Friday, September 30, 2011

Bill C-304 - An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom)

Conservative MP Brian Storseth introduced a Private Members bill today in the House of Commons to repeal the Internet censorship provisions of the Canadian "Human Rights" Act.   This is great news for freedom!

Conservative MP Brian Storseth

Here is Mr. Storseth introducing the bill in the House of Commons:

House of Commons Debates

     He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to introduce a bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom)”.

    Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle in our democracy and one which Canadians have fought and died for, for over a century. This is not a fight that one Canadian can take on himself, but rather an issue that all Canadians must engage in vigorously.

     In this, I would like to thank my friends and colleagues such as Senator Finley and the member for St. Catharines who have rigorously pursued a freer, more open society, and resisted the tyrannical instincts of bureaucracy to censor speech in our great country.

    Freedom of speech is the freedom that all other freedoms are built on. It cannot be restrained to the politically correct. The best way to fight bigotry is to ensure that we protect and enhance our fundamental freedoms in this great country of ours. That is why I ask all members in this House to support this bill that protects the fundamental building block of democracy: freedom of speech. God bless.

     (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

*   *   *


The text of Bill C-304 reads as follows:

BILL C-304
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom)

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:


1. Section 4 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:

4. A discriminatory practice, as described in sections 5 to 14.1, may be the subject of a complaint under Part III and anyone found to be engaging or to have engaged in a discriminatory practice may be made subject to an order as provided in section 53.

2. Section 13 of the Act is repealed.

3. Paragraph 40(5)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) occurred in Canada and was a discriminatory practice within the meaning of section 5, 8, 10 or 12 in respect of which no particular individual is identifiable as the victim;

4. The portion of subsection 53(2) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) If at the conclusion of the inquiry the member or panel finds that the complaint is substantiated, the member or panel may make an order against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice and include in the order any of the following terms that the member or panel considers appropriate:

5. Section 54 of the Act is repealed.

6. Section 57 of the Act is replaced by the following:

57. An order under section 53 may, for the purpose of enforcement, be made an order of the Federal Court by following the usual practice and procedure or by the Commission filing in the Registry of the Court a copy of the order certified to be a true copy.


7. This Act comes into force on the day that is one year after the day on which it receives royal assent.

OTTAWA CITIZEN: Conservative MP's bill takes aim at hate speech provisions

Conservative MP's bill takes aim at hate speech provisions


By Jason Fekete, Postmedia News September 30, 2011 7:01 PM



"Everybody has some concerns" about the regulation of hate speech: Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

OTTAWA — A Conservative backbench MP from Alberta believes a majority of his caucus colleagues will support his private member's bill that would repeal controversial sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act banning hate speech over the telephone or Internet.

Tory MP Brian Storseth introduced Friday in the House of Commons a bill that would scrap Section 13 of the human rights code dealing with complaints regarding "the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet."

He said he believes the current human rights code fails to protect freedom of speech, which is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and insists Canadians are better off if the government repeals sections 13 and 54 — the latter section deals with associated penalties.

The code as it currently reads allows too many frivolous cases to proceed against citizens, he said, when hate speech that could generate harm against an individual or group is already covered by the Criminal Code.

"Freedom of speech is the freedom that all other freedoms are built on. It cannot be restrained to the politically correct," Storseth, MP for Westlock—St. Paul, said Friday as he introduced Bill C-304.

"The best way to fight bigotry is to ensure that we protect and enhance our fundamental freedoms in this great country of ours."

Conservative caucus chairman Guy Lauzon said the private member's bill "hasn't even come near caucus." However, he figures Storseth has canvassed a large number of Tory MPs for their support — otherwise he probably wouldn't have introduced the bill.

"There's no point putting something forward if it's not going to carry, so I'm sure that Brian has done that," Lauzon said. "Personally, I like his bill."






Wednesday, September 28, 2011

St. Catharines MP Rick Dykstra to continue push to reform CHRC and Section 13

" He would like to continue to push for reforms to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as he did in Parliament in 2008 when he asked for an examination of the commission’s operations and mandate. In the motion, he also asked for a review of the commission’s “application and interpretation” of a controversial section of the Human Rights Act dealing with promoting hatred through electronic means.

