First: While I admit I have far more contempt than sympathy for Quebec’s snivelling student body (well, at least 1/3 of it) who are being well paid by the unions to wreak political havoc, nothing tests one’s principles more than their application to persons and/or ideas that one despises. Bill 78 contains much to be alarmed about, in the fashion that it appears in some cases to punish protesting and not lawbreaking.
Harsh penalties for protesters that physically prevent other students from attending class? He didn’t go far enough. In my opinion, it’s as much a hate crime as any other – assault on a person solely for their political views.
But the inane requirement for protests to give police 24 hours notice of the route and timing of a protest involving more than 50 people? If there is to be traffic disruptions, then well and good, but there doesn’t appear to be that distinction in the legislation. Even more eye-rolling is the demand for student leaders to encourage their students to comply with the law. Again, a negative stipulation would do instead of the positive – it is already illegal for an individual or organization to counsel another to break the law, and there’s no reason that the student groups couldn’t be charged under this principle.
It’s clear that Charest’s government doesn’t care much for fundamental human rights.
Second: The UN is the godfather of modern human “rights”, and so there is much to learn about the way that they attempt to apply them. John Ivison examines the rhetoric used by the UN Special Rapporteur on the “right to food”, noting first that he is wrong on his statistics. But more important, it is obvious that the UN’s efforts are to spread a particular political ideology – socialism – under the guise of human rights.
When asked whether all this didn’t smack a little of discredited bureaucratic socialist welfare systems that are currently crumbling all over Europe, he replied that it is the countries with generous social welfare programs that have proven most robust.
When Canada’s own fiscal constraints were raised, he said “the deficit is a pretext used for limiting social benefits.”
…kinda like the morbidly obese claiming that their health problems are a pretext to limit junk food intake. Brian Lilley has more.
Third: I won’t go into the details of the latest tiff between the Akwesasne Mowhawks and the Canadian Border Security Agency, but I want to draw your attention to one thing:
…the MCA is also pursuing legal action against the CBSA on the same grounds as complaints filed with the CHRC in previous years.
The CBSA settled previous complaints in good faith through the mediation process. Yet they’re being sued “on the same grounds”. How does that compute?
Fourth: Looks like Bill C-304 is successfully making its way through parliament. Godspeed!