Alright, here we go.
First, a bit of a grab bag. Mark Steyn’s latest article for Macleans’ mag – Spare me the therapeutic platitudes– is noted by CHRC Exposed and the Freedomsite Blog. The Infidel Blogger Awards get a mention on the Urban Dictionary, of all places. Meanwhile, Blazing Cat Fur notes some more developments related to B’nai Brith’s anti-Jihadist ad in the National Post, with more commentary from Scaramouche, who also writes: Dimant pulls a Harding:
Last week the B’nai Brith took out a full page ad in the National Post that was intended to be a wake-up call about the jihad. So far as we know, no one has complained to state authorities about it–yet–even though it is clear violation of the censorship provision in our “human rights” act and could conceivably be considered “hate speech” under our criminal code. Lest we forget (and, alas, we have, we have) some years ago a Christian pastor, Mark Harding, was convicted of a “hate crime” and sent to prison for saying things that seems fairly tame compared to the BB’s Nazi stuff. Here’s how it went down, from a 2002 WND piece:
Harding was convicted in 1998 on federal hate-crimes charges stemming from a June 1997 incident in which he distributed pamphlets outside a public high school, Weston Collegiate Institute in Toronto. Harding – who said that until that point he spent most of his time evangelizing Muslims – was protesting the school’s policy of setting aside a room for Muslim students to pray during school hours.
In one of his pamphlets, Harding listed atrocities committed by Muslims in foreign lands to back his assertion that Canadians should be wary of local Muslims.
The pamphlet said: “The Muslims who commit these crimes are no different than the Muslim believers living here in Toronto. Their beliefs are based on the Quran. They sound peaceful, but underneath their false sheep’s clothing are raging wolves seeking whom they may devour. And Toronto is definitely on their hit list.”
“The point I was trying to make is you shouldn’t have a violent religion like Islam allowed in a school when Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism is not allowed,” he told WND.
That’s it? A sheep’s clothing observation can get you tossed in the joint? And you don’t even have to draw comparisons between jihadis and Nazis.
So that’s how Canada “balances” free speech and “hate speech”.
Read the rest here.
Second, the boys at the ARC collective continue in their attempt to, well, I’m not entirely sure, but some attempt to smear Marc Lemire as a racist hatemonger. Whatever.
Third, from Scaramouche: ‘Roo the day:
Toronto Star opiner Thomas Walkom is hopping mad because, while Khalid Sheik Muhammad will be traveling to NYC to be tried in a crminal court, “boy soldier” Omar Khadr is “heading for a kangaroo court.”
What, you mean one of Canada’s many “human rights” tribunals will get to decide his case?
Well, no. “Kangaroo court” is Walkom’s derisive description for a U.S. military commission. I’d lay odds that Walkom welcomes the type of “justice” meted out by our ‘roos.
Read it here.
Fourth, from a letter to the editor to The Daily Observer: Part of our heritage:
This is part of the same battle being fought against the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Section 13, which squashes and eliminates the very symbols of the founding morals of our society and calls it a preservation of free speech.
This is not about one ideology getting preferential treatment over another, or about neglecting others. This is about recognizing the existing cultural inheritance of the founding members of the Ottawa Valley. The method in which Mr. Sampson whines about the cross is endemic of the Human Rights Commission supporters and their culture of entitlement.
Read the rest here.
Fifth, via Scaramouche: Common sense goes up in smoke:
Here’s just one of the many wacky ’09 rulings of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the same kooky kangaroo court that considered the Steyn/Maclean’s case. This one, which I honest-to-goodness picked at random, had to do with a couple of guys who were growing weed in their apartment, and whose water supply to nurture their crop was unceremoniously shut off by authorities. The couple (no, their names are not Cheech and Chong) insisted authorities did so not because they were cultivating an illicit substance, but because the growers were–wait for it–gay and disabled, the weed being used to alleviate “medical” symptoms related to the disability.I’m sure you won’t be shocked to learn that the ‘roo “judge” bought it (the complaint, not the weed, I mean).
Read it here.
Sixth, from the Red Deer Advocate: Red Deer couple feel like ‘prisoners’ as condo board refuses access ramp:
A Red Deer couple say they have lost their independence after the condominium board where they live refused to allow them to add a ramp to the front of their home.
The Rosedale Gardens board of directors says in letters that the ramp is against the condo bylaws.
Grieve said she understands the need for condo bylaws, which protect people’s property investment, but she feels the bylaws should have a human interest as well. She hopes to resolve the issue before having to file a formal complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
Cassie Palamar, director of education and community services with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, said the Alberta Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on physical disability. “Someone with a physical disability is protected from discrimination by our legislation in the areas of tenancy and services. We have had some cases with condominiums and they are in fact subject to the legislation,” Palamar said.
Read it all here.
Seventh, via Strictly Right: Possible Human Rights Complaints:
Nearly a year ago I had a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission filed against me for using Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name (oops, I did it again). When the complaint was filed, I was quite taken aback, and admittedly quite scared about the direction of things. Over the next several months though, I realized that life lacks a certain essence of humour when you don’t have those ridiculous kangaroo courts to deal with. So, I figured I needed to begin a quest to find a winnable complaint to file with the CHRC. Here’s what I’ve come up with so far:
Read the rest here.
Eighth, via Matt Altheim’s blog: Freedom… with Ezra Levant, Paul Franklin, and Laurie Hawn:
On Friday, November 13th, I had the pleasure of being the Master of Ceremonies for the big speakers event in Edmonton, “Freedom: Worth Fighting For.” The event showcased speakers (ret) Master Cpl. Paul Franklin, Member of Parliament Laurie Hawn, and Ezra Levant. The event explored what Freedom means to Canadians and the courage and sacrifice of our Canadian military in giving the gift of freedom to not only those of us at home, but people in many countries around the world.
Our keynote speaker for the evening was Ezra Levant, who is known for being a political activist, author, journalist, and someone who speaks him mind and stands up for what he believes in. Ezra was such a delight and he gave us an insight about his challenges with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and what he thought was really unfounded censorship against what he had published in a political magazine (the Western Standard) in Canada, which is a country that prides itself on free speech.
Read the rest, with pictures, here.
Ninth, Denyse O’Leary writes, via Post-Darwinist: Intellectual freedom in Canada news roundup, with comments:
Here’s how Focus on the Family edits its content for Canada, to avoid “hate speech” laws. I always found the group totally boring myself; I doubt they could do hate if they tried.Franklin Carter at the Book and Periodical Council’s Freedom of Expression Committee writes to tell me, in Saskatchewan, convicted murderer Colin Thatcher appeared in court to defend his right to make money by writing a book about his legal case. Angela Hall reports for the Regina Leader-Post (and the Ottawa Citizen).
From Denyse: It’s a complex issue to be sure. Once, two dogs’ ages ago, I was almost going to edit Thatcher’s first manuscript but the company never signed the book, or something, and then went bust. My own view is that if a guy doesn’t have unpaid fines, the government doesn’t have any business stopping him from making money. Of course, the government could always assign a big fine to him, in which case …
Read the rest here.