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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.)

But Paul’s strong base of mostly-young grassroots supporters has succeeded in keeping him in the race with more than $25 million in donations over the past few months. (Were I an American citizen, I likely would have participated and thrown a few bucks his way. )

Now, with Ron Paul among the final five Republican candidates for President, people are starting to ask themselves what might happen if he actually wins the race. Analysts and political scientists have interjected a dose of negativity, suggesting that Paul’s uncompromising, ideological positions would effectively create gridlock in the houses of Congress, and undermine his ability to lead the nation effectively.

“Congress would, to an extent, operate without him,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor from Southern Methodist University. “He would easily be overridden by a two-thirds majority of both houses. He might be kind of lonely.”

But, as many supporters have said, this campaign isn’t about Dr. Paul as a person (despite his intelligence and refreshing attitude). It’s about the message of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and preservation of the U.S. Constitution (which, by the way, we Canadians should be envious of).

If the “Ron Paul Revolution” is to succeed, it will not be based on one man. It will not be based on a momentary fad. If the thousands or Americans who are diligently campaigning for Dr. Paul today truly want to make a difference, they will need to continue their efforts into 2009, 2010, the next decade, and beyond – whether or not their candidate wins.

If Ron Paul wins the Presidency and his supporters sink into invisible complacency, then yes, it will be a hollow and meaningless victory resulting in years of gridlock. But if the message of freedom continues to echo throughout America and the world, something very different could happen.

If Congress becomes an obstacle, then the ongoing Revolution will have to change Congress by electing pro-freedom candidates, regardless of party affiliation or lack-thereof. Nobody is unelectable if enough people vote for them.

Those of us who believe in liberty – whether in America, Canada, or elsewhere in the world – need to stand for freedom and justice in every election year and every year in between.

Early in the month, our federal Human Rights Commission agreed to hear a complaint brought against Canadian-born author and journalist, Mark Steyn, on the grounds that a section of his 2006 book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, allegedly contained “Islamophobic” attitudes. The complaint, which is being sponsored by the Canadian Islamic Congress, also targets Macleans Magazine, a mainstream news weekly which published a chapter from Steyn’s book in late 2006.

The published excerpt, entitled “The Future Belongs to Islam,” suggests that certain aspects of Islamic culture are incompatible with western democracy, and that mass Muslim immigration is causing problems in Europe, and may soon do the same in North America. Ironically, the CIC’s complaint has actually added a lot of weight to Steyn’s argument.

Macleans Magazine has vowed to vigorously fight this complaint on the grounds of freedom of the press, claiming that it is “confident that the Human Rights Commissions will find no merit in the complaints.” Unfortunately though, it might not be that simple.

The section of Canada’s Human Rights Act used to suppress “hate messages” (s. 13), has been used dozens of times since the late 1970s – but mostly in the past five years, as those publishing controversial opinions on the internet have increasingly been targeted. The most shocking thing is that not a single respondent charged under this section has ever won their case.

In past cases, the Human Rights Commission has ruled that truth is no defense, meaning that even factual statements can be censored if they are deemed likely to cause “hatred or contempt” against any identifiable group. Furthermore, there is no penalty for filing frivolous complaints (as Human Rights lawyer, Richard Warman has done repeatedly), and all complainants are provided with free government lawyers, while respondents must either pay for their own counsel or represent themselves.

Grossly prejudiced “Human Rights” gestapos, which were initially created to prevent employment and housing discrimination, also exist at the provincial level, and are increasingly shifting their powers into the realm of thought control with each passing month. Respondents who are found guilty of spreading hate messages are fined, and usually subjected to a cease and desist order preventing them from publicly discussing certain issues and topics (i.e. a lifetime speech ban).

One example of this is Christian activist, Bill Whatcott, who was convicted by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission of “injuring” the “feelings” and “self respect” of homosexuals when he distributed a pamphlet referring to gay lifestyles immoral and potentially dangerous. Whatcott was fined $17,500 and received a lifetime speech ban preventing him from publicly criticizing homosexuality. If Whatcott fails to pay this fine or violates the lifetime speech ban, he could spend up to five years in prison. This decision was recently upheld by Saskatchewan’s Court of Queen’s Bench, which was apparently afraid of stepping on toes at the Human Rights gestapo.

