Alright, here we go.
First off, in a follow-up to my post below, the ARC collective’s source that Melissa Guille and the Canadian Heritage Alliance have dropped their constitutional challenge of Section 13(1) is ‘a little birdie’. So make of that what you will.
Second, praise for Ezra Levant’s Shakedown. From the National Post’s Afterword blog:
Here, John J. Miller, contributor to The Wall Street Journal and The National Review.
Q: What is your favourite recent Canadian book?
A: Shakedown! by Ezra Levant – It is a very good, short account of a threat to free speech in democratic society.
Read it here.
Third, via the Globe and Mail: Brendan Burke’s not alone :
While the son of the Maple Leafs GM is the latest, Canadian athletes have a long history of dealing with the stigma of revealing their homosexuality in the world of sports
Here are a few of Canadian sports figures, past and present, who have come out:
John Damien – Although not a name known by most Canadians, John Damien changed the way human rights are viewed in this country. Once a highly-paid racetrack official in Ontario, Damien was fired from his position in 1975 for being homosexual. After a long career at the tracks, the Ontario Racing Commission offered Damien a letter of recommendation and $1,700 to go away quietly.
It’s an offer Mr. Damien didn’t take. Instead, he waged a decade-long war with the province and its human rights commission, trying to get his case heard. The fight sent Mr. Damien into bankruptcy, but he refused to drop his complaint.
Read it all here. Also noted by Readaloo.
Fourth, via Canada.com: Canada’s aboriginals told to attest to ancestry to qualify for select public service jobs:
OTTAWA — For the first time, aboriginal Canadians will have to swear a declaration and attest to their ancestry before landing an aboriginal-designated job in the federal public service.
The new declaration policy was developed in consultation with aboriginal organizations, as well as input from INAC, Canadian Human Rights Commission and unions.
Read it all here.
Fifth, Bernard C. Cormier writes, for HERE New Brunswick: Living in Oklahoma:
Censorship is a parasite.
It eats away at all forms of free expression, regardless of the medium used as a conduit.
Supporters of censorship, often governments and organizations, like religious and parent groups, who volunteer as unofficial “morality police,” want power and control. They may not admit it (and may not even realize it), but that’s what they want.
What the Canadian Human Rights Commission does and investigates can be seen as poster boy examples. Based on their track record, the government organization appears to be firmly opposed to freedom of expression.
Read the rest here.
Sixth, Catherine Griwkowsky writes, for Sherwood Park News: Be wary of Wild Rose Alliance’s thorns:
The Wild Rose Alliance party is a thorn in my side.
I am completely baffled as to why Danielle Smith is leading a party that wants to take away her rights.
Since a provincial election is far away enough, I feel I can state this opinion without fear of overly biasing results.
On top of the hospital issue, the WRA wants to strike section three of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act.
What is that?
“Section 3 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act prohibits the publication, issuing or display before the public of a representation that indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or that is likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt based on the following protected grounds: race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religious beliefs, gender (including pregnancy, sexual harassment, and gender identity), age, physical disability, mental disability, marital status, family status, source of income and sexual orientation.”
The recent anti-Semitic graffiti in Calgary is an example of what this legislation aims to fight against. The WRA is fighting to allow this kind of terrorism.
Seventh, Mark Steyn writes, for Macleans: Major Nidal Hasan had an enabler:
Ever since this magazine attracted the attention of Canada’s “human rights” regime, defenders of the system have clung to a familiar argument. In a letter to Maclean’s, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Canada’s chief censor, put it this way:
“Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be given free rein. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred.” “Hateful words” can lead to “unspeakable crimes.” The problem with this line is that it’s ahistorical twaddle, as I’ve pointed out. Yet still it comes up. It did last month, during my testimony to the House of Commons justice committee, when an opposition MP mused on whether it wouldn’t have been better to prohibit the publication of Mein Kampf.
“That analysis sounds as if it ought to be right,” I replied. “But the problem with it is that the Weimar Republic—Germany for the 12 years before the Nazi party came to power—had its own version of Section 13 and equivalent laws. It was very much a kind of proto-Canada in its hate speech laws. The Nazi party had 200 prosecutions brought against it for anti-Semitic speech. At one point the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Hitler from giving public speeches.”
And a fat lot of good it all did.
Read the rest here.
Ninth, via Scaramouche: Remind you of anyone?:
Anyone Canadian, I mean: