Our names, addresses, purchases, interests, likes and dislikes are recorded, analysed and stored – all so companies can sell us more products and services.

Adding to our concerns is the fact many businesses fail to adequately protect this sensitive information – leaving it vulnerable to hackers and identity thieves.

And if you thought THAT was not enough….

This idea has been ‘rumbling about’ for a few months, but recently received publicity when Eugene Kasparsky openly stated that each internet user should have an internet passport.  This would, presumably, document their every click and keystroke, which could then be monitored through increased internet regulation.  I dare reach this conclusion because Mr. Kasparsky also said that there must be no anonymity on the internet, and any country which refuses to regulate and monitor its citizens should be cut off the net.

Oh, and this should all be enforced by ‘internet police’!

I’d like to change the design of the Internet by introducing regulation—Internet passports, Internet police, and international agreement—about following Internet standards. – Eugene Kaspersky,
CEO of Russia’s Kaspersky Lab

OK – this idea is radical now.  You may shake your head and say this will never be possible.

But, 40 years ago, did anyone think that, once accused, the ‘truth’ could not be used as ‘defense’?

Posted in opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

He who controls information, controls ‘thought’

October 18, 2009 — xanthippa

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:

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Calling all Canadians: free speech petition

October 16, 2009 — xanthippa

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

Posted in freedoms, politics, society. Tags: , , , . 1 Comment »

Just imagine all the … oppression?

October 14, 2009 — xanthippa

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)

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Letter to my Member of Parliament

October 6, 2009 — xanthippa

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?

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

When ‘spokespeople’ tarnish the whole group…

September 9, 2009 — xanthippa

Yet again, a few ‘spokespeople’ claiming to represent a rich (in human qualities – not wealth!) and diverse community have done a great disservice to themselves and all the people they claim to speak for.  In one moment, they have erased the individuality of the members of their group, and chosen to cast them all in the role of extremists… all in the role of victims.  (I will not identify this specific incident until later on in the post, because it is essential that I explain my disgust with the behaviour in general, before focusing on the specific.)

This happens so often, and in so varied groups, one could perhaps argue that it is one of the defining attributes of humanity.  This one, however, is as unhelpful and counterproductive as it is predictable.

Why?

Well, first, let’s consider who usually ‘speaks for a group’ – as an unofficial spokesperson:

  1. A professional communicator, who understands how to get their message across?
  2. A wise and respected person, who has the full backing of the ‘group’?
  3. A moderate, who gets along with everyone, whether members of ‘the group’ or other people, and works hard to make sure everyone understands all points, so there is no chance for a slight to arise from a misunderstanding?
  4. An extremist and/or someone who wants to manipulate people within the group into feeling like they are ‘under attack’ in order to gain some amount of manipulative control over them?

Let’s consider them, one at a time:

1.  A professional communicator, who understands how to get their message across

Professional communicators are usually professionals, who cost a lot of money.  Therefore, they tend to be ‘official’ spokespeople, not ‘unofficial ones’ when it comes to ‘unorganized groups’.  Still, some sub-groups – which might wish to manipulate the rest of the ‘group’, might choose to hire professional communicators.  However, the message these professionals deliver is not in the interest of the larger group, but instead only serves whatever the purposes of the sub-group that hired it.  In other words, if the spokesperson IS a professional communicator, one must ask who hired him, and to what purpose.

2.   A wise and respected person, who has the full backing of the ‘group’

Well – these are usually called ‘official spokespeople’ – on the grounds that they actually have the ‘backing of the whole group’.  So, by definition, unofficial spokespeople do not fall into category #2.

3.   A moderate, who gets along with everyone, whether members of ‘the group’ or other people, and works hard to make sure everyone understands all points, so there is no chance for a slight to arise from a misunderstanding

Well, again, not likely.  Moderates usually do not have the desire – or feel the need to – speak out.  It is enough for them to be secure in who they are, because they know that real bigotry is the problem of the bigot and perceived bigotry is not worth bothering with.  There is, of course, an exception to this:  when even the moderates within the group feel threatened, they will speak out.

