Category: Free Speech

Posted on

China’s Organ Harvesting Of Live People

1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

CLICK HERE, for #1: universities fighting against pro-life groups.
CLICK HERE, for #2: citing abortion stats now considered violence.
CLICK HERE, for #3: up to birth abortion now legal in VA/NY.
CLICK HERE, for #4: letting babies who survive abortion die.
CLICK HERE, for #5: UN supports abortion rights, even for kids.
CLICK HERE, for #6: fallout and some pushback on abortion.
CLICK HERE, for #7: ONCA rules docs must provide service or referral.
CLICK HERE, for #8: hypocrisy in summer jobs grant, purity tests.
CLICK HERE, for #9: partial funding lost for planned parenthood.

CLICK HERE, for trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation series.

2. Important Links


(1) https://chinatribunal.com/
(2) https://chinatribunal.com/about-etac/
(3) https://chinatribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Short-Form-Conclusion-China-Tribunal.pdf
(4) Short-Form-Conclusion-China-Tribunal (1)
(5) https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/08/vp-biden-okay-with-china-tyrannical-one-child-policy
(6) https://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/china-stil-killing-and-harvesting-falun-gong-wesley-j-smith/
(7) https://www.lifenews.com/2019/06/20/china-is-harvesting-organs-of-political-prisoners-sometimes-while-theyre-still-alive/
(8) http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46849651/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/china-phase-out-prisoner-organ-donation/#.XQjdq_lKi9I
(9) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646

3. China Tribunal’s Findings


From the December 2018 interim report:

“The Tribunal’s members are certain – unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt – that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”

That was part of the interim report. But now the final report goes on even further:

The Tribunal has considered evidence, in its many forms, and dealt with individual issues according to the evidence relating to each issue and nothing else and thereby reached a series of conclusions that are free of any influence caused by the PRC’s reputation or other potential causes of prejudice.
These were as follows;
• That there were extraordinarily short waiting times (promised by PRC doctors and hospitals) for organs to be available for transplantation;
• That there was torture of Falun Gong and Uyghurs;
• That there was accumulated numerical evidence (excluding spurious PRC data) which indicated:
o the number of transplant operations performed, and
o the impossibility of there being anything like sufficient ‘eligible donors’ under the recently formed PRC voluntary donor scheme for that number of transplant operations;
• That there was a massive infrastructure development of facilities and medical personnel for organ transplant operations, often started before any voluntary donor system was even planned; That there was direct and indirect evidence of forced organ harvesting.

And this led to the conclusion that:

forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one – and probably the main – source of organ supply. The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course. The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.

However, on the topic of “genocide” China Tribunal pussyfoots around the issue and says they cannot conclude there is intent for genocide. This despite stating that the actions met the other elements.

The Tribunal considered whether this constituted a crime of Genocide; The Falun Gong and the Uyghurs in the PRC each qualify as a ‘group’ for purposes of the crime of Genocide. For the Falun Gong, the following elements of the crime of Genocide are clearly established:
• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
Thus, bar one element of the crime, Genocide is, on the basis of legal advice received, clearly proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The remaining element required to prove the crime is the very specific intent for Genocide. Accepting legal advice about proving this intent, the Tribunal cannot be certain that the requisite intent is proved and thus cannot be certain that Genocide itself is proved.

That’s right. Due to legal advice, China Tribunal cannot actually conclude there is intent to commit genocide, despite the prolonged actions that would justify the claims.

China Tribunal then “appears” to condemn what happens to Falun Gong and the Uyghurs, but waters down the language to “criminality”, despite the included detail. The tribunal claims the “elements have been met for crimes against humanity”.

Commission of Crimes Against Humanity against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by proof of one or more of the following, legally required component acts:
• murder;
• extermination;
• imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
• torture;
• rape or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
• persecution on racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law ;
• enforced disappearance
in the course of a widespread and systematic attack or attacks against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs.

This seems to be splitting hairs. It meets the criteria for crimes against humanity. Yet China Tribunal, on advice from their lawyers, refuse to state there is intent to qualify as “genocide”.

The report ends with a very interesting comment about the power of media and citizen journalists.

Governments and international bodies must do their duty not only in regard to the possible charge of Genocide but also in regard to Crimes against Humanity, which the Tribunal does not allow to be any less heinous. Assuming they do not do their duty, the usually powerless citizen is, in the internet age, more powerful than s/he may recognise. Criminality of this order may allow individuals from around the world to act jointly in pressurising governments so that those governments and other international bodies are unable not to act.

The China Tribunal has no power to actually do anything. However, it seems to believe that by spreading word online it can put pressure on governments to act.

4. Firstthings.com Article


Firstthings.com quotes former VP Joe Biden, on his take on China’s one-child policy.

But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable. So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.

In order to maintain the 1-child policy, China has had to result to extreme and inhuman measures:

  • forced abortion
  • sex-selective abortions against girls
  • sterilizations
  • eugenics

Biden seemed critical that the declining birth rate would be able to sustain the retired population. However he seemed to have no concern over the mass aborting and sterilizations that went on.

5. NBC Coverage Of Issue


American news outlet NBC reported here, and also reported that:

In 2014, state media reported that China would phase out the practice of taking organs from executed prisoners and said it would rely instead on a national organ donation system.

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday was not immediately available to comment on the tribunal’s findings.

In a statement released alongside the final judgment, the tribunal said many of those affected were practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that China banned in the 1990s and has called an “evil cult.” The tribunal added that it was possible that Uighur Muslims — an ethnic minority who are currently being detained in vast numbers in western China — were also being targeted.

China had been promising for years to end this practice, but it doesn’t seem to have happened.

6. Lifesite Take On The Situation

Still, there has been too much reporting for too long about this profound human-rights abuse to ethically continue to look the other way. The question thus becomes: Will the U.S. specifically outlaw traveling to China for the purpose of buying an organ — just as we do participating in pedophilia tourism overseas? (Spain, Israel, Italy, and Taiwan have passed such laws already.) I can’t think of one argument against pursuing such a course.

If we don’t at least do what we can, it seems to me that we make ourselves complicit in allowing the demand for black-market organs forcibly harvested from murdered prisoners to continue unimpeded — and the blood of the slaughtered victims will also be on us.

(Lifesite article here) This echoes what China Tribunal has been saying: that political pressure is needed to put a stop to this practice.

7. My Take On This Story


If the allegations are true, and they seem to be, then this is abhorrent.

At some level this is no different that what abortion industries like Planned Parenthood do: snuff out lives in order to obtain a commodity, their organs. If we subscribe to the idea that life is valuable, then this is little — though more heinous — than a common murder and robbery.

While donation of organs (for after death), should be encouraged, this is an entirely different matter. This is premeditated mass murder in order to steal those parts. The practice is barbaric.

Consider the flack Canada has taken over the Government’s genocide claims over Indigenous women and girls. Most of the deaths and disappearances (at least where it is known) were at the hands of Indigenous men they knew. That is apparently a “genocide”. Yet what is going on in China is not really worth the attention apparently.

But good luck getting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to openly condemn the practice.