“It’s clear that section doesn’t work,”
said Dykstra.





National Post editorial board: Abolishing S. 13 would be a big win for free speech

National Post editorial board: Abolishing S. 13 would be a big win for free speech

National Post Editorial Board  Sep 28, 2011 – 5:49 PM ET

Tory backbencher Brian Storseth wants to eliminate Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). That is the provision in federal law that gives the Canadian Human Rights Commission authority to hear complaints of hate speech on the Internet. We wish Mr. Storseth, the MP from Westlock-St. Paul in Alberta, well in this campaign. Section 13 is a particularly pernicious infringement on free speech. Originally added to the CHRA in 2001 as a protection for vulnerable groups against racist or violence-promoting websites, the clause has more often been used by minority activists (or those purporting to act on behalf of minorities) to silence those who do not share their opinions.

The biggest problem with Sec. 13 is that its provisions make it far too easy for commissioners to find an alleged offender guilty. Unlike in a court of law — where the presumption of innocence, rules of evidence and bans on hearsay testimony protect defendants from wrongful prosecution — at a human rights tribunal complainants may remain anonymous and complaints may be filed by third parties with no direct interest in the case at hand. (Some folks even make a profitable hobby out of launching these complaints.) Hearsay evidence is perfectly acceptable, the onus to prove one’s innocence often falls on the accused, and tax dollars pay for the plaintiff’s lawyers while the accused is on his or her own to fund a defence.

A further flaw in Sec. 13 is that neither the truth nor the lack of intent to harm is permitted as a defence. It does not matter whether the offending Internet message was truthful or if adjudicators find it “likely to expose an identifiable group to hatred or contempt” (the standard employed under criminal law) — the owner of the website on which it appears and the person who posted it are guilty anyway.

In 2007, Sec. 13 was used against writer Mark Steyn for material he wrote in Maclean’s magazine that four Muslim students claimed had offended them. That same year, a similar provision in Alberta provincial human rights law was used to prosecute Ezra Levant for publishing the infamous Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in the now-defunct Western Standard magazine. In both cases, the clear intent of the complainants was to limit legitimate debate about religious extremism.

Fears that getting rid of Sec. 13 will lead to a flood of vicious anti-Semitism and the like are unfounded. Sections 318 through 320 of the Criminal Code already prohibit “hate propaganda” — including “any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide.” And it has been used several times to prosecute true hatemongers,James Keegstra, most famously. Nothing in Mr. Storseth’s proposal would affect those laws.

The problem for censorship-minded activists is that proving hate speech in court is hard. Courts tend to abridge Charter rights such as freedom of expression only in the most extreme cases. It is unlikely that an anti-immigration screed on the Internet or a controversial editorial cartoon would prompt a real judge to shut down a website or fine a blogger. That’s why most activists prefer to rely on Sec. 13 of the CHRA and its provincial counterparts (which should also be written out of the law), instead of the criminal code.

For instance, in a high-profile case against an alleged white-supremacist website, Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator Dean Steacy was asked what value he gave freedom of speech in his investigations. Stunningly, Mr. Steacy replied: “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value. It’s not my job to give value to an American concept.” In this same case, CHRC investigators allegedly permitted the complainant to review their evidence files and used false names to post racist remarks on websites, then waited to see whether the site operators took them down.




NatPost articles on Section 13 and its possible repeal!

There were two articles in today’s National Post on Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the notorious censorship provision.

1.    Internet hate speech section of rights code could face repeal  (Front page story)
2.    What the #!%*?: Section 13 of federal human rights code explained

Internet hate speech section of rights code could face repeal

Charles Lewis  Sep 28, 2011 – 6:15 AM ET | Last Updated: Sep 27, 2011 7:55 PM ET

A Tory MP plans to introduce legislation as early as Friday calling for the repeal of a section in the federal human rights code banning hate speech over the Internet.

Despite being a backbencher, Brian Storseth is convinced the bill will succeed because nearly every Tory MP opposes Section 13, and he believes the Harper government wants to see it repealed.

