Likely to Expose to Hatred or Contempt

No Likely About This

George Jonas wrote something that caught my eye here. Most of his article is actually having to defend his condemnation of Roman Polanski and his sexual molestation of a minor, because he relied on reporting only the official record of the disposition of the charge, rather than other less reliable sources of information, such as a possibly authentic, but not tested in court grand jury hearing testimony. But that is not what caught my eye. What was really attention grabbing for me was this part:

I did make a mistake but it wasn’t relying on the record. It was using the Polanski case as a jumping-off point to discuss what I called “seasonal laws” as opposed to “laws for all seasons” — that is, acts condemned universally, as opposed to acts condemned in certain times and places. The Polanski affair was the wrong platform from which to dive into this pool (or cesspool). The film director’s transgression had become a lightning rod for people’s pent-up fury at the baboon society that emerged from the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

The Pill, along with the “make love, not war” generation of the Vietnam years, propelled Western societies from their quiet quasi-Victorian 1950s lagoons to a virtual Sodom and Gomorrah within a decade. The solemn pillars of misdeeds buttressing society’s moral edifice either crumbled or metamorphosed into “choices” one by one:

• Divorce “progressed” from a scandal that cost Nelson Rockefeller his political career in 1964 to a statistical commonplace (about 50% for first marriages in the U.S.);
• Pre-marital sex changed from a taboo to standard practice for teenagers (including Polanski’s 13-year-old victim);
• Adultery was reduced from a grave marital misconduct to an irrelevancy in no-fault divorce;
• Fornication grew from biblical prohibition to fashionable spouse-swapping venues at Plato’s Retreat and, eventually, the Internet;
• Abortion turned from a crime into a civil distinction (a medal for Dr. Morgentaler); and
• Homosexuality from a love that dared not speak its name into one that couldn’t shut up about it.

That is a brief but highly useful summary of the destruction of our moral values in North America starting with The Pill. It is what Paul Paul VI prophesied in 1968 when he wrote Humanae Vitae, the encyclical that went so counter to the sexual revolution that was just heating up. Take Mr. Jonas' brief summary of some of the events of the sexual revolution, and compare them to what the Pope prophesied would happen:

He first predicted a rise in marital infidelity and moral decline. Bingo on that one. Anyone want to disagree?

Second, he predicted lost respect for women. Our culture does not respect the gifts that women have as women, but values them more as sexual objects. Watch any TV last night?

Next, he predicted abuse of power. The power over reproduction is a heady power. With it you can rule nations. China has abused reproductive power significantly, and the abuses of family planning in third world countries, in the name of helping them are legendary.

Finally, he predicted that mankind would think he had unlimited dominion over his own body. We see sterilization, wide use of body disfigurement, test tube babies, and stem cell research requiring the fertilization of eggs, essentially killing pre-born infants, among other things.

That old man in Rome was so out of touch with society, eh! Not so much, as far as I can see. So, here in Canada, we have these so called Hate Speech laws administered by HRCs/HRTs that make it a no no to put forward stuff that is likely to expose people from one of the defined "do not touch" groups to hatred or contempt.

One of the effects of this sexual revolution that Mr. Jonas touched on has been the proliferation of pornography in our society. In pornography, particularly now, anything goes, at least pretty much anything that one or more men can do to one or more women, and some even use animals. Also, anything men can do to each other, or women can do to each other, with or without members of the opposite sex participating is game. You can Google any one of your favourite sexual terms, and see a plethora of images, videos, and web sites devoted to displaying what tickles your fancy. That's just the free stuff. I have no idea how gross it gets when you put money out for your titillation.

In our society today, how many men really respect women that they sleep with, and vice versa? The kids are getting into it too, and in schools they are being taught how to use condoms and how to put a reproductive organ into a garbage chute.

So, where do we look for hate speech complaints? We look at the sad sack Nazi wannabees, who don't have the brains to come in out of the rain. Then, we look at Christians, like Steve Boissoin, and Fr. De Valk, and Bishop Henry who speak out the true teachings of Christianity about things like homosexuality, not in hatred or condemnation, but in love. Exposed to hatred and contempt? Are you kidding me, if they listen up, they will be exposed to love and compassion. And finally, we look at the folks who reproduce Muslim cartoons as a news item (Ezra Levant) or write a book quoting radical Muslims around the world about jihad (Mark Steyn).

But, who condemns the real haters in our society? I mean the people who bring you all the sexual filth your mind can absorb, the filth that debases women, and even children? A lot of men and women do not treat each other with love and respect in our society, because they have become sexual objects to each other. To put it bluntly, they hate each other and use each other for sexual gratification.

Well, who do you think was "likely to expose them to hatred or contempt?" Not likely to, but actually does it on a day in, day out, night in, night out basis. And who goes after them? Nobody, not Jennifer Lynch or Barb Hall or the others who have "Likely to expositis", and look for discrimination at every askance look. Apparently, it is politically correct to allow pornography, that is likely to expose children to being sexually abused and used, and women to being raped or sexually abused by men who know them, to exist in our society. Since when do women and children not deserve protection from evil in our society?

I do not like Canada Human Rights Section 13, or Alberta Human Rights Section 3(1) and have been outspoken about it. But, if they are going to exist, they should be used for good, not for BS purposes as they have been.

While Barb Hall makes projects out of call outs on transit companies and so called discrimination in rental housing, who is looking after the sexual discrimination visited on children and women that pornography depicts and invites?

Bishop Lahey has viewed a bunch of child pornography probably, and it is wrong and he should be punished. What about the purveyors of all that filth? Who is going after them? The shmoe who reads or views that trash is being victimized, though basically willingly, and then victimizes those he should love.

What a crazy, mixed up world we live in.

Calgary Herald Calls Stelmach to Cut S. 3 of HRCM Act

Asks: "Is the Tide of Canadian censorship finally starting to turn?"

The Calgary Herald notes that the Alberta HRC is back on its heals at the moment (my choice of word), due to recent court cases on free speech and backed off on the Herald/ Edmonton Journal Complaints for a 2002 editorial on the Middle East.

The article here cited the following:

The case involving the Herald and the Journal arose from an editorial published in April 2002, which catalogued several allegations of duplicity, manipulation, atrocity and hypocrisy on the part of Palestinian leaders in their dealings with Israel.

At the time, reports of terrorist activity came almost daily, interspersed with the late Yasser Arafat's protestations that all he wanted was peace: The matter was top of mind, and ripe for public examination. However, Muslim advocates complained that it was "likely to expose to hatred or contempt Palestinian Arabs and Muslims," though there was no proof of that whatsoever and it was certainly not the intent.

My bold. Telling statement that last one, and where the abuse of power of the HRCs is most profound. As I have stated in another piece, here, there are no boundaries or terms of reference for how one decides on "Likely to expose to hatred or contempt." It is all in the minds of the Complainant, and some bureaucrat with the appropriate HRC who takes up his cause.

