Alright, here we go.
First off, a little more coverage of Lynch, Moon, et al’s testimony before the HoC Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights from Jay Currie, who writes: Lucy and Jenny sitting in a tree:
By the way, guess who Lynch was sitting beside during the second hour of the meeting? Richard Warman who is under investigation for hate speech. I’ll let you draw any conclusions about the appropriateness of that. The Miss Marprelate Tracts
Too bad no one snapped a picture.
But if this is true and there is no reason to doubt Rebekah is shows just how tone deaf and arrogant Lynch is.
In Jennifer Lynch’s opening statement before the Parliamentary Justice and Human Rights Committee, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission made the case for her federal agency without addressing the specific concerns of her critics (the Interim, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and others) that the extra-judicial body is unnecessary in the battle against hate.
She offered standard human rights commission industry boilersplate about hate being an evil that needs to be stamped out and that in a democracy we need to balance rights — the right to be free of discrimination and the right to freedom of expression.
Second, via the Canadian Jewish News: Hate laws backfire on Jews, author says:
MONTREAL — The federal anti-hate law that “official Jews” lobbied for and got passed has, 32 years later, backfired, sowing the seeds for political correctness, media chill and censorship that have undermined the values that define the Jewish People, says Alberta lawyer, author and activist Ezra Levant.
Levant, who is Jewish, made the assertion in an Oct. 21 talk to a small audience at Beth Israel Beth Aaron Congregation about his 900-day saga of being prosecuted by the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission for reprinting controversial Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad in his now defunct magazine, the Western Standard, in February 2006.
“It is what I call the ‘soft jihad,’” said Levant, describing the actions of Muslims who file complaints with human rights commissions against those they perceive to have aggrieved them. “I was a Jewish publisher of a Zionist newspaper charged for publishing the news.”
Levant has spent the last 3-1/2 years railing against human rights commissions, which he says have fostered a climate of censorship, media chill and political correctness that’s now being exploited by those he calls enemies of the West, Israel and the Jewish People.
“The Jews should have known better,” Levant said. “We know about the ‘hard jihad,’ but the ‘soft jihad’ is far more effective and clever – it says to find the weakness in the law.”
It’s ironic, Levant suggested, that organizations such as Canadian Jewish Congress helped create a law that has come back to haunt them.
Levant, a free-speech libertarian and former activist in the Reform party, said that the anti-hate law – which since it passed in 1977, has had a “100 per cent” conviction rate and was upheld in 1990 in a narrow decision by Canada’s Supreme Court – is very dangerous.
It seems wrong to quibble with such a tremendous news report, but I don’t think I said Jews haven’t been successful complainants — in fact Jews dominated the prosecutions for the first twenty years the law was in effect, until it became the personal property of Richard Warman. And I think I said the cartoon threats in general — not just the Canadian Islamic Congress in particular — did more damage to the West than 9/11. But these are microscopic complaints. The news report is amazing.
I didn’t know that the CJN had a reporter at the meeting. It was a smallish gathering, though very engaged — I stayed to talk afterwards with a dozen eager Montrealers for almost half hour. Perhaps the reporter, David Lazarus, was truly convinced; perhaps his editors in Toronto are no longer willing to go along with the Canadian Jewish Congress’s embarrassing censorship fetish; perhaps it was the strong endorsement for freedom of speech expressed by my host that night, the well-loved Rabbi Reuben Poupko. I don’t know; but here we have, in the bosom of the “official” Jewish newspaper in Canada, a sympathetic and detailed report of a Jewish objection to censorship.
I just don’t think that would have happened two years ago.
I think we’ve come a long way.
I think we’re more than half way there, actually.
I think we’re going to repeal this damnable law, this un-Canadian law, this illiberal law, this anti-western civilization law, this un-Jewish law.
When an article like this runs in the Canadian Jewish News, there aren’t a lot of milestones left to pass.
Third, Rebekah from The Miss Marprelate Tracts writes: Sauce for the Goose…
Tarek Fatah, Anita Bromberg, and John Thompson need to take a deep breath and have a few second thoughts.
