Category: Free Speech

Posted on

Weaponizing the Human Rights Codes and Refugee Boards

(This is criminal, not civil, but enjoy anyway)

***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
***********************************************************************

Need some extra cash? Don’t feel like working hard? Well, here at CanuckLaw, we have the solution for you.

Simply make some vague claim about: (a) being offended; (b) having hurt feelings; (c) loss of self confidence, and you will be well on your way to making your next year’s salary virtually overnight.

Need that new sports car? Or have a girlfriend with really expensive taste? Now you don’t have to feel like a cheapskate. Just file a human rights complaint, and that cash is as good as yours. Just appear before the tribunal and cry up a storm.

In court, you will be forced to ”prove damages” and likely ”hire a lawyer”. Not the case here. Just say you are offended, and the Province will pick up your tab. The slimy accused will still have to pay his bill though.

And if you want to come to Canada, but don’t qualify, then just claim to be oppressed and fearful of persecution. And since it’s all in your head, no proof necessary.

All joking aside, the Provincial Human Rights Tribunals are in fact a very lucrative way to cash in. We will explain here.

One interesting case, is Sanford v. Koop, 2005 HRTO 53 (CanLII) at paras. 34-38. CLICK HERE for a link to it. It sets out a disturbingly vague, yet extensive list which people can get extra money under. Although this is Ontario, other provinces have very similar guidelines. From paragraph 35:

[35] The Commission provided a number of cases which set out the criteria to be used in assessing the appropriate quantum of general damages. These factors include:

• Humiliation experienced by the complainant
• Hurt feelings experienced by the complainant
• A complainant’s loss of self-respect
• A complainant’s loss of dignity
• A complainant’s loss of self-esteem
• A complainant’s loss of confidence
• The experience of victimization
• Vulnerability of the complainant
• The seriousness, frequency and duration of the offensive treatment

See: Baylis-Flannery v. DeWilde (No.2) (2003), 48 C.H.R.R. D/197 (total general damages of $35,000); Arias v. Desai, (No.2) (2003) 45 C.H.H.R. D/308 (HRTO) (total general damages of $25,000); Curling v. Torimiro (No.4) (2000), 38 C.H.R.R. D/216 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) (total general damages of $21,000); Ketola v. Value Propane Inc. (No. 2), (2002), 44 C.H.H.R.R. D/37 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) (total award of $20,000 for general damages and mental anguish); deSouza v. Gauthier (2002), 43 C.H.R.R. D/128 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) (total award of $25,000 for general damages and mental anguish)

[36] The Tribunal accepts the submissions of the Commission. Considering the evidence in this matter, and the similarity of the facts in this case with the facts in the cases cited by the Commission, the Tribunal awards $25,000 in general damages.
Damages for Mental Anguish for the Reckless and Wilful Infringement of the Complainant’s Rights

[37] Pursuant to Section 41(1)(b) of the Code the Tribunal may award damages of up to $10,000 for mental anguish, injury to dignity, feelings and pride, where such infringement has been engaged in wilfully or recklessly.

[38] The Commission identified the factors used to assess mental anguish damages pursuant to Section 41(1)(b):

Yes, you are reading that correctly: having hurt feelings can get you lots of money, according to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. In fact, they even give a price range.

Prospective Canadians: now, if waiting years, spending money, and doing paperwork are not your thing, don’t worry. Just hop a place to the U.S. with a tourist visa,seen here, walk across the Canadian border, and get yourself detained. Free housing, food and medical care while you wait for your claim.

Immigration and Refugee Boards (IRB) and Human Rights Tribunals (HRT) are clogged with bogus cases. In fact, a quick search reveals thousands, and those are just the ones that are published. Here are some cases pulled at random.

(1) CLICK HERE for an attempt to silence speech critical of Islam.

(2) CLICK HERE for getting a job in a restaurant, then refusing to do it later based on religious grounds.

(3) CLICK HERE for a funny one, taking action against each other for discrimination.

(4) CLICK HERE for a member of the Islamic Salvation Front wanting refugee status.

(5) CLICK HERE for a claim that asking a prospective tenant for a 12 month lease is discrimination.