If I tell you that something is likely to expose me to hatred and contempt, and you Mr. HRC employee believe me, we have a quorum of two, and it is now a fact, even if we are the only two people in the world who believe it. In these cases, that drag on forever, there is no effort to see if the particular offending materiel actually did expose anyone to hatred or contempt, where time is on the side of being able to categorically prove that it did or did not. At least, it would be if the whole phrase "likely to expose to hatred or contempt" were not just a throw away phrase with no possibility of being factually verified. People are having their lives turned upside down by this phrase in our country and have been for years. We didn't care when they were basement Nazi sympathisers, because they too were throw away members of our society, whose rights of free speech, even if they spoke stupidity and mindless hateful drivel, that no one but a few of their friends ever heard, were being denied.

Frankly, the HRCs got used to the taste of blood on "likely to expose to hatred and contempt", and as there was no real, fake Nazi blood around anymore, they had to get the blood lust slaked somewhere. So, what did you expect to happen? None of the cases that have happened in the last several years should come as a surprise to anyone in Canada.

Bad things happen, because good men say nothing. Edmund Burke did not say it, but he meant it.

This battle is not over. Here is the Herald conclusion:

It seems much has been won by the determined resistance of free-speech advocates, like this newspaper, to nationwide commission encroachments on a right to criticize people, organizations and governments that goes back in Canada at least to 1835, when Joseph Howe took on a corrupt provincial government, and won.

We salute them all, if not for their opinions in every case, at least in their tenacious defence of their right to publish them--a right that has cost so many of our best and brightest their very lives.

Premier Stelmach, when even your own human rights commission has changed its mind, you must act: Tear down the offensive section of Alberta's human rights law.

While the Herald is busy patting itself on the back for fighting the good fight, their role has been nominal. Those really fighting the good fight are those who can ill afford to fight it, the Stephen Boissoin's, Ezra Levant's, Alphonse De Valk's, Marc Lemire's, but must for their own sanity and for their beliefs, and the need to tell the truth that they know in their hearts.

The fat lady is far from singing on this issue.

Victory?

No and Yes

Here is what Member Hadjis says in the first sentence of his conclusion in the Lemire Case the other day:

I have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened s. 13 of the Act in only one of the
instances alleged by Mr. Warman, namely the AIDS Secrets article.

In other words, that says to me, that Mr. Lemire is guilty of one count out of the several he was charged with. It's pretty clear up to this point. But it does get muddy in the next sentence here:

However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply
these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him (see Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7).

All this says to me is Member Hadjis ducked and jived his way past this by saying guilty, but I have a way to not fine him, so I won't.

And Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and all the other Speechies out there jumped on the "Hadjis is a hail fellow well met NOW" band wagon and declared victory for free speech. I am as optimistic as the next guy, and I have had a little more book learning than the average guy, and I also have a little more time on my hands to look at nuances than most.

I heard Marc Lemire on the radio the other night (delayed) celebrating this victory, and have read what Ezra has said about this, as well as Mark Steyn and everybody else. While everybody is clapping themselves on the back for a job well done, and taking the pause that refreshes, and while the comments come on to the blog posts about this great victory, J Ly and her CHRC and CASHRA cronies are figuring out their next strategic moves to protect their turf. She has already shown that she gets mean when you mess with her green.

Even this moral victory, since that is all it is factually, would never have come about without the tireless work of people like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn denormalizing the human rights industry for the sham that it is, and for bloggers coming onside with them, and for some of the media and more as time passes joining is as well. But there is so much more to be done.

So, get back to work. This ain't over. In fact, it has hardly started. Tear this decision apart, and figure out what it really means. Then, support Stephen Boissoin in his real case coming up at the Alberta Court of Queens Bench this month.

Ezra Levant Breaks Silence, CHRC Breaks Wind

He's Back, On His Game, But I Don't Totally Agree with All His Conclusions

Much of my introduction to the Human Rights Holocaust in Canada came at the hands of Ezra Levant. I started to get interested because, as I have written before, a friend of mine was being hounded here in Ontario, and I thought there was something wrong. Ezra and Kathy Shaidle came to London and along with Salim Mansur discussed the insanity that is the human rights racket in this fair land. I bought both "Shakedown" and Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere's book "The Tyrrany of Nice", and read them cover to cover in no time, and then got going on my own, looking into this nonsense. And here I am.

Ezra came out of seclusion from writing his next book yesterday to go on the radio (would like to hear that, but missed it) and to write this piece on his blog.

It carries with it Ezra's knowledge of the history and nuance of the battle and I recommend you read it before you go further with anything I have to say.

But, what Ezra had said earlier in December about Section 13 and the Supreme Court take on it in Taylor in 1990 bears repeating:

Section 13 -- the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act -- has been before the Supreme Court of Canada already. In 1990, John Ross Taylor, then 80 years old, appealed his section 13 conviction all the way to the SCC. The seven judges split, four saying the law was constitutional, three (including Beverly McLachlin, now the Chief Justice of the SCC) saying it was unconstitutional.

But the four who let section 13 slide were strict about its application. Here's what they wrote in their judgment (I've bolded a few key words):

In sum, the language employed in s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act extends only to that expression giving rise to the evil sought to be eradicated and provides a standard of conduct sufficiently precise to prevent the unacceptable chilling of expressive activity. Moreover, as long as the Human Rights Tribunal continues to be well aware of the purpose of s. 13(1) and pays heed to the ardent and extreme nature of feeling described in the phrase "hatred or contempt", there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning of the section.

Take a look a that just for a moment.

Three judges said the law was illegal. Four said it was legal, but only if it remained focused on truly evil hatred, that was ardent and extreme. Subjective opinions about offensiveness weren't permitted -- and, said those four judges confidently, there was little danger of that happening.

But, here is how I commented on Ezra's blog to his piece:
"Actually Ezra, the way I read this Decision J Ly won this one by a nose, or as they say in Hockey parlance, in a shootout, in what was the longest match in history.

Hadjis did find Lemire guilty of posting the Aids piece, though he had no part in its authorship, or I think in its actual publication, just being the webmaster. That much of it happens to be true, and that the intention was to provide information was no defence, as he himself had reported Fothergill had testified a year ago at trial in his own blog. How you decide that something subjects people you don't know to hatred is beyond me.

Hadjis did fail to award the Gold to J Ly and to Warman which is some solace to us all, but leaves the game far from over.

I believe that you were the prime reporter a few months back the the Queen of Censors was pushing for more teeth to S.13. That should have been the "tell" that this decision was coming as it did.

Hadjis also forgot to admonish those who stole Ms. Hechme's internet services and the other fake, pretend nazis, as opposed to the real pretend nazis who were on Stormfront before the government pretenders went lurking. Oh, forgot to admonish. He forgot to even mention them.

In my book, Mr. Hadjis did a very good CYA under difficult circumstances. He still managed to pull an HRC rabbit out of the hat. It is tiny, though and might not live very long, but he still pulled it out, fortunately on the slowest news day in the slowest news time of the year. What a coincidence."

The political nuance of this move is slowly dawning on me. It appears to me that J Ly gave a sneak preview of this months ago when she was talking about more power in S.13 to stamp out hate. It did not make particular sense to me at the time, but with this decision, it now makes perfectly good sense to me. The ink just didn't dry on Tuesday evening. The ink was dry on this Decision months ago, folks. What better time to slip this ugly thing past the people than the week before back to school, when everybody is getting in the last gasp of summer holidays, and getting kids ready for school.

