Zelda Sun, a 35-year-old woman from Sooke (an outlying suburb of Victoria, BC) who brought this issue to the BCCLA’s attention, says that she was arbitrarily searched three times during her journey into downtown Victoria. Although she was not carrying alcohol or any other regulated substance, Sun observed police officers forcing people off buses, dumping out backpacks, and confiscating sealed liquor containers.

“That was a little bit excessive, and considering that it’s right in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search-and-seizure, I found it really ironic that this was happening on Canada Day,” Ms. Sun commented.

Police are defending their actions, claiming that the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Act permits them to search citizens and seize alcohol, upon mere suspicion of improper conduct.

Section 67 of the Act says that officers “who, on reasonable and probable grounds, believes that liquor is, anywhere or on anyone, unlawfully possessed or kept, or possessed or kept for unlawful purposes may … enter or search, or both, for the liquor where the peace officer suspects it to be, and may seize and remove liquor found and the packages in which it is kept.”

Victoria police Constable, Derek Tolmie, says that evidence from past years provided police with the “reasonable ground” necessary to assume that anyone carrying liquor in the downtown core was likely to consume it in public.

In making such a feeble excuse, however, police are denying the reality that the legal rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (ss. 7-14), are intended to apply to individuals, and can only be limited by the actions of said individuals.

An individual’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8 ), and even to carry a closed alcohol container in a public place, cannot be arbitrarily limited on the basis that other individuals possessed alcohol “for illegal purposes” in the same place a year earlier.

Individual rights do not depend on the time, date, or location of the alleged offense. Legal rights in particular cannot legitimately be infringed except when officers reasonably believe that an individual is about to commit an offense (see Willie v. The City of Vancouver, in which Provincial Court Judge, N. N. Phillips, states that “although the notorious problems of (Vancouver’s) Downtown Eastside may require the police to use extra-ordinary efforts to tackle the problems which exist, they must always do so within the scope of applicable law”).

In suggesting that “the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” is subject to arbitrary suspicion, however, the Victoria Police Department is trying to take advantage of a dangerous collectivist tendency within Canadian jurisprudence. The police, like other special interest groups, feel that Constitutional rights are not inalienable, but rather, conditional upon external details and circumstances

They are hoping for another collectivist decision along the lines of R. v. Keegstra (the infamous Supreme Court of Canada ruling which used the Holocaust as an excuse to limit freedom of speech in Canada), or R. v. Kapp (a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling affirming race-based rights for Indian fishermen, on the grounds that Indians have historically been discriminated against).

Granting police officers the ability to violate our Charter rights on the grounds of other people’s past actions would be yet another blow to freedom.

Launching more strongly than any other software in history is no small achievement, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the past few years of wall-to-wall success for Firefox. The open source browser, developed and maintained by volunteers around the world, has carved a significant niche in the global web browsing market, and is now favoured by almost 20% of internet users.

The strength of Firefox is a great example of how a free market of ordinary people really can make a difference. A few years ago, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer was thought to be an impenetrable monopoly, and it still has a strong hold on the browser market. But Firefox has shown us that serious competition can come from grassroots cooperation of like-minded individuals.

Firefox has shown us that cooperation fuels competition and competition fuels cooperation.

The only truly unassailable monopoly is a monopoly over free minds and human ingenuity. But in a free market of minds and resources, such abuses are not possible. The internet represents such a market, where both free competition and voluntary cooperation are encouraged as natural and productive.

Congratulations to Mozilla Firefox (and all its supporters) for achieving a victory for internet users everywhere.

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.

Having followed the Macleans case for the past several months, I thought it was time to witness the proceedings of these frightening Gestapo-like pseudo-courts first hand. The case is being heard by a panel of three judges (but not real judges; just politically correct busybodies who happen to be judgmental), appointed by the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

The case (nominally Mohamed Elmasry v. Rogers Publishing Ltd.) has already been dismissed (sort of) by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, due to lack of jurisdiction, and is awaiting a hearing date at the federal Human Rights Tribunal. As you can probably guess, rules against double (or in this case triple) jeopardy do not apply to our friendly “human rights” enforcers.

