Letter to my Member of Parliament

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?

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

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!

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

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!



Post-Debate Breakfast with Tim Hudak

Last night, the Ontario Conservative Party leadership hopefuls debated at Ottawa University.

OK – I have to declare my personal bias: while I am not a member of any political party, I like Randy Hillier – and have liked him long before this leadership race started.  I like what he stands for and I like the way he stands for it.  Also, I am not a fan of the only leadership-hopeful who is a fan of the OHRC (whose federal counterpart has, BTW, just rejected their own reviewer’s call to clean up their act), Ms. Elliot.

This morning, I had the pleasure of being invited to the ‘post-debate’ breakfast with Tim Hudak.

Very interesting.

Of the conservative leadership candidates, Mr. Hudak is philosophically the closest to Mr. Hillier.  Here’s a quick summary (from my point of view):

  • Human Rights Commissions – bad
  • Rule of law – good
  • Nanny state – bad
  • Individual freedoms – even in the workplace – good
  • Dalton McGuinty – bad
  • Tax cuts – good

Can’t really argue against that!

And, I do like the nifty little quote on his website:

“For too long, individual rights have been trampled by a dysfunctional human rights bureaucracy… and the democracy of our unionized workplaces has been eroded.”

– Tim Hudak

I must admit, in person, Mr. Hudak made a very good impression on me.

Despite the early hour – following a long and exhausting evening, he was bright and fresh and smiling and pleasant.  Abandoning the microphone, he preferred to use his voice directly.  Always a good move – if the venue allows it.

And he spoke well.  He said all the ‘right’ pre-canned things, as is to be expected, touching on the his main campaign platforms.  I was pleasantly surprised to find he sounded more conservative – and less ‘watered down’ – than I had expected.  He even mentioned Ronals Regan!  That is always a hit conservatives – and it certainly scored him points with this breakfast crowd.

This is important: if the people I talked to were representative of the whole group, many of them have not yet decided whom they will vote for when the time to elect a new leader comes.  Many were weighing the Mike Harris endorsment of Tim (good) against the rumours that he has inherited a lot of the ‘John Tory people’ (bad).  Many liked Randy Hillier, but worried about his electability in the Greater Toronto Area.

The main issues on people’s minds?  Scrap the HRCs, lower taxes, fire the nanny and replace it with a state which respects people’s individual rights….  There might have been more, but these were what I heard most often and most loudly.

Still, I find it hard to gage people at these types of things.  Things are all prepared, rehearsed, people know they are ‘on the record’ and so it’s hard to separate the ‘personna’ from the ‘person’ – if you know what I mean.  So, despite the fact I quite liked Tim Hudak, I was not sure of my judgment.

Kids, on the other hand, are very good at judging a person!

Luckily, there was a lone kid at this breakfast.  Lisa MacLeod had dragged along her young daughter, Victoria (then promptly left her to find entertainment on her own, while she herself went to schmooze talk to important people).  Looking for someone to help her from her boredom, little Victoria turned to – you guessed it – Tim Hudak!

It was easy to see that Victoria knew him – and liked him.  And, she obviously trusted him – and knew he would talk to her.  Which he did.  He got down to her level, so she could talk to him eye-to-eye, and instead of brushing her off, he actually talked to her.  Until, that is, her mom ushered her away…

And, while I think (and I am not alone) that the endorsment by Lisa MacLeod is more likely going to hurt Tim Hudak in this leadership race than help him, the genuine endorsement by Ms. MacLeod Jr. is a strong plus for Mr. Hudak.

At least – in my never-humble-opinion, that is!

The ‘Censorship Creep’

People tend to react strongly when someone comes along and strips them of their rights.  Unless it is done gradually, over time… with reassurences at each step that this will ‘only be used in extreme cases’.

Laws are laws.  We must recognize what power each law gives the government – whether or not the government is claiming to ‘reserve it’ for such ‘extreme cases’ or ‘justifiable instances’ or not.  Because eventually, these laws will be applied to their fullest!

One such example is Australia.

Everybody is against child pornography.  We would also not like our young kids to be able to access regular pornography over the internet, would we?  We would all go to great lengths to protect our children!  That is part of human nature.  So, when Australia began to make sounds about the dangers of pornography over the internet and needing to protect our children from it, people listened – and allowed the government to pass some of the most restrictive internet censorship laws!

