An Apology/Retraction To Constitutional Rights Centre, Mr. Galati

A few articles have been retracted that concerned Rocco Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre, as they are inappropriate and demeaning. About the specifics that need to be corrected:

Apologies for suggesting that lawyers are scum. In reality, the profession is entirely noble and honourable, and comments to the contrary are based on ignorance and/or malice.

Apologies for any potential inference that could be drawn between a lawyer and their clientele. Lawyers who represent terrorists should not be labelled “terrorist lawyers”. Likewise, lawyers who take mafia cases should not be called “mob lawyers”, and lawyers who take criminal cases should not be called “criminal lawyers”, etc….

Apologies for using the term “agitator” to describe a person’s record. Surely, the cases they take on do not necessarily reflect any privately held beliefs and opinions. Work is work, and personal is personal.

Apologies for any suggestion that fighting for terrorists to keep their citizenship, or challenging judicial appointments somehow amounted to subversion or lawfare. There are people who believe these to be legitimate causes.

Apologies for suggesting that serious criminal charges, convictions and/or security risks should be grounds for stripping someone of their citizenship. Despite this being practice in many countries, it’s wrong, xenophobic, and racist to treat people like that. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

Apologies for making any distinction between naturalized and born citizens, or implying that people simply aren’t Canadians. This was uncalled for. As the Charter and Citizenship Act view them as the same, so there is no debate on the issue.

Apologies for suggesting that citizenship was anything beyond obtaining the required paperwork, and that place of birth should be an issue at all. After all, having the status means loyalty to the adopted country.

Apologies for criticizing the current refugee pathways as abusive, and in particular, people fleeing from the United States. Surely, this is shortsighted with regards to the big picture, and everyone, no matter the situation, deserves a fair hearing.

Apologies for suggesting borders should exist at all. After all, if a person’s lineage in Canada doesn’t trace back thousands of years, they are in no position to keep anyone else out today. Such a stance is racist.

Apologies for suggesting certain ideologies are incompatible with the West. After all, diversity is our strength, and no sensible person would disagree.

Apologies for wondering and questioning why urgent cases sit dormant for months, even as vaccines arrive and are being administered. Certainly, there are valid explanations for these delays, and ulterior motives must never be assumed.

Apologies for watching a video and thinking it meant forms being sold, instead of a pleadings package. More due diligence should have been done in advance. And yes, if people wish to purchase the products, that is absolutely their right to do so.

Apologies for suggesting the Federal Government may have influenced or rigged the Bank of Canada case. The rulings they handed down may seem suspicious to the casual observer.

The articles in question have now been removed. Nothing here should be interpreted as to detract from the reputation of Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre, in the opinions of fair minded people. They are committed to upholding the freedoms we hold dear (including, but not limited to), free speech, free association, viewpoint diversity. More than ever, controversial views must be protected from tyrants who would silence dissent and/or shut down media outlets.

8 Replies to “An Apology/Retraction To Constitutional Rights Centre, Mr. Galati”

  1. Hahah. Why redact this ? He’s a fraud. I’ll call him out all day long and take his threats to challenge me.

    1. Honestly curious about what makes you say so, care to elaborate? just a little bit? please?

  2. So, Rocco Galati, a fighter for justice and freedom, is the enemy? I would definitely be interested in knowing why.

  3. “suggesting that serious criminal charges, convictions and/or security risks should be grounds for stripping someone of their citizenship” – That is a steep downhill slope of teflon covered ice.

    Who gets to decide “security risks”?
    “Serious criminal charges”. Charges? No innocent until PROVEN guilty?
    Once convicted you determine how long to incarcerate but what country will take another country’s criminal citizens? Strip them of Canadian citizenship and then what? Send them where exactly? If they aren’t citizens of Canada why would you leave them here? I mean Clifford Olson is still a citizen.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: