Recent Posts

Posted on

Ontario Gov’t Using Notwithstanding Clause to Shrink Toronto City Council (Bill 5)

Ontario Premier Doug Ford. (Source: HuffPost)

Ontario’s new Conservative Premier Doug Ford is attempting to shrink the Toronto City Council almost in half (from 47 to 25 members).  The main argument is that the ever expanding size of the council does nothing to actually improve representation and effectiveness.  Rather, it just leads to increased staff and costs for taxpayers.

Faith Goldy, currently running for Mayor of Toronto in October 22 election posted a YouTube video seen HERE, commenting on it.  An amusing video.

On July 30, 2018, Bill 5, the “Better Local Government Act” got its first reading.  August 14 saw it receive 2nd and 3rd readings and be passed.  However, the Toronto City Council voted to proceed with a legal challenge against it in court.

The Council claimed that the bill violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  See HERE for a link to the text of the Charter.

On September 10, an Ontario Superior Court Judge ruled that the Provincial Government’s decision violated Section 2(b) of the Charter, which states: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: …… (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;”.  Specifically, the Judge ruled that the Bill violated Torontonians’ right to “freedom of expression”.

To put it in more detail, because of the ongoing Mayoral and Council elections, cutting the Council size, it substantially interfered with municipal voters’ freedom of expression and the “right to cast a vote that can result in effective representation”.

However, the Ontario Government has decided to re-introduce the Bill, and instead rely on a different part of the Canadian Charter, Section 33, which is the “Notwithstanding Clause”.  In short, this provision allows a Provincial or Federal Government to pass laws even though a Court considers them unconstitutional.  33(1) reads as follows:

“33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.”

To be fair, Section 33(3) of the Charter states that legislation passed this way will cease to have effect after 5 years.

The “Notwithstanding Clause” has been a part of the Charter since its inception, but has very rarely been used.

Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

There is an interesting twist to this story: The Charter effects both the Federal Government, and the Provinces and Territories. (See above for Section 32). However, Canada is also governed by the Principle of Paramouncy. In short, in the cases of competing laws, the highest power will succeed. Put plainly, Federal law tops Provincial law, and Provincial law tops Municipal law. There is a good deal of logic to this, as Federal law would mean nothing if cities and Provinces could simply legislate their way aroung it.

An exception to this of course: is that the various levels of power cannot legislate if doing so steps outside their legal boundaries. Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution spell out exactly whose powers are whose.

Hypothetically, the Federal Government could invoke “their” Notwithstanding Clause in order to override “Ontario’s” Notwithstanding Clause. But that doesn’t seem to be happening, at least for now.

A very interesting use of the Notwithstanding Clause. Shows at least the Ontario Government is serious about cutting the size of government. We shall keep an eye on it.

AN UPDATE TO THE STORY: On, September 19, 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeals stayed the order of the Ontario Superior Court, effectively giving Premier Ford the go ahead to shrink Toronto City Council. An interesting note here — while the Court of Appeals did say that shrinking the Council in the middle of a municipal election was unfair, unfairness by itself is not a reason to stop Bill 5.

Posted on

Bake my Damn Cake — Or Else — You Should Sue the State?

Jack Philips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood Colorado is the owner of the infamous “Gay Cake” refusal.

Quite simply, he refused to create a wedding cake for 2 men, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, about to marry.  He reasoned that he would have to act against his religious beliefs.

Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (similar to Privincial human rights commissions, in Canada).  It ruled against Philips, claiming religion was just an excuse to justify bigotry.

So, Philips took his case to the Colorado Court of Appeals.  The C.C.A. ruled that no religion had to be endorsed, but that service couldn’t be refused on protected grounds, such sexual orientation.

Finally, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which eventually ruled in the baker’s favour.  However, critics complain that the ruling was on overly narrow grounds and did not actually make much of a precident.  It wouldn’t address questions for florists, photographers, caterers, or others with a similar dilemma.  The Supreme Court did however find the Civil Rights Commission was overly hostile to Philips.

Some media background can be found here,
here, here, and here.

The ruling sparked mixed opinions.  Philips claims he has since had people calling to make ridiculous cakes, such as Satan cakes and cakes in the form of sex objects.

But now, Jack Philips is back in the news, and for basically the same reason: refusing to bake a cake for a transgender person named Autumn Scardina, celebrating the 7th anniversary of a gender change.

However, there is more than just a whiff of a conflict of interest here.  Scardina is a lawyer whose firm does cases of employment disputes.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has ruled that in principle this appears to be a discrimination case.  So it would seem that matters will be heading down the same road as before.

