Ontario Human Rights Commission Calls for Increased Censorship Powers

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.

Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act - Dying at Last???

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.)

Would a Ron Paul Presidency Lead to Political Gridlock?

Despite his long-shot status, the libertarian-leaning U.S. Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, is making a good run at the Republican nomination. In the past few days, he’s come second in both the Nevada and Louisiana caucuses, and won first place in a straw poll by the Alabama Republican Assembly, confounding many pundits who expected his campaign to collapse weeks or months ago.

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.

Canadian Human Rights Gestapo Continues Attacking Freedom of Expression

December has been a difficult month for freedom of speech in Canada, as so called “Human Rights” Commissions continue to gain power and increasingly infringe upon our fundamental liberties.

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

Bruce Montague’s Firearms Challenge: A Brave Battle for Freedom

For the past several days, I’ve been reading up on the Bruce Montague case, a Constitutional challenge of Canada’s Firearms Act, and from what I can see, a brave stand against the most corrupt and hypocritical forces in government.

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.

The British Grasshopper

How it Used to Be: The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building and improving 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. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold

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.

Elections Canada Comes Under Fire for “Vote Veiled” Initiative

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has joined with the Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) in criticizing Elections Canada’s recent decision to let Muslim women wear face-concealing burqas while voting.

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.

Educational Freedom Takes Front Seat in Ontario Election Campaign

Education policy, and most notably educational freedom, is already a hot-button issue in Ontario’s provincial election campaign, which officially kicks off tomorrow.

Conservative opposition leader, John Tory, promises that his government would fund faith-based schools, giving parents more economic freedom when it comes to their children’s education – something that current Liberal Premier, Dalton McGuinty has opposed throughout his time in office.

Policies surrounding school funding have a profound effect on taxpayers whose children attend private and faith-based schools which are not subsidized by the government. McGuinty’s government scrapped Ontario’s private school tax credit in 2003, forcing many children into public schools and taking away a significant amount choice and flexibility from parents.

The provincial government continues to fund Catholic faith-based schools, in addition to Ontario’s own public school system, but will not provide any support to parents who choose independent religious or secular private schools.

This conflict ultimately boils down to the personal freedom of parents to choose how their children will be educated versus the government’s statist attitude to socialized education.

“It’s such a small issue in the big picture, but it’s obviously pulling at the emotional strings of a lot of people,” commented executive director, Elaine Hopkins, of the Ontario Federation of Independent Schools.

The only fair solution is for provincial governments to provide meaningful tax rebates to parents who choose an accredited private school over the state-controlled public school system. Economically incentivizing parents to consider Ontario’s private schools, which already serve approximately 120,000 children, would ultimately shrink size of government and offer new choices and possibilities to parents and children.

Relaxing Regulations Could Help BC Labour Market, Says Fraser Institute

British Columbia is the third strongest performing labour market in Canada, behind Alberta and Saskatchewan, but could rise to the number one spot with looser provincial labour laws, according to a recent report by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based free market think-tank.

Alberta came out on top of the study, which measured employment growth, productivity, unemployment, and other factors in each U.S. state and Canadian province. Saskatchewan scored the tenth place overall, while BC came in twelfth. No other Canadian province made the top-30.

“If we actually improved the characteristics of labour markets we would be among the top performing labour markets in North America,” explained the Fraser Institute’s director of fiscal studies, Niels Veldhuis, who credits the three western provinces’ booming economies for their current strong performance. “We would probably be No. 1. And that’s the message here for B.C., that we can be even better than what we have been in the last five years if we improve some of our characteristics.”

This could mean relaxing labour laws, reducing the percentage of employees working in the public sector, and reducing the minimum wage in relation to the average wage, Veldhuis said.

“All of these things have been shown by academic research to have negative impacts on labour markets,” he said, giving Alberta as an example of a free market leader. “They have lower unionization, they have less public-sector employment, they certainly have a much lower minimum wage relative to the average wage, and they have more balanced labour-relations laws.”

Pandering Could Ruin Harper’s Election Chances

I noticed an interesting editorial on CANOE.ca this weekend about Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s political strategy, and how he could ultimately be harming his own chances at a majority government.

Peter Worthington of Sun Media writes that Harper has little to gain by pandering to the beliefs of Canadian Liberals on issues like private medical clinics, same-sex marriage, and the mission in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister should be true to his own beliefs and succeed or fail with ideological honour, Worthington argues.

Although this article tends to simplify things a little (obviously, some bridge-building is necessary in politics), I generally agree with the message that history’s greatest leaders have been some of the most principled ones. I’m not saying that politicians don’t have to tweak and improve upon their political views over time, but they shouldn’t have to sell their souls in doing so.

From where I stand, Stephen Harper seems to be an honest and principled leader who is quite capable of leading this country and doing it well. The more time our Prime Minister spends pouring over polls, however, and giving up on his own beliefs in hopes of pleasing everyone, the more respect he stands to lose. And it’s respect — not hour-by-hour poll numbers — that defines a great leader.