Posted on

Hypocrisy In Canada Summer Jobs Grants Between Religious Groups

1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-universities-fighting-against-free-speech-and-free-association-in-court/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/the-new-lindsay-shepherd-statistics-are-now-violence-infanticide-2/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-3-ny-virginia-to-legalise-up-to-birth-abortion/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-4-leave-no-survivors/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-5-un-endorses-abortion-as-human-right-even-for-kids/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-6-fallout-and-some-pushback/
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-7-ontario-coa-rules-doctors-must-provide-abortions-euthanasia-or-provide-referal/

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/canada-summer-jobs/screening-eligibility.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/canada-summer-jobs/agreement.html
(3) https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/groups-scramble-for-replacement-funding-after-dissenting-on-canada-summer-jobs-abortion-attestation
(4) https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/18/canada-summer-jobs-program-radical-cleric/
(5) https://globalnews.ca/news/4277082/canada-summer-job-grant-islamic-group-peter-braid/
(6) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
(7) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/

3. Employer Attestation

12.0 Employer attestation
12.1 The Employer attests that:
I have read, understood and will comply with the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement;
I have all the necessary authorities, permissions and approvals to submit this application on behalf of myself and my organization;
The job would not be created without the financial assistance provided under a potential contribution agreement;
Any funding under the Canada Summer Jobs program will not be used to undermine or restrict the exercise of rights legally protected in Canada.

4. Screening For Grants

Ineligible projects and job activities:
Projects consisting of activities that take place outside of Canada;
Activities that contribute to the provision of a personal service to the employer;
Partisan political activities;
Fundraising activities to cover salary costs for the youth participant; or
Projects or job activities that:
restrict access to programs, services, or employment, or otherwise discriminate, contrary to applicable laws, on the basis of prohibited grounds, including sex, genetic characteristics, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression;
advocate intolerance, discrimination and/or prejudice; or
actively work to undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services.

Please note the following definitions:
As per section 2.1 of the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement, “project” means the hiring, administration of, job activities, and organization’s activities as described in the Application Agreement.
To “advocate” means to promote, foster, or actively support intolerance, discrimination, and/or prejudice.
To “undermine or restrict” means to weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services. The Government of Canada defines sexual and reproductive health services as including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care.

The way this is worded, it could be interpreted to mean that even expressing views which are pro-life or critical of SOGI agenda could be seen as threatening.

Of course, the overwhelming majority of charities, non-profits, and businesses have absolutely nothing to do with abortion of the gender agenda.

Nonetheless, since the Government of Canada has insisted on this, at least it will be uniformly enforced throughout all of the groups applying for summer grants, right?

Not really.

5. Double Standard For Christian & Islamic Groups

From the National Post article:

Youth for Christ’s chapters across Canada have used the grants for years to fund more than 100 student jobs annually. Toronto City Mission, which runs day camps in impoverished neighbourhoods, received $70,000 last year for 16 positions. Winnipeg’s Centerpoint Church has used the grants for 24 years to hire two summer students; Mill Bay Baptist Church on Vancouver Island used a grant last year to hire a First Nations student. All have seen their applications sent back this year over the attestation.

Your project may have nothing to do with gender or abortion, but if you won’t sign those forms, prepare to have your grant request denied. However, “values” seem to be pretty flexible, depending on the group.

From the Daily Caller article:

The Trudeau government won’t allow pro-life groups to access the Canada Summer Jobs program without violating their principles, but it is funding an Islamic group with a cleric who was a keynote speaker at the anti-Israel al-Quds day rally in Toronto.

As the Toronto Sun reports, the federal government gave the thumbs-up to the Islamic Humanitarian Service (IHS) based in Kitchener, Ont., to hire summer students with taxpayer money. (RELATED: Trudeau Government Cuts Off Pro-Life And Faith Groups From Jobs Funding)

Yes, you are reading that correctly. The Trudeau Government refused pro-life groups access to the Summer Jobs Program because of their beliefs, even if they were unrelated to the job. Yet it was okay to fund Al Quds, an Islamic, anti-Semitic group, which openly calls for violence against Israel.

It would take some serious mental gymnastics to not see moral inconsistency here. However, it appears to be about politics, not principles.

6. Canadian Charter & Human Rights Code

Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

These demands quite clearly violate both 2(a) and 2(b) of the Canadian Charter. The specific religion is irrelevant, but these groups were clearly targeted because of their views. The double standard with Islamic groups makes it more absurd, but is not necessary.

From the Canadian Human Rights Code:

Prohibited grounds of discrimination
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Discriminatory policy or practice
10 It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,
that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Section 3 very clearly lists religion as a protected group.

And consider this: if the Government is awarding contracts, is the Government not the employer in this case?

7. Some Interesting Cases

R. v. Lewis, 1996 CanLII 3559 (BC SC) ruled that protesting abortion within a certain “protected area” was an offence, not shielded by freedom of religion. Not really related to the above, but still an interesting read.

BCM International, asking the Federal Court for a review of the decision to turn down a grant. The Attestation is cited as the reason. (Case: T-917-19)

BCM International, asking for another review, on essentially the same grounds (Case: T-918-19)

An article on a pending challenge.

8. Other Double Standards In Free Speech

In Toronto a Christian Preacher is arrested for disturbing the peace in the Gay Village. However, Muslims condemning gays and Israel is apparently okay.

In the UK as well, a Christian Preacher can be arrested even for behaving peacefully. Yet, Muslims are allowed to preach intolerance openly.

9. Final Thoughts

The Canada Summer Jobs Program discriminates against those who object to being forced to sign onto a political agenda, when it has no relevance to their cause. It has overwhelmingly effected religious groups. While this may seem trivial, it is understandable to object to “bending the knee”.

If abortion and gender are not related to the work that a group is doing, then there is no reason to bring it up. This is just virtue signalling.

There is a double standard with how Christians are treated with how Muslims are treated. The former must cow-tow, while the latter’s views are “more understood”.

Posted on

World Domination: Connecting The Dots

How do you take over the world without war, guns, and bombs? You do it incrementally, and strategically. This guide will outline some of the major steps.

1. Important Links

This section will be empty. Instead, links are interwoven in the article. Also, Part II, will address who is behind these global takeover efforts.

2. Convention On Preventing & Punishing Genocide To Be Used As “Guideline”

No two ways about it. If you are serious about world domination, then you can’t have strong groups and populations standing in your path. The population needs to go. Either it needs to be killed off, or it needs to be “phased out”. This idea was addressed in a previous article.

He are sections of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishing Genocide:

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

This applies if there are certain groups, such as racial or ethnic, that are obstacles to the plan. Yes, we can kill them, or we can just reduce their populations, by preventing births or causing mental harm to the group.

Ironically, this convention outlines some effective “non-violent” ways to erase a group, or groups.

We will get back to this later.

3. Financing The Global Domination Mission

No doubt about it: a scheme to control the world is expensive and complex. The right people have to be in place, and the organization needed is substantial. So let’s discuss a few methods to finance our agenda.