“Section 13 suppresses the basic right to freedom of speech in our society that is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights & Freedoms,” said Mr. Storseth, who represents the Alberta riding of Westlock-St. Paul.
Hate speech that is truly capable of bringing harm to an identifiable group or individual is already dealt with in the Criminal Code, he said. In those cases, police investigate and the Attorney General has to lay the complaint to ensure that allegation is not frivolous.
“We need to have some reasonable tests of harm in our society and I believe the Criminal Code looks after that and ensures that Canadians aren’t targeted by hatred,” he said.

“But the difference is that in a court there is the openness and transparency, which you don’t have through the human rights tribunal. In a tribunal, a person can lay a complaint, but doesn’t not have to have their name attached to it. There’s no cost or expense to the person putting the complaint forward, no matter how frivolous that complaint might be. And it violates the fundamental right of an accused to face his accuser.

“At the end of the day, all the onus and costs are put on the defendant and this should not the basis of our justice system.”

Suppressing free speech can help drive abhorrent views underground, allowing them to fester and grow, he adds.

“We need to have liberty of free speech and it’s ultimately freedom of speech that looks after these issues by allowing the light of day to destroy hateful propaganda.”

The bill will come to a first vote in early November, about a month before the constitutionality of Section 13 will be reviewed by a federal court.

Mr. Storseth said he prefers not to wait for the court to make its decision because this is the responsibility of Parliament.

Section 13 has been controversial since its inception more than a decade ago.

In 2008, Richard Moon, a law professor at the University of Windsor, prepared a report for the Canadian Human Rights Commission concluding the section should be removed. His advice was never acted upon.
The following year, a member of a human rights tribunal said Section 13 violated the Charter, which put the bill in a state of limbo and eventually led to the review in federal court.



What the #!%*?: Section 13 of federal human rights code explained

Joseph Brean  Sep 28, 2011 – 6:15 AM ET | Last Updated: Sep 27, 2011 7:51 PM ET

In this occasional feature, the National Post tells you everything you need to know about a complicated issue. Today: Joe Brean elucidates Section 13 of the federal human rights code:

Q: Section 13 again? What the heck? I thought Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn already slew that kangaroo. It says so on the Internet.
A: You need to get out more. Section 13 is not dead. It’s resting. Unfinished cases are on hold, and no new ones have been launched since 2008, when the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled the law violates section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of expression. That decision, in the case of far-right webmaster Marc Lemire, put the law into limbo but did not technically overturn it. An appeal in federal court is slated for December.
Q: 2(b) or not 2(b), that is the question, eh? And look how things turned out for Hamlet. So, this MP, can he actually kill it with a private member’s bill?

A: In theory, yes. In reality, maybe, but only if it makes it to a vote. Even then, there is the political problem of appearing to side with hatemongers against minorities. There is strong public support for repeal, including nearly all major newspapers and a large segment of bloggers. But no politician, with the exception of former Liberal MP Keith Martin, has ever taken a serious stand against Section 13. Even the ruling Conservatives have gone against their members’ wishes, first by intervening in support of Section 13 at Mr. Lemire’s Tribunal, then backing out of the appeal.

Q: Why is there a law against hurt feelings? Is this a country of laws or a daycare?
A: Section 13 does not protect hurt feelings. It prohibits hate speech on the Internet, defined in law as “unusually strong and deep felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification.” But its legal test is strangely subjective. It bans repeated messages that are “likely to expose” identifiable groups to hatred or contempt, and provides for punishments including fines and restrictions on internet usage. Truth is no defence, to prevent tribunals being hijacked by arguments over Holocaust revisionism or the genetic inferiority of blacks. Neither is benign intent, which raises the awkward question of whether the Tribunal’s own judgments, or news reports about them, which quote hate speech verbatim, technically violate the law. And it does not require a victim, just the possibility of one, which has led to criticism that Section 13 only pretends to be a remedial law, like the rest of human rights legislation, and is in fact simply punitive. It is also vastly more broad than its creators envisioned in the 1960s, when it was written for racist telephone hotlines. In 2001, as part of an anti-terrorism bill, Parliament expanded Section 13 to include the Internet, and thus almost every word published in Canada. Since then, Jennifer Lynch, head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), has compared online hate speech to “microwave popcorn … popping up here, popping up there.”