(6) CLICK HERE for a member of Hamas (a terrorist group), wanting to be declared a refugee.

(7) CLICK HERE for an unsubstantiated claim of fear of safety.

(8) CLICK HERE for a member of the Students Islamic Movement of India, with at least 6 arrests, wanting asylum based on persecution.

(9) CLICK HERE for a woman seeking asylum due to an interfaith marriage gone wrong (Islam and Hindu)

(10) CLICK HERE for a blind man being denied to bring his guide dog due to cab driver’s religion.

(11) CLICK HERE for a judicial review (and a well cited case) of an asylum decision.

(12) CLICK HERE for taking Rebel Media to he cleaners for offering commentary deemed offensive.

(13) CLICK HERE for a claim about saying mean words to someone.

http://canlii.org is a free site, available to anyone. You can do actual legal research from here, and research decisions from all over the country. Thing is, no lawyer is necessary.

Posted on

Canada Should Leave The U.N. Entirely

(The U.S. leaving the UN Human Rights Council. The violators are part of the council)

(The Hungarian Foreign Minister defending “legal-only” migration)

CLICK HERE, for the main page of the United Nations (in English).

1. Previous Solutions Offered

A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

2. Reasons To Dump The UN

The main argument here is that Canada would be MUCH better off as a country if we left the United Nations, permanently. No deals, no special arrangements, no reform, just leave forever.

For the political junkies, take this to heart: traditional arguments of “left v.s. right” are no longer relevant. The choice we must face is the “globalist v.s. nationalist” one. Is Canada a sovereign nation, one that determines its own future, or is it a U.N. colony or puppet state? If Canada is to be a free and independent nation, then the U.N. is the last thing we need. Here are several reasons, each to be explored.

(1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.
(2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
(3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
(4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
(5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.
(6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
(7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
(8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
(9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.

Of course, this list could be much, MUCH longer. However, the point is to demonstrate that the U.N. is a globalist institution, and that it has no respect for individual nations.

(1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.

Click here, for the full text, but here are some worth noting:

Article 8
The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs.

This is a bit amusing, since many of its members do not believe in women’s rights.

Article 19
A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.

No money, no vote. Sort of a pay-to-play system.

Article 24
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.
The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.

Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

So, if 8 nations got together, they could override the nation’s sovereignty. Great idea.

Article 32
Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council or any state which is not a Member of the United Nations, if it is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to the dispute. The Security Council shall lay down such conditions as it deems just for the participation of a state which is not a Member of the United Nations.

Yes, no joke, you won’t even get a vote if you are not on the council.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations

If this weren’t the United Nations doing this, it would seem an awful lot like the mafia. There are more clauses, but the point here has been made. Signing on with the U.N. means losing control of your country.

(2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
This was addressed in an earlier article. The U.N. does try to push mass immigration (a.k.a. “open borders”) on the rest of the world. The latest effort is the global compact for migration, which would effectively give the U.N. control over the host countries’ borders.

Interestingly, the U.N. site has both a: compact for migration and a compact on refugees. However, the U.N. seems hell bent on pushing migrants.

(3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
It is not enough for the U.N. to destroy borders with political means. The agency also directly aids and abets others, such as the Honduran migrant caravan. The U.N. openly admits helping to help thousands of economic migrants “illegally” get into the U.S.

And they admit it here.

“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” said Christopher Gascon, UN Migration’s Chief of Mission in Mexico.

In other words, we don’t care if they are illegal economic migrants. How is this not human smuggling? Further, the U.N. has been known to help flood Europe with more than 1 million “refugees” since 2015.

(4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
Too many examples to cite, but here are a few from the U.N. website.

(a) If you think Trudeau is bad, gender neutral language is a serious thing here.

(b) The U.N. is big on stopping terrorism, but its efforts are seriously called into question considering how much it pushes migration.

(c) The Human Rights Council has ruled that the French burka ban is a human rights violation. Interestingly, the Council doesn’t mention that being forced to wear it is a human right, or the security risk it poses is an issue.

(d) Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without gender quotas.

(e) Here is some Trudeau style concern for ISIS terrorists.