(Option A:) Get wealthy nations to borrow extensively from private banks. Most countries have their own internal banking, which means that they effectively borrow from themselves. A much better alternative is to get nations to start borrowing from private banks, but never completely pay it back. This ensures permanent interest payments. However, we must be careful to fight any and all attempts by concerned citizens to take back control of their finances.

(Option B:) Convince wealthy nations to participate in bogus scheme such as the “climate change scam”, which is based entirely on junk science. Rather than endlessly appealing to give foreign aid (which we then steal), we should be appealing to the mutual survival instinct. Doing this can raise hundreds of billions in revenue each year. Sure there will be resistance, but we can establish some controlled opposition “Conservatives” to give the illusion of fighting for the average people. These initiatives, once established, will be profitable.

(Option C:) While using the money raised from (A) and (B) immediately seems like a good idea, we must be more strategic about it. A serious option is to loan out to developing nations, huge sums of money they cannot possibly pay back. As such, once nations begin defaulting, we can either seize assets, or “forgive debt” in return for favours. Sure this is predatory lending, and the middle class will suffer, but their leaders will be put in an impossible position.

Note: the debts that we “lend” to developing nations are not actually losses we accrued. Rather they will be from the perpetual “debt repayments”, which developed nations pay us after they started taking out private loans.

(Option D:) Make globalism more profitable and have our partners contribute to the efforts. Making mass migration more profitable leads to an almost endless supply of new customers. A wide variety of groups, can get involved, ensuring a diversified portfolio for us. By linking their business interests with our ideological interests, it will ensure these organizations are vested in our survival.

(Option E:) It doesn’t just have to be foreign aid that gets transferred outside of host nations. Many national pension funds are screaming to be invested in our global development. Sure, there are criticisms that they are underfunded and unsustainable, but the potential growth will offset any risks to the funds. If seniors object, we can always subsidize their efforts to start smoking.

(Option F:) For the purposes of trade, it is antiquated to think of it as “nations” trading. Rather, if we think of them as economic zones, trade can be liberalized much more effectively. Sure there will be job losses here and there. But it’s all for the good of the “global economy”.

4. Mass Migration Is Critical To Our Success

In order to achieve the “One World Order”, individual nations must be destroyed. Sure they may keep their flags and names, but for all practical purposes, they cannot exist. There must be no true sovereignty allowed.

This aspect has unique challenges. There are plenty of nationalists and ethno-nationalists who want to keep their race, culture, language, heritage, customs, traditions, and way of life intact. There are those who reject conservatism and libertarianism, (which favour individuality over group survival), in favour of the long term stability of their nation. We need to completely replace the host populations. Being direct and honest will not work in this case. As such other approaches are required:

(Option I:) We can buy off media outlets. The rise in internet use and citizen journalists had led to an utter devastation of traditional media outlets. This presents an opportunity never thought possible: to keep certain media solvent in return for favourable coverage of our practices.

(Option II:) We can install puppet candidates and fund parties whose populist agendas are very similar to ours. With the right rhetoric, the sheeple won’t care that we lie about the true size of annual mass migration. Nor will they care that a “right-wing populist” is only proposing a 7% reduction in current rates. With the right messaging, the patriots will overlook that forced multiculturalism and diversity has never actually been successful, and only leads to balkanization. Members of the Government and Opposition should both have their campaigns contributed to. While common in the US, campaign contribution laws shall be used fully to ensure a cooperative Congress or Parliament.

(Option III:) Straight up gaslighting can and does still work, but the citizenry is getting tired of it. This technique should be used less frequently. Not saying stop entirely, but it shouldn’t be the first tool anymore.

(Option IV:) Present mass migration as “normalized” and inevitable. Yes we will need other puppets to sign the New York Declaration, and the UN Global Migration Compact. Yes, there will be many critics, and the gaslighting should be used sparingly. There are many intellectually dishonest tactics we can use without being too obvious. Our shill media — addressed earlier — will be useful in attacking border control efforts, or even the idea of border control.

(Option V:) In order to facilitate mass migration and population replacement, we should introduce “throw-away” ideas such as repatriating terrorists to home countries. If successful, we further destabilize the nation states. If unsuccessful, we at least divert their attention away from our real goals.

(Option VI:) One subset of mass migration is promoting high levels of Islamic immigration. Given their desire to take over the world, and propensity for “playing the victim”, this will be useful. Further, the drain on resources of the host nations will make it harder for them to put up resistance. Given Muslims’ very high birthrate, and violent intolerance towards others, they can help replace the populations for us.

Note: we won’t allow the Muslims to actually take over. Rather, they will do much of the leg work for us.

Naturally, the elites will need to meet annually, to ensure a smooth post-national transition takes place.

Once mass migration is sufficiently underway, we can focus on controlling the new masses, and that leads to the next topic: education.

5. Taking Control Of Education

If the agenda is to succeed, we need to take control of the next generation, and the one after that. As noted, children are to become dependent on the schools for everything from meals, to health care, to actual parenting. Yes, the financial costs will be high, but we will pay for it out of the interest payments from the loans we grant to governments. So really, it costs us nothing.

Academia has an important role to play, which is obvious. Scholarly articles, such as those written by Frank Geels and Kirsten Jenkins will add legitimacy to what we are doing.

Another important aspect is to redefine what cultural norms are. This in turn will also help reduce the host populations, which will make it easier to replace them. One such technique is encouraging people, especially young children, to have sex changes. A further technique is to keep pushing for abortion as a “human right”. Less births will of course reduce the host nation’s population. An extra benefit is that baby parts sell for huge amounts to organizations which are sympathetic to our globalist methods.

6. Making It All Come Together

Okay, this is definitely a lot to absorb. But knowing and implementing all of these steps, what have we actually accomplished? Let’s list them:

  • We have identified ways to commit genocide against nations and their host populations without the obvious evidence of guns, bombs and war
  • We have raised money by getting nations to borrow heavily from private banks, and never fully pay it back, leading to permanent interest payments
  • We raised money via bogus environmental scams
  • We loaned out to nations who cannot pay
  • We have enlisted corporate partners in our goals
  • We have invested national pensions and other assets
  • We have eliminated borders, ensuring efficient trade
  • We have bought off an obedient media
  • We have propped up puppet politicians
  • We reduced the overt gaslighting
  • We changed the narrative to mass migration being normal
  • We normalized repatriating terrorists
  • We weaponized Islamic immigration
  • We coordinated global leadership meetings
  • We have made children dependent on schools
  • We controlled the academic output
  • We replaced traditional cultural norms
  • We centralized globalization via UN

    • This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it should serve as an introduction to global domination.

    The UN, naturally, is a great way to centralize the consolidation of the global empire. But should the UN stop being a useful tool, we have backups in reserve.

    Just remember: taking over the world is a marathon, not a sprint.

    7. Who’s Behind All Of This?

    That will be addressed in part II, a post all by itself. There are simply too many players to do it justice in one article.

    Posted on

    Digital Charter Coming After “Christchurch Call”

    (Trudeau announcing new “Digital Charter”)

    (New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern at “Christchurch Call”)

    Yes, the Christchurch Call and the UN “digital cooperation” are 2 separate initiatives, but the result is the same: stamping out free speech online.