Q: Is it true no one has ever been acquitted?
A: Pretty close, at least not until Mr. Lemire, although several cases were withdrawn or settled. Hate speech represents only about 2% of complaints to the CHRC; of the 71 or so filed since 2001, 33 were referred to the tribunal. Of the roughly 20 that have been decided, all but two were brought by Richard Warman, an activist lawyer and former CHRC employee.



Tuesday, September 27, 2011

"Human rights" laws are eroding our democracy


Good article by Carpay in the Calgary Herald.

Human rights laws are eroding our democracy



By John Carpay,

Calgary Herald

September 25, 2011



Should a man be forced to pay $17,500 to four individuals who felt offended by the flyers he distributed?

The Supreme Court of Canada will decide this question in October, when it hears the case of Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission versus William Whatcott.

In 2001 and 2002, Whatcott peacefully distributed flyers in Regina and Saskatoon.

His flyers expressed opposition to teaching children in public schools about homosexuality, and also expressed, in polemical language, his religious objections to homosexual behaviour.

When four people complained that their feelings were hurt by the flyers, Whatcott was prosecuted under Saskatchewan's "human rights" law, ordered to pay $17,500 to the complainants and ordered to refrain from distributing the same or similar flyers.

Alberta's human rights legislation is similar to Saskatchewan's, and has resulted in the prosecution of Ezra Levant for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in the

former Western Standard magazine, the prosecution of Rev. Stephen Boissoin over a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, and the prosecution of Catholic Bishop Fred Henry for articulating his church's position against same-sex marriage.

The arrogance of the censors is the common element in all of these human rights prosecutions. The censors who want to shut down other people's speech think that their own opinions are not just opinions, but absolute truth, which therefore entitles the censors to silence those who disagree. But John Stuart Mill warned us in his 1859 essay On Liberty: "We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."

Whatcott argues that some forms of sexual conduct are unhealthy, unnatural and immoral, and therefore should not be portrayed in a positive light to schoolchildren. Many Canadians would agree with him. The human rights commission believes that all sexual behaviour between consenting adults is inherently good, and that criticizing some sexual practices is an attack on the dignity and worth of people who engage in them.

Religious teachings against adultery, fornication, common-law relationships and homosexual behaviour run afoul of human rights codes because some listeners perceive the teachings as discriminatory or hateful. The Whatcott case highlights the direct conflict between religious freedom and restrictions on "discriminatory" speech in human rights legislation.

Beliefs about what is - and is not - morally acceptable sexual conduct differ from age to age, and from culture to culture. As Mill explained in his essay: "Ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions, now general, will be rejected by future ages."

But Canada's human rights commissions are so certain of their own opinions that they seek to silence opposing views. As Mill put it: "All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility."

Not only do human rights prosecutions violate the free speech rights of Whatcott and others, the prosecution of politically incorrect speech also robs Canadians of the benefit of debate and discussion, which is the cornerstone of democracy.

Our civilization's tradition of freedom of speech has facilitated artistic, literary, religious, philosophical, economic and political achievements.

Democracy depends on open discussion, vigorous debate and the marketplace of ideas. Human rights legislation undermines democracy by chilling free speech.

… [See full article at:]

Calgary lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which is supporting William Whatcott's free speech rights before the Supreme Court of Canada.


Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Good News: Partial victory for free speech C-51 put on hold


Good news today on C-51, which is the Conservative governments bill to make linking to website illegal was dropped from a recent crime omnibus bill.


Partial victory for free speech

BY: brian.lilley - September 20th, 2011

It was expected that Bill C-51, the proposed bill to update and modernize police search powers, was going to be part of the omnibus crime bill. That was the expectation this morning.

There is good news for opponents of the bill, it isn’t there. Plenty of other bills were included but not C-51.

Bill C-51 has many problems, one of them is the attempt to expand what a hate crime is and how it can be committed. The Library of Parliament in its analysis of the bill for MPs said that the language would mean that providing a hyperlink to something deemed hateful online could mean someone was in violation of the law. I first wrote about that here.

The government’s official response through Justice Minister Rob Nicholson was to say that I was wrong, that I misunderstood, that the law would not allow that. Others spoke up to say that I was right and the bill was a problem.