However, Philips has decided to take a new approach here: suing governor Jerry Hickenlooper and other government officials, claiming religious persecution seen .

here.

It will be interesting to see how things play out.

Author’s Views:  To disclose outright, I believe that the baker should be able to refuse or accept any deal they want, and to accept or reject any business they want.  It would be different if it were a government agency, or a monopoly.  Several questions I must ask.

(1) As for the gay couple, why not simply find another baker?  While it may be annoying to you, why not take your money and business to someone else?

(2) If you wanted others to know about this baker, why would it be necessary to sue him or go to the Civil Rights Commission?  Was the purpose to harm his business?

(3) Part of the backlash against letting gay couples marry in 2015 was the claim (derided as paranoia) that it would lead to religious freedom being stepped on.  Does this not prove that claim right?

(4) Regarding Autumn Scardina and the transgender cake: why go to this “specific” baker, when you knew about the case?

(5) Was it an attempt to get money from him and/or to further harm his business?  Or to use your law firm to make a political point?

(6) As for both the gay cake and the trans cake: do you really want the cake for your “big day” to be made by somebody you filed a civil rights claim against?  It’s not like he cares about keeping your business.

Posted on

Ontario Universities Ordered to Protect Free Speech, of Face Budget Cuts

Ontario’s new Premier, Conservative Doug Ford, ordered colleges and universities across the province to come up with free speech policies.

They have until January 1, 2019 (one semester), to comply.

This is welcome news at least in principle.   Free speech must unrestricted, otherwise it no longer is free.

The original program from TV Ontario, a publicly funded show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YdFlKaJv4g

Audio of the infamous Shepherd/Rambukanna/Pimlott/Joel recording

Lindsay Shepherd/Dave Rubin, Decemebr 1, 2017.

It will be interesting to see the policy once it is actually fleshed out, and how the schools will deal with it.

Further, will schools still be able to censor (even if on a reduced basis) by claiming that topics are hate speech or inciting violence?

It will be of interest to read up on the Chicago Principles, aka the Chicago Statement, which serves as a model for free speech and open inquiry in the U.S.

To fully understand this proposal, some backstory and context is necessary for the readers.

One of the main incidents was in November 2017, when Wilfred Laurier University graduate student Lindsay Shepherd made international news.  The Waterloo university staff had reprimanded her for showing part of a TVO clip (which was public TV anyway).

Needless to say the incident (which was recorded), caused a backlash against WLU specifically, and universities generally.  Lindsay herself made many media appearances, and took free speech/open inquiry as a calling.

Shepherd founded the Laurier Society for Open Inquiry, L-SOI, and has deliberately sought speakers with different and controversial viewpoints.   One event was a debate on pro-choice v.s. pro-life.

However, one event was cancelled when Faith Goldy was scheduled to talk, on March 20.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/20/faith-goldy-talk-at-wilfrid-laurier-university-shut-down-by-fire-alarm-after-protest.html

As an aside, Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson (the prof referred to as ”Hitler”), both have legal claims pending against Wilfrid Laurier University, and the 3 staff members from the meeting: Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, Adria Joel.

Suppression of free speech is not at all limited to Canadian schools.    There are many examples of this happening in the U.S. as well.

(a) In 2015, Mizzou (University of Missouri), was involved in a series a race-related events.   It also involved a faculty member, Melissa Click, asking to ”get some muscle over here” to remove a journalist covering an event.

(b) In 2017, there were violent riots across Berkeley University in Berkely, California.  Berkeley holds its ”free speech week” every year.   Typically conservative and controversial speakers are invited to give new views to students.  While protests are frequent, this onethis one ended in arson, when Milo Yiannopoulis came to speak.

(c) In 2017, In Evergreen State College (in Olympia, Washington), biology professor Bret Weinstein actually caused a mob takeover of the school when he emailed that the ”day of action” was a bad policy.  This was a day where whites were to ”leave for a day”, an inversion of the ”day of absence”, where black students and faculty leave for a day.

(d) Less dramatic incidents of speakers being shouted down are  rampant throughout the news and on YouTube.  An interesting observation is that it is almost exclusively ”left-wing” protesters trying to silence ”right-wing” speakers.

Author’s Note:  This is certainly a step in the right direction.  While I certainly applaud any news the promotes and defends free speech, there are many details I would love to ask Premier Ford.  Here are a few:

(1) Will colleges/universities still be able to ban groups they do not agree with, such as men’s issues awareness, and pro-life groups?  Will they be able to weasel around this law by saying it ”protects marginalized people”?

https://chimeratsk.com/canadian-universities-fighting-against-free-speech-and-free-association-in-court/

(2) Will colleges/universities still be able to ban political groups and talks it disagrees with?  One such example being University of Toronto banning the Canadian Nationalist Party, even though the founder specifically says they are not a race-based party.