    (The UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation)

    (Liberal ex-Candidate Richard Lee supports UN regulating internet)

    1. Important Links

    (1) https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/16-05-2019/the-christchurch-call-full-text/
    (2) https://globalnews.ca/news/5283178/trudeau-digital-charter/?utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=%40globalnews
    (3) https://canucklaw.ca/unifor-interview-denies-crawling-into-bed-with-government/
    (4) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/economic.update.2018.pdf
    (5) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-govt-purges-sunni-shia-from-2019-terrorism-report-bill-c-59/
    (6) https://www.blacklocks.ca/feds-to-list-approved-media/
    (7) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

    Interesting UN Links from prior article.
    (8) http://www.un.org/en/digital-cooperation-panel/
    (9) http://www.un.org/en/pdfs/HLP-on-Digital-Cooperation_Press-Release.pdf
    (10) https://digitalcooperation.org/
    (11) https://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/socinfo/noticias/noticias/4/48074/P48074.xml&xsl=/socinfo/tpl-i/p1f.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl-i/top-bottom.xsl
    (12) https://www.unescwa.org/sites/www.unescwa.org/files/events/files/program.pdf
    (13) https://www.unescwa.org/sub-site/arabDIG
    (14) https://www.unescwa.org/publications/internet-governance-challenges-and-opportunities-escwa-member-countries
    (15) https://canucklaw.ca/un-wants-to-ban-criticism-of-islam-globally/

    2. Text Of Christchurch Call

    To that end, we, the Governments, commit to:
    .
    -Counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality.
    -Ensure effective enforcement of applicable laws that prohibit the production or dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with the rule of law and international human rights law, including freedom of expression.
    -Encourage media outlets to apply ethical standards when depicting terrorist events online, to avoid amplifying terrorist and violent extremist content.
    –Support frameworks, such as industry standards, to ensure that reporting on terrorist attacks does not amplify terrorist and violent extremist content, without prejudice to responsible coverage of terrorism and violent extremism. Consider appropriate action to prevent the use of online services to disseminate terrorist and violent extremist content, including through collaborative actions, such as:
    -Awareness-raising and capacity-building activities aimed at smaller online service providers;
    -Development of industry standards or voluntary frameworks;

    -Regulatory or policy measures consistent with a free, open and secure internet and international human rights law.

    To that end, we, the online service providers, commit to:
    .
    -Take transparent, specific measures seeking to prevent the upload of terrorist and violent extremist content and to prevent its dissemination on social media and similar content-sharing services, including its immediate and permanent removal, without prejudice to law enforcement and user appeals requirements, in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms. Cooperative measures to achieve these outcomes may include technology development, the expansion and use of shared databases of hashes and URLs, and effective notice and takedown procedures.
    -Provide greater transparency in the setting of community standards or terms of service, including by:
    Outlining and publishing the consequences of sharing terrorist and violent extremist content;
    -Describing policies and putting in place procedures for detecting and removing terrorist and violent extremist content. Enforce those community standards or terms of service in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms, including by:
    -Prioritising moderation of terrorist and violent extremist content, however identified;
    Closing accounts where appropriate;
    -Providing an efficient complaints and appeals process for those wishing to contest the removal of their content or a decision to decline the upload of their content.
    -Implement immediate, effective measures to mitigate the specific risk that terrorist and violent extremist content is disseminated through livestreaming, including identification of content for real-time review.
    -Implement regular and transparent public reporting, in a way that is measurable and supported by clear methodology, on the quantity and nature of terrorist and violent extremist content being detected and removed.
    -Review the operation of algorithms and other processes that may drive users towards and/or amplify terrorist and violent extremist content to better understand possible intervention points and to implement changes where this occurs. This may include using algorithms and other processes to redirect users from such content or the promotion of credible, positive alternatives or counter-narratives. This may include building appropriate mechanisms for reporting, designed in a multi-stakeholder process and without compromising trade secrets or the effectiveness of service providers’ practices through unnecessary disclosure.
    -Work together to ensure cross-industry efforts are coordinated and robust, for instance by investing in and expanding the GIFCT, and by sharing knowledge and expertise.
    -To that end, we, Governments and online service providers, commit to work collectively to:
    -Work with civil society to promote community-led efforts to counter violent extremism in all its forms, including through the development and promotion of positive alternatives and counter-messaging.
    -Develop effective interventions, based on trusted information sharing about the effects of algorithmic and other processes, to redirect users from terrorist and violent extremist content.
    Accelerate research into and development of technical solutions to prevent the upload of and to detect and immediately remove terrorist and violent extremist content online, and share these solutions through open channels, drawing on expertise from academia, researchers, and civil society.
    -Support research and academic efforts to better understand, prevent and counter terrorist and violent extremist content online, including both the offline and online impacts of this activity.
    -Ensure appropriate cooperation with and among law enforcement agencies for the purposes of investigating and prosecuting illegal online activity in regard to detected and/or removed terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with rule of law and human rights protections.
    –Support smaller platforms as they build capacity to remove terrorist and violent extremist content, including through sharing technical solutions and relevant databases of hashes or other relevant material, such as the GIFCT shared database.
    –Collaborate, and support partner countries, in the development and implementation of best practice in preventing the dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content online, including through operational coordination and trusted information exchanges in accordance with relevant data protection and privacy rules.
    -Develop processes allowing governments and online service providers to respond rapidly, effectively and in a coordinated manner to the dissemination of terrorist or violent extremist content following a terrorist event. This may require the development of a shared crisis protocol and information-sharing processes, in a manner consistent with human rights protections.
    –Respect, and for Governments protect, human rights, including by avoiding directly or indirectly contributing to adverse human rights impacts through business activities and addressing such impacts where they occur.

    Recognise the important role of civil society in supporting work on the issues and commitments in the Call, including through:
    .
    -Offering expert advice on implementing the commitments in this Call in a manner consistent with a free, open and secure internet and with international human rights law;
    –Working, including with governments and online service providers, to increase transparency;
    -Where necessary, working to support users through company appeals and complaints processes.
    -Affirm our willingness to continue to work together, in existing fora and relevant organizations, institutions, mechanisms and processes to assist one another and to build momentum and widen support for the Call.
    -Develop and support a range of practical, non-duplicative initiatives to ensure that this pledge is delivered.
    Acknowledge that governments, online service providers, and civil society may wish to take further cooperative action to address a broader range of harmful online content, such as the actions that will be discussed further during the G7 Biarritz Summit, in the G20, the Aqaba Process, the Five Country Ministerial, and a range of other fora.

