Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Conservative MP David Sweet: The CHRC is "cause for concern for all of us"

Conservative MP David Sweet: The CHRC is “cause for concern for all of us

[I] have become increasingly concerned – particularly with the credible allegations regarding the questionable investigative techniques of the CHRC and the implications for free speech in Canada.

Here is a note by Conservative MP David Sweet sent this week:

Thank you very much for your letter regarding Human Rights Commissions (CHRC).

Please be assured that I take the concerns that you and so many others have raised regarding the Canadian Human Rights Commission very seriously. As you know, academics, editorial opinion writers and a range of organizations have raised considerable questions about the actions of the CHRC. That should be cause for concern for all of us.

I have been following this situation over the past year and have become increasingly concerned – particularly with the credible allegations regarding the questionable investigative techniques of the CHRC and the implications for free speech in Canada. As a member of the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 39th Parliament and in this the 40th Parliament, I find this particularly troubling.

My colleague, Rick Dykstra, recently brought forward a Motion in the 39th Parliament, which reads:

Whereas concerns have been raised regarding the investigative techniques of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") and the interpretation and application of section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act (the "Act")…

Whereas the Commission operates independently and reports to Parliament;

Be it resolved that the Justice and Human Rights Committee examine and make recommendations with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

I fully agree with this motion and I am hopeful that a significant investigation by the Justice and Human Rights Committee of Parliament will ensue.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns with me. I will be sure to keep you updated on the recommendations of the committee and any other developments on this issue.

Yours Sincerely,

David Sweet, M.P.


Please sent a note of support to Mr. Sweet for taking an interest in the disreputable conduct of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and speaking out on this issue.

Constituency Office: info@davidsweet.ca

Parliamentary Office: ottawa@davidsweet.ca


Repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Right Act


Liberal MP Keith Martin [Introduced bill to repeal Sec. 13 in the house. Bill M-446]

Liberal MP Dan McTeague [Video]

Conservative MP James Rajotte

Conservative MP Bruce Stanton

Conservative MP Lee Richardson

Conservative MP Russ Hiebert

Conservative MP Kevin Sorenson

Conservative MP Nina Grewal

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre

Conservative MP Rick Dykstra

Conservative MP John Williams

Conservative MP Rick Casson

Conservative MP John Baird

Conservative MP Helena Guergis

Conservative MP David Sweet

Conservative Party Resolution P-203 to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Conservative Policy Convention - November 2008)

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Canadian Human Rights Commission Censorship: Talking Points on the Rights Fanatics (It's time to reign in the Human Rights Fanatics)




We live in an increasingly politically correct, regulated world where governments keep building an increasing body of laws and regulations ‘for the good of the community’. The majority of legislation and regulation thrust upon us over the last few decades serve special interests and legislators rather than the larger community.

Our fundamental, constitutionally protected freedoms of belief, expression, religion and thought are not being protected by governments sworn to uphold our constitution and the rule of law. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of our Constitution since 1982, protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of individual citizens from intrusion by the state. Since the Charter is embodied in the Constitution, no other law can override Charter protections.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (UDHR), enacted in December 1948, protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals. Canada subscribes to the UN universal human rights declaration.

The Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) was passed into law in 1978 and has been extensively modified since with a major modification in 1985. We assume that the CHRA would closely follow the UDHR but the CHRA does not prohibit discrimination based on birth, language, political or other opinion and property while the UDHR does. On the other hand, the CHRA prohibits discrimination based on age, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted while the UDHR does not.

The federal Human Rights Act was not the template for provincial legislation. The federal government was late to the ball. Every province except Saskatchewan had passed human rights legislation prior to the federal government. Legislation was enacted:: Ontario (1962); Nova Scotia (1963); Alberta (1966); New Brunswick (1967); Prince Edward Island (1968); Newfoundland (1969); British Columbia (1969); Manitoba (1970); Qu├ębec (1975); the Federal Government (1977); Saskatchewan (1980); Yukon (2002); Northwest Territories (2003); and Nunavut (2003)

It is important to note that the Criminal Code of Canada Sections 318 through 321.1 deal with hate crimes and hate propaganda. CHRA sections 12 and 13 duplicate sanctions against hate propaganda expanded as shown below and without any of the protections for an accused built into the criminal justice system. There is no valid reason for the duplication.