As Ezra pointed out, there are choices that the AG, Rob Nicholson has in front of him. If not him, then his boss the PM. Ezra said:

Will Rob Nicholson, the Justice Minister, send his lawyers to appeal? If he does so, he risks a backlash within his own party’s base, on the eve of an election. But it is not acceptable for him to stand back, while his lackey, Jennifer Lynch, sends her CHRC lawyers in for the appeal. It’s essential that Nicholson – or the PMO, if Nicholson lacks the political judgment – orders Jennifer Lynch to stand down. (Frankly, it’s staggering that she hasn’t yet been ordered to just shut up and get on with her job as a bureaucrat. Seriously, as Peter O’Neil reported the other day, Lynch flew all the way to Dublin, Ireland, to beg for political help, admitting that her campaign to demonize her opponents, collect names on her enemies list and save her censorship powers “monopolizes our energy”. Why is she not fired yet?)

Ezra says "Today is definitely a day to celebrate." Me, I'm not so sure. I don't yet see anything to hang my hat on. I do know that this day would not have come without the hard work of Marc Lemire on the front line, and Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, and the bloggers and others out there stirring the pot to keep this this alive, but I will repeat like a broken record, this has not been tested in a real court, so I am waiting on Boissoin v. Lund at Alberta Court of Queens Bench before I get into a celebratory mood.

I wonder if Marc Lemire has any money left to celebrate, and if after reading this Decision, he is really in the mood YET.

Update:

Okay, I was looking at a few blogs and picked up on GenX40 who is a legal beagle with a good eye on this Decision, and I refer you to his post here. He implies that I am being too tight in my britches, and maybe I am. He says: "it is a good day to admire your country and your constitution. Enjoy it."

Instant Replay 1 - The Real Victims of HRCs and the Law of Unintended Consequences

I am bringing forward some of my personal favourite blog entries of the last 4 months for this week, just like summer reruns, while I ponder the Fall Season of blog entries. I am working my way through a few items I want to post on, that take some research and time to put my thoughts together. I will still post some new stuff, just probably not any rocket science.

Here is my first rerun, where I started to look at the Real Victims of HRCs, and how the Law of Unintended Consequences gets them as much as the actual efforts of any government minion.

5 1/2 years ago, my wife and I became disabled. During these years, we have struggled with many things, not the least of which was the insurance system. However, all along the way, we have received Disability Income and benefits. So although we have endured financial, mental, physical and emotional hardships, we have not been totally economically disadvantaged, and we have had resources provided to us to help us deal with the challenges we have faced.

The real victims of the HRC’s are not in this position, and I empathise with them, and their plight, which is one of the reasons why I am writing this blog.

This blog is about the real victims of cases that are brought to HRC's. When a complaint is registered with an HRC, if it is a Hate Speech type of complaint, there does not have to be an actual victim, just the possibility that there might be a victim one day in the future. There only needs to be a complainant. In the case of a discrimination complaint, there is an actual aggrieved individual or group putting forward the complaint. For the moment, the aggrieved is a victim.

However, once the HRC is on the job, there are new victims in play. The first real victim in these cases is the Defendant in the action once it gets started. Why would I call the Defendant, who has been charged with discrimination or Hate Speech a Victim? The Defendant is victimized because the Claimant is able to just stand back and let the full might of the HRC come down on the Defendant.

The HRC documents the claim, gathers their evidence of the claim, and adjudicates the claim, all internally. The HRC pays all expenses of prosecuting the claim on behalf of the original Claimant, and regardless of how frivolous the claim, the Defendant absorbs all of his or her own costs to defend himself. The Defendant has no right to confront his accuser, no right to speedy trial, and is not innocent until proven guilty. In fact, the opening premise is that the Defendant is guilty, and the odds that he/she can prove he isn’t against the HRC machine are pretty slight.

I watched as Ezra Levant, who the Alberta HRC has tried to pin down advised a small businessman in London Ontario, who was being victimized by the Ontario HRC in a complaint, to pay them what they asked and get on with his life. Ezra’s logic was that if you can’t afford to fight tooth and nail with these bullies, then you need to get out of the fight as quickly as you can. What a sad but probably true commentary on a disgusting situation in our society.

But, Ezra Isaac Levant http://ezralevant.com/ is, or at least he would have been, one of the real Victims of the HRC’s himself if he wasn’t a modern day Don Quixote, driving an armoured vehicle and locked and loaded with cruise missiles sited on the hallowed halls of the Alberta HRC. I have no doubt that Ezra suffered sleepless nights, and that his personal life was impacted. I do not know if the demise of the Western Standard as a magazine was impacted by his early struggles with the cases brought against him, but it shure did not help.

Ezra Levant is a street fighter, unlike most of us, and refused to take being victimized lying down, or even standing up for that matter. He took it at full throttle, as he seems to take everything.

Ezra has now made a new career out of fighting the HRC’s, and I for one am on his side. Most of the HRC hit list will not fare as well, at least in the short term.

Take Reverend Stephen Boissoin from Red Deer Alberta for example. Reverend Boissoin ministered to at-risk youth on the streets of Red Deer Alberta. He cared for them, because he knew where they came from. He had been there. He knew that many were prostituting themselves to make money to survive, and he had had enough. So, he spoke out in writing to the Red Deer Advocate. His words might have been intemperate, but his heart was well intentioned. He loved the kids and wanted to heal them and bring them to the truth. But for 6 years, he has been fighting against the Alberta HRC machine, because one man Dr. Darren Lund took offence and rather than write a letter to the editor himself, complained to the Alberta HRC. So not only is Reverend Boissoin a victim of the Alberta HRC, but also the street kids of Red Deer Alberta, who lost their mentor, because he had to resign from full time ministry due to the stresses and strains on his life.

He will survive because good ultimately triumphs over evil, though evil might have its season. Will the kids he was ministering to? Does anybody even care about the real victims of this travesty of justice?

And take the case of my friend in Ontario, a grade school principal. She had worked her way up to being a principal by caring about kids and fellow teachers over many long years of hard work, and study. Then one day, an irate mother, a bully herself but with the advantage of dark skin, went to the Ontario HRC, and claimed discrimination, because her son who had stolen money from the principal’s desk was being punished, and because the principal would not allow certain so called medical equipment on school grounds without proper medical approval. The case, now in its third year strained the already fragile health of the principal, and she retired last year. She is a victim of the Ontario HRC, but so too are all the kids and teachers that relied on her for love and support.

She will survive because good ultimately triumphs over evil, though evil might have its season. Will the kids she was guiding? Does anybody even care about the real victims of this travesty of justice?

What is at play here is what is called the "law of unintended consequences". This is not an actual law but a maxim and states that "any purposeful action will produce some unintended consequences." From recent theatrical history, we may be familiar with the "Butterfly Effect".

The HRC's in an effort to protect us from the possible malicious thoughts or words or even deeds of others, that might be construed to be discriminatory unleashes undesirable after effects. As above, they have caused through their hubris a school to lose a loving, compassionate principal, and young people at-risk in need of a mentor to lose that mentor. As well, both of those individuals were left battered and beaten emotionally at the roadside by the weight of the ridiculous accusations leveled against them by these pompous, arrogant popinjays.