    Signatories:
    Australia
    Canada
    European Commission
    France
    Germany
    Indonesia
    India
    Ireland
    Italy
    Japan
    Jordan
    The Netherlands
    New Zealand
    Norway
    Senegal
    Spain
    Sweden

    3. Some Observations

    Some observations:

    1. Combatting extremist ideologies and fighting inequality are lumped together.
    2. This will apparently be done “respecting free speech and human rights”, but aren’t those things already supposed to be protected?
    3. Parties want to “promot[e] positive alternatives and counter-messaging”. Doesn’t that sound like Onjective 17(c) of the UN Global Migration Compact, promote propaganda positive to migration?
    4. Encouraging media to use ethical practices when covering violence? And what, shut them down if they refuse?
    5. Widen support for the call? Collective suicide pact for free speech?
    6. Looking for expert advice in how to implement “the Call” without violating those pesky free speech and human rights laws. Perhaps you need another Jordan Peterson to make it sound nice and fluffy.
    7. Research to spot “ROOT CAUSES” of terrorism.
    8. Look for technical methods to remove terroristic or violent material, (or anything we deem to be violent or terroristic), and share the methods with others.
    9. Collaborate with partner countries, no real concern of whether they support terrorism themselves, as do many Islamic countries.
    10. Mess with algorithms to ensure users not directed to “inappropriate content”.
    11. Regular public reporting, sounds great, except when Governments censor necessary information in the name of not offending anyone, as seen here.
    12. Support INDUSTRY STANDARDS? So the internet “will” be regulated globally.
    13. And all of this misses a VERY IMPORTANT point: what happens when content is shared in Country A, but rules in Country B would render it illegal? Does the content get pulled down because it is offensive to some other nation in the world?

    All in all, this is pretty chilling.

    4. From Global(ist) News Article

    “The platforms are failing their users. And they’re failing our citizens. They have to step up in a major way to counter disinformation, and if they don’t, we will hold them to account and there will be meaningful financial consequences,” he said Thursday.
    .
    “It’s up to the platforms and governments to take their responsibility seriously and ensure that people are protected online. You don’t have to put the blame on people like Mark Zuckerberg or dismiss the benefits of social platforms to know that we can’t rely exclusively on companies to protect the public interest,” Trudeau continued.
    .
    He announced that Canada would be launching a digital charter, touching on principles including universal access and transparency and serving as a guide to craft new digital policy.
    .
    Speaking about Canada’s upcoming federal election, he said the government was taking steps to eliminate fake news and that a new task force had been created in order to identify threats to the election and prevent foreign interference.

    5. Remember? $595M Bribe

    A New Non-Refundable Tax Credit for Subscriptions to Canadian Digital News Media
    .
    To support Canadian digital news media organizations in achieving a more financially sustainable business model, the Government intends to introduce a new temporary, non-refundable 15-per-cent tax credit for qualifying subscribers of eligible digital news media.
    .
    In total, the proposed access to tax incentives for charitable giving, refundable tax credit for labour costs and non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions will cost the federal government an estimated $595 million over the next five years. Additional details on these measures will be provided in Budget 2019.

    Not only will the Trudeau Government be cracking down on what it views as “fake news”, it will be subsidizing “friendly” or cooperative media. This is nothing short of propaganda. This is a government propping up dying media outlets financially. Of course, what will be expected in return? favourable coverage?

    6. Section 2: Fundamental Freedoms

    To summarize so far, our government:
    (1) Is a member of the UN, which wants to globally regulate the internet. This is referred to as “DIGITAL COOPERATION”. The same UN wants to globally ban criticism of Islam.
    (2) Passes a “non-binding” motion, M-103, to ban Islamophobia.
    (3) Passes Bill C-16, to ban criticism of their gender agenda, calling certain language to be hate speech.
    (4) Signs the Global Migration Compact, which contains provisions (Objective 17(c)) to sensitise and regulate media.
    (5) Announces plans to subsidize “certain” media, the 2018 economic update.
    (6) Attends a convention, the Christchurch call, and signs the above resolution.
    (7) Announces plans for a “digital charter”

    Can Section 2 of the Charter — fundamental freedoms — protect us from this assault on free speech? Let’s hope so:

    Fundamental freedoms
    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    (d) freedom of association.

    Most court cases have come down on the side of fundamental freedoms. If this digital charter comes to be, then certainly the 2 charters will collide.

    7. Doing What UN Never Could?

    The UN has for a long time tried to regulate our freedoms for the “global collective” or some other such nonsense.

    But now, will we do this to ourselves? Will Western nations engage in their own freedom-suicide pact in order to provide the illusion of security from violent terrorists and extremists?

    Western Liberals embrace global rule and regulation. So do “Conservatives”, and fake populists, who are basically globalists in disguise. It will be interesting to see how many will actually stand up for freedom instead of caving to pressure.

    Posted on

    A Case For Tort Reform: “Free-Speech” Grifters Want $5 Million

    (Peterson interview after suing)

    (Peterson announcing lawsuit to follow Shepherd)

    (Pedantic Shepherd, YouTube is beside the point)

    (Shepherd sues, then complains about being sued)

    Background Information

    The details of the Wilfrid Laurier University scandal (Lindsay Shepherd, the 3 staff members, and Jordan Peterson), is old news at this point. The article just focuses on the lawsuits brought against WLU and its staff by Peterson and Shepherd.

    It is the opinion here that although the facts alleged are basically true, the claims are fraudulent. They are combined seeking 5 million dollars (Shepherd $3.6, Peterson $1.5M). This is an abuse of the court system, and a way to unjustly enrich themselves.

    Keep in mind, Peterson’s only claim to damages was that the tape defamed him (comparing him to Hitler, and other comments). His critics were vilified by the media. He suffered no actual damage, other than being named in a tape that Shepherd released.

    Shepherd claims that not only was this 42 minute meeting difficult (surely it was), but that she was never treated the same way again. She cites a few examples, but nothing that would lead a reasonable person to think this would be worth millions in damages. Shepherd claims to be unemployable in academia, but her new love for media probably helped that.

    Did WLU staff act like d*****bags? YES
    Were inappropriate things said? YES
    Was a tape of this leaked to the media? YES
    Does any of this amount to millions in damages? NO

    Complete Hypocrisy

    During the Louder With Crowder interview, Peterson (at 50:20) criticizes the Ontario Human Rights Code for automatically making employers vicariously liable for things employees say. However, he has no issue with USING vicarious liability in order to name the University in his lawsuit.

    Peterson claimed that it was libel for Rambukkana to compare him to Hitler, yet Peterson compares trans activists to Communists, who have caused the deaths of millions of people.

    Peterson has come to fame claiming to be a free speech champion, but has no issue deplatforming speakers he doesn’t agree with. Faith Goldy is a particularly bad example.

    Shepherd and Peterson both claim to be free speech champions, but then sue over words they don’t like.

    Karma In All Of This?

    In 2018, Shepherd launched a $3.6 million lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier University and 3 of its staff (Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel). Although the infamous meeting was cited, there were other problems occurring later which were cited in the statement of defense.

    Jordan Peterson filed a $1.5 million lawsuit of his own, claiming that Laurier hadn’t learned its lesson. Peterson claimed that the infamous tape had damaged his reputation.

    Regarding Peterson’s claim, the WLU filed a 3rd party claim (Form 29A). It stated that if Peterson actually had suffered damages, he should be suing Lindsay Shepherd, as she made the tape secretly and released it.

    Shepherd was outraged. After filing a lawsuit against her university, she is shocked that they would use her as a defence in a related lawsuit. She brought this on herself.