However, that is not the situation I am attempting to address here:  it is an essential distinction!  When the whole of a group is truly threatened, then it is essential that the moderates are the ones who speak out.  So, how do we tell the situations apart?  It has been my experience that when moderates speak out, they speak for themselves – and they clearly state that they have no pretentions of speaking for everyone else.  They will share their experiences – and only by listening to their stories will one realize that it is not just this one individual who is affected, but other members of the community, too.  When people speak up and, before they even get to tell you what happened to them, personally, they start out by saying that ‘the group’ as a whole is being threatened, when they begin by claiming that they speak for ‘everyone’ – without having an ‘official spokesperson’ status – then, in my never-humble-opinion, one is justified in suspecting a manipulation.

Which kind of brings me to #4:  An extremist and/or someone who wants to manipulate people within the group into feeling like they are ‘under attack’ in order to gain some amount of manipulative control over them ….

Ah, yes…I think I’ve made this point already.

Please, judge for yourself if in this instance, we are dealing with #1, 2, 3 or 4:

An MP (Member of Parliament) sent (several versions of) a brochure to his constituents, now that the Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13(1) of our Human Rights Code conravenes the Canadian Constitution.  In that brochure, the MP criticized ‘radical Muslim voices’ who, in many peoples’ opinions, abused this section of the HR code.

The key word here is ‘RADICAL’!

He did not criticize Muslims, or even the majority of Muslims, or any such thing.  He clearly (and, if the reports are accurate, unequivocally) specified that it was the extremists whom he was referring to.

This did not stop ‘unofficial spokespeople’ (though some claim to be official, since there is no external, universally accepted authority structure in Islam, it is not possible to actually have an ‘official spokesperson for all Muslims’ – by the very tenets of Islam!) from claiming that this MP had attacked ALL Muslim people!

Take note:  this is an important distinction!

The MP specified he was referring to a few extremist voices only.

The ‘spokespeople’ claimed he had maligned ALL Muslims!

Even a cursory application of logic makes it clear that these ‘spokespeople‘ are making the extravagant patently false claim that ALL MUSLIMS ARE EXTREMISTS!

I’m sorry, but I do not believe that for a moment!

More than just ‘believe’ – I KNOW it is not true!  One of my favourite cousins is a Muslima – and she is certainly not an extremist!  She is a wonderful person – I wish more people were like she is, because then more of us would get along without all these manipulations and ‘stuff’!

These self-appointed loudmoths do NOT speak for her!  I know, because I asked her.  THEY did NOT!

And, I want those ‘spokespeople’ to be found and dragged in front of the whole world community to answer for their slanderous misrepresentation of many, many excellent Canadians!

It is THEY who is spreading hate and division and discord among us!

It is high time they were held responsible for their evil deeds!

H/T:  Blazing Catfur whose site now includes the brochres which triggered this ‘outrage’.

Connie at FreeDominion has 6 pdf’s of the brochures.

P.S.:  If you would like to say a few supportive words to the MP, his address is Anders.R@parl.gc.ca

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, opression, politics, religion. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

s[ection]. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter

September 2, 2009 — xanthippa

Today is a day to celebrate!

Today, we have seen the first acquittal in  Human Rights trial under Section 13(1) – the ‘Thought Crimes’ section!

BCF has the scoop:

Athanosis Hadjis delivered the decision, which included the following:

…I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter.

YES!!!

Now that we have a ruling that the infamous Section 13(1) is inconsistent with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the road is paved to having it repealed!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

A chat with Lisa MacLeod

July 27, 2009 — xanthippa

What interesting times we live in!

Tonight, Lisa MacLeod – the newly named Finance critic in Tim Hudak’s shadow cabinet – hosted a meet-and-greet with Tim Hudak.

It was very lovely.   Truly.

And while I spent most of my time talking with other attendees – especially with fellow immigrants to Canada – about our negative experiences with official Apartheid Multiculturalism policies (the latest honour dishonour killings made people – and not just us, immigrants – very, very angry), I did get to exchange a word or two with a few of the celebs there.

It’s been a very long day – and my stamina is still very low – so this will have to be a very brief post.  Yet, these little bits are well worth mentioning!