However, not all unintended consequences work for the bad. Ezra Levant's book "Shakedown" is for all intents and purposes of your local HRC an unintended consequence, as is his diligent promotion of his intent to see the end of these institutions.

So, the question that I have to ask anyone out there who is listening is this: Who is going to hold the HRC's to account for the lives that they have ruined with their ceaseless and senseless pursuit of the unattainable? Trying to manage the thought lives of your fellow man is arrogant, and reprehensible, as well as a total waste of time, energy, and precious taxpayer dollars. This must be stopped.

What Might Have Happened in the Chief Commissioners Office Last Thursday

As Herself Gets Word of Ezra's New Book

The following is a work of pure, unadulterated fiction, not impossible, plausible even, maybe, but fiction none the less. This is like the very short joke of the two Irish men who walked out of a pub in that it could have happened, and the probabilities are similar, pretty close to nonexistent. I wrote it for the same reason that I have written a number of things lately, as part of denormalizing something that is odious to me and to many Canadians of good will. With lemons, make lemonade.

This short story involves an imaginary look last Thursday morning inside the office of the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, a look that none of us are ever going to have.

On Thursday morning, August 20, 2009, as the Chief Commissar of the Human Rights Commission strode into her office filled with purpose and arrived at her desk in the fortified quarters of her domain, she pulled her laptop computer out of her shoulder bag and logged on to the network. She pulled out of her briefcase a secret file and started down her list of THE 1,200 to see what misdeeds were being perpetrated in her world by those who would subvert the right of every person in Canada to feel good, and happy 24/7, particularly herself.

On the top of her list was the big three, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Kathy Shaidle, followed by the rest of those mopes, she called the twelve hundred, not the silly list that had been cobbled together and sent to that nosy young blogger from Vancouver Island, Walker Morrow, but the real list, with tables of search data.

She sat back in her chair, looked out her corner office window, at the surrounding parkland, then took a sip of her chai tea, and mused for a moment about how little those folks out there knew about the working of Freedom of Information legislation. With bait and switch, she could protect her own a??, long after they were off on another tangent. She relied on their short attention spans combined with her abilities to drag things out and to hide things well to keep them at bay. That young kid out west had even been looking at her expense reports online. What a joke, she thought. He can't get anything from that. It's all buried too deep for him to figure out anything he can use against me. I'm far too smart for these people to ever get to me. "I am good," she muttered to herself.

She turned back to her computer, and the first thing she brought up was ezralevant.com. She read the following blog post from himself:

"I'm finishing up my next book. The manuscript is due in to my publisher at the end of the month, which is less than two weeks away.

So I'm going to take a short break from blogging... unless there's something just crazy out there that needs a comment, like some new Jennifer Lynch eruption.

See you in September!"

"Holy sh?t," she cried out, "That son of a b?tch is out to get me." She started to fume, her mind working overtime at what his new book might include. He had been on her like "white on rice". What an irritant he had become. Because of him, she had had to grovel with the CASHRA folks in Montreal, and the Canadian Bar Association in Dublin. How humiliating that was.

She hit her intercom button hard, the stress working its way through her body to her finger tips already, and called out frantically to her Administrative Assistant: "Is the Deputy Chief in the office today, or is he at home this week? I can't remember."

Her Admin responded promptly and cheerfully, but not too cheerfully, knowing that that kind of angst in the voice of the Chief Commissioner did not auger well for the rest of the day: "He's in his office Ma'am. Shall I get him for you?" She was pretty good at guessing what her boss wanted and it had stood her in good stead many times before. She hoped it worked this time as well.

"Yes, I need him now," followed by an audible click. That was not a good sound, she thought. Quickly, she stepped over to the Deputy Chief''s office, knocked on his door frame and entered gingerly into his office. He had his head down perusing a report that was in his hand, while sipping on a fresh cup of coffee.

"Yes," he said as he raised his eyes with some measure of diffidence at being disturbed. He did notice the panic in the Admin's eyes, and felt it in the air as well, so did not utter the next words in his mind.

"She wants you in her office immediately," blurted the Admin, with the anxiety that the Deputy Chief had perceived a moment earlier.

He said nothing but arose from his desk immediately and headed hastily for the door and over to the Chief Commissioner's suite.

Within seconds he was at her door, and he knocked on her door frame rather than just entering. She was staring at her computer with a look of astonishment, combined with anger, fear and trepidation all at once on her visage. As she looked up, he noticed that this woman whom he had considered handsome for her age when she had brought him in to this position, looked very haggard at this moment. He wondered if this haggard look was something new or if it had been there for some time and he had been too busy to notice.

"Sit down for a moment, will you?" The Deputy Chief thinks; Okay angst, not directed at me, that's good. This isn't about me. Whew!

"His book. It's about me, isn't it?" (much angst)

"Ma'am, who are you talking about?" he asks quizzically as he is not up to speed with her yet.

"Levant. That's who."

"No, Ma'am. He's over you." He breathes a sigh of relief. He thinks of Ezra Levant as a popinjay, that will go away sometime soon. After all he's not here in Ottawa, so not a real threat.

"No. He just won't quit. What did I ever do to him?" She has stopped hyperventilating now.

"Well, you know what you did to him. You had him investigated over those dog gone cartoons for the longest time, and he didn't really take it very well."

"But, but, but, it wasn't personal." She's starting to make excuses for herself, finding that lawyers rhythm.

"He seemed to think it was."

"He's going to spread more misinformation, I can just tell. Him and those bloggers. Why won't they just believe me when I tell them that they have it all wrong? They just don't get it, how we are working for the greater good, and they are just in the way, all those . . . little people."

"You need a break and you need to calm down. Maybe you should take a trip back to Nairobi, or Geneva and drum up some more support. You love picking up frequent flyer miles."

"Thank you, Deputy Chief. I'll do that. You understand me. I'm not a bad person. I'm just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."

As the Deputy Chief leaves her office he swears that he hears the band The Animals singing in the background, "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood" from their 1965 Animal Tracks album.

Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood
                          from 1965 'Animal Tracks'

Baby, do you understand me now,
Sometimes I feel a little mad.
But, don't you know that no one alive can always be an angel.
When things go wrong I feel real bad.

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

Baby, sometimes I'm so carefree,
With a joy that's hard to hide.
And sometimes it seems that, all I have to do is worry
And then you're bound to see my other side.

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

If I seem edgy,
I want you to know,
That I never mean to take it out on you.

Life has its problems,
And I get my share,
And that's one thing I never mean to do,

'Cause I love you,
Oh,

Oh, oh, oh, baby - don't you know I'm human.
I have thoughts like any other one.
Sometimes I find myself, Lord, regretting,
Some foolish thing - some little simple thing I've done.

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.
(repeat)
(repeat)

Quago - A New Term for our HRCs/HRTs

New Vocabulary as Part of Denormalization

Frankly, I don't know how some of the bloggers out there come across the more absurd things in our world, but they do. Blazing Cat Fur picked up on this today. It was basically an article from the UK Times Online about the most absurd thing I have heard in at least the last 24 hours, maybe.

The article was about the Quasi Non Government Organisations (quangos for short and for quaint) banning certain words in common parlance because they might be politically incorrect, such clearly offensive words as gentleman's agreement, blacklist, black sheep, black mark, right hand man. These all clearly have racist or other discriminatory overtones, don't they, at least to idiots with nothing better to do with their time.