    WLU should consider Rule 2.1.01

    Some Law On Frivilous Proceedings

    Rule 2.1 General Powers to Stay or Dismiss if Vexatious, etc.
    .
    Stay, Dismissal of frivolous, vexatious, abusive Proceeding
    Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding
    2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1

    Although litigation tends to drag on a long time, something like this should be used. The litigation (particularly Peterson’s) is an abuse of process.

    Ontario Libel & Slander Act

    Definitions
    1 (1) In this Act,
    “broadcasting” means the dissemination of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds, intended to be received by the public either directly or through the medium of relay stations, by means of,
    .
    (a) any form of wireless radioelectric communication utilizing Hertzian waves, including radiotelegraph and radiotelephone, or
    (b) cables, wires, fibre-optic linkages or laser beams,
    and “broadcast” has a corresponding meaning; (“radiodiffusion ou télédiffusion”, “radiodiffuser ou télédiffuser”)
    “newspaper” means a paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or remarks or observations thereon, or containing only, or principally, advertisements, printed for distribution to the public and published periodically, or in parts or numbers, at least twelve times a year. (“journal”) R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 1 (1).

    Wilfrid Laurier and its 3 staff members did not do this. Shepherd did. She released the recording to the media, with the intent of making it widely distributed. So Rambukkana and Pimlott have a valid point. If Peterson did suffer damages, it was caused by Lindsay Shepherd.

    Yes, Rambukkana and Pimlott were unprofessional for making the comments in the first place. However, it is clear they never meant to be recorded.

    There is also some ambiguity as to the Statute of Limitations, whether it would be 3 months, or 2 years. If it is 3 months, then it has already lapsed.

    Some Canadian Cases

    Here is Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), which dropped “actual malice” as a requirement.

    Here is Grant v Torstar (2009), which created an exception for responsible journalism.

    Here is Crookes v Newton (2011), which ruled that linking, or hyperlinking stories does not count as publishing.

    However, all of this may be irrelevant, since it was Shepherd who SECRETLY recorded the meeting, and then chose to publish it WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT of the other parties.

    Ontario’s Bill 52

    Not sure if this would be relied on in the proceedings, but in 2015, the Ontario Government passed Bill 52 on this subject. Interesting is section 137.1

    Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
    Purposes
    Rejet d’une instance limitant les débats
    Objects
    137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
    (a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
    (b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
    (c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
    (d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.

    Final Thoughts On This

    The topic of tort reform is a popular one in recent years, particularly in the United States. Putting a cap on maximum damages, or making it harder to collect on bogus claims is a goal worth pursuing.

    Any google or online search of “tort reform” will lead to an almost endless number of matches.

    This is not at all to say that a person should “never” go to civil court. If an employer doesn’t pay your wages, or your property is damaged, or bills are not paid, then litigation can be a very valid path. Admittedly, “reasonable” is very subjective. However, most people can agree that one must suffer actual damages to go to court.

    However, Shepherd and Peterson have both laid million dollar lawsuits because people said mean things to them. (Shepherd’s claim cites more detail). And hypocritically, both think nothing of mocking their detractors.

    These 2 are not the free speech champions they pretend to be. Rather, they support free speech when it is convenient to do so. They are “free-speech grifters”.

    Hard to feel sorry for her anymore.

    (1) Jordan Peterson On United Nations sustainable Development Agenda
    (2) Bill C-16, Gender Identity Bill In Canada
    (3) Louder With Crowder interview
    (4) Peterson & Cathy Newman
    (5) Faith Goldy Deplatformed
    (6) Deplatforming Faith Goldy At “Free Speech” Event
    (7) https://www.identitygrifting.ca/
    (8) Peterson announcing $1.5M lawsuit and WLU University and 3 employees
    (9) Peterson Interview On Lawsuit (2:55)
    (10) National Post article on WLU 3rd Party Defence
    (11) Ontario Human Rights Code
    (12) Ontario Court forms index.
    (13) Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure
    (14) Ontario Libel and Slander Act
    (15) Hill v. Church of Scientology, 1995
    (16) Ontario Bill 52, protecting expression in matters of public interest

    Posted on

    Morgane Oger Further Weaponizes Human Rights Codes, $55K Ruling

    (BC “Human Rights” Commission Ruling)

    (Morgane Oger Foundation)

    (Proposed “Hate Map” Across Canada)

    1. Important Links

    (1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt58/2019bchrt58.pdf
    (2) ttp://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96210_01
    (3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
    (4) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-16-adding-gender-identity-to-human-rights-code-and-criminal-code/
    (5) https://canucklaw.ca/morgane-oger-foundation-wants-to-be-another-doxxing-site/
    (6) https://canucklaw.ca/weaponizing-the-human-rights-codes-and-refugee-boards/

    Some Thoughts

    Our favourite “serial-victim” Morgane Oger, is in the news again, this time for getting a $55,000 award ($35K for hurt feelings, and $20K in punitive damages). This was William Whatcott for calling Oger “a man”. (Oger is transgender).

    A few interesting observations in reading the ruling:

    (1) Morgane Oger seems perfectly content silencing William Whatcott’s free speech and right to religious expression in the name of gender identity.

    (2) The BC Tribunal deliberately and repeatedly skirted the truthfulness of Whatcott’s claim that Oger is biologically male. Hormones, surgery and legal paperwork don’t change biology.

    (3) The BC Tribunal awarded $35,000 in damages without any damages being proven. How exactly does one prove “hurt feelings and dignity”?

    3. BC Human Rights Code

    Discrimination and intent
    2
    Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

    Section 2 makes it very clear: absolutely no intent is required on the part of anyone in order to be found to violate someone’s human rights. For a “quasi-judicial” board, this is very disturbing. However, it seems to be the case with all provinces.

    Discriminatory publication
    7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
    (a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
    (b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code.

    Oger claims that the publications were contrary to Section 7(1)(a) and (b) of the code.

    Evidence
    27.2 (1) A member or panel may receive and accept on oath, by affidavit or otherwise, evidence and information that the member or panel considers necessary and appropriate, whether or not the evidence or information would be admissible in a court of law.
    (2) Nothing is admissible in evidence before a member or panel that is inadmissible in a court because of a privilege under the law of evidence.
    (3) Despite section 4, subsection (1) of this section does not override an Act expressly limiting the extent to which or purposes for which evidence may be admitted or used in any proceeding.
    (4) A member or panel may direct that all or part of the evidence of a witness be heard in private.

    (4) flies in the face of an open inquiry, and doesn’t set any guidelines as to “when” it would be appropriate.
    One of the problems Whatcott cited was the Commission refusing to hear all the evidence.

