June 21, 2008 | In Politics | 1 Comment
Blogger and activist, Ezra Levant, does a great job of summarizing the Liberal Party of Canada’s proposed carbon emissions tax: “Vote Liberal: Painful new taxes, to change your behaviour.”
The Liberals understand that “environmentalism” is all the rage in Canada these days, and are trying to maximize their electoral fortunes. That’s why they’re proposing a painful new tax on carbon emissions that will cause us to “change our behaviour” when it comes to oil and gas products.
We get to freeze in winter, swelter in summer, and ride around on bicycles all year round. But don’t worry, it’s all for the environment. If we don’t feel the pain now, we’ll feel even more later. And the (nanny) state knows best… Right?
I wonder how well this reconciles with the Liberals’ new proposal to ban spanking as a means of parental discipline…
The Liberal-dominated Senate has voted to introduce legislation that would eliminate Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which states that parents and caretakers are “justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child (aged 2 to 12) … if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.”
In other words, they want to define the reasonable discipline of children as criminal assault.
This legislation, together with a recent court decision overturning the grounding of a 12-year-old girl in Quebec, demonstrates that government is eager to get in on the discipline business… against parents that is. In short, responsible adults are being prohibited from making reasonable decisions regarding the discipline of their own children. The natural family is being eroded in favour of nanny state standardization.
So the government gets to impose whatever painful punishments it feels like, so as to change our behaviour. But when responsible parents want to change their children’s behavior, they go to jail.
Nice logic, Stéphane Dion.
June 12, 2008 | In Politics | 2 Comments
Anger is mounting against Human Rights Commissions in Canada, and the case of Reverend Stephen Boissoin is a great example as to why.
I know very little about Rev. Boissoin – only what I’ve read in the media and on the internet. As a Christian pastor, Boissoin apparently feels a strong personal commitment to traditional family values. He believes in an exclusively heterosexual conception of marriage and family, and feels that the homosexual rights lobby is attempting to erode and marginalize his ideals.
In June 2002, Rev. Boissoin decided to vent his frustration in a letter to the editor of his local newspaper, the Red Deer Advocate. This simple act of writing a letter, in hopes of having one’s ideas published, is a very normal thing to do. In a free society, it should be considered an inalienable right.
Some might argue that Rev. Boissoin’s letter to the editor wasn’t the most eloquent example of civil discourse. In it, he rants about “the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s.” He criticizes the inclusion of pro-gay tolerance classes in the public school curriculum, claiming that “our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.”
After his letter was published, Boissoin was investigated by Alberta’s Human Rights Commission, and charged under s. 3 of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act (equivalent to s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act). This legislation makes it an illegal act to publish anything that is “likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt.”
Like most respondents to “human rights” cases in Canada (100% under s. 13 of the federal Act), Rev. Boissoin was convicted. On May 30, he was ordered to pay fines and damages of $7,000, subjected to a forced speech ban (preventing him from saying anything “disparaging” about gays for the rest of his life), and ordered to publicly renounce and apologize for his beliefs.
This pastor, who dared to complain that schools were pushing a certain moral agenda onto children, is now being forced to pledge loyalty to that same moral agenda himself. If he fails to comply, he could go to jail. This is the current legal situation in Canada.
Promoting homosexual “tolerance” in schools, and “redefining” marriage (as if such a thing was possible) are simple examples of social engineering – a gentle yet insidious method of imposing certain moral beliefs on citizens. But as soon as the state starts actively prosecuting people for their honestly-held moral beliefs, we’ve moved beyond the realm of social engineering and into the domain of soft fascism, which can easily lead to hard fascism if people are too complacent to fight back.
20 years ago, most of Rev. Boissoin’s ideas would have been perfectly acceptable, even applauded, by the majority of Canadians.
Whether or not you agree with Boissoin’s views today, the moral of this story is worth considering. Legislation against speech and thought can be applied to anyone. Nobody is safe.
May 30, 2008 | In Politics, Law | 1 Comment
A ludicrous bureaucratic logjam involving Victoria’s Old Morris Tobacconist shop was broken this week in the form of an awkward compromise between City of Victoria heritage planners and the Vancouver Island Health Authority.
In recent weeks, Old Morris Tobacconist owner, Rick Arora, found himself between a rock and a hard place as health officials threatened to fine him up to $5,000 for his store’s outdoor signs, which allegedly “advertise” tobacco products in a public place. The problem was that removal of these signs, which have been in place since 1910, would have violated municipal rules against “altering a heritage building” (punishable with fines of up to $1-million).
After the story received media attention earlier this week, the relevant government agencies were forced to have a meeting and reach a solution. Mr. Arora gets to keep his “Tobacconist” sign over the main entrance to his store, but must cover up another sign promoting “house blends” and “Havana cigars.”
This sounds like a reasonable, relatively inoffensive compromise solution. But it’s not.
The fundamental problem with this arrangement is that two bureaucratic agencies got to “compromise” on a solution, while a private business owner who actually owns the store was given no say whatsoever.
Government bodies created the problem in the first place, and government bodies spent taxpayers’ money to “solve” it, while ignoring the only individual with legitimacy to make a decision. Such is the nature of the modern-day social democratic state.
In theory, I fully support covenants protecting heritage buildings, provided that property owners give their voluntary consent that they and all future owners will cooperate with given restrictions (potentially lowering the property value). In the case of a truly exceptional building or landmark, members of the public should raise money to incentivize owners to sign such a contract.
In the case of our provincial Tobacco Control Act, however, the government is violating natural property rights plain and simple. Private businesses should be able to set their own regulations with regard to both tobacco use (indoors or outdoors) and tobacco signs.