Aha, methinks. Brain engaged. BCF headlined his post with "Jennifer Lynch will be on this". That reminds me of other Organisations where idiots are employed with nothing better to do with their time than to try and make us all politically correct. We do it somewhat differently in Canader, eh, what! Our HRCs/HRTs are Government Organisations, not Non Government Organisations, but they are Quasi, in the sense that they are fake courts using fake processes to make real pain for real people, but not following real proper procedures. So they are really Quasi Government Organisations, or we could call them Quagos for short.

Quago works for me as part of denormalisation. They are Quasi - not real. But, with Quago, I am reminded of quagmire, and dealing with them is like falling into a quagmire. When you have been summoned to an HRC/HRT, you have been quagoed. So quago is a noun that stands for the HRC/HRT organisations themselves and also for the process of being complained about and the process of resolving at great pain to yourself the complaint, as in, "I've been quagoed."

So, Constable Michael Shaw was quagoed recently, as has Stephen Boissoin been, though he is appealing his quago. Ontario is trying to quago Bishop DeAngelis and the 12 from St. Michael's in Cobourg. They tried to do a triple quago on Ezra levant, but he saw their quago and raised them, so they dequagoed him. They also unquagoed Mark Steyn. Unquago and dequago mean the same thing essentially.

My friend the grade school principal was double quagoed by Ontario, but then they unquagoed her on the one case, because they said it had no merit. Now, they have requagoed the dropped case, making it a double dip quago.

When you put it this way, you can see that quagoing is both fun and profitable, at least for quagos. J Ly is the head of a quago, or Quagojefe. Quago employees, like baristas at Starbucks could be quagoistas.

I see that my spellchecker went yellow bananas on me with quago and derivatives. Obviously, my new words are not part of the accepted lexicon yet, but since they just came out of my imagination a few minutes ago, I'm okay with that.

Anyway, quago works for me. Whadda ya think?

You May Fire When Ready, Gridley err Levant

New Simplified Nickname for the Queen of Censors Below

I wrote Ezra Levant a few hours ago telling him that I was going to be apologizing in my blog tomorrow morning to him for calling his words about J. Lynch intemperate, after her latest foray to the Emerald Isle. I wondered why I got an almost immediate response from himself. Well, it was because he was busy gutting the Lynchmeister in his current edition of his blog. Since what he has to say covers in more detail what I have to say here, except for what I think is a cool nickname for herself, I largely consider this posting the Reader's Digest version of Ezra's Post here. But, accordingly, I have put mine here in the blogosphere Sunday evening rather than waited for Monday morning, just because. So, below is what I originally wrote.


Some time ago, Jennifer Lynch commented about debating Ezra and then ducked out. Bottom line, she has been caught in her commissions misdeeds and her own coverup of those misdeeds and is not going to go quietly. She spent some more of our tax dollars over the last few days to make a little trip to go and tell stories to the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in Dublin, as reported here in the National Post.

So, while she got Janet Keeping of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation to support that Ezra speaks unkindly of her, garnering her about one tiny soupcon of sympathy maybe, but at least a tiny bit of distraction here, I confess that I put a toe on the bandwagon for a bit, thinking that Ezra might have been a bit intemperate calling her a damned liar, and an odious and execrable woman, as well as commenting on her appearance when he saw her in Ottawa one time recently.

I apologize to Ezra here for questioning his choice of words, and paraphrase Admiral Dewey at the beginning of the Spanish American War as his ship, the Olympia, sailed into Manila Bay: "You may fire when ready, Mr. Levant."

Ms. Lynch has now taken her stories abroad and propagated them in Dublin to the Canadian Bar Association, more as usual by omission, and by stretching the imagination with obfuscation, and using an obfuscator's best tools of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).

In the article in the National Post, the Queen of Censors told the Canadian Bar Association:

that rights commissions represent an important component of the justice system, giving society's "most vulnerable" minority groups access to a mechanism to deal with alleged rights violations.

What a crock of crap that is. I would have believed that if I just fell off a turnip truck or if I had stopped at the name "Human Rights Commissions" and didn't dig any deeper into the case decisions, and news reports of the insanity that goes on with all the Canadian HRCs.

Except there might be a grain of truth in what she says. After all she is talking about alleged rights violations, and most of the case decisions I have read were of the alleged variety, as opposed to the real variety. The wackiest thing is, of course that the "most vulnerable" minority group in Canada is Caucasian's of which she is kind of an apparent member.

The article started with this stuff:

Canada's lawyers, academics and law school deans were urged here Saturday to come to the defence of federal, provincial and territorial human rights commissions and tribunals under attack by conservative critics.

Jennifer Lynch, head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission since 2007, told the Canadian Bar Association's annual meeting that opponents of rights bodies have successfully created a "chill" that makes it difficult for anyone to defend those bodies without also becoming a target.

Lynch, saying some criticisms have been "troubling" and "at times scary," also read out a graphic anonymous letter she received stating that she should be shot dead.

"I'm here to ask for your help," Lynch told CBA members, noting that academic experts, law school deans, and senior lawyers are among Canada's "most trusted sources of information" on public policy matters.

She urged them to write "letters to correct misinformation," encourage other experts to participate in the debate and promote public education of the role of rights commissions and tribunals in the justice system.

Ms. Lynch spoke of the "chill" created by opposition to her own brand of "chill" that Canadian people have tolerated for too many years. The criticisms are at times scary and troubling for her. Wow, that's tough. I certainly don't condone someone sending her a graphic anonymous letter stating that she should be shot dead. I don't wish that upon her, but her behaviour is sufficiently self serving that it would not surprise me to discover that she arranged for one of her minions to send the hate letter to her. Her band of merry men and women are not above that kind of "chill" on their own. Do you need to be reminded of their entrapment tactics on Stormfront?

When she asks, nay urges lawyers to write "Letters to correct misinformation" yadda, yadda, yadda, above about the role of rights commissions, she really starts to sing a now familiar tune. In fact, it begets a new nickname for her, methinks. The music industry has J Lo, who regales us with many fine or not so fine tunes, but Ms Lynch seems to have only one tune, that the bloggers and the media are dispelling misinformation about her and her minions. So, I think we should call her J Ly.

Bloggers and media are reporting FACTS from ACTUAL TRANSCRIPTS of cases and DECISIONS. Where is the misinformation? J Ly is beyond salvaging as head of the Canadian HRC. She is an embarassment to her job and to our country, and the harder she tries to save her job, the more embarrassing she becomes to the government of the day. They need to shed themselves of her sooner than later, and then shed themselves of this albatross.

Don't shoot the messenger dead, as she or someone else said in the hate mail she received, but put the messenger and the message out of our misery.

Ezra's Opening Remarks January 11, 2008

What Ezra Said to Start His Alberta Human Rights Commission Interrogation

Over 19 months ago now, Ezra Levant had his day in front of Alberta HRC Investigator Shirlene McGovern as he was summoned, in the case resulting from his publishing in the Western Standard some 2 years earlier of the so called Mohammed cartoons.