    Remedies
    37 (1) If the member or panel designated to hear a complaint determines that the complaint is not justified, the member or panel must dismiss the complaint.
    (2) If the member or panel determines that the complaint is justified, the member or panel
    (a) must order the person that contravened this Code to cease the contravention and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention,
    (b) may make a declaratory order that the conduct complained of, or similar conduct, is discrimination contrary to this Code,
    (c) may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or both of the following:
    (i) take steps, specified in the order, to ameliorate the effects of the discriminatory practice;
    (ii) adopt and implement an employment equity program or other special program to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups if the evidence at the hearing indicates the person has engaged in a pattern or practice that contravenes this Code, and
    (d) if the person discriminated against is a party to the complaint, or is an identifiable member of a group or class on behalf of which a complaint is filed, may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or more of the following:
    (i) make available to the person discriminated against the right, opportunity or privilege that, in the opinion of the member or panel, the person was denied contrary to this Code;
    (ii) compensate the person discriminated against for all, or a part the member or panel determines, of any wages or salary lost, or expenses incurred, by the contravention;
    (iii) pay to the person discriminated against an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them.

    In short, the BC Human Rights Code can award money if it rules that your feelings were hurt, or your dignity or self respect was hurt. No need to prove “actual” damages.

    4. Section 2(b) Of Charter

    Fundamental freedoms
    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    (d) freedom of association

    5. From HRT Ruling

    William Whatcott identifies himself as a Christian activist. When he learned of Ms. Oger’s candidacy, he resolved to stop her being elected. He was not a member of her riding, nor did he research her platform or the policies which she sought to advance. The sole basis for his campaign against her was that she is a transgender woman and therefore, in his view, unsuitable to hold public office. 

    Very interesting choice of words. Whatcott “identifies” as a Christian activist, yet Oger “actually is” a woman.

    Mr. Whatcott was not a resident in Ms. Oger’s riding. She came to his attention after he had decided there were no suitable political options within his own riding. He says that he had decided not to vote in the election at all, but then turned to prayer. He asked God how he could help in the election. He started researching the candidates across the province and, in this way, came across Ms. Oger. He learned that she had been active in lobbying for amendments to the Code to add the grounds of “gender identity and expression”, and in promoting education about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools. Most importantly, however, he was upset that the media and public at large were “pretending” that Ms. Oger was a woman. He fundamentally believes that gender is static and derived from the genitalia that a person has at birth. He believes that Ms. Oger is a man. He sees himself as the small boy in the fairy tale about the Emperor with no clothes the only one brave enough to speak the truth about Ms. Oger’s gender. He decided to focus his energies on her campaign. In doing so, he describes Ms. Oger herself as “incidental” and “small” within his larger fight for social order and freedom. 

    The first part gets glossed over. Oger is trying help enact 2 policies that Whatcott is bothered by:
    (A) Bill C-16, to add “gender identity” to the Criminal Code and Human Rights Code.
    (B) Bringing SOGI (sexual orientation & gender identity) into schools and have it taught to young children.

    In all fairness, “both” of the above issues rub a lot of people the wrong way.

    [53] To the extent that s. 7 is unique, it is because it expressly and exclusively targets speech. Mr. Whatcott argues that, in doing so, it violates his Charter‐guaranteed rights to freedom of religion and expression ss. 2(a) and (b). In his final reply, he added an argument that it violates his right to life, liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter.  

    [54]This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to apply the Charter: Administrative Tribunals Act, s . 45; Code, s. 32(i). I cannot find s. 7 of the Code unconstitutional, or that any of Mr. Whatcott’s Charter rights have been violated in the course of Ms. Oger’s human rights  complaint against him.

     

    [55]There is no question, however, that this complaint engages Charter protections. In these circumstances, I must interpret and apply the Code in a manner that proportionately balances its purposes with those protections. The framework for this analysis has been set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in three cases: Doré v. Québec (Tribunal des Professions), 2012 SCC 12 [Doré]; Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12 [Loyola]; and Trinity  Western University v. Law Society of BC, 2018 SCC 32 [TWU]. 

    While simultaneously claiming not to be able to apply the Charter, the Tribunal says it will balance the rights of the Charter v.s. the Code.

    A. Factual context 
    1. Discrimination against transgender people 
    . This is a significant time for trans and gender diverse people. Their long fight for equality is bearing some fruit, as society begins to adjust its traditionally static and binary understanding of gender, and its tolerance for people to identify and express their gender authentically. One indicator of this progress is the 2016 amendment to the Code that added the grounds of gender identity and expression. 

    [61] However, as this hearing made clear, the journey is far from over. Unlike other groups protected by the Code, transgender people often find their very existence the subject of public debate and condemnation. What flows from this existential denial is, naturally, a view that transpeople are less worthy of dignity, respect, and rights. In the hearing room for this complaint, we were witness to repeated, deliberate, and flagrant attacks on Ms. Oger based on nothing more than a belief that her very existence is an affront. 

    (A) The Tribunal actually referred to this section as “factual context”, but then goes on to make a number of straw man arguments.
    (B) It is not a fight for equality. That was never the issue.
    (C)”Traditionally static and binary understanding of gender”? Actually, there has never been evidence that there are more than 2 genders. Simply passing a law does not erase science. A government could conceivably pass a law saying that dogs are cats, but it would not be based in reality.
    (D) Gender identity and expression? Don’t these contradict reality? Merely expressing oneself or identifying oneself a certain way does not make it so.
    (E) Questioning the reality of something not based on science is a hate crime now? Got it.

    [62] And so, despite some gains, transgender people remain among the most marginalized in our society. Their lives are marked by “disadvantage, prejudice, stereotyping, and vulnerability”: F(C) v. Albert (Vital Statistics), 2014 ABQB 237 at para. 58; see also Rainbow  Committee of Terrace v. City of Terrace, 2002 BCHRT 26 at paras. 47-51. They are stereotyped as “diseased, confused, monsters and freaks”: Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society, 2002. 
    BCHRT 1 at paras. 136137, overturned 2005 BCCA 601 (not on this point). Transpeople face barriers to employment and housing, inequitable access to health care and other vital public services, and heightened risks of targeted harassment and violence. The results include social isolation, as well as higher rates of substance use, poor mental health, suicide, and poverty: XY v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services), 2012 HRTO 726 at paras. 164-166. For transgender children, antitrans bullying leads to higher rates of absenteeism and poorer educational outcomes, which then has ripple effects for their health and future prospects: Christophe Cornu (2016), “Preventing and addressing homophobic and transphobic bullying in  education; A human-rights based approach using the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”, Journal of LGBT Youth, 13:1‐2, 6‐17 at pp 7‐8. 

    (A) How are they marginalized? They have entire government bodies to fight specifically for their rights.
    (B) Substance abuse, suicide, and mental health problems? Doesn’t that signify that there might be something seriously wrong with what they are doing?
    (C) Children should not be transitioning. Period.

    [64] Mr. Whatcott and the JCCF sought to rely on statistics about the poor health and social outcomes for transgender people as proof that – at best – the merits of being transgender was a matter for ongoing study and debate and – at worst –it was a bad lifestyle choice, whichought to be publicly discouraged. I agree with Ms. Oger that this is an illconceived attempt to “take the data about the consequences of being a victim of oppression, or the consequences of being marginalized, and turn that into the root cause of the issue”.  