(5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.

The U.N pages make many references to respecting religion and culture, particularly on the migration pages. Funny, they never mention assimilation

Throughout its many sections on migration, the U.N. talks about how religions and cultures need to be respected, but notably absent is any expectation to respect the host country. Acceptance has to be a 2-way street.

(6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
This was covered in a another article. The short story is that the U.N. is knowingly pushing a bogus climate change narrative, in order to extract large amounts of money, for “polluting” with carbon dioxide.

(7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
There are many examples, but an infamous one was the oil for food program imposed on Iraq after the 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under the scheme, Iraq could keep exporting oil, and the proceeds were supposed to help the citizenry. However, the program served largely to enrich Saddam Hussein and his family, while leaving the population in poor conditions.

(8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
This was alluded to in the video at the start.
Members with the worst human rights records are part of the Human Rights Council. See here for the 2018 list. The list includes: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, U.A.E., and others

The U.N. Status of Women Council is just as big a joke. Their membership, elected for 4 year terms, includes: Algeria, Congo, Kenya, Iraq, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and others.

The Human Rights Council is filled with member states who don’t believe in human rights. The Status of Women Council is filled with member states who don’t believe women should have equal right. Kind of flies in the face of the U.N.’s own declarations.

(9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.
Where to start here. The E.U. triggered Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty against both Hungary and Poland for rejecting “migrant quotas”, which would strip them of their voting rights. Yes, Poland and Hungary might lose voting rights for daring to say that “they” will choose who lives in their own countries.

Italy has had its budget blocked by the EU. Yes, the democratically elected government needs to get approval of their own budget. Brexit was a rejection of E.U. controls, and Nigel Farage addresses it well.

While there are too many examples to cite, the point with #9, is that the European Union effectively destroys the sovereignty of the European States. The U.N. would just be a global example of the same problem.

3. Does The UN Serve Any Purpose?

I would argue, yes, to a point. However, we need to be concerned with our borders, and the sovereignty of our national policies. Becoming a province of the U.N. will only destroy Canada, as will flooding our borders with migrants (the U.N. doesn’t pretend they are refugees at times).

As for worthwhile causes, it would be better to decide for ourselves on a case by case basis whether to add any funding, or to send any personnel.

The battle for Canada will not be Left v. Right, or of Liberal v. Conservative, or of Poor v. Rich. It will be of Globalism v. Nationalism. As such, Canada should get the heck out of the U.N.

Canada for Canadians.

Posted on

Offering Something To The Other Side

Disclaimer: At the current time, I am affiliated with no party. These observations where made in (what seems like) a very different time.

Maxime Bernier makes policy arguments about why he left the CPC: (a) Equalization formula being unfair; (b) Supply management screwing over Canadians; (c) Free trade not supported by CPC members; (d) Trade war looming with U.S. over NAFTA and tariffs; (e) Corporate subsidies, to Ford, Bombardier, and others, which are a form of welfare; (f) Bloating bureaucracy with new ministers; (g) Vote buying in individual regions; (h) Refusing to discuss immigration and multiculturalism for fear of offending; (i) Pandering to ethnic groups and identity politics to buy votes; (j) Relying on polls and focus groups rather than having principles; (k) CPC has become morally bankrupt and stands for nothing; (l) Politics should be done differently

Andrew Scheer makes personal arguments about why Bernier left the party: (a) MB refusing to accept his 2017 loss; (b) MB is selfish; (c) MB needs to offer ideas and never did; (d) MB is putting personal ambition over party success.

At 0:20 (in the top video), Bernier states: ”My job is to offer solutions from a conservative perspective. Otherwise, what would be the point of getting involved in politics?”

Here is the main point of the article. Bernier started the PPC in order to advance conservative ideas, and to offer an alternative voice to millions of Canadians. However, there are some conservative policies that can benefit more left leaning voters as well, if the benefits are discussed honestly.

In order to attract Canadians from all areas on the political spectrum, it is necessary to offer ideas that benefit Canadians from all sides of the political spectrum. Not to pander to any particular group, but to offer common solutions.