An Imam said these things in a speech in Toronto.
“Allah protect us from the fitna [sedition] of these people [calling for a ban on women covering their faces]…. Allah destroy them from within themselves….”
“You will see a lot of them going to the kuffar, taking them as friends and allies. The wrath of Allah is upon them. If they were true believers they would never take them as allies.”
I think that this illustrates that even if we were to get Section 13 and the HRC abolished, our fight would not be over. B’nai Brith would like the POLICE to investigate this? Are they nuts?
Do they really want the police walking in and tearing pages out of the Torah? What about banning the psalms? Do they think that precedent will only ever work in their favour?
Read the rest here.
Fourth, from Blazing Cat Fur: “Multicultural Gamble” ? – How’s that workin out Max?
I see Haroon Siddiqui has hauled out another shopworn apologist for Multicult, one Max Yalden, a typical Human Rights Apparatchik who arrogantly pronounces “Canadians have pulled off their `multicultural gamble’ more effectively than one might have anticipated.”
Here’s the thing Max, your little “gamble” was nothing more than a Liberal vote buying scam, a divisive,racist gambit imposed on the unwilling backs of Canadian citizens.
Have a look here, here and here, Max for how well your little experiment is working out- and that’s just this week. By the way Max, I don’t ever recall being asked permission for you and your cronies to gamble with my future.
Sixth, from The Lindsay Post: Be aware of rights changes: solicitor:
Posted By PEGGY ARMSTRONG, LINDSAY POST REPORTER
Changes this year to the Human Rights Code of Ontario are something that all business owners should be aware of, an expert in employment law says.
“Communication, documentation and being proactive are key,” said Mark Mason, a solicitor with Hicks Morley in Toronto. He gave his seminar at the Victoria County Career Services centre in Lindsay on Oct. 20 during Small Business Week.
Mason cautioned that his talk was an overview of the changes and the impact on companies and was not legal advice.
He said the old system that handled complaints to the Human Rights Tribunal was plagued with lengthy delays. To speed the process, Bill 107 has made complaints go directly to the tribunal and established the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to help complainants make their applications. The centre is still “in its infancy,” he noted.
He explained that employees can make complaints at no cost to themselves, while the employer has to cover their costs of defence. Complainants can file for monetary compensation for losses, including injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
The tribunal budgeted for 3,000 hearings a year but about 4,000 are expected to come this year, Mason said.
The first line of defence for a company is to avoid a complaint. He suggested that a policy regarding harassment and discrimination be in place and that it be part of employee training. He emphasized that communicating with employees is key.
An internal complaints process that is clearly communicated to employees can help get a matter dealt with early, before it escalates to being taken to the tribunal.
Seventh, Neil Dykstra writes for No Apologies: Some Rights Are More Equal Than Others:
Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value (Dean Steacy, Investigator, Canadian Human Rights Commission, in sworn testimony, page 4793, May 10, 2007)
Section 13 itself is finally on trial. This censorship provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act has been used by the CHRC to punish Christians and others for daring to speak strongly held beliefs, imposing punitive measures including five-figure fines and lifetime speech bans. It had been upheld by the narrowest of margins in 1990, in the Taylor decision, but has drastically departed from the safeguards that Justice Dickson, the author of the majority decision, proscribed. Dickson recognized that Section 13 did indeed contravene the Charter right to freedom of expression, and falsely believed that his strongly worded definitions and warnings would prevent a government bureaucracy from becoming busybody censors of an ever-expanding list of prohibited ideologies.
Today, Dickson’s guidelines are ignored. As I have described earlier (see also here), a law criminalizing “hate” opens the door for any speech to be made illegal; with the drift of the English language over time, all you have to do is associate a topic with the word “hate” long enough for it to catch on. A perfect example is gay marriage. Ten years ago, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien voted against gay marriage in parliament. Today, opposition to gay marriage is considered by many a hate crime.