There are three other major differences between the CHRA and other rights and freedoms legislation. Fundamental rights and freedoms legislation and human rights legislation protects individuals.


1. The language of the CHRA extends protection to groups of individuals and is thus divisive and open to abuse if all groups are not treated equally, which is the case at present.
2. The CHRC extends prohibited discrimination to include any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
3. The CHRA allows investigation and prosecution of a complaint in respect of which no particular individual is identifiable as the victim.


The government extended the CHRA to include Internet messaging when Bill C-36 passed into law in December 2001. Bill C-36 was described by the government as: an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism (Anti-terrorism Act).


Our government has created the absurd situation where a person with no direct involvement can conclude that a posting to an Internet forum may possibly cause some-one to feel that he is the subject of contempt and file a complaint with the CHRC. The spokesman for a group can conclude that a posting may cause some members to feel the subject of contempt and file a complaint. There is no need for the complainant to be directly involved. There is no need to show that any harm has been done. There is no need to prove there are actual rather than imagined victims. The CHRC will proceed to investigate imaginary harm to imaginary victims as if it was the real thing.

Christians are under increasing attack as someone claims to be offended, or that his religious beliefs are compromised by public references to God, Christian prayers, the Commandments, or by Christian artifacts and displays. Employers have insisted that Christian employees not wear crosses lest they offend sensitive customers. There is no consideration for the offence to the Christian.

Once a decision is made to proceed with a complaint, the CHRC can pursue an accused with vigour, and has the power to obtain a search warrant to obtain any information that it seeks. The respondent must undertake the costs of legal advice and defence. The system is thus wide open to abuse as a complainant, unlike the plaintiff in a civil suit, has no ongoing costs of prosecution. It is reasonable to conclude that the investigation process is punitive to the accused. While this is going on, the same authorities are advocating that Sikhs be allowed to wear their turbans and kirpans at school and work and that Muslims be allowed to wear their hijabs in court and while voting. The strident and vicious attack on our beliefs and society is astonishing. There are different rules and standards for Caucasian Christians as opposed to all others.

The CHRC usually initiates an investigation by demanding that an accused provide it with information about himself in direct violation of Charter Section 11 (c):

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right … c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence…


The CHRC powers to obtain a search warrant and seize records, which would include computers and related equipment, is a powerful and coercive incentive for an accused to give up his Charter right and provide the information demanded.

When the CHRC completes an investigation, and despite CHRA provisions for arbitration of a complaint, every case involving an Internet blog or forum has been referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) for prosecution. The CHRT ignores our common-law based legal system entirely and operates in an Orwellian fantasy land.

An accused is denied disclosure of the case against him and cannot learn the rules of the hearing as each chairperson is given the authority to set the rules for that hearing on the fly during the proceedings. A Tribunal has ruled that telling the truth is not a legitimate defence at hearings. A Tribunal has listened to evidence that the freedom of expression is an American concept, not valid in Canada.

Consider the difficulty of proving that a particular comment is not likely to cause un-named parties to feel injured. It is no wonder that the CHRC has ruled against the accused in every CHRA Section 13 (1) case it has considered. A contributing factor is that almost every person accused has lacked the means to hire and be represented by competent legal counsel.

It is troubling that the CHRT regularly issues rulings banning a respondent from further comment on an issue for life. This is an onerous infringement on that person’s funda-mental freedom of expression. The CHRT has no mandate to override the Charter, but does so frequently.

Also troubling are recent CHRT rulings that not only require an accused to refrain from speaking to the subject of complaint for life, but also to impose fines that have been diverted to the complainant to offset alleged expenses. Since the CHRC and CHRT operate independently at public cost and do not require participation of the complainant, it is hard to imagine what costs a complainant could incur unless he was actively participating in allegedly independent processes.



The Canadian Human Rights Act is very bad law for the reasons stated above. There is no excuse for a law that allows the prosecution of a citizen for having caused imaginary harm to imaginary people. There is no excuse for a law that allows the prosecution of a citizen for having offended another person. No Bill of Rights, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or Human Rights legislation anywhere else in the world provides a person, let alone persons unnamed, with protection from feeling offended.

An ironic aspect of this attack on our fundamental freedoms is that the freedoms of the chosen groups supported by the CHRC are having their freedoms undermined by the sponsors they hold so dear. When the freedoms of a citizen are overridden to assuage the hurt feelings of a visible minority, we all lose. Down the road, a person facing discrimination will have no recourse as the fundamental freedom he or she should enjoy has been subverted to the power of the group.

