Category: Human Rights

Posted on

Abolish Human Rights Codes Entirely

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. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for the BC Human Rights Code.
CLICK HERE, for Morgane Oger cashing in on victimhood.
CLICK HERE, for instances of abusing human rights tribunals.

3. Quotes From BC HRC

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

This is common throughout the various Provincial Codes. No intent is needed on the part of anyone. Contrast this with criminal law, where intent is a required element.

Purposes
3 The purposes of this Code are as follows:
(a) to foster a society in British Columbia in which there are no impediments to full and free participation in the economic, social, political and cultural life of British Columbia;
(b) to promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are equal in dignity and rights;
(c) to prevent discrimination prohibited by this Code;
(d) to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination prohibited by this Code;
(e) to provide a means of redress for those persons who are discriminated against contrary to this Code.

A major goal is to promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect. Makes it more difficult when this “respect and understanding” are imposed by force.

Persistent patterns of inequality? However, except the solution is often to impose quotas or affirmative action programs.

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.

Good to know. However, “private” and “intending to be private” are could be open to interpretation. Also, is this not treading dangerously close to supressing free speech?

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.

Yes, hurt feelings, dignity and self respect are worth money. How would you even disprove that?

Can order someone to stop doing something, because a person said their feelings were hurt.

For what it’s worth, is a complaint is found to be not justified it must be dismissed. That’s something.

Exemptions
41 (1) If a charitable, philanthropic, educational, fraternal, religious or social organization or corporation that is not operated for profit has as a primary purpose the promotion of the interests and welfare of an identifiable group or class of persons characterized by a physical or mental disability or by a common race, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, political belief, colour, ancestry or place of origin, that organization or corporation must not be considered to be contravening this Code because it is granting a preference to members of the identifiable group or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in this Code prohibits a distinction on the basis of age if that distinction is permitted or required by any Act or regulation.

Interesting. You can’t discriminate against people based on protected grounds, unless the entire group is devoted to promoting based on a protected ground.

Of course, this exemption likely wouldn’t apply to men, whites, or straight people.

Special programs
42 (1) It is not discrimination or a contravention of this Code to plan, advertise, adopt or implement an employment equity program that
(a) has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups who are disadvantaged because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, and
(b) achieves or is reasonably likely to achieve that objective.
(2) [Repealed 2002-62-23.]
(3) On application by any person, with or without notice to any other person, the chair, or a member or panel designated by the chair, may approve any program or activity that has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups.
(4) Any program or activity approved under subsection (3) is deemed not to be in contravention of this Code.

So it is wrong to discriminate based on “protected grounds” unless those groups are considered “disadvantaged”. Then go for it.

And from Section 41, it is wrong to discriminate against a group. That is unless you are part of a group whose main purpose is to discriminate on other groups.

Non-compellability of commissioner and staff
47.10 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the commissioner, and anyone acting for or under the direction of the commissioner, must not be compelled to give evidence in court or in any other proceedings respecting any information received in the course of exercising powers or performing duties under this Code.
(2) The commissioner, and anyone acting for or under the direction of the commissioner, may be compelled to give evidence in a prosecution of an offence under this Code.

Interesting. Staff “can” be compelled to appear for an HRT hearing, but not for Court or other matters.

Personal liability protection of commissioner and staff
47.11 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no legal proceeding for damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against the commissioner, or against a person acting for or under the direction of the commissioner, because of anything done or omitted
(a) in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under this Code, or
(b) in the performance or intended performance of any duty under this Code.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person referred to in that subsection in relation to anything done or omitted by that person in bad faith.

As long as the Commissioner and staff “claim” that everything is in good faith, then they can’t be held liable. How exactly do you prove “bad faith”?

4. So Why Abolish Entirely?


To summarize (using BC as a model):

  • Intent not necessary to get a finding against you
  • Discrimination okay, if it is your group identity
  • Discrimination okay, if for affirmative action
  • Encroaches on legitimate free speech territory
  • Hurt feelings are grounds for monetary compensation
  • Commissioner and staff, cannot be compelled to appear in outside hearings, REGARDLESS of the power which they are allowed to wield
  • Cannot take action against staff unless you can prove “bad faith”, an almost impossible standard
  • Terminology is broad and open to overreach

    • These tribunals are allowed to behave as courts do, and implement court-style punishments. However, there are almost no standards when it comes to deciding what is a violation.

    Ancient ideas, past their due date.

    Posted on

    Canuck Law Now Certified In Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) Training (Not Satire)

    (Getting into gay marriage)

    (men, women, and non-binary….)

