April 24th - A bad day for Section 13 Censorship! Parliament committee and Mark Steyn - STEYNAMITE

 

April 24th - A bad day for Section 13 Censorship!

Parliament committee with Brian Storseth and Steynamite!

 

 

April 24^th, 2012 will go down in history as another bad day for the forces of censorship and thought control in Canada.  Canada’s notorious internet censorship provision; Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act, will be slammed from the halls of Parliament in Ottawa to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre.  Section 13 has been used to silence and harass hundreds of Canadians at the behest of special interest groups, who use Section 13 as a risk-free, tax-payer funded persecution of their political opponents.  Censorship is not a Canadian value!

 

Starting at 11:00am, Conservative MP and freedom fighter Brian Storseth (Conservative, Westlock - St. Paul, Alberta) is going to be testifying for an hour before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) about Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom).  Bill C-304 is landmark legislation, which will see the censorship powers (Section 13) stripped from the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  So far, Bill C-304 has passed two readings in the House of Commons, and has the support of the Justice Minister and the Conservative Party of Canada.

 

If you are in Ottawa on April 24^th, 2012, you can attend the JUST sub-committee at:

 

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Room 306, La Promenade Building

151 Sparks St.

Ottawa, Ontario

 

ParlVu is going to be broadcasting MP Brian Storseth’s testimony live on the Internet at:

 

JUST Meeting No. 31   http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=8845

 

In case you miss the live broadcast of MP Brian Storseth’s testimony, a YouTube version of his testimony will be available on the Freedomsite later in the day.

 

 

 

STEYNAMITE

 

Then at 7:30pm in the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Steynamite starts! The event is billed as “Mark Steyn blows up every sacred cow in a celebration of free speech, individual liberty and apocalyptic side-splitters”.  Along with Mark Steyn, Sun News Network’s Michael Coren is also speaking.

 

Mark Steyn has been a long-time supporter of freedom and has written extensively on Censorship via Section13 and farcical shenanigans of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, whom he once referred to as “Nazi fetishists” and “Keystone Kops of Kanada's Human Rights Kommission”.

 

Tickets are still available.

 

Metro Toronto Convention Centre

7:30 PM

Mark Steyn and Sun News Network's Michael Coren

http://www.steynamite.com/

Tickets range from $60 to $300

 

 

 

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

Censorship is Not a Canadian Value!

Repeal Section 13 http://www.StopSection13.com

Section 13 is Unconstitutional http://www.freedomsite.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OTTAWA CITIZEN: Immigrants get priority over 'white' Canadians for Ottawa's public housing, human rights complaint alleges

 

 Immigrants get priority over ‘white’ Canadians for Ottawa’s public housing, human rights complaint alleges

 

By Gary Dimmock, The Ottawa Citizen April 16, 2012

 

OTTAWA — An Ottawa man who was living in a shelter with his wife and two children took the City of Ottawa to a human rights tribunal last month, alleging that immigrants are given priority over “white Canadians” for public housing.

Kirk Munroe and his family lived at the Carling Family Shelter for months last year while waiting for a public housing unit to call their own. Munroe grew frustrated with the wait after immigrant families at the shelter were offered public housing in only a “matter of weeks.”

In his application to Ontario’s human-rights tribunal, Munroe quoted an Ottawa public housing manager as saying “whites have less chance of getting a home and they have to stay in shelters longer than immigrants new to Canada.”

The tribunal heard that the quick turnaround time for immigrants was in “distinct contrast to the experience of white Canadian families” at the shelter, including his own, who had to wait months for housing.

A lawyer for the public housing agency denied it gives priority to immigrants, and a lawyer for the City of Ottawa told the hearing that the immigrants in question may have been victims of domestic violence, which, he said, would account for why they were offered social housing so quickly. The tribunal also heard that the public housing manager denied saying that immigrants have a better shot at getting public housing.

Eric Whist, vice-chair of the tribunal, questioned Munroe’s account of what the public housing manager told him.

“This statement, characterized as an exact quote, appears to be more of a paraphrase and one from a longer conversation. It is also not evident that this quote, even if accepted as generally accurate, indicates that Ms. Jean Louis (a tenant service manager) was communicating that the reason why whites stay in shelters longer than immigrants was because of the policy of (Ottawa public housing) or others was to give priority to immigrants over Canadian citizens,” Whist said in an interim decision dated March 12.

Munroe’s challenge against the City of Ottawa claimed he was discriminated on the basis of race, colour, disability and reprisal.

….