Here are some ideas: (1) Lowering immigration; (2) Questioning identity politics; (3) Promoting unity; (4) Dismantling crown corporations; (5) Environmental Protection.

#1: Cutting Immigration Benefits Low Income Canadians

This is not to assert at all that there are not benefits to limited and controlled immigration. And to preempt any such claims, no, it is not a call to racial supremacy. However, there are a number of valid arguments to support this position:

(a) The employment rate is a supply/demand type of issue. When the number of job seekers (supply) rises, then the relative need (demand) falls. It means more people competing for fewer jobs, and that employers are in a position to pay less. That impacts lower earners the most. This is not racial claim in any way, just acknowledging a fact: more workers for less jobs drives down wages. Ann Coulter explains it very well.

(b) As social justice types like to point out, people usually don’t commit crime because they are bad, but often because of poverty, society, and lack of opportunities. To a degree, they are right. By that logic, wouldn’t it reduce some of the stressers that lead to crime?

(c) Housing prices, likewise, are also determined in a supply/demand fashion. See this article. More people competing for the same amount of housing drives prices up for both buying and renting.

(d) School learning may be drastically altered depending on the demographics and size of the immigration. For example, in California, Proposition 58 overturned the requirement that school be taught in English. Many parents were outraged that American born students were now having lessons taught in Spanish. This isn’t bigotry. The U.S. is an English country. And who attends public schools as opposed to private schools?

(e) Publicly funded health care is something the left claims is fundamental to being a Canadian. And to a degree, they are right. However, with higher immigration rates, it will put a burden on Canada’a public system, especially for those coming from countries where health care is relatively lacking. This results in longer wait times, and it won’t be the wealthy in those long waiting lines. It will be lower income people.

(f) If less money is spent on immigration programs, then there will be more money available to promotes Canadians to have more children. Which socio-economic group would benefit most from that?

(g) Regarding illegal immigration, the above still applies, but with the added downside that it is a slap in the face to those who come through legally. It rewards people for breaking the law, and punishes those who follow the law.

#2: Ending Identity Politics Benefits All Canadians?

This could have been added to #1, but after some thought, it deserves its own category.

That is explained here, here, here, and here. We do not need race hustlers like this, or like this.

While this sounds great in principle, how does one protect their identity otherwise? When hostile and incompatible cultures move to your country in large numbers, is it not your identity that is threatened? Does your way of life not risk being replaced by people who are cohesive, and who vote as a block?

In some sense this sounds lovely, but is unrealistic. The idea of ending identity politics only works when everyone is willing to do it, which of course is not the case.

That said, it still is baffling how people who support identity politics are offended by the idea of a national identity. A nation is reflected by its people. Rather than standing as one unit (albeit with some internal differences), those would support dividing the nation into small tribes that consider each other enemies.

#3: Unity is Our Strength, Regardless of Your Politics

The whole idea of multiculturalism is absurd. Having nothing in common with your neighbours does not make for a strong society. Tolerating everything, including this, becomes more important than defining what a nation is. To repeat, we can have differences between people, and different groups of people, but there has to be something that binds us together.

Civic nationalism is the concept that a nation and its people are held together by civic values, such as freedom and equality. The nation are bonded by abstract ideas, which are shared and promoted within. There certainly is a strong case to made that values and laws bind us.

However, what makes one civic nationalist country different than another? Don’t they all support freedom, tolerance and equality? And besides values, don’t people need something to bond them? If not values, then identity?

Tucker Carlson argued at PolitiCon that a common language is a strong unifier. Vladimir Putin argued that religion is such a unifier. Writer Steve Turley argues that religion and cultural traditions are what hold a society together. Candace Malcolm wrote that diversity is only one part of the picture. Maxime Bernier himself tweeted about focusing on traditions. All argue a form of ethno nationalism. (And no, it doesn’t have to be about race). There are many of these types of unifiers, but the underlying element is that the people have to have something in common. Values alone is insufficient.

Nations have been splitting up over the last century because they had nothing in common. They were balkanised. One exception is East and West Germany reuniting because they had a common language and culture.