Do legislators really think that banning a sing promoting “house blends” and “Havana cigars” will prevent teenagers from smoking? Anyone who has actually been a teenager knows that the forbidden fruit is the most tantalizing. Marijuana, and signs promoting it, are totally illegal throughout Canada, and yet, this drug “herb, bearing seed” (Genesis 1:29) is more popular than tobacco among young people today.
It is parents and other concerned citizens, not the state, who are responsible for ensuring that children understand the dangers of addictive substances. Adults, meanwhile, should be completely aware of those dangers, and are free to make their own decisions on the matter.
Private businesses, as well, should be able to set their own regulations based on the will of their customers. If the majority of the public is averse to smoking (which seems to be the case), then public smoking will gradually be phased out in accordance with free market principles.
Government regulation of tobacco usage and signage has absolutely no place in a free and democratic society.
April 10, 2008 | In Politics | 1 Comment
I first came across this little gem yesterday, and take it as absolute proof that Human Rights Commissions aren’t just promoting censorship in the name of minority rights, but advocating censorship plain and simple…
Maclean’s article ‘promotes prejudice towards Muslims’: Human Rights Commission
Source: The Canadian Press
Apr 9, 2008 20:19
LONDON, Ont. - A Canadian magazine article suggesting Muslims pose a threat to North America is Islamophobic and “promotes prejudice towards Muslims,” the Ontario Human Rights Commission says.
Despite strongly worded condemnation of the Maclean’s article, the commission announced Wednesday that under the Ontario Human Rights Code, it could not legally proceed to a hearing on the complaint led by local lawyer Faisal Joseph.
“We are concerned about the content of the article. We think it fosters stereotypes and has a negative impact on the (Muslim) communities,” Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall said.
“It creates tension and conflict, it is contrary to the spirits of the code.”
Hall said the case proves there needs to be discussions “across the country” about freedom of expression.
In Ontario, magazines are not covered under the Human Rights Code, she said.
“We think there needs to be a debate about how broad or narrow does Canadian society want to place limits on freedom of expression and where should that be.”
“If you said these things (in the article) in a workplace, we would certainly take the complaint and it is very possible we could find discrimination in the workplace.”
Maclean’s editor Kenneth Whyte could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.
Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley was hesitant to commit to including magazines under the province’s human rights rules.
“I’d want to take a look at that along with any other issues to make sure we can strengthen the strong foundation which is Ontario,” Bentley said.
In October 2006, Maclean’s published “The Future Belongs to Islam,” an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book “America Alone, The End of the World as We Know It.”
Last March, after Maclean’s refused to allow a rebuttal from a group of law students offended by the article, the Canadian Islamic Congress, represented by Joseph, launched a human rights complaint.
The case goes to a human rights hearing in British Columbia next June, where the code does cover publications, this summer.
Joseph said he’s pleased the complaint he spearheaded exposed “a gaping hole'’ in Ontario’s human rights legislation.
“The commission felt it important to comment on the totally inappropriate, derogatory remarks by Maclean’s against Muslims and the damage it has caused.”
First and foremost, I want to thank the Ontario Human Rights Commission for their honesty on this issue. They want their jurisdiction to be expanded so they can audit magazine articles and ensure that they are not “contrary to the spirits of the code.” (You can access their full statement here.)
In effect, they have admitted to being champions of censorship. Like Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator, Dean Stacey, they see freedom of speech as an “American concept” which is not offered under Canadian law. Any speech likely to cause “tension and conflict” must be quashed, and the perpetrators must be either re-educated or imprisoned.
But unlike the (federal) Canadian Human Right Commission, which tried to rationalize its transgressions in a recent interview with the National Post, the OHRC is clearly proud of its mandate, and wants to expand into new vistas of censorship.
Even as CHRC general counsel, Ian Fine, admits that Human Rights Commissions are “creatures of statute,” whose power can be taken away by Parliament at any time, Ontario’s human rights enforcers are lobbying their Provincial legislature for the right to “challenge any institution that contributes to the dissemination of destructive, xenophobic opinions.” They are calling for a “debate” regarding the “limits on freedom of expression.”
But it is Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who should be calling for such a debate, by putting Liberal MP, Keith Martin’s recent free speech motion up for debate in the federal House of Commons. Let Parliamentarians consider the OHRC’s call for increased censorship alongside the Canadian public’s overwhelming cry for freedom of thought.
It’s time to kill these vile monsters of statute, so as to restore our God-given liberties. If we cannot win this battle, we have no right to call Canada a free society.
February 2, 2008 | In Politics, Law | 2 Comments
I don’t usually tout my own horn, but in this case I think it might be justified… As I explained in December, section 13 of the Human Rights Act poses a serious threat to the fundamental freedoms of Canadians. But my recent letter to a local Member of Parliament, Dr. Keith Martin, might have been the first step in killing it.
“Thank you for your very intriguing correspondence regarding section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act,” Martin wrote in response to my letter, which laid out the frightening legal implications of this draconian legislation. “You educated me on this issue.”
Martin promised to “put a motion in to have this clause removed from Canada’s Human Rights Act,” which I though was an improbable course of action for a Liberal. But earlier this week, he actually followed through, introducing Private Members Bill M-446. I am very encouraged that some of our elected representatives are still willing to transcend party lines to stand up for what is right. By taking this action, Dr. Martin has earned my sincerest respect.
At this point in time, I would strongly urge all freedom-loving Canadians to write their Members of Parliament and support this motion. My fairly basic, two-page letter apparently educated Dr. Martin on this issue, but his motion will only do the trick if all MPs understand what is at stake.
Please take a few minutes to ensure that your elected representative understands… (Click here for a guide to writing anti-Section 13 letters, and here to look up the mailing address of your local MP.)
—
Next Page »