Read the full story at: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Immigrants+priority+over+white+Canadians+Ottawa+public+housing+human+rights+complaint+alleges/6462980/story.html#ixzz1sER4YYlb

 

Interesting that Canadians who pay taxes and fund public housing are always the last in line to get it.   Welcome to Cana-DUHH.

 

 

 

 

The "Native" Discount Alive and Well in Cana-DUH

 

From the Globe and Mail….

 

 

 

Man who punched bus driver spared jail time due to his native ancestry

 

VANCOUVER— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Apr. 03, 2012 1:49PM EDT

 

 

It was bad enough for veteran bus driver Charles Dixon to have his face and well-being shattered by a vicious sucker punch from an angry passenger.

But Tuesday, Mr. Dixon sat in court with a number of his driver colleagues to hear that Del Louie, the young man who assaulted him, would not be going to jail.

 

Instead, citing Mr. Louie’s aboriginal ancestry as one of several mitigating factors, Provincial Court Judge Karen Walker handed the 22-year-old an 18-month conditional sentence to be served at a rehab residence, 200 hours of community service and two years probation. The Crown had urged a prison sentence of nine to 12 months.

Outside the court, the 55-year-old driver was bitter that his attacker was spared time behind bars. He pointed to his face, partially covered in bandages from his latest surgery to restore normal breathing.

“There’s nothing wrong with Del Louie’s face. He doesn’t have a plate with four screws in his face,” said Mr. Dixon, his voice cracking. “He doesn’t have a concussion. He doesn’t have neck injuries and back injuries, and cognitive issues that will be with me the rest of my life.… Where’s the respect?”

The conditional sentence was yet another blow for public transit drivers, who suffer scores of assaults every year. Few of the culprits wind up in prison.

“This is totally unacceptable,” said Don MacLeod, president of Canadian Auto Workers Local 111 that represents Lower Mainland bus drivers. “House arrest is totally different from jail time. There’s no deterrence in that. Today, there was no justice for Charles Dixon, no justice for more than 1,000 transit operators who have been assaulted over the last 10 years, and no justice for passengers, who expect the buses they board to be safe. This is a very sad message for the court to send.”

In addition to his attack against Mr. Dixon on a late-night bus in Burnaby last year, Mr. Louie assaulted the driver’s son, Aaron, who tried to restrain him; regularly broke his bail conditions by drinking excessively; and spat at a paramedic during an altercation with police. He also had a previous conviction for assaulting a bus driver.

Court was told that Mr. Louie experienced a difficult upbringing, raised by an alcoholic mother, and suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome. That cut little ice with Mr. Dixon.

“That young man knew exactly what he was doing that night. I’m sorry he has fetal alcohol syndrome, but look what he’s done to me. It will stay with me for the rest of my life,” Mr. Dixon said. “Sorry, I don’t agree with using aboriginal ancestry as an excuse. It doesn’t wash.”

He pointed out that in a few weeks he will have served 14 months of his own virtual house arrest, unable to return to work. “That’s just four months shy of what Del Louie is getting,” the driver said with agitation.

Mr. Louie punched Mr. Dixon after being told not to board the bus by the back door. His single blow broke two bones on the right side of the driver’s face and caused other injuries, including cognitive and psychological difficulties.

…

 

See the full Globe and Mail article at:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/man-who-punched-bus-driver-spared-jail-time-due-to-his-native-ancestry/article2390728/

 

 

Alberta judge upholds 'truth about homosexuality' activist's free speech rights

Alberta judge upholds ‘truth about homosexuality’ activist’s free speech rights

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alberta-judge-upholds-truth-about-homosexuality-activists-free-speech-right/

 

CALGARY, April 2, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Paul Jeffrey has dismissed a Crown appeal of a decision from a lower court that acquitted Bill Whatcott of trespassing charges for distributing “Truth about homosexuality” pamphlets at the University of Calgary in 2008.

On Friday, March 30, Jeffrey upheld the November 2011 ruling by provincial court Judge John D. Bascom that stated the University of Calgary infringed on Whatcott’s Charter rights to freedom of expression when campus security arrested and detained him for distributing a pamphlet that addressed the “harmful consequences” of homosexuality.

The university had argued that the Charter only applied to “government actors and government actions,” not to the university itself since it was a private entity.

Bascom ruled, however, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the University of Calgary since “the University is not a Charter free zone,” in that it carried out “specific” governmental work by providing post-secondary education to the public in Alberta, making its actions subject to scrutiny under the Charter.