The HRCs are undermining a very important fundamental human right which is equality before and under the law. The HRTs have made it very clear that membership in a visible minority group trumps the rights and freedoms of the individual. If HRC/HRTs are allowed to continue unchecked, individual freedoms and rights will disappear and be replaced by a competition amongst groups of individuals for power over our society.

The HRC/HRTs are the result of multiculturalism and social engineering gone mad. If we consider the Charter in our constitution to be the benevolent Dr. Jekyll there is no question that the HRC/HRTs are the evil Mr. Hyde. We need to exorcise those sections of the CHRC that allow Mr. Hyde to exist.


The purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) is clearly set out in the Act:


The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.


The intent is to protect individuals from discrimination that would infringe on their equality as citizens and prevent them from enjoying an equal opportunity to prosper to the limit of their abilities within the framework of their duties and responsibilities as citizens.

There is no provision in this purpose, nor should there be, for the protection of groups of any sort, and there is no provision in this purpose for protecting people from contempt. The person whose actions or behaviour invited contempt and derision may seek to claim discrimination, but is standing on quicksand and is unworthy of protection.

Groups of individuals cannot be protected under human rights legislation. Human rights, along with our fundamental charter rights and freedoms, rest with the individual. Human Rights Commissions have adopted the approach that someone claiming discrimination is correct if he or she is a member of a visible minority and in effect requiring that an accused prove his or her innocence.

Canadian Human Rights Tribunals operate with no consistent rules of order or rules respecting evidence. It is very difficult if not impossible for an accused to properly defend himself when he cannot know what evidence may and may not be presented and cannot establish the rules of procedure. Despite having an alleged through investigation by the CHRC, Tribunals routinely refuse to provide an accused with disclosure of evidence held against him, choosing instead to develop evidence during the hearing. While it may make for good theatre, it results in failed attempts at justice.

Members of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are not required to be apolitical or to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest. There is nothing in the Canadian Human Rights Act that requires Tribunal members to be impartial in their hearing and decision on a case. There is nothing that required a member of the Tribunal to recues themselves from a case in which they have a direct interest. These are serious breaches of the fundamental principles of justice, and must be addressed.

At a minimum, the Canadian Human Rights Act requires the following amendments:


1. A requirement that Canadian Human Rights Tribunal members be politically neutral and recuse themselves when they face a conflict of interest;
2. Removal of any and all references to groups and groups of people;
3. A requirement that an investigation or inquiry cannot proceed without the authorization of an injured party when the complainant is not an injured party;
4. Removal of the provision for the CHRC to undertake an investigation or inquiry when there is no complaint;
5. Removal of the provision for an investigation or inquiry when no particular individual is identifiable as a victim;
6. A requirement for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to publish its rules of evidence and rules of order for a hearing; and
7. Strike sections 12 and 13 from the CHRA – hate crimes including publications are already covered by the Criminal Code and the duplication is gratuitous and dangerous in a free democracy.


The Canadian Human Rights Act came into force in 1978, four years prior to enactment of the 1982 Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the Criminal Code has been amended as a result of a barrage of Charter challenges, there has been no similar spate of Charter challenges to the CHRA in part because accused persons do not have the funds to mount a court challenge while criminals have the advantage of having their challenges funded by legal aid. That increases the responsibility of our legislators to review and amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to ensure that its provisions and operations are not in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If someone was charged under the Criminal Code hate crimes provisions and the case was then turned over to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a hearing and decision, the protest would reverberate in the media for months. That should tell legislators that they cannot continue to ignore the monstrosity they have created.




It’s time to reign in the Canadian Human Rights Fanatics


Join our campaign to Stop Section 13












Wednesday, April 8, 2009

TRANSCRIPT: Conservative Party vote on P-203 to stop Section 13 and CHRC censorship

TRANSCRIPT: Conservative Party vote on P-203 to stop Section 13 and CHRC censorship

[Background on Resolution P-203]

Proposed by: Victoria and Kelowna Lake Country Association

Hello I’m Jeff Ingram, I come from Kelowna lake country.

My fellow delegates picture this with me. One day you inadvertently annoy your neighbor and the next thing you know you are thrust into a court – where even truth is not a valid defence.