I watched some of the tapes today on You Tube, and saw the dazed look in the eyes of Ms. McGovern during the interrogation/interview. At one time, she looked down beside her chair, I think, to see if there were some place for her to crawl into, but alas, there wasn't and she had to sit there and take it, and with a smile as well. Ezra's opening statement probably came as a surprise to her, but makes for interesting reading below. If you want the on screen version of it for your delectation, it is available here.

I have no problem with anything that Ezra says here, though I am not even sure that Ms. McGovern really did either. But, her boss Lori Andreachuk obviously would not agree with it. Otherwise she could have never issued the Boission ruling that she did. It is also interesting to note that Ms. McGovern states in one of the tapes that her investigative report recommended that the case against Stephen Boissoin be dropped.

As you may know, Ezra was originally Stephen Boissoin's lawyer, and abruptly left him in the very capable hands of Mr. Gerald Chipeur, his boss, when he left to publish the Western Standard.

Anyway here is Ezra's opening salvo, I mean statement:

My name is Ezra Levant. Before this government interrogation begins, I will make a statement.

When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of Mohammed two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today. Though the Western Standard, sadly, no longer publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, ezralevant.com.

I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call those bureaucrats “the commission” or “the hrc”, since to call the commission a “human rights commission” is to destroy the meaning of those words.

I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me. The commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded by a secular government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all backgrounds, is taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the views of radical Islam. So much for the separation of mosque and state.

I have read the past few years’ worth of decisions from this commission, and it is clear that it has become a dump for the junk that gets rejected from the real legal system. I read one case where a male hair salon student complained that he was called a “loser” by the girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this. Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900. In other words, the commission is a joke – it’s the Alberta equivalent of a U.S. television pseudo-court like Judge Judy – except that Judge Judy actually was a judge, whereas none of the commission’s panellists are judges, and some aren’t even lawyers. And, unlike the commission, Judge Judy believes in freedom of speech.

It’s bad enough that this sick joke is being wreaked on hair salons and restaurants. But it’s even worse now that the commissions are attacking free speech. That’s my first point: the commissions have leapt out of the small cage they were confined to, and are now attacking our fundamental freedoms. As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, a man who helped form these commissions in the 60’s and 70’s, wrote, in specific reference to our magazine, being a censor is, quote, “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons.” Unquote. Since the commission is so obviously out of control, he said quote “It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation.” Unquote.

The commission has no legal authority to act as censor. It is not in their statutory authority. They’re just making it up – even Alan Borovoy says so.

But even if the commissions had some statutory fig leaf for their attempts at political and religious censorship, it would still be unlawful and unconstitutional.

We have a heritage of free speech that we inherited from Great Britain that goes back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta. We have a heritage of eight hundred years of British common law protection for speech, augmented by 250 years of common law in Canada.

That common law has been restated in various fundamental documents, especially since the Second World War.

In 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a party, declared that, quote:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights guaranteed, quote

1. “ human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, (c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e) freedom of assembly and association; and (f) freedom of the press.

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed, quote:

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;

Those were even called “fundamental freedoms” – to give them extra importance.

For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values.

It is also deeply procedurally one-sided and unjust. The complainant – in this case, a radical Muslim imam, who was trained at an officially anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, and who has called for sharia law to govern Canada – doesn’t have to pay a penny; Alberta taxpayers pay for the prosecution of the complaint against me. The victims of the complaints, like the Western Standard, have to pay for their own lawyers from their own pockets. Even if we win, we lose – the process has become the punishment. (At this point, I’d like to thank the magazine’s many donors who have given their own money to help us fight against the Saudi imam and his enablers in the Alberta government.)

It is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don’t apply. Rules of court don’t apply. It is a system that is part Kafka, and part Stalin. Even this interrogation today – at which I appear under duress – saw the commission tell me who I could or could not bring with me as my counsel and advisors.

I have no faith in this farcical commission. But I do have faith in the justice and good sense of my fellow Albertans and Canadians. I believe that the better they understand this case, the more shocked they will be. I am here under your compulsion to answer the commission’s questions. But it is not I who am on trial: it is the freedom of all Canadians.

You may start your interrogation.

Jennifer Lynch T-Shirts On Sale

Get 'Em While They're Hot

So, the long awaited winning t-shirt in the Jennifer Lynch slogan contest has arrived, and is available for purchase. It sports the catchy winning slogan:

This T-shirt exposes Jennifer Lynch to hatred and contempt

It is available from Blazing Cat Fur's site here, with black letters on a white shirt, yellow letters on black, and for those really out there hot pink lettering on black. $5 of the proceeds goes to the legal defence funds of Ezra Levant, 5 Feet of Fury, Small Dead Animals and Free Dominion. Shop early and often.

Just a question, but is anyone going to do anything to support Stephen Boissoin? It's not that I don't think that those being supported by the t-shirt fund and other activities aren't freedom fighters, but Stephen's case is the defining case at this point in time. The way I look at the numbers he is about $50,000 in the hole and on the way to a deeper debt after his trial next month. You can also donate to him at his site here.

All these folks can use our support.

Ethical Debate About Human Rights - Le Fin Peut Etre

My Maybe Last Word to Ezra And Scary Fundamentalist

After Part Deux, I thought it was done. The Keeping Article in The Star Phoenix here though seems to keep rising from the ashes. My problem was that I baited Scary Fundamentalist by email and stated in my blog a nyah, nyah saying that I got the last word, to which he commented, thereby giving him the last word to my now penultimate word. Doggone it.

So, in our little joust Scary Fundamentalist said...

The freedom to be "offensive" is included in the broader notion of freedom of speech. Some of us may regard the words of Ezra and Kathy to be offensive, but we both know that many hold the same sentiments to that which comes from our pulpits or that which lies within the ancient texts we regard as holy.

By destroying the concept of state-run censorship, we set ourselves free to determine for ourselves what is and is not offensive, and use only the means at our own disposal to act accordingly.

For Keeping to denounce what she deems as offensive is definitely valid; only it's about as valid as a soldier criticizing his comrade for a lopsided beret during a deadly firefight...

Interesting analogy SF brings up in light of the comment of SonofaGhost that follows later on, but if the lopsided beret of the one soldier distracts his fellow soldiers, such that they raise their heads at inopportune times, and get them shot off because of the distraction, thus losing the battle, then its validity was far greater than it would have appeared at first blush.

Ezra Levant also decided that he had to get a word in edgewise here as well. Well, not a word, 2,525 to be exact.

Where I got 5 comments to 2 blog posts, 2 of which were my responses to Scary Fundamentalist, making the other 3 all from him, Ezra had gotten 25 Comments to his blog post by the time I posted this maybe final word this morning. 25 ... readers (I mean reader - anyone out there?).

Here are a few of the comments he got, since his were more varied then mine.

Frances wrote yesterday afternoon:

Ezra - you could just have pointed out that Ms Lynch was being overly economical with the truth, with details. You're saying the same thing, but people like Ms Keeping can no longer manufacture outrage and have to deal with your accusations.

Frankly, I liked Frances' turn of phrase "economical with the truth". Very next up was SonofaGhost at 4:03 with the following:

I think you're missing her point.
Yes, HRH Lynch a liar, and raising that as part of discussion of the issue is valid as a reflection of how her other points should be taken.