    (Every identity group imaginable)

    (Yes, forestry is sexist, just like construction)

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, to take GBA+ course.
    CLICK HERE, for UN link to “gender inclusive language”.
    CLICK HERE, for previous “peoplekind” review.

    CLICK HERE, for the UN page on gender equality.
    CLICK HERE, for women’s human rights.
    CLICK HERE, for about UN women.
    CLICK HERE, for goal #5 of sustainable development.
    CLICK HERE, for guiding principles of UN women’s advisory, civil society groups.
    CLICK HERE, for the Commission on the Status of Women.
    CLICK HERE, for Canada’s GBA+ (Gender Based Analysis Plus)
    CLICK HERE, for declaration of women’s rights.
    CLICK HERE, for the 1995 Beijing Declaration for Women.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2017 system-strategy for gender parity.
    CLICK HERE, for gender-inclusive language
    CLICK HERE, for guidelines for gender inclusive language.
    CLICK HERE, for tools & training for gender inclusive language.

    2. About The Course

    This course is designed as a basic introduction to GBA+. You will learn to define the key concepts of GBA+ and recognize how various identity factors can influence the experience of federal government initiatives. You will learn to identify how GBA+ can enhance the responsiveness, effectiveness and outcomes of federal government initiatives while applying some foundational GBA+ concepts and processes.

    3. What Is GBA+ About?

    Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) is an analytical process used to assess how diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people may experience policies, programs and initiatives. The “plus” in GBA+ acknowledges that GBA+ goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-cultural (gender) differences. We all have multiple identity factors that intersect to make us who we are; GBA+ also considers many other identity factors, such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical disability.

    To state the glaringly obvious: this “course” embraces intersectionality, oppression complexes, and identity politics.

    Once you have completed this course, you will be able to:
    -Define the key concepts of GBA+
    -Recognize how various identity factors can influence the experience of federal government initiatives
    -Identify how GBA+ can enhance the responsiveness, effectiveness and outcomes of federal government initiatives
    -Apply some foundational GBA+ concepts and processes

    Whatever happened to treating everyone equally?

    This course is designed as a basic introduction to GBA+. Depending on previous experience, you may find the content familiar while others find it new and challenging. Also, depending on your job, you may be required to take additional training in GBA+.

    Kill me now.

    Regardless of your experience, education and current situation, this is your place to begin. The course includes video, graphic and written material for your review, as well as exercises to test your knowledge. Character profiles and case studies will assist you in applying some basic GBA+ concepts and processes. Take as much time as you require, and keep in mind that you can come back to the course as many times as you like.

    Doesn’t seem too difficult….

    You will need to score 80% or higher on this quiz to receive a certificate of completion. If you require a fourth attempt to pass the final quiz, you will be redirected to the beginning of the course.

    Where’s the cyanide when you need it?

    Now that you have gathered some information about the forest sector, it is time to seek out stakeholder perspectives on the issues of innovation and diversification in the forest sector.
    Think about which stakeholders to consider, as well as what value to place on their perspectives. For instance, if you place the highest value on consensus during your consultation and recommendation process, you risk not hearing important minority voices among your stakeholder group.
    Who is traditionally consulted? Who may get left out of the discussion, if, for example, forestry executives are consulted as a key group of stakeholders? Women and Indigenous peoples are under-represented in management positions in the forest sector and on the corporate boards most likely to seek participation in consultations. Are Indigenous leaders consulting the broader community?
    -Will the same engagement process work for all stakeholders? What are potential barriers to participation faced by different groups among your stakeholders?
    -How might socio-economic status and family responsibilities affect access to consultations? Could certain factors prevent front-line workers or women from participating in the discussion? Measures such as holding meetings during working hours might allow these groups to participate.
    -In this case, it would be particularly useful to consult those with knowledge of local ecosystems, including Indigenous forest sector organizations/representatives, community groups and other experts.

    4. Taking The Test


    Question 1 (Select the best answer.)
    Gender is:
    Roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society may construct or consider appropriate for men and women
    Biological and physiological characteristics that define men, women and intersex persons
    That’s right!

    Question 2 (Select the best answer.)
    GBA+ is conducted to:
    Examine the effects of policies, programs, and initiatives on diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people
    Ensure equality for women
    Promote pay equity
    That’s right!

    Question 3 (True or false.)
    Historical disparities do not need to be considered in the development of new policies, programs, and legislation.
    True
    False
    That’s right!

    Question 4 (True or false.)
    Before you begin developing a policy or program, you will already know whether an issue impacts diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people differently based on your individual experience.
    True
    False
    That’s right!