U of T bars Canadian Nationalist Party from hosting rally on campus

(3) What measures will be put in place to ensure that colleges/universities can’t still suppress free speech under false claims of hate or bigotry?

(4) How will this actually be enforced?

I left university years ago.  Thankfully, as a STEM student I largely avoided this nonsense.  However, evidence of attempted suppression is everywhere.  I too despise actual hate speech and calls to violence, but false claims seem to be a convenient tactic to simply silence dissenting views from being heard. Still, this is a promising step.

Interestingly, Shepherd herself has questioned the merit and effect of “forcing” universities and colleges to adopt free speech guidelines. After all, how committed can they really be?

Posted on

Chris Cuomo of CNN Defends Antifa Violence, Free Speech be Damned


(From Bearing)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0iXllUjIqI
(From Fox News)

Yes, this is old by the time that this post goes up.  However, just putting in my 2 cents.

Chris Cuomo, a ”Journalist” working on the American station CNN, shocked the U.S. public by defending the group Antifa.

This group showed up for ”Unite the Right 2”, in Charlottesville, where white nationalists were going to march.  This was on the anniversary of the violence last year that left 1 dead, and many injured.

However, there were only about 25 white nationalists, who left quite quickly.  But there were thousands of counter-demonstraters, seemingly with no one to stop.

Without an enemy to oppose, Antifa decided to attack members of the public, including journalists.

Antifa, short for Anti-Fascist, or (anti first amendment, as it is often denegraded), is a left wing semi-organised Communist group that has a lengthy history of committing violent acts to shut down speakers they accuse of ”hate speech” or of ”endangering others”.

While Antifa is mostly known in the U.S., there are branches of it that operate in other western countries.

Yes, preventing violence …. by engaging in violence.

Of course, this makes sense because they conflate ”ideas” with actual ”violence”.  Others speaking right leaning ideas is violence apparently.

What is truly disgusting this that Cuomo, who pretends to be a journalist, has gone full blown activist by defending the group, saying that their violence is not the same — morally — as people preaching hate.

    Author’s Views
There are very disturbing facts about Cuomo’s monologue.

First: Cuomo is a journalist, at least he claims to be.  The 1st Amendment is sacrosanct in the American way of life, enshrining free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of association and assembly.  The 1st Amendment is something necessary to protect free speech and a free press.  How a journalist on a major news network shrugs that off is stunning.

Second: Cuomo doesn’t believe that people shouting hate should have the right to speak.  Certain people are disgusting, yes, but they do have the right to speak their vile garbage.  Words, unless they are: (1) threats; or (2) a call to violence are not actual violence.  Sickening, but yes, this is a defense to racist people.

Third: Cuomo, in his monologue, omits that Antifa routinely attacks people who are right leaning, though not white supremacists.   This happens to speakers such as Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopolous, Ann Coulter, and many others.  Being an outspoken conservative does not equate to being a nazi.

Fourth: Cuomo seems fairly indifferent to Antifa attacking innocent bystanders, and yes, even journalists.  Perhaps collateral damage is okay as long as the intent is good.

Fifth: Cuomo is disingenuously being selective about which violence is ”wrong”, and which is ”morally right”.  Double standards should not exist if one is morally consistent.

Sixth: Cuomo omits that Antifa has been classfied as a terrorist organization by the Department of Homeland Security.  Yes, the Feds consider them terrorists.

Seventh: Cuomo doesn’t seem to register that these ”defenders of the people” almost always conceal their faces with masks or bandannas, yet the ”bad guys” never do.  Odd.

My thought is that censorship should be a last resort, not a first.  It is very unsettling that some are completely fine with taking away people’s right to speak.  Calling someone a racist, or calling their words or ideas hate speech doesn’t make it so.   And even if it is, why start down the path of censorship?

Wise words: I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

Chris Cuomo is a disgrace to journalism.

Posted on

Measured Discussion on Multiculturalism is Apparently Off-Limits

Andrew Scheer (left) and Maxime Bernier (Right)

August 13, 2018 — Maxime Bernier, a Member of Federal Parliament in Canada (and a senior member of the Conservative Party), caused a stir when he sent off 6 tweets.  He questioned to what limits the push for diversity and multiculturalism should  go in Canada.

To disclose bias right away: political correctness gets us nowhere.  Truth and open discussion are valued over censorship anytime.  And Bernier was tweeting what many people believe, specifically that there has to be some limit to the push for ”endless diversity”.