“Mr. Whatcott entered the university property with a purpose to distribute his literature to students, staff and public,” said the judge, adding, “His activity was peaceful and presented no harm to the university structures or those who frequented the campus. … Although Mr. Whatcott’s pamphlet is not scholarly, freedom of speech is not limited to academic works.”

Bascom concluded that “the means used by campus security halted Mr. Whatcott’s distribution of these flyers and violated his right of free expression.”

The judge also lifted the University’s ban against Whatcott that would have indefinitely prohibited him from setting foot on the campus again, stating that the ban was “arbitrary and unfair.”

In Friday’s hearing Crown prosecutor Andrew Barg argued that Judge Bascom “erred in law in ruling that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in the circumstances of this case,” according to a Calgary Herald report.

Justice Jeffrey rejected the argument and dismissed the appeal.

Defense lawyer, Dale Fedorchuk, told the Calgary Herald that “Judge Bascom’s decision has been effectively upheld and remains good law.”

“I’m very happy with the decision,” Whatcott told LifeSiteNews, “and my lawyer and I believe that it is now illegal for universities in Alberta to try to shut down peaceful protests and literature distributions that offends their pro-abortion, pro-homosexual sensibilities.”

…

 

SEE FULL STORY AT: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alberta-judge-upholds-truth-about-homosexuality-activists-free-speech-right/

 

 

NP: "If you were prime minister, what law would you pass?" -- SCRAP THE CHRC!

 

From the National Post:  Last week, letters editor Paul Russell asked readers: “If you were prime minister, what law would you pass?” We’ve been inundated with responses (75 words or less).

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/12/todays-letters-there-ought-to-be-a-law/

 

(and some great answers!)

 

No more HRCs

It will take one heck of a PM to dispose of the Canadian Human Rights Act and convince the provinces to axe their inquisitorial HR tribunals. Leave genuine HR issues to the Charter and the courts and dispense with these theatres of the absurd.
Malcolm Bell, Lions Bay, B.C.

The first thing I would do as prime minister would be to scrap the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Steve Flanagan, Ottawa.

 

HERALD: Hate speech clause in human rights act may be history ("Abolish Section 13")

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/67968-hate-speech-clause-human-rights-act-may-be-history

 

 

Hate speech clause in human rights act may be history

February 28, 2012 - 4:30am By PAUL SCHNEIDEREIT

Chronicle Herald

 

Marc Lemire leaves a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing into a complaint against him in Oakville, Ont., in 2008. The Toronto resident argued that rights legislation aimed at preventing the spread of hate on the Internet gags free speech and is unconstitutional. (COLIN PERKEL / CP / File)

 

 

To protect freedom of expression in Canada, sometimes you need a majority government in Ottawa.

That’s the moral of the story of a Conservative backbencher’s private member’s bill — which has now cleared second reading in the House of Commons and gone to committee — seeking to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Let’s recall the exact wording of that infamous clause. Hate messages, according to Section 13 (1), are communications "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."

In other words, if I were to write something critical about Islam, for example, and someone reading my column felt it "likely" that my words could provoke "contempt" towards Muslims, they could lodge a complaint against me with one of Canada’s government-created human rights commissions.

Truth would not be a defence. Neither would my intent. And the person complaining wouldn’t even have to be a Muslim.

That’s because, on top of the appallingly loose wording of this section of federal human rights law — a clause echoed in its provincial counterparts — any complaints are adjudicated by government-appointed tribunals, where the standard protections afforded any accused in a court of law don’t necessarily apply.

When complainants’ cases go forward, taxpayers pick up the tab. Meanwhile, those accused must pay to defend themselves out of their own pockets.

It’s a system ripe for abuse. And that’s exactly what has happened. We’ve seen comics fined for insulting hecklers (B.C. human rights tribunal), former publishers spend $100,000 in legal fees over three years to defend themselves for printing "offensive" cartoons (Alberta human rights commission), and Maclean’s magazine investigated by three human rights bodies (federal, Ontario and B.C.) for running an article on Muslim demographics in Europe.

The Conservatives have long opposed Section 13, but didn’t feel they had the support they needed from the other parties, as a minority government, to push the issue legislatively.

They also were concerned, with good reason, that some opponents might twist the issue for political advantage, slamming the Tories for being soft on hate.

Yes, Bill C-304, which aims to repeal Sections 13 and 54 (dealing with penalties under S.13), was put forward by Alberta MP Brian Storseth (Westlock-St. Paul) and is a private member’s bill, but the legislation has the justice minister’s endorsement. So there’s a good chance the bill will be back in the Commons this spring for final reading, then on to the Senate and, hopefully, passage and royal assent.