The day began with about an hour of arguing over admissibility of evidence, as the Muslim students’ lawyer, Faisal Joseph, attempted to introduce one irrelevant report after another on the dangers of “Islamophobia.” Apparently, even the Tribunal “judges” were unwilling (or too lazy?) to read most of this redundant garbage, and ruled all but one of the reports inadmissible.

After the morning break the Canadian Islamic Congress’ first “sock puppet,” Khurrum Awan, began to testify, going over several Macleans articles by acclaimed author and columnist, Mark Steyn. Mr. Awan explained how these pieces of writing had “offended” him, and were “likely to expose” Muslims to “hatred or contempt,” which is the only standard of proof for a conviction under Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code, the provincial equivalent to Section 13 of the federal legislation.

On cross examination, Macleans lawyer, Julian Porter Q.C., grilled Awan about his Spring 2007 meeting with the magazine’s editors, and efforts to settle the case before trial. Porter forced Awan to admit that he and the other complainants did not initially offer to negotiate a “mutually acceptable” compromise, as they had claimed after the meeting. Awan’s only defense was that Macleans’ editors had been curt with him and the other complainants (maybe they had a business to run…), and had not voluntarily offered to compromise (which, in a free society, they had no moral obligation to do).

Once Awan finished testifying, there was more arguing about the admissibility of evidence. Faisal Joseph announced that he would introduce content from three additional websites (not owned by Macleans), where writers and visitors had responded approvingly to Steyn’s November 2006 cover article, “The Future Belongs to Islam.” One of these websites was that of The Western Standard, whose founder, Ezra Levant, was “live blogging” at the tribunal today.

Ultimately, the panel accepted all of the additional exhibits unconditionally, despite arguments by Macleans’ lawyers that the BC Human Rights Tribunal had no jurisdiction over internet content originating in other provinces or countries. The Tribunal chair said that these arguments “were not convincing,” and that the division of powers between federal and provincial governments (constitutionally enshrined in Canada since 1867) had no bearing on their ability to consider evidence from outside the province.

Although this means plenty of publicity for Ezra (I certainly can’t blame him for welcoming the ruling), it sets an extremely disturbing precedent for future “Human Rights” cases.

The Tribunal has ruled that it can consider aggravating evidence from anywhere in the world, in order to better demonstrate that a respondent’s words or ideas have contributed to “contempt.” On that basis, even mild written criticism of an identifiable group (based on true facts) can easily lead to a s.7/s.13 conviction, provided that it can be loosely linked to a “contemptuous” comment by someone else, anywhere in the world. In other words, Human Rights Tribunals have the authority to punish you not only for your own ideas, but also for the ideas of others, in response to your ideas.

The last hour or so of the day was taken up by the testimony of Dr. Andrew Rippin, an “expert” witness called by Mr. Joseph. As a professor of Islamic Studies, Rippin was limited to “correcting misconceptions” about Islam, rather than specifically analyzing the meaning of Steyn’s articles. During his examination in chief, Rippin made the obligatory distinction between “moderate” and “extremist” Muslims, then claimed that nobody could truly understand the nuances of the Islamic religion without fluency in Arabic. The subtext, as far as I could see, was that those of us who don’t speak and read the Arabic language should accept whatever we’re told about Islam by Koranic scholars, the vast majority of whom happen to be Muslim.

On cross examination, Julian Porter pressed Rippin about extremest varieties of Islam, particularly Wahhabism, the sect which dominates in Saudi Arabia. Specifically, Porter noted that Wahhabi Muslims are required to believe in strict application of Sharia law, which punishes many petty crimes with torture and physical disfigurement. He then produced a book that Rippin himself had written several years ago, which acknowledged that the spread of Wahhabi Islam was a threat to world peace and could, regrettably, lead to violence.