    [65] The poor health, economic, and social outcomes for many transgender people are not a signal of their inherent worth but rather of the significant degree to which they continue to face marginalization, stigma, and discrimination. They illustrate how much work remains to be done to make the Code’s objective of an equal society into a reality. 

    (A) The Tribunal specifically states they will not consider statistical data. How very “scientific and reasoned” of them.
    (B) Another straw-man argument. No one is saying these people are not worthy, but that there are very serious mental health issues that need to be addressed. Issues the tribunal has no interest in addressing.

    [75] There is no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his Charter right to freedom of religion. Ms. Oger concedes that Mr. Whatcott has a sincerely held religious belief that it is his duty to spread his views about transgender people: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 at para. 65. This concession was appropriate. Mr. Whatcott identifies as Christian and describes himself as a “flawed Christian activist”. He says that his theology largely lines up with that of the Lutheran Church. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that Evangelical Christians, and I believe it is fair to count Mr. Whatcott as one, “carry their religious beliefs and values beyond their private lives and into their work, education, and politics”: TWU at para. 67. This is certainly true of Mr. Whatcott. For many years, he has manifested his religious beliefs through activism, beginning with antiabortion activism and then, in more recent years, in activism against the LGBTQ community. His beliefs about transgender people namely that they do not exist and are engaged in a falsehood  stem from his interpretation of the Christian Bible. He believes it is God’s will that he spread the Christian gospel and his views about the “morality” of being transgender. 

    (A) Now we get to the heart of it. This would actually limit religious freedom.
    (B) The Tribunal knows this, and will act against it anyway.

    [77] There is similarly no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his freedom to publicly express his views about transgender people generally, and Ms. Oger specifically. This engages his right to free expression. As I will discuss below, the scope of freedom of expression, and the significance of any possible infringement, varies according to the type of speech and the extent to which it furthers or detracts from the core values underlying the freedom. However, at this threshold stage, it is sufficient that the Flyer was a form of expression and that any decision restricting Mr. Whatcott’s right to distribute it publicly would limit his expressive rights to some extent. 

    [78] With respect to Mr. Whatcott’s s. 7 Charter rights, I agree with the Attorney General that it would not be fair to consider that argument, which was raised for the first time in Mr. Whatcott’s final reply, after the hearing of this complaint had concluded. Regardless, the argument has no merit. A decision by this Tribunal would not restrict Mr. Whatcott’s life, liberty, or security of the person. The remedial jurisdiction conferred by s. 37 of the Code is in no way equivalent to penal consequences. It does not threaten Mr. Whatcott’s life or liberty. While I accept that individuals found to violate the Code may encounter, as a consequence, a degree of stigma and social disapproval, such consequences do not rise to a level of “serious  state imposed psychological stress

    (A) No threat to his security? Try not paying the fine and see what happens.
    (B) You also say the Commission “will” order the so-called bad behaviour to stop. And if it doesn’t, you’ll fine him again.
    (C) Who cares if this is the first time the argument has been brought up?

    Now a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada:

    First and foremost, free expression is essential to the proper functioning of democratic governance. As Rand J. put it, “government by the free public opinion of an open society . . . demands the condition of a virtually unobstructed access to and diffusion of ideas”: Switzman, at p. 306. 
    .
      Second, the free exchange of ideas is an “essential precondition of the  search for truth”: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, at p. 803, per  McLachlin J. This rationale, sometimes known as the “marketplace of ideas”, extends beyond the political domain to any areaof debate where truth is sought through the exchange of information and ideas. Information is disseminated and propositions debated. In the course of debate, misconceptions and errors are exposed. What withstands testing  emerges as truth. 
    .
      Third, free expression has intrinsic value as an aspect of self‐realization for both speakers and listeners. As the majority observed in Irwin Toy, at p. 976, “the diversity in forms of individual selffulfillment and human flourishing ought to be cultivated in an essentially tolerant, indeed welcoming, environment not only for the sake of those who convey a meaning, uut also for the sake of those to whom it is conveyed”.  Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 at paras. 4750; see also R v. Keegstra,  [1990] 3 SCR 697 [Keegstra], at paras. 87‐89; 

    This is quite laughable, as the Tribunal has no interest in the factual basis of Whatcott’s claim (that Oger is male), nor in the statistical research and evidence regarding transgenders in general.

    [119] I reject this proposition in the strongest possible terms. The question of whether transgender people exist and are entitled to dignity in this province is as valuable to ongoing public debate as whether one race is superior to another. This does not mean that all expression that criticizes or questions the existence of transgender people violates the Code. Here I distinguish between public debate about, for example, the scope of rights that different groups in society may be afforded, and commentary like that which is in the Flyer, which denies the very existence of transpeople. Understood in its proper context, it is simply not accurate to place this type of expression at the core of s. 2(b) values. 

    (A) False equivalence. The reality of transitioning is not the same thing as racial supremacy.
    (B) False equivalence. Questioning whether trans-people exist is not the same thing as saying a person should not have dignity.
    (C) The flyer is inappropriate, but once again the Tribunal dodges the issue of “truth”.

    [125] This argument confuses distinctions with discrimination. Efforts to increase the participation and representation of groups which have historically been excluded from political life serve the goals of achieving substantive equality and enriching Canada’s democracy. But to advocate against including those groups in politics is not the same thing as arguing for their deliberate inclusion. The law has long understood that identical treatment of groups is often the very source of serious inequality: Kapp at para. 27, citing Andrews. Put another way, “different treatment in the service of equity for disadvantaged groups is an expression of [substantive] equality, not an exception to it”: P. W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (5th ed. Supp. 2007), vol. 2, at p. 5553; cited with approval in Kapp at para. 37. It is simply not reasonable to equate efforts to increase the representation of disadvantaged groups in government with those which would seek to continue to exclude them. While I acknowledge that individual voters may choose to discriminate within the privacy of a ballot box, it does not further Canada’s democracy to suggest that a person’s connection with a historically disadvantaged group is a legitimate point on which to openly campaign against them. 

    To summarize this word salad: ACTUAL equal treatment of people can be wrong, since it doesn’t take “historical marginalization” into account. Hence the idea of 15(2) of the Charter (affirmative action). This is essentially different rules for different groups in order to “increase representation”.

    The decision is long one (100 pages), but this covers the main points. The Tribunal also goes on at length about Whatcott refusing to refer to Oger as “she” despite being repeatedly told not to.

    While Whatcott comes off as a bit of a jerk, it is hard to come up with much sympathy for Oger, who is essentially a professional victim. The proposed “hate map” is essentially a doxing tool for opinions that they don’t agree with.

    It is also disturbing to see the Tribunal so uninterested in fact or truth. Legitimate concerns about whether a person can transition are deemed hate speech. Further, the tribunal doesn’t care for evidence presented regarding statistics of trans-people. If anything, it is deemed as more of a reason to grant special status.

    Whatcott “identifies” as a Christian activist, yet Oger “really is” a woman. The Tribunal is inconsistent in their own standards.

    And as seems to be the case in all provinces, the “human rights” code stipulates that no intent is necessary for a finding against a person or group.

    Will there be an appeal (in the form of an application for judicial review)? We will find out. But this sets a very bad precedent.