Mr. Pierre Poilievre was there and we exchanged a few words about the latest lawfare suit launched by one of ‘The Sock Puppets’ against Ezra Levant.  (Aside:  Wednesday, July 29th 2009, there will be an online fundraiser for Mr.Levant’s defense fund at Mark Steyn’s online store .  He is fighting this battle for all of us!  Thanks to BCF and 5’ofF for the tip!)

Then, I had a little chat with Lisa MacLeod, my host.  She was, well, to put it mildly, not impressed with what I have written about her in the past.  I can’t say I’m surprised, or that I blame her!  What can I say – she makes very lousy 1st impressions…which I did mention, unless I am much mistaken…

I must say that her reaction surprised me a little.  I was expecting her to be most upset by my criticism of her conduct as a politician…which we went into, very briefly.  Yes, the tention in the air was, as they say, palpable.

Still,  it was my criticism of her parenting that really, really upset her.  I must admit, I was not willing to  back down – I write what I see, as I see it;  no more, no less and I asked her if what I wrote was incorrect.  This seemed to upset Ms. MacLeod:  the anger seemed to dissipate and be replaced by a different kind of  ‘upset’.  That is good:  it showed me that beneath the ‘thick-skinned politician’ veneer (which I was so turned off by), there may be a truly genuine person who cares about the important things in life!

At this point, Ms. MacLeod excused herself and went  to watch her daughter play at the nearby playstructure.

Now, I am thinking that I may have been too quick to judge her:  that I fell for the image she tries to project (not one I would advise projecting) and failed to see the person behind it.  If she convinces me I was wrong about her, I’ll write about it.  

IF she convinces me!

Posted in freedoms, immigrants, perceptions, politics. Tags: , , , . 1 Comment »

Just Right: ‘Obama’s America ‘going Canadian’ on hate crime’

July 21, 2009 — xanthippa

How many ways are there of saying:  NOT GOOD!  NOT GOOD!  NOT GOOD!

Just Right has the story – with the video:

Sneaking it in under cover of a defense authorization bill with debate scheduled for the wee hours of the morning the Democrats succeeded in passing sweeping new federal hate crimes legislation.

Just as the ‘general awareness’ of this intrusive oppression is rising in Canada, Americans are going to be blindsided by it!

Of course, the majority of Americans will remain oblivious to the danger, thinking their constitution will protect them and their rights… till one of these neo-fascists smiles primly at them, explaining that ‘Freedom of speech is not an American concept’…or some such thing.

They’ll never believe it could happen to them – even though it already has!

Ayayayayay!



Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

What is wrong with the Human Rights Commissions?

June 12, 2009 — xanthippa

One of my young American friends has asked me an honest question:  “What is wrong with the Ontario Human Rights Commission?”

Where do I begin?!?!?

But, it is my bane that I always seem to think that if I know something, then it must be clear and obvious to everyone else!  Of course, this is not so – and I KNOW that… I just forget it sometimes and do not explain things as thoroughly or clearly as I ought to.  My apologies!

The topic of our Human Rights Commissions is less clear to people who do not live in Canada and have not been following what has been happening to our rights and freedoms…. but it is NO LESS important to them, because these things are spreading in Medusa-like fashion and subverting the very foundations on which our ‘Western’ civilization is built.

So, here is a little explanation (sorry if it is a bit of a rant – I get very emotional about this!)

OHRC is called ‘Ontario Human Rights Commission‘.  It is a fancy name which suggests that its aims are to protect human rights: and, it – along with it mother-organization, the Canadian Human Rights Agency and sister ones, one for each Province and Territory in Canada – was created with that in mind.  It was meant to be a non-threatening place that people who were denied housing or jobs because of the colour of their skin could go and record their grievance.

This was especially aimed at the less-privileged members of society who would not be able to afford an attorney and try to get justice in court.

So, the theory goes, the agency accepts the grievance/complaint, investigates it on its own and, if it finds it meritorious, it is then supposed to (somehow – without ever going to court) figure out a way to fix the problem.  The solution it decides on then becomes legally binding, as if it were a declaration of a real court.

In effect, the ‘Human Rights Commissions’ – and/or their tribunals – become the complainant, the investigator, prosecutor and judge…  It answers to nobody!

Can you spot the problem?