    Question 5 (Select the best answer. )
    Who is responsible for applying GBA+?
    The head of the organization
    Human resources officials
    Status of Women Canada
    Gender specialists
    Any official in an organization who is contributing to government initiatives
    Deputy Ministers
    That’s right!

    Question 6 (True or false.)
    Conducting GBA+ will always conclude that disparities exist between men and women.
    True
    False
    That’s right!

    Question 7 (Select all that apply.)
    Steps in the GBA+ process include:
    Checking your assumptions
    Gathering information and considering diverse stakeholder perspectives
    Consulting your organization’s Employment Equity policy
    You did not select the correct response(s).

    Question 8 (Select the best answer.)
    Which of these situations reflects bias/discrimination due to intersecting identity factors, as opposed to a single factor?
    A gay, white man is refused a construction job, even though he has all the necessary skills and experience
    An Indigenous woman is refused a job at a factory where many Indigenous men work “on the floor” in the factory and many women work in the administrative office
    That’s right!

    Question 9 (Select the best answer. )
    Parental leave policies are an example of a flexible approach because:
    Women and men are treated the same way
    Both women and men may apply
    It takes into account the evolving needs and circumstances of diverse parents
    That’s right!

    Question 10 (Select all that apply.)
    Documenting the GBA+ process can assist you with:
    Demonstrating to senior management that a thorough analysis has been undertaken in developing options
    Developing communications strategies to explain decisions
    Populating a bibliography
    That’s right!

    5. Final Thoughts


    It was possible to pass the quiz (8 of 10 questions required), on the first try, just from winging it. Just try to imagine the most SJW answers possible.

    Certificate arrived in about 10 minutes.

    The survey insisted on knowing my gender. I am a unicorn.

    Posted on

    Court Of Appeal Rules Doctors Must Provide Abortions/Euthanasia, or Provide Referal

    (article from Christian Legal Fellowship)

    (Lifesite news also covered this)

    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/

    2. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeals ruling, May 15, 2019.
    CLICK HERE, for the Ontario Divisional Court ruling, January 31, 2018.
    CLICK HERE, for R.v. Oakes (balancing test)
    CLICK HERE, for Carter v. Canada (struck down assisted suicide laws).
    CLICK HERE, for Ontario Human Rights Code.
    CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter.
    CLICK HERE, for some Charter cases.
    CLICK HERE, for Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 (standard for review)

    Miscellaneous Articles
    CLICK HERE, for woman who tries to drown newborn gets only 1 year.
    CLICK HERE, for a Maclean’s article on “assault on women’s rights”.
    CLICK HERE, for Roe (as in Roe v Wade), becomes anti-abortion activist.

    3. Brief Introduction


    The case above is one of Ontario doctors refusing to provide certain “reproductive health services” (a.k.a. abortion), and “medical assistance in dying” MAiD (a.k.a. euthanasia). Not only did they refuse to provide these services, they refused to help with the referrals procedures to others who would.

    The Appellants refused on religious grounds. They claimed that requiring them to participate in these “medical services” violated their consciences and religious convictions. To be fair, we are talking about killing unborn children, eldery, and terminal patients. The other extreme would be more disturbing.

    Their regulatory body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, says if they won’t perform such “health care services”, then they must help the patients get referred to doctors who will.

    The Ontario Divisional Court agreed that this was the case. And now the Ontario Court of Appeals has upheld that ruling. Will this go to the Supreme Court of Canada? We will see.

    4. Court of Appeal Exerps

    E. Issues
    [57] The appeal raises the following issues:
    (1) What is the applicable standard of review and is the Doré/Loyola framework or the Oakes framework applicable to this case?
    (2) Do the effective referral requirements of the Policies infringe the appellants’ s. 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion?
    (3) Do the effective referral requirements of the Policies infringe the appellants’ s. 15(1) equality rights?
    (4) If there is an infringement of the appellants’ Charter rights and/or freedoms, is it justified under s. 1 of the Charter?

    Standard Of Review

    [59] The normal rules of appellate review of lower court decisions, articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, apply on this appeal. Questions of law are reviewed on a correctness standard, and questions of fact and mixed fact and law are reviewed on a standard of palpable and overriding error: Housen, at paras. 8, 10, 36-37. The Divisional Court’s selection and application of the correctness standard to the Policies is a question of law and is accordingly reviewed by this court on a correctness standard.

    If it is a question of fact, the standard is “overriding palpable error”. In essence, Appeals Courts tend to “give deference” to the Trial Judge since he/she is in a much better position to actually judge the case.

