Alright, here we go.
First off, from Blazing Cat Fur: Debunking the CJC’s Legal Champion Alexander “Specious” Tsesis:
The Canadian Jewish Congress has just published a disingenous justification for Section 13 (1), I wrote about that here yesterday. Of particular note is their continued reliance on the flawed work of an obscure lawyer, Alexander Tsesis to justify 13 (1). Tsesis’ unsound reasoning thankfully contributed to the failed Justice Department effort to derail the Section 13 (1) Constitutional Challenge. In response to the CJC’s continued effort to misinform the public I am republishing in part a post I wrote in May of 2008 in which Professor Anuj Desai debunks the work of the CJC’s erstwhile legal champion “Specious Tsesis”.
I highly recommend you read Professor Desai’s criticism of Alexander Tsesis, “Attacking Brandenburg” posted in pdf format below.
Professor Desai authored Attacking Brandenburg with History:Does the Long-Term Harm of Biased Speech Justify a Criminal Statute Suppressing It?
It is a criticism of the theory presented by Alexander Tsesis in his book: How Hate Speech Paves the Way for Harmful Social Movements. Tsesis work has been cited as a justification for Section 13 (1) in the legal brief prepared by the Department of Justice that attempts to dismiss the pending Section 13 (1) court challenge.
Read the rest here.
Second, a bit of a grab bag. Some of our old pal Max Yelden’s commentary on anti-semitism is noted by Dawg’s Blawg, while Binks’ latest at Free Canuckistan is noted by Blazing Cat Fur. Meanwhile, Ezra Levant’s latest upcoming speaking engagements are noted by Five Feet Of Fury ( also picked up at Beltway Blips ), with more info at Blazing Cat Fur.
Three, from LifeSiteNews: Focus on the Family Adapts Programming Due to Canadian Sexual Orientation “Hate Crime” Laws:
By Michael Baggot
LANGLEY, BC, April 7, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A statement from a director at Focus on the Family confirms that the major Christian organization has been editing its radio programs in order to accord with Canadian “hate crime” laws.
“In particular, our content producers are careful not to make generalized statements nor comments that may be perceived as ascribing malicious intent to a ‘group’ of people and are always careful to treat even those who might disagree with us with respect,” Gary Booker, director of global content creation for Focus, told WorldNetDaily.com.
“Occasionally, albeit very rarely, some content is identified that, while acceptable for airing in the U.S. would not be acceptable under Canadian law and is therefore edited or omitted in Canada.”
A representative from Focus told LifeSiteNews.com that the organization is not prepared at this time to expand upon the statement sent to WorldNetDaily.com.
In April 2004, Canada enacted Bill C-250, a bill that added “sexual orientation” to “identifiable groups” protected from communication that would incite hatred towards them. In the months leading up to its passage, many conservative thinkers and activists prophesied that adding “sexual orientation” to the hate crime laws would give homosexual activists the leverage needed to persecute those opposed to their lifestyle for nothing more than expressing disagreement.
According to the Criminal Code of Canada, a person is not to be convicted of a hate crime if “he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.”
Third, via Akwesasne Womens Fire: Akwesasne vs. C.B.S.A. Human Rights Tribunal Scheduled for November 2009:
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Scheduled for November
An initial investigation took place with human rights commission, enough evidence was presented to push it forward to Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
FILE NO: T1342-7208
GROUNDS: Age, Race, Sex
LOCATION: NAV Canada Training Centre – Cornwall Ontario
Davis v. Canada Border Services Agency
November 9, 10, 12, 13
November 30 – December 4
December 4, 14 – 18
9:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
This inquiry is open to the public. Akwesasne Community is Welcome to Attend.
Read it here.
Fifth, via LifeSiteNews: Lakehead University Pro-Life Group’s Club Status Revoked Again:
By Patrick B. Craine
THUNDER BAY, Ontario, November 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The pro-life club at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario has had its club status revoked again by the university’s student union (LUSU).
At the time, Jimenez asked Matt Granville, the LUSU board member in charge of student clubs, for further explanation, but was told to contact a lawyer. After having additional written requests ignored and being told by the university’s Ombudsman that they were too “political,” the group began considering making a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission based on religious discrimination.
Read it here.
Sixth, via Five Feet Of Fury: Free Speech and Liberty Symposium: Dec 7 — Ottawa:
Sign up today! Via email…
CANADIAN CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES
Free Speech and Liberty Symposium
December 7 – Ottawa, Ontario
Join us in Ottawa December 7 as we survey Canada’s historic commitment to individual liberty and how current government practices conflict with that proud tradition. Learn how, by suppressing free speech, human rights laws are actually undermining human rights in Canada and abroad. Examine the prospects for reversing the tide and learn from the experts what you can do to help.
Read the rest here.
Seventh, Mark Shea writes for InsideCatholic.com: Our Culture’s Sacred Stories:
I can’t help but like Kathy Shaidle, the scrappy author of a Canadian blog called Five Feet of Fury. I’ve always had a weakness for people who tell you exactly what they think and never bother to mince words, and Shaidle is all that.One of the most forthright critics of Canada’s Tyranny of Nice and a courageous proponent of free speech in the face of a Nanny State, she’s had her share of suffering, as have we all, but she is not the sort of person to demand that everybody Observe the Pieties on her behalf, and she can often be screamingly funny when it comes to the sort of hushed silences we are expected to observe on behalf of the sundry movements that batten on human suffering as a way of drumming up support for cash, power, reverence, etc. I often disagree with her sometimes overwhelmingly libertarian outlook, but her — I can’t help but like her. She’s so bloody blunt, so . . . not whiny, and so willing to take life head-on that I’ve always found her refreshing even when she says things with which I strongly disagree.