In this court, you are forced to pay all of your costs, and the complainant is fully funded. In this court you can’t even recover your costs if you are proven innocent. And with 100% conviction rate over the past thirty years, your chances of being proven innocent are slim to none.

This tribunal is a direct threat to our freedom of speech.

Now, what would you call this threat to our human right? The human rights tribunal.

Every journalist, writer, internet webmaster, publisher and private citizen in Canada can be subject to a human rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth.

Given the ambiguity of Section 13, it is virtually impossible for any individual to determine if they might be in violation of this section. Arbitrary censorship and punishment are wrong and can not be justified in a free society.

I ask you ladies and gentleman to please join me in supporting resolution P-203 and preserve Canadians chartered right to freedom of expression.

(applause and standing ovation)

Laurie Hawn (MP for Edmonton Centre): … Section 13 has obviously been abused by many activist groups, who have tried to punish individuals for expressing legitimate, even if they are controversial views.

We already have hate laws for punishing hate speech. We’re not well served by an unfair non-judicial process that obviously penalized those at great expense to prove their innocence, while rewarding those who have brought frivolous complaints.

Organizations across the country and obviously people in this room feel the same way. We will serve Canada and freedom by voting yet to this and getting rid of Section 13.


Friday, April 3, 2009

DOUGLAS CHRISTIE: 2(b) or not to be?

Douglas Christie: 2(b) or not to be?

Douglas Christie, Canada’s “Battling Barrister” Challenging Sec. 13 of the CHR Act

2(b) or not to be? B’nai Brith’s Challenge to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms

By Arthur Topham
April 1, 2009

In 1982, following passing by the British Parliament, Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982 became the official law of the land.

PART I of the Act became known as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Its stated purpose was to ensure protection for all Canadians of certain basic rights and freedoms deemed necessary and essential to maintain our free and democratic society.

Section 1 of the Act was the Guarantee of our Rights and Freedoms and Section 2 was the list of our Fundamental Freedoms.

Section 2 states: Everybody has the following fundamental freedoms (as outlined in four sub-sections known as a, b, c and d).

Section 2(b) reads:

“Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;”

Twenty three years later, on November 25, 2005, due to specific amendments made to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in the immediate aftermath of 9/11/2001 – amendments that for the most part were hastily and prematurely inserted in conjunction with Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act of November 2001 – Marc Lemire, the owner and webmaster of www.freedomsite.org and his lawyer Barbara Kulaszka were forced by circumstance to challenge efforts which they deemed inimical to the fundamental freedoms contained in Section 2(b).

This was the beginning of the first Constitutional challenge* to the notorious Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, likely the most specious and controversial piece of legislation to have ever been surreptitiously foisted upon an unwary public.

The objective of the Lemire challenge was to expose not only the unconstitutionality of Section 13 of the Act, one that allowed special interest lobby groups (both foreign and domestic) to use said legislation for partisan political purposes in order to censor writers and publishers on the Internet but also to show how Section 54 of the same Act was being used to impose inordinate fines on anyone found guilty of perpetrating the so-called “hate crimes” with which Section 13 deals with and which Section 54 embellishes with dire and arbitrary financial penalties.

It wasn’t until nearly three years later and only after two years of hearings (comprising 26 days in all) and 8 interveners and 11 witnesses that the case finally reached its conclusion in a three day hearing lasting from September 15th to the 17th in Oakville, Ontario, Canada.

One of the interveners in the case on the side of Lemire was the internationally recognized human rights and freedom of speech lawyer Douglas Christie of Victoria, B.C. On the second day of the hearing in the afternoon Mr. Christie, known around the world as the “Battling Barrister” stood before the podium and gave his long awaited summation. What follows is a record taken from Marc Lemire’s website.

“This is a most important decision. It will determine who controls the media in Canada.”

“I have been the counsel for John Ross Taylor, Ernst Zundel and James Keegstra and I have argued that hate is very hard to define. We see this case as meaning either the beginning of the end of freedom in a real way or the end of the beginning of the reclamation of freedom in this country,” he stated.

“I want to point out the effects of this legislation beyond the particular effects of Marc Lemire’s case,” Mr. Christie explained. “The effect of this legislation is to create a political elite who alone can communicate their views. There is nothing new about this Sec. 13. It has created a bureaucracy that has told us many times here: ‘You don’t get a free pass,’ and we’ve heard it here,” Mr. Christie explained.