So how is Section 13 being reconsidered? In two ways. First, back on September 2, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that Section 13(1), as they were asked to apply it in conjunction with the penalty provisions in section 54(1), contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to freedom of expression. Since then, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which investigates and brings cases into the Tribunal, has asked for a judicial review to overturn the decision. A judicial ruling in favor of the CHRC would restore the current powers of the Commission to prosecute speech that they consider hatred, and continue to impose $10,000 fines, speech bans, and forced apologies. This judicial review presents a chance for today’s judges to return to the original Taylor decision and consider Dickson’s intentions, as well as the concerns of the dissenting judges in the light of history.
Read the rest here.
Eighth, Gerry Nichols writes, via the Libertas Post: Top five stories guaranteed to scare conservatives:
3.Night of the Living Bureaucrats
Once upon a time we had the right to free expression in this country. People could say things, even unpopular things, and the government would leave them alone. But then out of the depths of censorship hell there emerged the Human Rights Commissions. These Comissions, the result of a bizarre and unholy experiment which stitched together unrestrained state power with mindless political correctness, have an insatiable lust to destroy free speech. Some Canadians like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have sought to destroy these abominations by driving the stake of public opinion through the HRC hearts. But the Commissions will not die!
Read it here.
Ninth, via the U of C Faculty Law blog, or ABlawg.ca: Motion for Re-hearing of Hutterian Brethren Case Dismissed by Supreme Court of Canada:
On October 15, 2009 the Supreme Court of Canada denied a motion to re-hear the case of Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37. In that case, a majority of the Supreme Court denied the Hutterian Brethren’s claim that its members should be exempted from provincial photo requirements for driver’s licences based on freedom of religion.
Both the Attorney General of Alberta (the appellant at the SCC) and the Attorney General of Canada (an intervener) filed responses to the re-hearing application. None of the other interveners – The Attorneys General of B.C., Ontario and Quebec, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Christian Legal Fellowship – filed arguments in response, although the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Christian Legal Fellowship asked that their earlier submissions at the initial SCC hearing be considered if a re-hearing was granted.
Read it all here.
Tenth, via the Persecuted Church Weblog: The Voice of the Martyrs joins in fight for religious freedom in Canada:
“Imagine that Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity had been told that their ministry in the streets of Calcutta was, in essence, not ministry but ‘social work.’ In order for the sisters to continue in their work, they would no longer be permitted to require that staff members share their beliefs and ministry commitment.
As bizarre as this may sound, this is essentially what a single adjudicator acting as an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal recently decided in the case of Heintz vs. Christian Horizons.”
So notes, Don Hutchison, legal counsel for The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (of which The Voice of the Martyrs is an Associate). On December 15-17, Christian Horizons, a Christian organization that focuses on helping individuals with developmental disabilities, will be appealing a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (OHRT) that that it violated the rights of a former worker, Connie Heintz, by terminating her employment when she revealed that she was a lesbian in 2000. The ruling ordered Christian Horizons to compensate Heintz $23,000 in lost wages and to stop requiring its staff to sign an explicitly Christian morality code (VOMC requires its staff to sign a similar statement each year).
Read the rest here.
Eleventh, Charlie Smith writes for the Georgia Straight: UN expert Gay McDougall reports that minorities are shut out in Canada:
The United Nations’ independent expert on minority issues has included some positive and negative comments about Canada in a “preliminary statement” issued at the conclusion of her recent visit to the country. Gay McDougall, a Yale-educated American lawyer, stated that minorities are “extremely poorly represented in political structures and institutions in Canada” at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels.
McDougall also cited “disturbing allegations of excessive use of force [by police] leading to deaths particularly of young Black males”. She wrote that minorities feel that mechanisms of redress, such as human-rights commissions, are “inaccessible, underfunded and under threat” and that Muslims “feel targeted, profiled and harassed”.
She also stated that the federal government must be the guarantor of human rights, but that the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission is “severely limited” and provincial bodies are “under-resourced, under threat and have been abolished in some provinces”. B.C. eliminated its human-rights commission after Gordon Campbell was elected premier in 2001.
Read it all here.