Although not as strongly worded as Steyn’s infamous Macleans article, Rippin’s own book is intellectually honest enough to raise many of the same concerns. Some people who have read it may well have (justifiably) felt flashes of anger, or even “hatred or contempt” towards Wahhabi Muslims. And yet Rippin’s writings have never been subject to a “human rights” complaint. Why? Because he toes the line of political correctness, and is happily accepted by Canada’s academic and political establishments.

I walked away from today’s hearing with a more profound realization than ever before of how biased and arbitrary Human Rights Tribunals really are. Sections dealing with “hate messages” exist solely to bend all thought towards a politically correct mainstream. Today, that mainstream is personified by relatively bland and inoffensive academics like Rippin, and seems more or less harmless to most Canadians. In 20 or 30 years, it’s anyone’s guess what the mainstream might be, and if even a fraction of Mark Steyn’s perfectly plausible predictions come true, it won’t be pretty.

Ultimately, it is an individual’s absolute right to exist outside the mainstream, peacefully holding and expressing whatever opinions they see fit. Perhaps just as crucially, mainstream society should be created and molded by individuals, not the other way round. These are the values that all of our laws should reflect.

Click here for Andrew Coyne’s live blog, which will provide constant updates on the Macleans trial in the days to come.

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.

I speak of course of Trapster, a handy new service for smartphones (think BlackBerry, iPhone, Windows Mobile, etc.) that allows drivers to share information about police speed traps in real time. Once installed, it’s easy to use – just dial #1 on your keypad whenever you see police radar by the side of the road – and will cause your phone to beep as you approach hiding cops, thus warning you to slow down and avoid a ticket.

And with the current legal state of affairs, speeding tickets aren’t the only thing to worry about. All of Canada and every U.S. state except New Hampshire has seatbelt laws in effect, forcing citizens to buckle up or pay up (and in some cases, go to jail). Ontario, meanwhile, is on the verge of passing legislation to restrict smoking in vehicles, and numerous states and provinces have implemented bans on cell phone use when behind the wheel.

Trapster shouldn’t be seen as an encouragement to speed, drive recklessly, or be stupid behind the wheel (don’t abandon your common sense), but it will provide you with a nice little safety reminder from time to time, minus the ~$150 fine. Most importantly, Trapster recognizes the role of your common sense in determining what safety precautions to take, rather than leaving all the decisions to the state.

Of course, the very idea that individuals might have enough common sense to make their own decisions can be quite terrifying for government. Therefore, I wouldn’t be surprised if criminalizing Trapster is next on their agenda.

In the U.S., this service is probably quite safe from a legal standpoint, given that the flashing of headlights to warn of a police speed trap has been ruled protected speech under the First Amendment. But in Canada, where free speech is effectively non-existent and seven out of ten provinces have criminalized radar detectors, I wouldn’t be surprised to see services like Trapster banned from use.

Such an edict would be very difficult to enforce, of course… But nevertheless, download it while you can.

Although I cringe on behalf of local taxpayers, I must ultimately lend my support to Ms. Kinloch, given the outrageous facts of this case. Having observed the proceedings of this trial at the Victoria Law Courts over the past 10 days, I am of the opinion that the police constables involved in this case made all the wrong choices at every juncture.

Ms. Kinloch was arrested at around midnight on May 6, 2005, and freely admits that she was drunk at the time. She apparently provided her address to the arresting officers who could have made the compassionate choice and taken her home (just three blocks away). Instead, they booked her into police cells for about four hours, after which she was described as “calm, cooperative, and sober.”

At this point, police officers drove Kinloch to her apartment, but arrived at the wrong entrance to the building and refused to let her out of their vehicle, then drove back to the police station without giving her access to a police cell phone (which they carried as a matter of necessity, despite our city’s $17.5 million dollar investment in the ineffective CREST police radio system.)

Police constables then re-booked Ms. Kinloch into custody claiming that she was a “child in need.” After expressing her frustration with this, Kinloch was thrown against a cell wall, taken to the ground by two officers each more than twice her size, then handcuffed, bound at the ankles, and tied to the cell door. All of the officers involved finished their shifts a little over half an hour later, then headed for home without so much as a thought for the “child in need” they had tied and abandoned a few minutes before.