Of course, much of this was not enforced.  Everybody knew this was just a way to get at child pornographers – and to keep little kids off porn sites – and had nothing to do with limiting freedom of speech and expression!  Right?  Yes, everyone was obliged to install the ‘censorship software’ on their computers, but since the government was not enforcing much of these laws, people could choose to either turn it on or off.  So, no problem, right?

Except that last week (mostly unnoticed in the US pre-election frenzy), the Australian government announced that it is going to begin enforcing that the ‘censorship software’ be turned on!

Consider the implications of this – in order to censor something, the Australian government will have to scan it.  Therefore, any ‘sensitive’ or ‘proprietary’ or ‘private’ information will be accessed by a government bureaucrat….which opens an incredibly large potential for abuse – as well as goes against the inherent spirit of the internet.  Want to encrypt sensitive information you send over the internet?  That just might be illegal, because it would hamper the government’s ability to monitor the content…

Does it really do anything for the welfare of our children, to give the government this much power over our lives?

And it would be silly to speak up now – after all, it is a law that has been in existence for a while….there’s nothing wrong with a government enforcing its laws now, is there?  But, it started slowly and reasonably…. and next year, as it slowly becomes enforced, it will be too late to begin to protest against this law.

Let’s take another example – one that is not aimed specifically at the Internet:  Canada’s ‘Section 13’ of the Human Rights Act (NOT to be confused with the Human Rights CODE, like I have done in some of my comments in the past.  My bad).  When it was passed, we were all told it was simply a tool to root out neo-nazis and dangerous anti-semites… so we all nodded our heads and went along with it. 

The Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals – established as the guardians of Human Rights – were set up with the best ideals.  To make them accessible to people who have no means to afford a lawyer, they were made a little less ‘rigorous’ than a ‘real’ court.  At that time, it seemed a good idea to make ‘getting justice’ accessible to everyone…

But, the HRCs have now used ‘Section 13’ to force a Christian priest to renounce his faith and forbid him to ever – privately or publicly – comment on issues relating to homosexuality or marriage.  It has also been used to fine a restaurant owner who did not permit a patron to smoke cannabis on his premises – even though allowing it could have cost the restaurant owner his liquor licence.  It has aslso been used to try to force a doctor to perform a medical procedure for which he did not think he was qualified.  The list goes on and on!

But what is insidious about this ‘censorship creep’ is what it does to our society as a whole.  It rips us apart!

It gives those pompous apartchicks and busybodies the ability to wrap themselves in the cloak of righteous indignation and impose their will in ways that would otherwise not be tolerated! 

Here is an example of what I mean:  reccently, a College (well, University) radio station manager, Matthew Crosier, wrapped himself up in such a cloak of righteous indignation and got rid of a show which he did not like.  The reasoning?  Even though the hosts assured him they would comply with any policy he might impose on them, he retorted that – and I kid you not, this is a direct quote:

“We are not looking for people to conform to our mandate we are looking for programming that fits our mandate.”

In other words, Mr. Crosier is saying:  “Your obedience is insufficient – you must  believe what I believe, or I’ll kick you off the air!  Your actual behaviour is secondary to your political and personal views.”

This same person also refused to pass any actual complaints from listeners onto the show’s hosts – even with the names and contact info of the complainants redacted.  And, this is what he said about the fact that during ‘Canadian Islamic History Month’, they did a show about the Prophet Mohammad:

How do we build community by presenting the history of Mohammed by two non believers?’

And, there you have it.  Denying someone their right to speak their mind, because they do (or do not) belong to a specific religious group.

In my opinion, by making that statement, Mr. Crosier had himself breeched Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code – but because his beliefs and views are in in agreement with those of the current elites, in whose hands the control over Human Rights issues lie, he will never be prosecuted or in any way punished for breaking the law.  We have seen it before…

Because this ‘creeping censorship’ is not about changing behaviour – it is about changing peoples’ beliefs! 

It is not enough to obey, you must also LOVE big brother!