I think the question now is if (when?) the federal Human Rights Commission rules against Macleans Magazine, will Canada’s leading current events magazine no longer be allowed to publish negative articles about Islam? Will it be required by Canadian law to muzzle its journalists and change its editorial reflections?

Regardless of one’s individual opinions on Islamic immigration, homosexuality, “anti-discrimination” laws, or any other controversial issue, shouldn’t the existence of a law which arbitrarily crushes freedom of expression be offensive to all Canadians? Will the application of this law to a mainstream news publication (Macleans Magazine) cause Canadians to wake up and take notice of how our individual freedoms are being eroded?

Or do most Canadians even care about their right to think independently and express their thoughts, without being crushed under the heel of the almighty state? If the answer is no then God help us all.

But if you care about freedom of thought and expression, whatever your political affiliation, then please consider signing this petition (http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free-dominion-against-the-hrcs.html) against “human rights” censorship… I urge you to do so not to further any particular political agenda, but in the name of freedom itself.

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
– John Stuart Mill

All last week, the case was being argued at Kenora Superior Court in Kenora, Ontario, as a precursor to criminal proceedings being brought against Mr. Montague and his wife for the possession of “unregistered” firearms. A verdict is expected sometime in the next few days or weeks.

The Constitutional challenge seems to be centred on the question of political legitimacy; or more specifically whether our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and other legal protections which preceded it) should prevent the federal government from forcing law abiding citizens to “register” their legally obtained weapons in a complex bureaucratic system, mired in red tape, which could ultimately lead to the confiscation of said weapons.

Personally, I have never owned a gun and have no real interest in obtaining one, so let me say that my interest in this case is purely academic. Yes, I am fully aware of the damage and violence that firearms can cause in a society, but I believe that the traditional “gun control” arguments simply don’t stack up against the all-important principles of individual freedom, sanctity of the home, and the right to self-defense.

I am also concerned about the absurd and unprecedented amount of power given to police officers by the Firearms Act, as well as the Act’s apparent infringement on numerous Charter rights (see http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0080.html for a full explanation).

Most police officers are, in my opinion, far more corrupt and arrogant than the average citizen who seeks only to guard his home and mind his own business. And yet, we trust our police with a whole array of dangerous weapons, which they all-too-often abuse. Add that to the reality that disturbed criminals will always be able get their hands on guns and other weapons one way or another. Why should law-abiding homeowners be left helpless in the crossfire?

Yes, I realize that judges are cautious about striking down legislation (as they should be), but I really can’t understand how this particular law is compatible with our Charter, Bill of Rights, British common law, or any of the principles that freedom-loving Canadians hold dear. If judges are able to make bizarre and, quite frankly, laughable changes to the definition of “civil marriage” (and may well continue to do so in the future), then surely they can strike down a law that sees citizens jailed for trying to ensure their own safety, within their own homes.

Whether Mr. Montague can win his case, I’m honestly not sure, but I am encouraged by the fact that Doug Christie, a well-known Victoria lawyer who fights for freedom of speech and other civil liberties, was able to help him fight this battle. Christie is known for a strong professional dedication to his clients (many of whom hold some rather extreme views), and has all-to-often been unfairly portrayed by the Canadian media as a “Nazi” or “fascist,” even though the principles he fights for are anything but.

Overall, I’m not holding my breath in anticipation of a victory for Montague, but I’m happy to see that he and people like him are willing to fight for the cause of freedom. I don’t advocate the use of firearms, but I feel that each individual must decide for himself how to protect and defend his property. That’s what the Montague family is fighting for, and for that they have my sincerest congratulations.

How it is Now: The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.