One constable later testified that Kinloch was left in a “safe” and “comfortable” environment. On cross-examination he admitted that she remained tied up on a hard cement floor for about four hours, and that this “wasn’t like a sofa chair.”

Police defended their actions claiming that if they hadn’t forcefully restrained the 5-foot-tall, 100 lbs. teenager, they might later have needed shields, riot gear, and pepper spray to control her (within a 7′ by 6′ padded cell.) As a citizen, I would have to say that this doesn’t inspire much confidence in the abilities of our local police officers.

The success of Kinloch’s civil suit was primarily based on s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits any form of “cruel and unusual punishment.” It is clear and apparent from the testimony and video evidence in this case that police did what they did more out of a desire to punish an individual that they found annoying than to ensure the safety of anyone. The jury ruled that this punishment was “cruel and unusual,” in that it was “so excessive as to outrage standards of decency.”

On the evening of May 6, 2005, Ms. Kinloch was drunk on alcohol, but the police officers who restrained her were drunk on something far worse — power. This has all-too-often been the case in the past few years, as is demonstrated by many recent events. The monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a society, like any other monopoly, can easily lead to abuse and recklessness. The only solution to this is meaningful personal responsibility.

$60,000 in damages, paid for by the taxpayers, might induce some public pressure on police to be more reasonable, responsible, and honest, but it will also remind those who are mistreated (or think they’ve been mistreated) by police that the courts provide a possible redress. If police officers continue using unreasonable force and abusing their power, citizens should demand changes to the Police Act and other similar pieces of legislation, requiring that officers themselves are more frequently held financially accountable for their actions.

The odd lawsuit involving an innocent mistake might be part of the legitimate cost of policing, but the consistent malicious misconduct of police officers that we’ve been seeing in recent years is not. We the people should not have to pay for the obvious mistakes of those whose salaries we already provide.

We give these people power so that they may keep us safe. But when they abuse this power, we should make them pay. Before they act, we should make them think.

April Luberti and Jeff Birch, two employees at Canada Revenue Agency, chose to defy the 26,000-member Union of Taxation Employees in 2004 when they crossed picket lines and agreed to work for normal wages, despite a strike organized by the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Personally, I applaud the brave actions of these two employees, and take heart in the fact that even some members of our friendly tax enforcers are able to see when enough is enough. They were good natured enough to simply do what they were paid to do (taking our money), rather than nagging the government to let them take more of our money specifically to line their own pockets.

But the bigger issue at stake here is freedom of association in all workplaces throughout Canada. Unions can be a great tool for workers to voluntarily band together and negotiate with their employers in good faith. They exist to ensure equal footing between multiple parties in free and fair marketplace. In short, their purpose is to prevent bullying, and union bosses should be mindful of this in the way they conduct themselves.

In this case, union leaders are seeking to fine Jeff Birch and April Luberti to the tune of $476.75 for each day they refused to picket. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice already ruled against the union, describing the fines as “very unfair,” and designed to intimidate employees. But union bosses are intent on appealing the issue, using their members own dues to attack them in any way possible.

Rather than bullying workers who disagree with their agenda, unions should seek to build consensus amongst employees, and negotiate agreements that make sense to all parties. In the case of a severe dispute or strike, they have no legal or moral authority to enforce unanimity through coercive and punitive fines.

The National Citizens Coalition (NCC), a non-partisan conservative organization that is supporting Birch and Luberti in their struggle, has stated that it will be essentially impossible for the union to win their case on appeal.

“The law supports an employee’s right to work,” said NCC President, Peter Coleman, last month. “The unions are simply levying fines and suing even though they can’t collect in order to intimidate unionized workers who depend on their union. Unions are supposed to look out for their employee’s best interest, but instead they are using intimidation to get money it cannot collect through the courts.”

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.