Steyn/Macleans update

As most Canadians are aware, the ‘Steyn verdict’ came out yesterday:  Steyn and Macleans have been acquitted.  If you are not aware of the situation:

  • Macleans is Canada’s oldest news magazine. 
  • Macleans reprinted, as an article, an excerpt from ‘America Alone’, a book by Mark Steyn.
  • In this excerpt, Mark Steyn quotes a Norwegian Imam as saying that (I am paraphrasing) Muslims will win Europe without ever raising the sword, because they will outbreed the indigenous Europeans.
  • The term the Imam used was that ‘Muslims are breeding like mosquitoes’…
  • There was never a question that this is an accurate quote, the Imam has confirmed saying this
  • Despite this, 3 different ‘courts’ – Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals in Canada have charged Steyn/Macleans for ‘spreading hate against Muslims’ for pritnitn this quote.
  • The Human Rights ‘courts’ do not follow the rigorous rules and procedures of a regular court, but their rulings are no less binding.  And, ‘double jeopardy’ (in this case, triple), where a person can only be charged once per offence, do not apply, nor does ‘innocent until proven guilty’, nor is truthfulness of the comment an acceptable defence:  they do not decide truthfullness, but ‘hurtfulness’ of a comment.
  • Their defence bill (not reimbursable, not allowed to even sue to be reimbursed for court costs) has topped 7 figures.

So, finally, yesterday, they were aquitted of the charges.  Here is an MP3 podcast of an interview where Mr. Steyn describes the experience in his own words.   Here’s the audio [mp3] (via Western Standard’s shotgun blog)

Chilling.

Which way does the insult go?

I love Canada.  I am a proud Canadain.  However, nothing is perfect – not even Canada.  And it has made me ache to see my beloved country destroyed from the inside by the ‘tyrrany of the nice’.  Of course, there is nothing ‘nice’ about this tyranny.  It corresponds to ‘nice’ about as much as shadenfreude does to ‘pleasure’.

I speak of nothing else than the encroaching ‘fascism with a smile’The thought police.  And before most of us noticed, they have rotted the core of several of our legal institutions here in Canada – and are having a go in the USA, too.  But, like a wart – the infection gets deeply sunk into the flesh before the outward signs are visible.

More and more Canadians have begun to wake up and smell the poison in our cups.  Mostly regular people, who don’t understand why a person is not allowed to smoke a perfectly legal cigarette where a ‘privileged’ one can openly smoke marijuana.  Or why a priest must never express his views – for the rest of his life – on issues like gay marriage.  (Don’t get me wrong, I think it idiotic and immoral to oppose same-sex marriage.  But somehow, I expect that many priests might have a different take on this – and that is their right.)

And since the calm, laid-back Canadians that we are actually began to discuss this at the watercoolers, coffe-shops and medical clinic waiting rooms (lots of people to talk to there), you know the winds of change are not far behind.  So, how do our social engineers respond?

By sicking their ‘calming sqad’ at us. 

I have trouble reading most ‘mainstream media’ print, because I love the English language and it pains me to see the abuse of grammar so routinely commited there.  But, on occassion, people bring articles to my attention… as Blazing Catfur and FiveFeetOfFury have done here.

It is stories like these that make me question whether there is such a thing as ‘media bias’.  That seems a singularly inappropriate concept – which implies that ‘bias’ is something that ‘could’ be a property of today’s journalism.  Considering the ‘social engineering’ tone of ‘calming the populace’ this article takes, I think its aim is to educate us on what we ought to be thinking.  How could that be referred to as bias?  

It is not a ‘fluff piece’, as some seem to suggest.  To the contrary.  It is a well crafted educational piece, loaded with all the ‘proper’ buzzwords to ‘show us’ what we ‘ought to think’.  To coddle us back into our woolly-headed sleepiness.  Herd the sheep into the corale…   That is the aim of the article – at least, in my never-humble-opinion.

Yet, it seems to have backfired.  Perhaps it went too far in its tone of condescention, or perhaps it came too late.  People were too awake to simply sink back into their slumber.  The comments section reflects this, and is the most interesting part of this article.  I, too, would have left a comment – but there is no way I’m giving my address to any organization that prints drivel like this! 