When referring to her as a liar becomes simply part of a string of invective though it gets lost. She may or may not be odious, old and haggard but those are subjective and irrelevant. By adding liar to an ongoing string of insults it gets ignored and needs constant re-explanation. Which in turn takes momentum from your argument and space/time from the limited amount any media other than your blog may a lot to you.

Any argument is always more effectively made when sticking to points that are objective and relevant. Personal attacks may get those already on your side more emotional in their support, but it has the same effect on opponents, and anyone undecided will, if your lucky, roll their eyes briefly before they glaze over and tune you out completely. Of course as a political partisan you already know that every time you look at the voter turn out numbers. Don't do to free speech what partisanship is already doing to democracy.

I think that SonofaGhost captured what Ms. Keeping was trying to get at in her article, and which Ezra and everyone else missed. Of course, it is pretty hard to hear any bit of common sense from someone when your mind is closed. Ms. Keeping is talking about a debate. I stated in my first posting that for me it is a debate. For Ezra, I think it is a war.

In a war, there are the good guys and the bad guys, us and them. We are right. They are wrong. Someone who agrees with them is therefor wrong, even if tangentially, so to Ezra Ms. Keeping who appeared in person to be on his side, now confuses him by criticising some of his words. She was on my side, but now she is what, a turncoat? No, a realist.

She was telling you what SonofaGhost told you in the comments, neither of whom you will hear, that your strategy has some weak points. I can say it here, and I know you won't listen, because you don't read my blog either, but your strategy of denormalization of the HRCs is a good strategy, but a good strategy is only as good as the last time it was tested in the real world. The real world, not the bloggers who listen to your every word, is starting to tell you that there are small cracks in the strategy. That's not a bad thing. Every strategy has to adapt to trial by fire in the real world. The proof of a good strategist is malleability to real world duress.

Ethical Debate About Human Rights

Do Personal Attacks Have a Place in Debate over Human Rights?

Janet Keeping, President of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership wrote an interesting piece for The Star Phoenix on July 30, 2009 here.

The premise of her article is as follows and I quote:

"an important aspect of this and other public debates is too often overlooked: Even if we had complete freedom of expression, it wouldn't follow that "anything goes." It's not ethically OK to be obnoxious.

Our legal right to speak is one thing, but how we exercise that right is quite another. Even if you are legally entitled to be offensive, you are still acting unethically if you deliberately set out to harm people by your words or if you just don't care about the "collateral damage" your offensiveness causes."

She opines that there are rules for verbal jousting, the first one being No hitting below the belt, although she calls it no personal attacking of your opponent, nearly always. Her point is that by attacking your opponents integrity, you are actually undermining your own policy position and for that matter your own integrity.

She claims that Ezra Levant is, if not the king of this (my words not hers) then pretty darn good at it, and cites examples of his chewing on Jennifer Lynch's hide, by calling her a "damned liar", and an "execrable woman". I know what a damned liar is, and I think he gave some pretty good examples of lies told to prove his point on that one. I just looked up execrable and it means "of very poor quality". I bet that is not something you would call your spouse if you planned on sleeping with both eyes closed in the same bed. She also notes that he said and I recall reading: "When she accosted me ... I didn't recognize her ... She is much more haggard and old than her ancient publicity picture." That might be able to be put under the category of fair comment. I don't know, I wasn't there, and he did not post pictures.

This, of course is Ezra Levant talking about the same Jennifer Lynch who heads the Canadian HRC, who had spent untold hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars to hound him over the ridiculous cartoons, until they ultimately dropped their case, at great cost to him. They were able to bully him and ethics rules did not apply to them. Just a thought. Ms. Keeping seems to think that Ezra is overreacting, and doesn't play well with others.

Basically, Ms. Keeping is late to the party, and a lot of water has flowed under the dam, and Mr. Levant and others have long since dropped gloves in this fight, because they perceive that they have no choice. They PERCEIVE that they have no choice.

Of course, you have an opponent, Ms. Lynch and the CASHRA members who intend to win the debate, and have the money to do so, and the power to do so. On this side, you have the bloggers, and the beaten up folks who have been the real victims of the HRCs over the years, and the misinformed public of this country. Ms. Lynch has even been invited to debate by Mr. Levant, and by Mr. Steyn in his stead, but the invitations have crossed in the mail or something.

The fact is they win the debate almost every day in most provinces by beating up on some poor shmoe who said the wrong thing to the wrong person or didn't, who didn't want to rent his apartment to some deadbeat, or some cop who thought the non Caucasian guy in a do rag, and ripped sneakers in the ritzy part of town might have been up to no good, and then said cop was tagged for racial profiling for doing his job.

Anyway, Ms. Keeping goes on to talk about the rules for making nice with your opponent in a debate. Interesting reading, anyway. And she closes well sort of:

Those, such as Levant, who argue that human rights commissions should not have authority to regulate speech are, in my view, entirely right. But how some people advance that view is quite wrong.

Those who attack their opponents personally, instead of arguing against their policy positions, are using freedom of speech in an unethical way. And it is no answer to claim that some human rights commission officials carry out their duties in an oppressive, even harassing, manner. If true, this should be remedied, but not through reverse bullying: Just as our mothers told us, two wrongs really don't make a right.

I kind of agree with the two wrongs don't make a right thing. Heck, I told my kids the same things, and I believed it then, and believe it now. For me, the t-shirt thing a while back was some blowing off of steam, and for Ezra some of the noise is also blowing off steam.

However, I get lost when she says that "it is no answer to claim that some human rights commission officials carry out there duties in an oppressive, even harassing, manner." The whole fricking process that the human rights commissions run by is oppressive and harassing to the poor shmoe that gets called before them, because he seems to have offended some member of a protected species. It is hardly a bald claim. It is merely fact upon fact.

For folks like me this is a debate, and I can take her advice. For Ezra Levant, this is more of a war and not a debate, so Ms. Keeping's comments are likely falling on deaf ears.

A couple of Links for Today

Lazy Day But There is Good Stuff Out There

Ezra Levant has a link to the You Tube taping of The Shakedown Song here. It's Support Ezra Levant Day. While you are at this site listening to the Shakedown Song, make a donation if you can or wish to for his Defence fund.

Deborah Gyapong had it first, but Ezra has a bit of the back story, so I have linked you to his copy of it.

Fellow blogger and buddy Walker Morrow at The Lynch Mob has been posting some cool things (mine included) about stuff and such, including Jim Corcoran. Here is a good posting he cross linked from Scary Fundamentalist. Walker's copy is here, and SF's is over on his blog here below an update on the Corcoran thing.

And, any day is Support Stephen Boissoin Day, so I urge you to drop by his blog and support him too, please.

Stephen Boissoin Appeal Document - Part 3

Ultra Vires - Not Just a Normal Virus

Here's another reason for staying away from the Alberta HRC, and any HRC for that matter. They seem to suffer in the words of Mr. Gerald Chipeur Queen's Counsel (his QC seems to mean something unlike Jennifer Lynch Queen of Censors, and Lori Andreachuk baby Queen of Censors) from the ultra vires.

Now, I am not really a dope, just a guy with a weird sense of humour, so I do know that ultra vires really means in Latin "beyond the powers", and if that does not say it all for our CASHRA members, I do not know what does. So, in my lexicon they all suffer from the ultra vires.