    In questions of law, the standard is the correctness of the law itself.

    In questions of mixed law and fact are viewed more towards “overriding palpable error”.

    Religious Freedom

    [62] In Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2018] 2 S.C.R. 293, at para. 62, the Supreme Court adopted the definition of religious freedom expressed in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 336:

    [T]he right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.

    [63] At para. 63, the court set out the requirements of the test:
    [F]irst, that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion; and second, that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief.
    This was the test applied by the Divisional Court, referring to Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 (CanLII), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551, at para. 56. See also Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567, at para. 32.

    [64] The sincerity of belief and interference are conceded. But the College contends that the interference is trivial and insubstantial and does not contravene s. 2(a).

    [65] I disagree. To explain my reasons, it is necessary to examine the appellants’ beliefs and their objections to performing or referring patients for the procedures at issue.

    All parties agree the beliefs are sincere. The College says it is trivial, while the Panel disagrees.

    Section 15 and Equality

    [87] The Divisional Court referred to the two-part test for establishing a breach of s. 15(1) articulated in Taypotat, at paras. 19-20: (1) whether, on its face or in its impact, a law creates a distinction on the basis of an enumerated or analogous ground; and (2) whether the impugned law fails to respond to the actual capacities and needs of the members of the group and instead imposes burdens or denies benefits in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating their disadvantage.

    [88] The focus of the inquiry is “whether a distinction has the effect of perpetuating arbitrary disadvantage on the claimant because of his or her membership in an enumerated or analogous group” such that it is a “discriminatory distinction”: Taypotat, at paras. 16, 18; and Quebec (Attorney General) v. A., 2013 SCC 5 (CanLII), [2013] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 331

    [89] Applying this test, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellants’ claim that the Policies infringe their equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter. Without deciding whether the Policies create a distinction on the basis of religion, the Divisional Court held that the Policies do not have the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating a disadvantage or promoting prejudice against religious physicians. Nor do they restrict access to a fundamental social institution or impede full membership in Canadian society.

    To put it mildly, the Courts have decided that not all “equality rights” are treated equally. In other words, it is okay to discriminate on the basis of “protected grounds” as long as it falls within certain guidelines.

    Allowed Under Section 1?

    [97] The onus at this stage is on the College to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the infringement of the appellants’ freedom of religion is a reasonable limit, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society: Multani, at para. 43.
    [98] In Oakes, at pp. 135 and 138-39, Dickson C.J. articulated a framework for the s. 1 analysis, which can be summarized as follows:
    (a) the Charter-infringing measure must be “prescribed by law”;
    (b) the objective of the impugned measure must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom;
    (c) the means chosen must be reasonable and demonstrably justified – this is a “form of proportionality test” which will vary in the circumstances, but requires a balancing of the interests of society with the interests of individuals and groups and has three components:
    (i) the measure must be rationally connected to the objective – i.e., carefully designed to achieve the objective and not arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations;
    (ii) the means chosen should impair the Charter right or freedom as little as possible; and
    (iii)there must be proportionality between the salutary and deleterious effects of the measure.

    This is a fairly lengthy section, but this lays out the groundwork for determining whether Charter violations can otherwise be “saved”. Are there justifiable public interests in the breaches that are affirmed? Ultimately, the Court of Appeals said yes. These violations were justified on other grounds.

    [186] The Fact Sheet identifies options that are clearly acceptable to many objecting physicians. Those who do not find them acceptable may be able to find other practice structures that will insulate them from participation in actions to which they object. If they cannot do so, they will have to seek out other ways in which to use their skills, training and commitment to patient care. I do not underestimate the individual sacrifices this may require. The Divisional Court correctly found, however, that the burden of these sacrifices did not outweigh the harm to vulnerable patients that would be caused by any reasonable alternative. That conclusion is not undermined by the fresh evidence before this court. Even taking the burden imposed on physicians at its most onerous, as framed by the appellants, the salutary effects of the Policies still outweigh the deleterious effects.

    [187] As the Divisional Court observed, the appellants have no common law, proprietary or constitutional right to practice medicine. As members of a regulated and publicly-funded profession, they are subject to requirements that focus on the public interest, rather than their interests. In fact, the fiduciary nature of the physician-patient relationship requires physicians to act at all times in their patients’ best interests, and to avoid conflicts between their own interests and their patients’ interests:

    5. Closing Thoughts


    This is the heart of the conclusion:
    (A) Doctors have other options
    (B) Doctors can alter their practice
    (C) Public interest comes first
    (D) Medicine is a publicly regulated profession.