A social worker finds the shivering grasshopper, calls a press conference and demands to know why the squirrel should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like the grasshopper, are cold and starving. The BBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper; with cuts to a video of the squirrel in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food. The British press inform people that they should be ashamed that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so, while others have plenty.

The Labour Party, Greenpeace, Animal Rights and The Grasshopper Council of GB demonstrate in front of the squirrel’s house. The BBC, interrupting a cultural festival special from Notting Hill with breaking news, broadcasts a multi cultural choir singing “We Shall Overcome”. Ken Livingstone rants in an interview with Trevor McDonald that the squirrel got rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the squirrel to make him pay his “fair share” and increases the charge or squirrels to enter inner London.

In response to pressure from the media, the Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The squirrel’s taxes are reassessed. He is taken to court and fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as builders for the work he was doing on his home and an additional fine for contempt when he told the court the grasshopper did not want to work.

The grasshopper is provided with a council house, financial aid to furnish it and an account with a local taxi firm to ensure he can be socially mobile. The squirrel’s food is seized and redistributed to the more needy members of society, in this case the grasshopper. Without enough money to buy more food, to pay the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, the squirrel has to downsize and start building a new home.

The local authority takes over his old home and utilises it as a temporary home for asylum seeking cats who had hijacked a plane to get to Britain as they had to share their country of origin with mice. On arrival they tried to blow up the airport because of Britain’s apparent love of dogs. The cats had been arrested for the international offence of hijacking and attempted bombing but were immediately released because the police fed them pilchards instead of salmon whilst in custody.

Initial moves to then return them to their own country were abandoned because it was feared they would face death by the mice. The cats devise and start a scam to obtain money from people’s credit cards.

A Panorama special shows the grasshopper finishing up the last of the squirrel’s food, though spring is still months away, while the council house he is in, crumbles around him because he hasn’t bothered to maintain the house. He is shown to be taking drugs. Inadequate government funding is blamed for the grasshopper’s drug ‘illness’.

The cats seek recompense in the British courts for their treatment since arrival in UK.

The grasshopper gets arrested for stabbing an old dog during a burglary to get money for his drugs habit. He is imprisoned but released immediately because he has been in custody for a few weeks. He is placed in the care of the probation service to monitor and supervise him. Within a few weeks he has killed a guinea pig in a botched robbery. A commission of enquiry, that will eventually cost 10,000,000 and state the obvious, is set up. Additional money is put into funding a drug rehabilitation scheme for grasshoppers and legal aid for lawyers representing asylum seekers is increased.

The asylum-seeking cats are praised by the government for enriching Britain’s multicultural diversity and dogs are criticised by the government for failing to befriend the cats. The grasshopper dies of a drug overdose.

The usual sections of the press blame it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity and his traumatic experience of prison. They call for the resignation of a minister.

The cats are paid a million pounds each because their rights were infringed when the government failed to inform them there were mice in the United Kingdom. The squirrel, the dogs and the victims of the hijacking, the bombing, the burglaries and robberies have to pay an additional percentage on their credit cards to cover losses, their taxes are increased to pay for law and order and they are told that they will have to work beyond 65 because of a shortfall in government funds.

Originally published: September 5, 2007 at Political Correctness Watch.

The federal election regulator announced last week that Muslim women would be allowed to “vote veiled” in upcoming by-elections in Ontario and Quebec, by merely producing two pieces of ID or swearing an oath and having another voter vouch for them.

Harper said yesterday that he “profoundly disagrees” with the decision, noting that all four federal parties voted this past spring for a law requiring the visual identification of voters.

David Harris of the CCD, meanwhile, said that the Elections Canada initiative “violates the basic premise of public voting in Canada and the principle of equality of all Canadians before the ballot box. It is an invitation to fraud, misrepresentation, and the debasing of our democratic electoral system.”

There is little doubt that outrageous decision to “accommodate minorities” with special treatment will meet with plenty of opposition from Canadians, hopefully forcing Elections Canada to scrap its vailed voting position, just as Quebec’s Election Commission was forced to do with a similar initiative earlier this year.