“I warned, in Keegstra, that these hate laws were a slippery slope and Sec. 13 makes that slope steeper and more slippery,” the Victoria-based lawyer added.

“Let’s take historical debate. This is an Act that will eventually silence historical debate. The Crusades were a religious conflict. If you take the position that the Crusades were justified because of the persecution of pilgrims, you could be seen to be exposing Moslems to hatred or contempt,” Mr. Christie elaborated. “You could say one side or another was right and you’d be advocating intolerance. Genghis Khan was a brutal man who invaded Europe and killed many people. He happened to be a Mongol. How could you discuss this without exposing Mongols to hatred or contempt?” Mr. Christie asked.

“As there is no good faith religious exception for religious belief in Sec. 13, this Section effectively outlaws intolerant religious expressions and is, therefore, intolerant. All religion is intolerant and, therefore, this Sec. 13 is excessive.”

“What was the greatest terrorist act in Canadian history?” Mr. Christie asked. “The Air India bombing. The likely suspects were Sikhs; the only one convicted was a Sikh; the two charged and acquitted and their supporters who filled the court were Sikhs. To even report this on the Internet might be to expose Sikhs as dangerous people to hatred or contempt, even though it would all be true.”

“The dismissal of the Muslim complaint against Maclean’s was political in nature,” Mr. Christie argued. “The notion that you should punish a person more severely for not expressing remorse ignores the importance of truth. If a person believes what he says is true, why should he apologize?” Mr. Christie demanded.

“Website chat rooms can be seeded with inflammatory comments. You couldn’t do that in Taylor with his telephone answering machine. No chance of a poster putting up a post and it being photographed, even if there is an apology or a rebuttal doing that with the old telephone answering machine.

“I thought hearing both sides or many sides was one of the indicia of a democratic society,” Mr. Christie stated. “What Miss Blight has demonstrated is an absolute liability offence. For the possession of a lethal drug, we require knowledge, intent and consent. My learned friend said it doesn’t matter whether you know about the post, or consent or intended for it to be there, if you own the site, you’re guilty. Criminal offences are not constitutionally protected acts, but freedom of expression is a constitutionally protected act.

“We’re talking of imposed silence and when we have silence, we have the death of reason. What happens when I cannot tell you what I honestly believe lest I offend someone?

“Really Canada is seeking to impose our legal standards on other countries, seeking to prosecute Canadians for posting in other countries. It’s extraterritoriality. It is terribly disturbing for those of us who like to see Canada as a democracy. We place ourselves alongside China in repressing dissent. Some American scholars are questioning whether to attend conferences in Canada for fear some of the views they might wish to express may be contrary to Canadian law,” Mr. Christie charged.

“Expression will be subject to one’s political enemies who can make complaints and waste your resources,” Mr. Christie explained. “There’s no constitutional right to commit a crime, but there is a constitutional right to freedom of speech. Message boards and spontaneous public debate and discussion will become a thing of the past.”

“Special interest groups are not the stakeholders of freedom of speech. The Canadian public are the stakeholders,” Mr. Christie added.

“It’s no defence to a constitutional breech to say you might be acquitted,” Mr. Christie responded to a query from Mr. Hadjis.

“What is done by the ‘Hallmarks of Hate’** is to provide you with a moveable goal post into which you can fit anyone you want to prosecute and exclude anyone you don’t want to prosecute.”

“It’s the old slogan, ‘Nazis and fascists have no right to speak or organize.’ We defame them, we isolate them and then we criminalize and silence them. We don’t do that to communists, but we’ll to it to Nazis. This demonstrates it’s strictly political. It’s not what you say; it’s who you are that counts. The law is expansive and vague,” Doug Christie charged in a rapid fire of body slams to the Commission’s arguments.

“We’re here because this legislation is no joke. It has created a monstrous threat to freedom of speech. The passage of time has changed the nature of the communication, increased its volume, made it rebuttable from the time of Taylor. If Sec. 13 had attacked the activities of drug user, lawyers would be lined up for their defence of narcotics users, but as it attacks free speech, there are few to defend it. Apparently, drug users are more popular than free speech,” Mr. Christie argued.

“Hatred and contempt without reference to truth – which is not a Sec. 13 defence – is an invitation to hypocrisy,” Mr. Christie explained. “If this was a fair adjudicative process, the motives and credibility of the complainant would be an issue,” he added.