Ah, yes.  The comments section.  Many of the comments point out that Mr. Warman, the much-admired subject of this article who often sues on behalf of others who – in his mind – ‘ought to’ have been offended but were not (and who is one of the worst offenders the thought police has to offer) is suing ‘some bloggers’ (including FiveFeetOfFury and BlazingCatfur) because, somebody commenting on their site called Warman a ‘Nazi’ (I think). 

What I am not entirely clear about is this:  is he suing because he thinks that calling him a ‘Nazi’ is an insult to himself, or to ‘Nazis’???

It could go either way, you know….

Correction:  Blazing Catfur is not, in fact, being sued by Warman (though she had been threatened with other suits).  This was my misunderstanding.  However, many pro-free speech bloggers are.  I apologize for my mistake.

UPDATE:  The Globe and Mail has not closed the ‘Comment’ section on the article I wrote about in this post.  However, Blazing Catfur has taken some screenshots and these can be accessed HERE!  I wonder if this is simply frustration on thier part, because their ‘education’ had backfired, or if someone had threatened them….

Comment to B’nai Brith Canada

B’nai Brith Canada is one of the oldest human rights organizations in Canada.  Several days ago, they released a very interesting document titled:

Hate Jurisdictions of Human Rights Commissions: A System in Need of Reform

Submission by the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada to the Canadian Human Rights Commission

 It is an interesting document, both in what it says and in what its publication implies:  even the most ‘politically correct’ human rights organizations are considering the current happenings at the Canadian HRCs to be, in the least, worriesome.  That should give us all a moment to pause and think!

Dr. Frank Dimant is Executive Vice President of B’nai Brith Canada and CEO of the organization’s Institute for International Affairs and the League for Human Rights.  Yestreday, on his blog ‘Frankly Speaking’, he asked for feedback on what people thought of the abovemantioned document. 

Following is the comment I submitted: 

Having read this submission several days ago, I found much in it which was very true and in need of saying.  Thank you for that.

However, there were some parts which I very strongly disagreed with and which – in my opinion – are illustrations of fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of human rights.  Please, allow me to explain using just one example.

In section iii – ‘Hate jurisdictions and their essential role’, there is a statement:  “The Holocaust did not begin with censorship.  It began with hate speech.  Auschwitz was built with words.”

This statement is demonstrably untrue.  The Holocaust DID INDEED begin with censorship:  the censorship OF hate speech! 

Prior to Hitler’s rise to power, Germany did indeed have hate speech laws, very similar to those we have here in Canada today.  These laws were indeed used to prosecute those who ‘spread hate against Jews’ – and Jewish leaders of that era were very satisfied with the application and efficacy of these laws!

It was precisely these hate speech laws which Hitler, once in power, used in order to silence dissenters – the very people who could have prevented atrocities like Auschwitz…..had they not been stripped of their freedom of speech. 

Auschwitz could never have been built had the fear of prosecution under hate speech laws not silenced those who would have spoken up against it!

It is precisely because hate speech laws can be, were and are used to silence those who would protest ‘incitement to hate’ which makes atrocities a possibility.  True, the ‘incintement to hate’ must (at least at first) be veiled or disguised in order to become entrenched as ‘acceptable’, but the veil can be very thin indeed.  We have seen it in history (the Nazi regime) and we are seeing it again from militant Islamists.

It is not by coincidence that many leaders of militant and politicized Islamism idolize Hitler.  But these Islamists are doing more than just idolizing Hitler- they are quite intentionally emulating him by using hate speech laws as a weapon, not a shield.  Failing to recognize this could be very bad for our society.

There is no place for hate speech laws in a society which wishes to remain free and whose citizens respect each other’s rights.  It was these hate speech laws themselves which facilitated  opression, torture and murder under the Nazi regime and which can (and, I fear, will) be used in this way again!  That is something we must never again allow to happen!

If you would be interested in more of my observartions, please, contact me.

Thank you,

Xanthippa

When telling jokes can get you jailed…

Sometimes, I have a terrible feeling that the social engineers are attempting to create a Canada which is very much like the good soldier Svejk’s Austro-Hungaria!

Well, perhaps they are not trying, but they sure are succeeding!

Why do I think this?