It would be far more productive than what the status quo to have an honest discussion about what unites us as Canadians, and how we can make the society more cohesive. Unity is our strength.

#4: Dismantling Crown Corporations Makes Things Affordable

In short, a private business must operate efficiently in order to survive. If it delivers poor service, strikes frequently, or has huge cost overruns, then it goes out of business.

A government agency, for the most part, does not have to worry about such things. It is being supported by the public, and usually holds a monopoly. If it is run inefficiently, just raise taxes. If the workers strike every year, oh well. If the service and employees are truly awful, it doesn’t matter, as they are the only game in town.

2 such examples are ICBC, and Canada Post. Privatizing services where possible leads to more affordable products.

#5: Protecting the Environment Benefits Everyone

The UN global warming summits are a complete hoax. Polluting is okay as long as you pay a tax, or fly tens of thousands of people every year to summits to discuss cutting carbon emissions.

However, that is not to say there are not significant issues to address. There are: lacks of clean drinking water in areas; forest fires in the west annually; issues around oil extraction and pipelines; air quality in some areas; hazards in mining; forestry and invasive species; and many other problems.

The environment should be of everyone’s concern regardless of whether you view it from: an individual point of view, or a societal point of view. Unfortunately, when money and politics gets involved, honesty is about the first thing to go.

Admission: I don’t know nearly enough to advocate for specific policies. However, this is an issue which we have a common interest.

These are just a few ideas to consider, but in order to run a society effectively, something has to be offered to everyone. That said, it is much easier if the society is more homogenous and intact. It prevents fracturing.

Unity is strength.
Diversity (of thought) is strength.

Posted on

ECHR Upholds Islamic Blasphemy Law in Austria

(From the European Court of Human Rights press release)

An Austrian woman had her appeal rejected and will have to pay 480 Euros for truthful comments she made at 2 seminars calling Muhammad a paedophile for marrying a 6 year old girl.

An interesting side note, as exampled in the video, Islam is not a race, and hence criticism of it is not “racism”. That claim is often used to derail legitimate debate.

For some context, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is a European-based court in France where people can contest judgements if they claim human rights have been violated. This court will consider cases after other legal remedies have been exhausted in the home country.

Conviction for calling Muhammad a paedophile is not in breach of Article 10
In today’s Chamber judgment1
.
in the case of E.S. v. Austria (application no. 38450/12) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
.
The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for disparaging religious doctrines; she had made statements suggesting that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies.
.
The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria. It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.

That was the summary of the case, The press release goes on to list the facts:

Principal facts
.
The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna (Austria). In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which allegedly was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”.
.
On 15 February 2011 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower court’s findings.

The facts were not really in question, just the findings

Decision of the Court
Article 10
.
The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.
.
The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.
.
……….
.
The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings
protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.
.
3
The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the
Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.

The ECHR press release pretty much sums it up in 2 statements

(1) Criticising Islam can lead to religious unrest

(2) Protecting religious feelings (of Muslims) trumps free speech

Actually, the ruling and press release could be taken as a good sign that some religions simply do not belong in a Western country. If mere criticism can result in ”religious violence” then it is obviously incompatible.

The ECHR excused the practice, saying that it should be considered that child marriages were historically a reality. But switch that around. That historical reality would be considered paedophilia under today’s laws. So the statement is factually correct.

But before sounding too smug, the Liberal Party of Canada passed a non-binding motion (M-103) which


a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could

(i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making,

(ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Notice that Islam is the only religion mentioned in the motion. It should also be noted that the Liberals rejected an alternative motion that would passed the same intent, but with no mention to any specific religion.

No other religious group in the western world acts this way, or has to have certain laws passed to appease it.

Religion and Government should remain 2 separate entities. However, that becomes next to impossible when importing a culture that believes religious law should govern civil law. Another example of multiculturalism not working at all. This nonsense needs to stop.

Posted on

The New Lindsay Shepherd: Statistics are now Violence (Infanticide #2)

(University of the Fraser Valley former teaching assistant, Valerie Flokstra)

1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-universities-fighting-against-free-speech-and-free-association-in-court/

2. Review Of The Subject

The original article, along with partial audio is available here. Posted by Andrew Lawton.