What has happened with Canadian HRCs – federal and provincial/territorial – is that they have been staffed with people who ‘have causes’.  And these people are promoting their ’causes’ at the expense of REAL human rights.

Their main line is that ‘human rights’ have to be ‘balanced’ against the need of the society to ‘promote tolerance’.  In other words, anything which these people find ‘rude’ or ‘intolerant’, they have the power to censor, ban and so on.

Here is a recent example from the Ontario HRC.  A guy was smoking pot in the doorway of a restaurant.  Pot is, of course, illegal – but this guy had a ‘medical exemption’.  Smoking, however – inside and within 2 m (I think – this does vary from place to place) of a restaurant (or any other place where people work) is forbidden.  The law does NOT specify cigarette smoke or pot or whatever else.

The ‘no smoking’ laws came about because people insisted that EVERYONE has the RIGHT to work in a smoke-free environment.  And, nobody has the right to CHOOSE to work where people smoke, because ‘poor people’ might be coerced….  OK, so we all banned smoking in or near workplaces.

Now, this restaurant owner finds himself in front of the OHRC, because he asked a guy NOT to smoke within the legal ‘no-smoking’ boundary.  He ended up – when it was all over – with tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs….

And, he lost:  the OHRC said that because the guy has a ‘medical exemption’, he can smoke his pot anywhere he wants to – including INSIDE this guy’s restaurant.’

A couple of weeks later, the ‘no-smoking enforcement’ people show up at the restaurant for inspection, and see this guy smoking pot.  They cite the restaurant owner for violation of the rights of his workers to work in a smoke-free environment – and the restaurant owner looses his liquor license….

The OHRC people are enforcing THEIR ruling and care nothing about the smoking bannies laws.  The smoking bannies are enforcing THEIR laws, and don’t care about the OHRCs ruling – not their jurisdiction!

The poor sap gets caught in the middle – and pays, pays pays legal fees,  fines and eventually looses his right to run his business (his type of restaurant cannot survive without a liquor license!).

But THAT is just ONE of MANY such cases.

And these HRCs have the right to issue a lifetime gag-order on people:  forbidding them from speaking, writing, or communicating in any way, shape or form, publicly or privately, on specific topics.  These lifetime gag-orders, once issued, are legally binding!

If you thought things could not get worse….

The ‘double jeopardy’ – where you can only be tried for a crime in one jurisdiction – does NOT APPLY with HRCs in Canada.  For example, MacLeans magazine was charged – for the same complaint – in three different jurisdictions:  Ontario, BC AND federally!  And, they HAD TO prepare a defense – and pay lawyers – for each one of the three trials!

Recently, the OHRC’s head, Barbara Hall, has been making noises about expanding the scope of the ‘transgressions’ they will assume jurisdiction over.

Oh – by the way – TRUTH is NO DEFENSE against the HRCs!

The complainant does NOT have to prove anything.  And, even if the defendant proves that what they said/did was TRUE, it does not matter – IF it has a POTENTIAL to harm someone by making them FEEL discriminated against!

So, no CRIME, no HARM is needed:  only the POTENTIAL for ANYONE to PERCEIVE something MIGHT be hurtful or seen as discriminatory is sufficient to find one guilty…

Another thing I revile these organizations for is that they are often used at the tool to enforce linguistic apartheid which is like a cancer on our Canadian society.

The people running this – the investigators AND the ‘judges’ – do NOT have to have ANY training in law whatsoever.  Many don’t!  Evidence has shown that a cop dismissed for some serious corruption is now a mover and a shaker at the Ontario HRC… As well, some evidence seems to be coming that several of these HRCs have been infiltrated by radical Islamists who find anything short of instituting Sharia to be ‘offensive’!

Just think about it:  extrajudicial process – with none of the restraints cops and real trials have (the HRCs can enter your premises and seize things without a warrant or notification to you – and you are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty – and truth is no defense…), in the hands of people who think that individual rights are things that must systematically bow and be supplanted by ‘community needs’.

THAT – ALL of the things I listed above…and much more – is why so many of us want to get rid of these corrupt, un-accountable, oppressive organizations who now have the power to limit our human rights at their whim to serve their own special interests!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 7 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »