Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Quebec "Human Rights" Commission wants to regulate Internet "hate speech" now

Quebec "Human Rights" Commission wants to regulate Internet "hate speech" now

 

 

 

As if (the now repealed and disgraced) Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act wasn’t bad enough, now the Quebec “Human Rights” Commission wants the power to regulate internet content and silence website operators and bloggers.  The proposed new powers of the HRC may include financial “damages” for those “offended”!   I smell a new cottage industry for the perpetually offended!

 

Here is an interview with the President of the Quebec “Human Rights” Commission on French CBC from December 2014.  A translation of interview was posted on Vlad Tepes YouTube channel.

 

 

"We've had complaints filed against anti-muslim websites and we couldn't accept them.

... If we have this new provision, we could proceed and take action."

 

 

And on what criteria will the Quebec “Human Rights” Commission accept these new complaints? According to the HRC: "It's when we have comments that are generally hateful..." 

 

What kind of definition would encompass "Generally hateful"?  If I lived in Quebec and wanted to post (perhaps controversial) opinions on the recent terrorist attack in Ottawa and decided to mention that the perpetrator was a Muslim who committed this terrorism in the name of Islam, would that be considered "generally hateful" towards Muslims?  Would anyone need to put in the usual media-party inspired slogans such as "Islam is a religion of peace" or that terrorism in the name of Islam is simple "lone-wolf radical" act and does not represent all Muslims to avoid costly litigation via yet another Canadian Kangaroo court

 

Mission Creep? Has all “hate” been eradicated in Quebec that the ‘Human Rights’ Commission needs to branch out and censor speech on the Internet now?

 

The best George Orwell Doublespeak line of the interview with HRC’s Jacques Fremont was: "And for the HRC, freedom of expression is very important".  Sure, freedom of expression is very important, as long as you say what I want you to say.

 

 

Comments from around the web

 

 

Barenakedislam.com: Quebec Human Rights Commission proposes a new provision that would criminalize online criticism of Muslims

 

Essentially, this means it would allow ‘victims’ of hateful online comments to register complaints and eventually receive compensation. When a website rails and rants with comments that expose the ugly truth about certain groups such as the muslim community, the government would have recourse to take action against such websites.

 

Apparently, Quebec wants to equate telling the truth about Islam with incitement of hatred. Let’s hope the people of Quebec can defeat this idiotic idea.

 

---------------------------------

NeoConservative Christian Right: Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights

This week, there’s the threat of another attack on freedom of speech in Canada. It’s from the “commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse” – the commission of human rights and youth rights. A nice name. But the head of the commission is proposing legislation to further curb freedom of speech. There’s already lots of legislation in place. The additional legislation would go further: one could make a complaint even if one isn’t any particular victim and can’t show that any particular person has been hurt. (In French, “on n’a pas besoin d’être une victime particularisée et de le démontrer.”)

 

For those of you who speak French, here’s a link, including to an interview with the head of the commission:

 

http://www.postedeveille.ca/2014/12/commission-des-droits-liberte-dexpression.html

 

---------------------------------------

 

Vlad Tepes: 1. This is an interview with the President of the Quebec Human Rights Commission. In it, he appears to be saying that Quebec, or Canada, is going to be implementing something which looks a whole lot like the criminalization of criticism of Islam.

 

I would like to remind every man, woman, child and bureaucrat that freedom of speech was implemented for one thing in the West. To criticize religious and political authority. That once you limit that freedom even one little bit, all other freedoms of speech will diminish exponentially, because all things can be seen as functions of islamic observance.

 

Thank you Poste De Veille for the interview video and Sassy for the Translation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Defamation: Jumps the Shark [Awan vs Ezra Levant]


How much more evidence do we need to reach the conclusion that Defamation (libel) law in Canada has become a farce and needs a review at the political level? The UK far surpassed Canada.   

Jump the shark?   Indeed!

While not speaking directly about this libel case... honestly what is going on?  

See the commentary by Ezra Levant:


And ruling here:



Libel Laws in Canada need to be reformed. They currently serve no decent; honest or ‎needed remedy in Canada.   Yet are used over and over again for "lawfare" to attack their political opponents.   If you on the "right-wing" that equates to an almost 100% conviction rate.  


Libel has got to go... especially so-called "internet libel"

We need to reform this system! 






Thursday, October 23, 2014

Corporal Frank Cirillo


As a former Medic in the CAF my heart goes out to Corporal Nathan #FrankCirillo and his family-especially his child #cdnpoli #ottawashooting

Here are the flowers we plan to lay in remembrance of a great man and father.  

‎Our thoughts and prayers are with the family.   

You will not be forgotten!


‎-Marc


Sunday, September 28, 2014

OCLA petition in defence of civil rights of Arthur Topham

The criminal prohibitions on speech in Canada are shameful.  Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code [so called “hate speech” law] is a ridiculous law, which is used to silence and stifle a SINGLE viewpoint in Canada.  The “hate law” has little to do with stopping “hate” … and all to do with censoring and harassing a marginalized group of Canadians who dare to speak out on controversial topics.