Apparently, discussing abortion critically, is not permitted. Their former teaching student, Valerie Flokstra, seen above, found that out the hard way. Flokstra was called into a meeting with various faculty members, Nancy Norman, and Vandy Britton, to discuss how ideas are “potentially harmful”. University of the Fraser Valley, (British Columbia, Canada), openly promotes social justice in their teaching program. See below. Oddly, no written commitment to free speech, or open inquiry.

The case is widely being compared to Lindsay Shepherd, who in November of 2017, was summoned to such a meeting at Wilfrid Laurier university (WLU), for showing a TVO clip of Jordan Peterson debating gender pronouns related to transgender persons. The inquisitors were: Nathan Rambukkana, Hernert Pimlott, and Adria Joel. See below.

In fact, Valerie Flokstra cites Lindsay Shepherd in her decision to record this meeting with the faculty. Seeing how badly Shepherd was treated forced Flokstra to take defensive measures.

Another key difference is that Shepherd released the recording of her meeting immediately to the media. She found there to be various forms of retaliation and hostility to her at Wilfred Laurier University. Flokstra, on the other hand, waited until she graduated to avoid such retaliation.

Some have observed, it seems moronic that these professors wouldn’t have any reservation about holding such a meeting, and playing these games. In the Shepherd case, Professors Rambukkana and Pimlott effectively had their academic careers and reputations destroyed. Given the international coverage Shepherd got, it seems highly implausible that the UFV wouldn’t all know about it.

In the Flokstra matter, she had claimed that premature births were contributing to autism diagnoses. She questioned that women who have abortions but have children later in life more often have premature births. Statistics were cited, see here. And this led to a reasonable suggestion that abortions will lead to higher autism risks later.

If A = B, and B = C, then does A = C? Makes sense.

If prior abortion ==> higher risk of premature births later, and
If premature births ==> higher risk of autism, then

Does prior abortion ==> higher risk of autism? Seems like a reasonable conclusion. At least is cannot be dismissed out of hand.

However, Professors Norman and Britton would have none of that. They questioned Flokstra for bringing it up, and attributed a variety of negative motivations for doing so, such as pressing her own religious beliefs.

Norman and Britton engaged in Orwellian double speak. Instead of the “critical thinking” that many champion, Flokstra was told she needed to engage in “critical mindfulness“.

Flokstra was told that if she had strong opinions, she was free to write them down and hold onto them, but always to consider any potential harm that may come to students rather than saying them.

Norman and Britton also tried to explain that Flokstra shouldn’t be “shutting down students” by bringing up certain opinions. However they were dismissive when repeatedly told that “they were the ones currently shutting her down. The mental gymnastics of the pair….

Norman and Britton tried to explain that they weren’t trying to “shut down” Flokstra, but rather that they just didn’t want her to speak about various topics. Telling someone politely to shut up is apparently not shutting them down.

Norman and Britton were also dismissive of Flokstra’s assertion that these were university students in her class, not high school students, and that a higher degree of discussion should be expected of them.

Normal and Britton explained that they were (not) shutting her down, not because of the actual harm that was coming from having topics such as abortion discussed. Rather, she was (not) being shut down because of potential harm that could come from discussing these topics.

In both the Flokstra and Shepherd cases, absurd comparisons were made. Shepherd was told that showing a video uncritically of Jordan Peterson was like neutrally playing a speech by Adolf Hitler. Flokstra was told that sharing certain views in a way was like a KKK (Ku Klux Klan) group on campus. Rather than make factual, logical arguments why certain topics are “off-limits”, ridiculous rhetoric is used.

Only a partial audio (8 minutes out of almost an hour long meeting) is available for article. The summary of the meeting is that the 2 professors spent the entire time trying to shut Valerie Flokstra down, but then using double talk and word games to deny that is what they were actually doing.

Benjamin Boyce, a YouTuber in Washington State, released this fine review of the fiasco. The College Fix also did a great piece, and more are coming out.