The bill, if made law, would take effect a year after receiving royal assent.

It’s worth noting that in 2008, Richard Moon, a constitutional expert hired by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to review Section 13, recommended that the clause be repealed, a suggestion the federal body not surprisingly ignored.

Some critics say abolishing hate speech provisions in the human rights act would mean prosecutions could in future only come under the Criminal Code, placing a greater burden of proof on complainants.

But what they term a bug, as the saying goes, I’d call a feature. One of the biggest problems has been the abuse of the current system by complainants who bear none of the financial costs and human rights bodies all too eager to spend years processing accusations that — using common sense — clearly lack merit.

Other critics say not everyone has the funds to go to court. But in a criminal hate speech case, it’s the Crown’s case — and the Crown’s dime. All too often, under the current system, it’s the accused who don’t have the money to defend themselves or fight tribunal rulings.

Freedom of expression is too precious — and too fundamental in upholding all other rights — to allow what is a democratic cornerstone to be undermined by an intrinsically flawed system based on political correctness and hurt feelings.

Abolish Section 13.

 

 

SEE FULL STORY AT: http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/67968-hate-speech-clause-human-rights-act-may-be-history

 

 

 

 

COLUMN: Shanoff – Bill C-30 is nothing compared to PIPEDA

 

http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/contributor-columns/column-shanoff-bill-c-30-is-nothing-compared-to-pipeda/

 

Media ignoring Liberals’ attack on our Internet privacy rights

by Alan Shanoff

It’s strange how so many commentators have whipped themselves into a lather over the attack on privacy rights in Bill C-30, otherwise known as Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act, yet don’t appear troubled by another equally troubling infringement of privacy rights.

Anyone worried by the potential erosion of privacy rights in the Conservatives’ Bill C-30 should be even more concerned about the actual erosion of privacy rights in existing federal law known as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). [See: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/]

Introduced by the Chretien Liberal government in 2000, PIPEDA has been in force for over a decade. It regulates the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by businesses.

In other words, it applies to cellphone and Internet service providers, phone companies, credit card companies and all other businesses that collect and track data on our daily activities.

It covers a wider range of businesses than C-30.

PIPEDA allows any business to disclose any personal information without the knowledge or consent of an individual to a government institution or part of a government institution (including a police officer), where the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing or administering any law, or if the information is suspected to relate to national security.

The only limit on this is that the person requesting the information must have identified his or her “lawful authority”.

Courts have interpreted this “lawful authority” to include a police officer’s authority to investigate.

(Further, under the proposed terms of new legislation known as Bill C-12, PIPEDA will be amended to state police do not require a subpoena or warrant prior to making any request._

PIPEDA means every police officer in Canada has the power to request disclosure of personal information from any business collecting information from subscribers or customers.

True, there’s no legal compulsion on the business to supply the information but they often do, based on user agreements and their so-called privacy policies, which permit information to be supplied under “lawful authority”.

Yet it seems few, if any, commentators are concerned with PIPEDA.

Surely, for the sake of consistency, opponents of Bill C-30 should be demanding the government amend PIPEDA to define “lawful authority”, so that it requires the person making the request for disclosure has a judicial warrant backing up that request.

True, Bill C-30 goes a step beyond PIPEDA by legally requiring all telecommunication service providers to provide subscriber information, based solely on a written request, whereas PIPEDA doesn’t force, but allows, businesses to release the information.

Still, PIPEDA covers a wider range of businesses, allows for more information to be released based solely upon request and is accessible to any government institution, as well as police.

Arguably PIPEDA is more intrusive than C-30. Anyone objecting to one must logically object to the other.

That said, a particularly troubling aspect of C-30 relates to the compelled disclosure of subscriber information.

Such disclosure may seem innocuous at first blush.

After all, who could reasonably object to release of a subscriber’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, Internet protocol address and service provider identifier associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment?

But we can’t look at any one piece of information in isolation. While it in itself might reveal nothing of significance, it may be that same piece of information, when coupled with other data, leads to disclosure of significant facts,

For example, the IP address alone may be of no significance, but it may be the missing piece to a puzzle that leads to disclosure of personal information deserving of protection.

For these reasons even seemingly innocuous subscriber information shouldn’t be accessible to authorities without a warrant, unless of course, there’s an emergency situation.

 

SEE FULL STORY AT: http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/contributor-columns/column-shanoff-bill-c-30-is-nothing-compared-to-pipeda/