The novel ‘The Good Soldier Svejk’ by Jaroslav Hasek, widely regarded as the earliest example of modernist writing, is said to be perhaps the first ‘anti-war’ novel ever.  Yet, it describes no combat, no killing, no military training…. 

I don’t think it is an anti-war novel at all.  I think, like his contemporary Kafka’s ‘The Castle’, it is anti-bureaucracy novel!  It uses humour to explain the ridiculesness of existing in a over-bureaucritized, regulations-trump-common-sense system where humans are merely an afterthought!

And, like it or not, that is what Canada is slowly but surely becoming!

All right, let’s keep the ‘big cases’ tackled by the ‘Human Rights Commissions’ aside for a while, and look at some of the other examples of where ‘bureaucratization’ has replaced normal scoial discourse:

This one, I witnessed with my own eyes, or I might have had a hard time believing it..

A man, obviously ill, produced an invalid publich health insurance card at a medical clinic. The nice lady behind the counter refused his offer to pay to see a doctor:  ‘As a resident of Ontario, you are entitled to free health care.  So, you are not allowed to pay money to see a doctor.  Just go down to the government office, get the problems with your card straightened out, and we’ll be glad to put your name down on the waiting list.’

How nice!

And while I am on healthcare, how about this one…

A elderly gentleman (in his 70’s or 80’s) came to a specialist’s office for his appointment.  Being forgetful, he could not find his ‘card’…but did not want to loose the appointment, as he had waited 3 months to get in.  The receptionist went into a bit of a panic…  Paying was out of question, that would be illegal.  Seeing the patient without having the card first – well, they could face big penalties when they got audited (not if, but when – most doctors are audited 2-3 times each year to make sure they adhere to all the government regulations, like appointment length per patient).

After talking to the doctor, she came up with a unique solution:  the doctor would see him, no card, no charge, but during his lunch.  And it would not be recorded on the official medical chart, so the doctor could not get into trouble with the government. 

How insane is that!?!?!

When doctors are afraid of seeing patients because of sanctions by the government, we have Svejk-like bureaucritization of our society! 

And don’t let me get started on education, where a kindergarten teacher is not allowed to comfort a child that fell, because it might infringe cultural practices…

The laws tell us what kind of signs we are – and are not allowed – to put up to promote our businesses.

How can one expect humane treatment, when the bureaucratic process becomes more important than people?

But all this is only a tiny, tiny part of the whole machine!

Yes, a bureaucratic machine is the universal result of an overbloated government which continuously  attempts to expand its existence by regulating more and more aspects of its citizens’ lives.  And, as a rule, bureaucrats tend to be very, very humourless…

Of course, this is where the Human Rights Commissions come in:  their role is to keep the machine going by eradicating all semblance of independent thought.  After all, independent thought might lead to independent action – and we only want machine government regulated actions around here!

Is it surprising, then, that humour just might be made illegal in Canada?

This guy, Guy Earle, is being dragged through the legal system, because his jokes were ‘hate speech’….here is his account of that saga:  (Note – may contain offensive humour/language.)

It seems insane, but the HRCs DO have the right to forbit this man from ever telling a joke again!

Since their rulings are recorded with a real court, they are binding – and were this comedian to breech it, he could indeed be jailed.  There is a fundraised for him this coming Saturday, in Toronto.

Now, I do recall some countries – under some regimes – where people could be jailed for telling jokes.  Coincidentally, they all valued bureaucracies over people.  Namely, Nazi Germany, Communist Soviet Union and its satellites, and so on. 

Oh, and let’s not forget, the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire of the good soldier Svejk!

Ezra Levant’s speech to the US Congress

Yesterday, Mr. Ezra Levant spoke as an expert witness to the US Congress on the topic of human rights, freedom of speech and their erosion through lawfare and ‘soft jihad’.  Here is the link to the entire speech, from which come these following excerpts:

Canadian human rights commissions, however, are not respectful of the sensitivities of all religions. Less politically correct faiths are regularly prosecuted by them. This May, an Alberta pastor named Stephen Boissoin was given a lifetime gag order, never to say anything critical of homosexuality – not in a church sermon, not even in private e-mails. As well, in what can only be called a Maoist verdict, he has been ordered to renounce his religious beliefs, and to publish a self-denunciation in the local newspaper.”