Then Alan Shanoff, a lawyer with a specialty in media law, wrote that the bill could make hyperlinking a crime. The government stuck with the same response.

Obviously someone thinks there are problems. From what I’ve been told the bill may in fact get a rework before being introduced.

If we accept wiretaps on phones as a police tool then we should have no problem with a modern update that allows police to check our internet use, with a proper w2arrant, if they have reasonable grounds and evidence to believe a crime has been committed.

But does the bill also have to expand ridiculous notions such as hate speech. Do we need to add “national origin” to the list of identifiers that we can be prosecuted for offending?

I don’t know about you but I’m fine with the government prosecuting perverts passing child pornography around but they have no business going online to judge the quality of my polish jokes or pass judgement on whether a link I post may expose someone to the emotion of hate.

As I said in my original column, will supporting the Armenian genocide be considered a hate crime one day because of how the Turks feel about it?

A crime is a crime. Adding hate in front of it does not make it worse. Making up crimes that never existed before we criminalized emotions doesn’t make them legitimate.

Keep up the pressure on this. Write or email your MP or write to Prime Minister Harper –  – it really is that easy.


Thursday, September 8, 2011

Michael Coren Interviews Christie Blatchford On Caledonia

The situation in Caledonia is a shame and outrage in Canada.  The OPP cowered to natives and refused to enforce the law.  Makes you wonder what is really going on in the OPP?

Blachford wrote a great book on the total lack of the "Rule of Law" in Caledonia, and this interview really highlights many of the outrages.

Lawsuits are flying around in Caledonia against the government of Ontario and the OPP.   Sadly, the tax-payers of Ontario will be on the hook for all the bills, while "Natives" are allowed to harass residents at will. The Liberals are more than happy to pay off everyone in Caledonia to just shut up.

You almost have to pinch yourself to believe this is happening in Canada.  Is this some nightmare?  No it’s politically correct - identity politics at it's finest.  And the worst thing ... this type of political policing is just starting.  It is going to get worse as the days go on in Ontario and the police ignore the law and make decisions based on the colour of a person’s skin.  Gee, isn't that why we hated Nazi Germany?

This is a sad and shocking interview with Blatchford.

You can find more information on the Caledonia Siege and the OPP's shameful response at:


Wednesday, September 7, 2011

HATE ALERT! Where are the "Human Rights" Enforcers! UofT Study find White Straight Males more "Likeable"


Quickly alert the Canadian Human Rights Commission!  Hate has surfaced at the University of Toronto. Babs where are you! The Ontario Human Rights Commission should spring into action to fight this horrible hate.


It is highly offensive to think that White Straight Males are more likeable!   Who did the survey, the Nazi party of Canada!  Where is Canada’s hate finder general!  This could be a nice payday.



White straight men more likeable?

Last updated: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 Print


Studies by psychologists at the University of Toronto reveal that when it comes to white men, being straight may make you more likable, but in the case of black men, gays have a likability edge.

In one study, 22 women and nine men viewed 104 photos of straight and gay black and white males and rated their likability on a scale of one (not likable) to seven (extremely likable).

Participants were not informed that some of the men pictured were gay. While overall, white straight men were rated as more likable than white gay men, black men were rated in the opposite manner: gay blacks were more likable than straight black men.

Judgment based on sexual orientation

"We observed that people judge others based on sexual orientation, even if they are not consciously aware of whether someone is gay or straight," said doctoral student Jessica Remedios, lead author.

"By understanding how sexual orientation affects the rapid evaluations we form about others, we can learn more about predicting and minimising the negative consequences of homophobia."

In a second study, 36 women and 14 men were divided into groups to view the same 104 photos. One group was instructed to approach whites and avoid blacks by pulling a joystick toward them when a white face appears and pushing the joystick away when a black face appears; the other group was instructed vice versa, to approach blacks and avoid whites.

Among participants approaching whites, the responses were faster for the straight men than for the gay. Among participants approaching blacks, however, responses were faster for gay than straight men.

"Given that faster approach responses indicate greater positivity toward stimuli, the second study is consistent with the liking expressed in the first study," says Remedios.