“I suggest to you that George Orwell provided a term – ‘doublespeak’ – to characterize Mr. Fothergill’s comments.

“The enemies of free speech don’t want to debate their opponents; they want to silence them. I don’t hesitate to say hate is right in some cases; hate for evil and hate where the lives of innocent people are at stake. We’re not allowed to argue the truth of what we say that might prove the validity of strong opinions,” Mr Christie explained.

“Another justification is to upset a particular political community. It is the ‘context of your mind’ that causes the breech. That should frighten and wake people up. These people are arguing with the force of the state behind them. Supposed ‘hate speech’ can only have any effect on those who seek it out and find it accords with their own experience. Their opinion will not be indoctrinated as long as they have the ability to go to other websites,” Mr. Christie argued.

“The Commission wants a cease and desist order against Marc Lemire for a website he neither owns nor controls. This legislation allows this absurdity,” Mr. Christie charged.

“Apparently, to have an honest opinion that people don’t like is to violate the law. It is implicit that truth is no defence, honest belief is no defence, intent is no defence,” he said.

“If we keep this legislation, we will undermine democracy and promote hypocrisy,” Mr Christie concluded his historic address.


* The 2005 Constitutional motion can be read here: http://www.stopsection13.com/FACTUM- Written_Submissions_on_Constitutional_Issues.pdf
The 2008 final submissions can be read here: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/Closing_submissions_constitutional-part_1.html


Watch these informative youtube presentations by Douglas Christie on issues of free speech and our rights and freedoms.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

British MP Galloway breaks Canadian Censorship Ban and Speaks [Conservative MP Kenny is a MORON]

British MP Galloway breaks Canadian Censorship Ban and Speaks

Despite the ludicrous ban on British MP George Galloway to enter Canada, he delivered his speech in Toronto via video-hook up.

Conservative Jason Kenny pushed for the Galloway ban, claiming he was a security threat to Canada, due to his condemnation of the state of Israel. While Galloway is a bit of a crank, and only now claims freedom of speech is in peril - because it suits him (yet Galloway was 100% supportive to ban France’s Le-Pen and David Irving) Whatever Galloway might have said, it’s is nothing compared to the damage Canadians’ rights to Freedom of Speech has suffered. Galloway has the right to be wrong.

Not surprisingly, for the fanatical Israeli first Conservative government, Jason Kenny has on numerous times used his political power to silence those he dislikes. This is an affront to all Canadians.

On October 17, 2007, Jason Kenny introduced a motion before the House of Commons to pass a unanimous resolution to ban Paul Fromm and Alexan Kulbashian from being able to give a speech on how bad Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act really is. Now that opposition to Section 13, is becoming a cause celeb, and money making opportunity, Kenny suddenly flip-flops and supports a repeal of it.

Like a typical controlling, restrictive, censoring, tin-pot fascist, Jason Kenny got the following motion passed:

By unanimous consent, it was ordered, ‘That this House order that Alexan Kulbashian and Paul Fromm be denied admittance to the precincts of the House of Commons during the present Session to preserve the dignity and integrity of the House.

Kenny was recently called a “professional whore” by an Arab group. And to be honest, no truer words were ever spoken. And living up to his controlling, dictatorial personality, what did the Fuehrer Jason Kenny do? He took away any funding the Canadian Arab Federation received. While I believe they never should have received government funds in the first place, it is quite another thing, for the dictator Kenny to rip those funds away because some Arab grounds do not support Kenny’s genuflected and fanatical Israeli first policy.

The CIC should have never received tax-payers dollars, period. Not because they disagree with Jason Kenny or the Conservative Party, but because funding of special interest groups – that’s ALL special interest groups – should be stopped. If the CIC claim’s to represent their constituents, they can raise the money themselves.

It should not be off my back!

Galloway Breaks Conservative Censorship

Galloway’s Speech Excepts:

Stephen Harper and Jason Kenny have failed…

Jason Kenny … Come out and debate with me like a man. Face to face. Lets book the biggest hall in Canada and you and I will debate these issues.

And you won’t be able to hide behind your spokesman, or the so-called jewish - so called defence league. You won’t be able to hide behind your immigration officials, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Come out and debate me like a man Jason Kenny, or are you too cowardly to face the public and defend your views and the way your betraying …Canada”