Recent ”diversity” moves include: (a) gender quotas for filling cabinet positions; (b) letting terrorists with dual citizenship keep their Canadian citizenship; (c) marching in gay pride parades while endorsing religions who want to slaughter gays; (d) calling it offensive to label honour killings as ”barbaric”; (e) Motion M-103, the anti-blasphemy legislation; (f) publicly saying that Canada has and should have no core identity; (g) altering the national anthem to make it ”gender neutral”; (h) making it mandatory for MPs to support abortion, but taking no position on sex-selective abortions, which target female babies; (i) comparing ISIS fighter to Italian, Polish and Chinese immigrants; (j) refusing to denounce religious and cultural practices which are incompatible with a free and equal society,  and so on…..

In all fairness to Bernier, he never called for anyone to be prohibited from entering the country, to be mistreated, or suggested that people are not equal.  He did question: (1) dividing Canadians into ever smaller groups and ”Balkanizing” the country; (2) accepting ideologies which are truly incompatible with Western societies; and (3) obsession with identity politics does nothing to unify a country.  All of these things seem very reasonable.

Left leaning Liberals and the NDP had a field day, calling Bernier a bigot and calling for his ouster from the parties.  That is no surprise.  Virtue signalling is how the left operates these days.

The more right leaning Canadian Nationalist Party enjoyed it as well, albeit for different reasons.  Members took it as proof that the Conservatives are too weak to stand up for a strong unified Canada. Here is an article from the Nationalist Party of Canada.

The real surprise (at least to me), was how reluctant fellow Conservatives were to support him.  They claim to be against political correctness and the silencing of open discussion, but showed true hypocracy here. The media condemned Bernier here, here, here, and here.

Outside Parliament and the mainstream media however, there has been large public support for Bernier and his having the courage to at least address a difficult topic.

It seems unlikely that Maxime will be kicked out of the party, if for no other reason than it will destroy any claim that Conservatives value free speech.  However, the damage seems to be already done.

And another observation: go to almost any ”multi-culture” city and you will find it segregated along cultural and ethnic lines.  This is not the government’s doing, but rather people doing it voluntarily.

Final Thoughts: Most don’t have a problem with people of other races, and (for to a degree) cultures living in Canada.  Where the line should be drawn is: (i) when the goal seems to actually be to break the country down; (ii) the cultures are truly incompatible; (iii) when asking valid questions becomes hate speech.

People are equal.  Ideas are not.  Ideas should be openly discussed, including ones that involve the direction the country is going.

Here is Maxime Bernier’s Twitter account, and specifically, here are the INFAMOUS 6, which caused the stir.

Update to the Story
Maxime Bernier left the Conservative Party on August 23. Bernier talked about many policy differences, while Scheer cited some personal differences. Bernier founded the (Communist sounding) People’s Party.

Posted on

Canadian Universities Fighting Against Free Speech and Free Association in Court

February 28, 2018 — Universities like to champion themselves as defenders of different peoples and ideologies.

However, while the former may be true, anyone who has ever spent time at one knows that the latter is not true.

In this case, 3 Ontario post-secondary institutes were facing legal challenges.  But now a Superior Court has ruled in their favour.

They are: (1) Ryerson University for refusing to grant official status for men’s issues awareness, and both the (2) Durham College & UOIT and (3) University of Toronto Mississauga for refusing official status for pro-life groups.

Here are a few links to related media:

CLICK HERE CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE CLICK HERE

Student Union fees are mandatory at colleges and universities.   However, Student Unions are in effect able to force money from students whose views they censor.

There is no open to ”opt-out” if the school promotes certain views, or censors others.

A group dedicating to raising awareness to how issues such as higher suicide rates, job loss, courts that are stacked against them, and a general lack of resources for men is not openly hostile to women.  Regardless of some feminists will say, men are not the enemy.

Likewise, a group who wants to spread their views that unborn children should have rights is not an enemy to women.   Regardless of a person’s individual views on abortion, it is wrong to condemn those who take issue with the issue of stopping a potential future person.

Yet, with this February court ruling, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has said that it ”is” okay to shut down and ban student groups if their views are disliked.

Interesting observation: though probably a coincidence, it seems that those opposition to both groups are a way for some women to flex their political muscles.

Banning a men’s issues awareness group can be a way to ensure that the only issues that receive public attention are women’s concerns.

Banning a pro-life group can be a way to ensure that abortion is only looked at through the lens of the mother and her suffering, and not that of the unborn child.

However, universities are not places for free speech and open inquiry, unless the speech and inquiry are of ”approved” views.  This is to say that they are not places of free speech and open inquiry at all.

This ruling just proves it yet again.