"These findings suggest that sexual orientation, despite lacking explicit perceptual markers, infiltrates the automatic impression that is formed. Further, our judgments of gay men depends on whether they are white or black."

(EurekAlert, September 2011) 


















STEYN on Free Speech "Gagging us softly"

Another great article on freedom of speech by Mark Steyn.


Steyn on the World
Tuesday, 06 September 2011
In this anniversary week, it's sobering to reflect that one of the more perverse consequences of 9/11 has been a remorseless assault on free speech throughout the west. I regret to say that, in my new book, I predect this trend will only accelerate in the years ahead. The essay below was written as last week's National Review cover story:
To be honest, I didn’t really think much about “freedom of speech” until I found myself the subject of three “hate speech” complaints in Canada in 2007. I mean I was philosophically in favor of it, and I’d been consistently opposed to the Dominion’s ghastly “human rights” commissions and their equivalents elsewhere my entire adult life, and from time to time when an especially choice example of politically correct enforcement came up I’d whack it around for a column or two.

But I don’t think I really understood how advanced the Left’s assault on this core Western liberty actually was. In 2008, shortly before my writing was put on trial for “flagrant Islamophobia” in British Columbia, several National Review readers e-mailed from the U.S. to query what the big deal was. C’mon, lighten up, what could some “human rights” pseudo-court do? And I replied that the statutory penalty under the British Columbia “Human Rights” Code was that Maclean’s, Canada’s biggest-selling news weekly, and by extension any other publication, would be forbidden henceforth to publish anything by me about Islam, Europe, terrorism, demography, welfare, multiculturalism, and various related subjects. And that this prohibition would last forever, and was deemed to have the force of a supreme-court decision. I would in effect be rendered unpublishable in the land of my birth. In theory, if a job opened up for dance critic or gardening correspondent, I could apply for it, although if the Royal Winnipeg Ballet decided to offer Jihad: The Ballet for its Christmas season I’d probably have to recuse myself.

And what I found odd about this was that very few other people found it odd at all. Indeed, the Canadian establishment seems to think it entirely natural that the Canadian state should be in the business of lifetime publication bans, just as the Dutch establishment thinks it entirely natural that the Dutch state should put elected leaders of parliamentary opposition parties on trial for their political platforms, and the French establishment thinks it appropriate for the French state to put novelists on trial for sentiments expressed by fictional characters. Across almost all the Western world apart from America, the state grows ever more comfortable with micro-regulating public discourse—and, in fact, not-so-public discourse: Lars Hedegaard, head of the Danish Free Press Society, has been tried, been acquitted, had his acquittal overruled, and been convicted of “racism” for some remarks about Islam’s treatment of women made (so he thought) in private but taped and released to the world. The Rev. Stephen Boissoin was convicted of the heinous crime of writing a homophobic letter to his local newspaper and was sentenced by Lori Andreachuk, the aggressive social engineer who serves as Alberta’s “human rights” commissar, to a lifetime prohibition on uttering anything “disparaging” about homosexuality ever again in sermons, in newspapers, on radio—or in private e-mails. Note that legal concept: not “illegal” or “hateful,” but merely “disparaging.” Dale McAlpine, a practicing (wait for it) Christian, was handing out leaflets in the English town of Workington and chit-chatting with shoppers when he was arrested on a “public order” charge by Constable Adams, a gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community-outreach officer. Mr. McAlpine had been overheard by the officer to observe that homosexuality is a sin. “I’m gay,” said Constable Adams. Well, it’s still a sin, said Mr. McAlpine. So Constable Adams arrested him for causing distress to Con­stable Adams.

In fairness, I should add that Mr. McAlpine was also arrested for causing distress to members of the public more generally, and not just to the aggrieved gay copper. No member of the public actually complained, but, as Constable Adams pointed out, Mr. McAlpine was talking “in a loud voice” that might theoretically have been “overheard by others.” And we can’t have that, can we? So he was fingerprinted, DNA-sampled, and tossed in the cells for seven hours. When I was a lad, the old joke about the public toilets at Piccadilly Circus was that one should never make eye contact with anyone in there because the place was crawling with laughably unconvincing undercover policemen in white polonecks itching to arrest you for soliciting gay sex. Now they’re itching to arrest you for not soliciting it.