A thought on universities: If people are going to be shut down in this manner (or any manner), a little honesty would be nice. Drop the word games (a la Shepherd and Flokstra), and just be upfront that this is what you are doing. If schools are places that do not support free speech and open inquiry, then just say so. Start calling yourselves “INDOCTRINATION CENTERS” instead of “HIGHER LEARNING CENTERS“. Ideas cannot be analyzed properly if the cannot be discussed openly.

But of course, if such honesty were used, admissions would pretty much stop altogether.

Funny, this problem is non-existent in trade schools. But then, they actually provide skills.

Posted on

Silencing Free Speech in the UK

(Mark Meechan, a.k.a. “Count Dankula”)

August 8, 2018 — Mark Meechan, who goes by the nickname “Count Dankula”, was arrested for posting content that was deemed to be “grossly offensive” and that violated the Communications Act of 2003. Here is an exerp:

127
Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)
sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)
causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)
sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)
causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)
persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)
Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42))

Dankula had been arrested for posting indecent content in April 2016, when, as a joke, he taught his girlfriend’s dog to do the Hitler salute in response to the words “Sieg Heil” and “Gas the Jews”. A self described “shit poster”, stated repeatedly that he is not a Nazi, and only posted the video to annoy his girlfriend. As he said, “she would never shut up about it.”

Dankula was convicted in March 2018 seehere, and sentenced, fined £800 in April. The Court didn’t care that Meechan had done it as a joke, and merely to annoy his girlfriend. Not only was Count Dankula fined, the Court said he was lucky to not have actually received a prison sentence for doing this.

In August, he had his appeal denied by Sheriff Appeal Court, see here, and here. The Appeals Court found that:

“This was a deeply unpleasant offence in which disgraceful and utterly offensive material was very widely distributed by the appellant. This was to the considerable distress of the [Jewish community] and — just as disturbingly — to the apparent approval of a large number of persons who appear to share the appellant’s racist views,”

Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court rejected Meechan’s claim that the video was meant as a joke. Instead, they claim that it was meant to stir up anti-Semitism and suggested that Meechan shared those views.

Meechan, for his part, claims he will not pay the fine, and would have to be forced to prison for non-compliance. He seems to prefer taking a principled stand rather than “bending the knee”, as he refers to it. He has gone very public on the matter, and is now a free speech champion.

It offers some consolation to Meechan that there is widespread public support for his challenge. See: (a) here; (b) here; (c) here; (d) here; (e) here; (f) here, (g) see here, (h) see here and (i) see here. Comedians, politicians, and commentators inside and outside the UK condemn such a crackdown on free speech. As distasteful as this stunt was, it does not warrant an arrest, nor a trial, conviction and fine. The wider public sees this video was meant as a joke.

Meechan/Dankula may be sent to prison if he refuses to either: (a) pay the fine; or (b) appeal further. This matter is not over it seems.

Bigger than this case, the Sentencing Council seems to be pushing for harsher punishment for what it deems “offensive“.

Other Instances:

Like most of the commenters about this story, this is shocking, though not surprising abuse of power. Agreed, teaching the dog to do a Nazi salute is of very questionable taste. However, in seeing Meechan online, it is far more likely that it is immaturity/bad humour, not actual promotion of hate. Admittedly, I had a chuckle at how juvenile this 30 year old man is. This is not worthy of criminal charges at all.

(1) Unfortunately, the UK is moving towards censoring of ideas, words and jokes deemed “offensive”. In March 2018, three activists: Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone, and Martin Sellner, were refused entry into the UK for “hate speech”. Southern was actually detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act. The trio are now suing the UK, on the grounds that they were discriminated against primarily based on political beliefs.

(2) Also in March, Tommy Robinson, had been arrested for livestreaming outside a UK Court, regarding the “Grooming Gangs” trial. The 13 month sentence and conviction is under appeal. Interestingly, Brittany Pettibone had gone to the UK to do an interview of Robinson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7eVJspnjnk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRGB2bfG72c

However, people should not be tricked into thinking the UK is an intolerant nation after all. Even if you fight for ISIS, you are still welcome back. But those with right-wing opinions, just stay away.

While it is depressing to see freedom being whittled away, I get some hope in seeing people fight back.