    One thing needs to be pointed out though: just because something is LEGAL, doesn’t make it MORAL. Abortion and euthanasia are killing. Period.

    Although both abortion and assisted suicide have no criminal penalties against them, there are still huge scientific and moral arguments against both. This will be a topic for a coming piece.

    If a person believes that carrying out just “health care services” amounts to murder, that is okay. But wouldn’t referrals of such procedures make a doctor an accessory to murder? Although one degree removed, the moral objection would be the same.

    Bottom line: provide the service, or refer to someone else who will. You’re here to serve the public.

    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

    Opinion: Why Pride is Obsolete

    (We’re tolerant, except to police officers)

    (Pride: lesbians v.s. transgenders)

    (Brown and black added for “racial inclusion”)

    Serious question: What is the ultimate goal of the LGBT movement?

    1. Achieving equality and acceptance in mainstream life
    2. Constantly viewing itself as a victim in need of protection
    3. Both (1) and (2)

    We live in a country where gays and trans have full equality under the law, and have for many years.

    So called “marriage equality” was settled in Canada back in 2005. That’s right, 14 years ago. There are also provisions in every Provincial human rights code to protect sexual orientation. And hate crime provisions have existed for many years in the Criminal Code.

    We also live in a country where being trans is protected, and employers and schools are required to make accommodations. Bill C-16 seems to be both poorly written and overkill.

    You would think all is great, but not so. Despite the very limited scientific knowledge on gender dysphoria, we are prohibited from questioning it, even in young children. Even in our children. Questioning if changing gender is possible will now net a hefty fine. Bake-my-cake-or-I’ll-sue is no longer just a punchline, at least in Colorado. And SOGI has creeped into elementary schools.

    Note: The issues and concerns with how gender dysphoria is treated will be a topic for another post. Likewise with having young children transition.

    The problem with advocacy groups is that they eventually run out of grievances to protest. And the need to celebrate a movement becomes less and less important.

    If misgendering people, or suing over wedding cakes is the worst we have going on, then what genuine causes are left?

    Answer: No serious causes.

    Since LGBT people enjoy full rights, and equality under the law, why does this need to be flaunted in public every Spring/Summer? Isn’t the ultimate goal to live freely and without stigmatization as your true self? This is what activists don’t seem to realize.

    And while a small march or parade seems harmless enough, some larger Prides are downright raunchy (Toronto is a specific example). Nudity and lewd behaviour do often happen, at sites where children are present. For the sake of readers, I’ll spare the details. What this does to promote equality is beyond me.

    If LGBT people want to just go about their lives, nothing stops them. Legally, nothing can stop them, and the vast majority of people don’t care. Prides (and other such events) detract from this by bringing the issue up again and again, throwing it in the public’s face.

    Yes, people had their rights violated in the past, but that ended decades ago. It doesn’t help to bring it up with people who had absolutely no involvement. It also doesn’t help when municipalities fund (all or in part) of these movements.

    As an aside, LGBT activists often get triggered at the idea (often trolling) of a “straight pride”. Well, identity cuts both ways, doesn’t it?

    Having equality is an important part of this nation, but your orientation or identity isn’t. It doesn’t need to be forced on the public. Rather, Canada should focus more on what built the nation, and what holds it together.

    The question at the start seemed rhetorical, but is not. Activists want option (3).

    Guys, you won. Go live your lives.

    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)

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for a prior review on Jordan Peterson.
    CLICK HERE, for a prior review on Bill C-16 (gender identity)
    CLICK HERE, for Louder With Crowder interview.
    (See 49:00 and 50:20 for Peterson comments on OHRC policies)
    CLICK HERE, for Peterson & Cathy Newman (cringe)
    CLICK HERE, and HERE, for Peterson’s cognitive dissonance deplatforming Faith Goldy at free speech event.
    CLICK HERE, for Shepherd’s site: identitygrifting.ca.
    CLICK HERE, for Peterson announcing $1.5M lawsuit and Wilfrid Laurier University and 3 employees.
    CLICK HERE, for Peterson interview on lawsuit (2:55)
    CLICK HERE, for National Post article on WLU 3rd party defence.
    CLICK HERE, for the Ontario Human Rights Code.
    CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court forms index.
    CLICK HERE, for Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.
    CLICK HERE, for Ontario Libel and Slander Act.
    CLICK HERE, for Hill v. Church of Scientology, 1995.
    CLICK HERE, for Ontario Bill 52, protecting expression in matters of public interest.

    2. 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

    3. 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.

    4. Karma Is A B***h

    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

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.