In such a climate, time-honored national characteristics are easily extinguished. A generation ago, even Britain’s polytechnic Trots and Marxists were sufficiently residually English to feel the industrial-scale snitching by family and friends that went on in Communist Eastern Europe was not quite cricket, old boy. Now England is Little Stasi-on-Avon, a land where, even if you’re well out of earshot of the gay-outreach officer, an infelicitous remark in the presence of a co-worker or even co-playmate is more than sufficient. Fourteen-year-old Codie Stott asked her teacher at Harrop Fold High School whether she could sit with another group to do her science project as in hers the other five pupils spoke Urdu and she didn’t understand what they were saying. The teacher called the police, who took her to the station, photographed her, fingerprinted her, took DNA samples, removed her jewelry and shoelaces, put her in a cell for three and a half hours, and questioned her on suspicion of committing a Section Five “racial public-order offence.” “An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark,” declared the headmaster, Antony Edkins. The school would “not stand for racism in any form.” In a statement, Greater Manchester Police said they took “hate crime” very seriously, and their treatment of Miss Stott was in line with “normal procedure.”

Monday, September 5, 2011

Exposing "Lawful Access" - The governments plan to monitor and censor the Internet

Here is a good video I came across on the new internet censorship provisions known as "Lawful Access".

More information can be found at: and at

The government is trying to ram through an anti-Internet set of electronic surveillance laws that will invade your privacy and cost you money. The plan is to force every phone and Internet provider to surrender our personal information to "authorities" without a warrant.
This bizarre legislation will create Internet surveillance that is:
  • Warrantless: A range of "authorities" will have the ability to invade the private lives of law-abiding Canadians and our families using wired Internet and mobile devices, without a warrant or any justification.
  • Invasive and Dangerous: The laws leave our personal and financial information less secure and more susceptible to cybercrime.
  • Costly: Internet services providers may be forced to install millions of dollars worth of spying technology and the cost will be passed down to YOU.
If enough of us speak out now the government will have no choice but to stop this mandatory online spying scheme. Sign the petition now, and forward it to everyone you know

Thursday, September 1, 2011

[CFSL] Marc Lemire - Section 13 Case heading to Federal Court in December

Article about the Lemire case from the Canadian Free Speech League.



Marc Lemire - Section 13 Case



The appeal by the Canadian Human Rights Commission against the finding of member Hadjis of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the case of Marc Lemire goes to the Federal Court Trial Division on December 13th and 14th in Toronto.


You are invited to attend this important challenge which will probably determine the future of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the section which prohibits criticism of any identifiable group and does not allow truth as a defence.


Marc Lemire’s case, the first major challenge to Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (subsequent to the John Ross Taylor case) is now proceeding to the Federal Court trial division, where it is slowly but surely getting to the point of argument and will be argued in December. In the mean time, there are no human rights complaints being processed under Section 13(1) and this is largely due to the heroic efforts of Marc Lemire and his counsel, Barbara Kulaszka.


This case could once and for all disable a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act which has been used with universal success against any and all who put forward anti-immigration points of view with any consideration of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. The recent events in Norway clearly establish that where there is no talk, there can be violence. The position of the Canadian Free Speech League is that it is always better to allow people to ventilate their ideas about immigration rather than have them suppressed by legislation and ultimately expressed by means that are other than rational. If we believe in the right of the people to vote in elections, we should believe in the right of the people to discern between right and wrong on the issue of immigration.


The Lemire case will enable, if Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is struck down, those who have different points of view from the liberal establishment to express those points of view (rationally or irrationally), with the result that the public may engage in a debate about many important issues where both sides need to advance their arguments freely, without the encumbrance of Section 13(1), which prevents one side of the argument from being expressed.


[Links added to text]









Chilling Free Speech in the Great White North

Chilling Free Speech in the Great White North

Do read this piece in American Thinker. Not only did Stephen Harper refuse to act on Section 13 (1), our "Thought Crime" law but his government introduced an even more lunatic piece of legislation in Bill C-51.

Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, regardless of what they call themselves they have one interest alone and that is perpetuating their place at the trough, how any alleged conservative government could come up with BIll C-51 is beyond rational explanation.

H/B:  bcf