 

Like the disgraced Section 13 “hate speech” law; now repealed and repudiated; the criminal prohibitions on speech have been used and abused by vocal special interest groups to target their political enemies – all risk free of course; since the Canadian state picks up the tab and uses the power of the police and judiciary to crush anyone who dares fight back.

 

The petition which the Ontario Civil Liberties Association has put forward is well worth reading and signing.  

 

WTF!  Is this Canada or Absurdastan?  No Canadian should ever be charged under this fake law for holding NON-VIOLENT “CONTROVERSIAL” opinions which may hurt the feelings of the privileged few.

 

 

-Marc Lemire

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://www.StopSection13.com

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------

From: "Joseph Hickey - OCLA" <joseph.hickey@ocla.ca>

 

 

Dear OCLA Supporter, 

 

Please take a moment to read and consider signing OCLA's petition in defence of the civil rights of Arthur Topham, a BC man who is currently being prosecuted under a "Hate Propaganda" section of Canada's Criminal Code. The petition is online at the following link: http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created

 

OCLA has the position that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code should be repealed. These sections allow egregious violations of the civil rights of liberty, just process, and freedom of expression. Under these provisions, a person can be jailed without the Crown being required to prove any actual harm to a single identified individual.

 

Mr. Topham was arrested in front of his spouse, detained, subjected to a home-invasive seizure, and faces jail time if convicted, for expressing his highly unpopular views.

 

OCLA’s public statement on this matter is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OCLA-statement-re-Arthur-Topham.pdf

 

Please read OCLA’s letter to the BC Attorney General asking her to withdraw her consent for this prosecution, which is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-of-BC.pdf

 

Yours truly, 

 

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director

Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca

613-252-6148 (c)

 

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Fight for your free speech against out of control Libel Laws in Canada


Mark and Connie Fournier (FreeDominion) are in, yet another legal battle, which can have a wide-ranging impact on freedom of speech in Canada.

Over the past year I have written numerous times on the case and the impact it may have:


This case deserves your support!


-Marc Lemire



----------




Many bloggers have been finding themselves under legal attack by richer, more powerful political opponents who are using defamation law as a tool to shut down debate and destroy opposing websites.

We are involved in a case that will set case law on this matter that will either give us protection for our political speech, or give the court's blessing to this practice.

The case is about words that were posted on our website by a poster who was using a pseudonym and he made a negative comment about the pseudonym of another political blogger.

If we can be punished for this, then nobody is safe.

The court has appointed an expert witness to testify about the nature of online discourse and ordered the parties to pay for him. In addition, a case that was scheduled for three days has ballooned to 14 days, and it could turn out to be more!

We believe that the expert will be valuable in communicating to the court that online conversation should not be considered equal to content in other media that has been vetted by an editorial board and presented as "news".

We think we can get a good decision that will protect all of us, but we need your help to get it done!

Please help us by donating what you can, and/or by sharing this campaign through your social media.

We are able to accept donations outside of this campaign and add them to the total, so if you would prefer to use PayPal, you can contact me at the email below.

If you prefer to use an Interac e-Transfer, you can send it to connie@freedominion.ca .

Or, if you like using the mail, our address is as follows:

Connie Fournier
2000 Unity Rd
Elginburg, ON K0H 1M0

Thank you for your help!

Mark and Connie Fournier




Great article about defamation law and free speech by John Feldsted. Read it here! http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=312&t=169552






Friday, August 1, 2014

The FreedomSite Blog: The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 3] Section 13 Goes Mainstream: The Mark Steyn / Macleans Case

The FreedomSite Blog: The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 3] Section 13 Goes Mainstream: The Mark Steyn / Macleans Case

MARK STEYN: Complaining about Insufficient Complaints

Complaining about Insufficient Complaints

 

http://www.steynonline.com/6495/complaining-about-insufficient-complaints

 

 

by Mark Steyn
July 31, 2014

 

In my SteynPost on Michael Mann's Clime Syndicate and the latest beneficiary of their offers you can't refuse, I mentioned my previous legal battles with Canada's "human rights" regime over Section 13. Brian Storseth's private member's bill took an eternity to crawl through Parliament all the way through to Royal Assent, but it got there in the end and Section 13 formally bit the dust just last month. By then, I wasn't in the mood for celebrating, but I'm glad to see someone's been popping the champagne corks at this belated but significant victory.

In 2008, when Ezra Levant and Maclean's and I found ourselves caught in the cross-hairs of Canada's "human rights" commissions, we had the great good fortune to be ensnared at the same time as Marc Lemire. …

“Instead, Lemire pushed back hard, and became, from their point of view, the defendant from hell.”

 

 

 

 

 

See the entire posting by Mark Steyn at:  http://www.steynonline.com/6495/complaining-about-insufficient-complaints