“By the way, the truth of what you say is not a defence. And at the Maclean’s magazine trial last month, half a day was spent determining whether their jokes were funny. They even had a joke expert.

Don’t laugh – literally. Just three weeks ago, a comedian was ordered to stand trial for telling off-colour jokes in a night club. Warning to Chris Rock: don’t bother coming to Canada”

“Because we didn’t fight for freedom of speech and freedom of conscience for people who were hard to like, now we’re having to fight for those fundamental freedoms for ourselves. It’s always better to fight in the first ditch rather than the last one.

The legal onslaught against freedom of speech and religious pluralism continues. There are 14 human rights commission in Canada, employing 1,000 people, and with an annual budget of $200-million. It’s an industry, and it needs social strife to stay in business. So it positively drums up discontent. This spring in Alberta, 60,000 new immigrants were taught English as a Second Language using a workbook all about how to file grievances, including against un-funny jokes.”

The conclusion of Mr. Levant’s speech is eloquent, and very, very powerful:

So what can Americans do? 

1. The first thing you can do is what you always do: continue to monitor the erosion of freedom around the world, including through Congressional committees like this one. Publish annual reports shaming foreign countries for their abuses of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Put Canada on that list, to let our government know what they’re doing isn’t acceptable.

2. And rededicate yourselves to your First Amendment. Understand that the erosion of freedom doesn’t always happen with a bang – it can happen with a whimper. And that, when it comes to free speech, it’s usually unpopular people who are censored first. But if they can go for a neo-Nazi yesterday, it’s Geno’s Steak House today, and then a Christian pastor or a news magazine tomorrow.

I believe in a pluralist society where I can be Jewish, he can be Christian, she can be Muslim, and we all get along peacefully – we can agree to disagree about political or religious matters. The use of our own Western laws to crush such disagreement, and end healthy debate, is a threat to all of us, and the U.S. Congress should be on guard.”

 

 

 

(All emphasis is Mr. Levant’s)

Brilliant!

In a related development, the very radical Imam who brought a complaint against Mr. Levant and his then magazine, Western Standard – and thus starting the process which had turned Mr. Levant into ‘an expert’ in this field, may indeed be becoming less radicalized…  Unless I am much mistaken, this is the very first radical Imam who has actually become more moderate after exposure to our ‘western’ values and publicly said so.

 Via Blazing Catfur, the Pete Vere editorieal article in SooToday.com  which prints S. Soharwardy’s letter:

“Response to recent human rights decisions

by Syed Soharwardy

When I initiated my complaint against Mr. Levant, I saw human rights commissions as a non-violent means of resolving differences among Canadians.

I was not aware of the controversies between the commissions and Canada’s faith communities. I am thinking specifically of my friend Fred Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary.

Upon learning about the difficulties he and other faith communities have encountered with the commissions, I withdrew my complaint against Mr. Levant.

One of the reasons I chose Canada as my adopted homeland is because of our country’s great respect for religious freedom.

In Canada, I am free to be good Canadian and a good Muslim. There is no contradiction between the two.

In listening to the experiences of Bishop Henry and Pastor Boissoin, I realized how precious religious freedom is to our country and how easily freedom is lost.

Yes, I have often expressed concerns over Islamophobia.

Some of the portrayals of Muslims in the media have been painful – so much so, that I worried when I set out across Canada on the multifaith walk against violence.

However, the reaction from ordinary Canadians could not have been more hospitable. Canadians of all races, colours, religions, and ages have welcomed me, a Muslim man with brown skin, into their homes, their neighbourhoods and their communities.

They have walked with me, eaten with me and prayed with me.

They have expressed strong concern for preserving our civil liberties – which includes freedom of speech and religion.

They have also expressed a strong desire to end violence in Canada and around the world.

This experience has taught me that we can only end violence when we respect the freedom of all Canadians.

There will always be pockets of Islamophobia in Canada, just like there are still pockets of anti-Semitism, racism and sexism.

However, I have learned that the best way to dispel misconceptions between our various cultures and communities is for us to meet face to face and learn from each other’s similarities and difference.

This can only be accomplished in a society that respects freedom of expression, freedom of religion and all of our other democratic freedoms.”

As ‘they’ say:  we live in interesting times!