But here's what it means to Mr. Chipeur in defending Stephen Boissoin, and for the remedies decreed by Comrade Andreachuk and her Panel in 2007. He thinks our Comrade is one sick puppy with the ultra vires, that is.

Here is the summary of the answer on an ordered remedy by remedy basis to the question before the Court "Are the remedies in the Decision authorized in the HRCM Act and are they consistent with the Constitution?":

(i) the order prohibiting the publication of "disparaging remarks" about "gays and homosexuals" is ultra vires the HRCM Act and inconsistent with Section 2 of the Charter;

(ii) the order prohibiting the publication of "disparaging remarks" about "Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund's witnesses" is ultra vires the HRCM Act and inconsistent with Section 2 of the Charter;

(iii) the order requiring the removal of "disparaging remarks" from "current websites and publications" is ultra vires the HRCM Act and inconsistent with Section 2 of the Charter;

(iv) the order restraining future contraventions of the HRCM Act is ultra vires the HRCM Act and inconsistent with Section 2 of the Charter;

(v) the order requiring an apology for writing the Letter is ultra vires the HRCM Act and inconsistent with Section 2 and 12 of the Charter;

(vi) the order requiring publication Decision of the Panel with respect to remedy and the written apology of Stephen Boissoin in the Red Deer Advocate are ultra vires the HRCM Act and inconsistent with Section 2 and 12 of the Charter;

(vii) the orders awarding damages and expense reimbursements to Dr. Lund and Ms. Dodd, respectively, are ultra vires the HRCM Act.

This is a fricking epidemic of the ultra vires folks. We better warn Health Canada, and get inoculated against this stuff, or in the words of Ezra Levant, we should "Fire. Them. All."

Anyway, before I get carried away, that was just the brief summary, probably the part that is called brief in the Brief. However, the evisceration continues a little later in the Brief. Oh, you can still download the entire document here at Stephen's website, and donate to his cause here on his site.

OK, the remedies have no basis in law. Mr. Chipeur makes a compelling case with his opening paragraph in the section:

"Before considering the defects in the Decision under the HRCM Act and the Constitution, it is instructful to consider the remedies granted by the Panel. This is because the nature of the remedies granted illustrate why the Decision must be found to be inconsistent with the HRCM Act and the Constitution. The remedies demonstrate beyond doubt that Section 3(1) of the HRCM Act does not belong in the laws of a free and democratic society. Given the opportunity to apply this section to a public policy debate, the Panel, an agency of the Government of Alberta, issued an order of censorship unparalleled in Canadian jurisprudence."

Then he launches into dissecting each remedy in detail.

He starts logically with the first two remedies prohibiting publishing of "disparaging remarks". Most morons could have picked up on this one, and I don't mean Mr. Chipeur. He rightly comments that "disparaging" is not a synonym for "hate and contempt" which the legislation protects against, and in fact is broader in definition. In other words, but not Mr. Chipeur's what the heck did Lori Andreachuk mean and how would you ever enforce it, even if it were legal?

Now as to the writing of an apology and publication thereof, Mr. Chipeur writes eloquently once again. Here are his own words:

There is no authorization in Section 32 , or in any other section of the HRCM Act to order an apology. An apology in an expression of a feeling, such as regret, remorse or sorrow. By definition, then, an apology cannot be ordered without also ordering the underlying emotion. In effect, the Panel has ordered that the Appellant, Stephen Boissoin change his mind. In a very real way, the Panel has assumed the role of thought police. The legislature did not authorize or empower the Panel to act in this manner. Where a statutory delegate exercise remedial powers, the remedies issued must be specifically authorized by statute.

Wow!!! Mr. Chipeur then quotes 3 particular authorities in support of his statement. There's the other TP word, out in the open. I bolded it so you wouldn't miss it.

Next Mr. Chipeur deals with the payment ordered to Dr. Lund. As he says: "There is no authority within the HRCM Act to order the payment of a bounty to an individual who brings another private citizen to justice", only someone who has been dealt with contrary to the act, ie. an aggrieved party. Dr. Lund claims not to be a homosexual, so it has always confused me that he never had a dog in the fight, but got to start the fight. Who did he think he was anyway, Michael Vick? He takes the same stand as to Ms. Dodd, calling her a stranger to the Complaint, meaning she was not named in it.

Last but certainly not least, for the remedies section of the Brief, Mr. Chipeur deals with the constitutional errors he uncovers there. He cites violation of Stephen Boissoin's Charter rights under Sections 2(a) and 2(b) and 12, and of course gives case authorities for so citing.

It has struck me as somewhat strange that the human rights legislation from province to province is not always consistent, and does not seem to be consistent with the Charter. I did discover that Ontario's legislation actually predates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So, the bottom line of all this, is that the Panel was way off the reservation in the Boissoin case, and Mr. Chipeur hopes to rein them in. Don't we all?

Let's add to the Lexicon

Some New Words for the Blogging Universe

Kathy Shaidle wrote this about Hilary White who was writing about Kathy Shaidle, as she was coining a new verb for the English language, aptly named after Kathy Shaidle:

Hilary White, who is no slouch herself, writes:

Today, when I was having my daily call with my editor, I used the expression "my inner Kathy Shaidle".

I think "Kathy Shaidle" needs to be coined as a verb. "To Kathy Shaidle" should mean to express oneself without the slightest nod to the accepted niceties of expression; to speak bluntly about topics considered sacrosanct; deliberately to face up to and comment freely upon subjects that are considered taboo by the bien pensants; to blast Goodthinkfulness to smithereens on a daily basis.

Colloquial: "They tried to silence me with lawsuits and visits from Ahmed the killer pimp, but I Shaidled their cringing politically correct butts".

I don't think that only Kathy Shaidle should have her own verb or noun for that matter. Why even adjectives should be spread around the blogosphere. So, here are a few that I offer up for your review and thoughts.

For example:

Binking

The inimitable Binks over at Free Canuckistan here is a very good writer, but also points readers to the musings of other bloggers often with no additional commentary, or occasional a brief bon mot. I think we could call that "Binking". There is a particular style to the way that our Binks does it, and so if you are capable of replicating it, then you are "Binking". All else is just providing links.

You can bink a blog, or have your blog binked, and you could be the proud owner of a binked blog. I have been binked and have made a diploma of the binkings which are proudly displayed over my desk.

Levanting

Many people use their blogs to vent their spleens (what a wierd metaphor that is), and I guess en francais, it could be le venting (sort of), but what I am referring to here is a style of blogging that is taking the HRC world by storm, created by our own beloved Ezra Levant.

At the moment there is only one Ezra Levant, but if you could do what he does I think you would be levanting. So, to write a blog in a pithy (no lithp), humourously bombastic, in your face, take no prisoners, while leaving them rolling in the aisles style, with legal support from court documents to ensure that the truth is not mistaken is to levant.

Only Ezra levants each time out. Some of the rest of us can levant a paragraph or two on a lucky day. Most don't even try, because it is a rather special style. I think that if you were to somehow replicate the style with sincerity, it would be levantish, or levanty, and you would have been levanting.

Blazing

Blazing Cat Fur, spouse of Five Feet of Fury, which makes me wonder which one of them changed their last name. Did Blazing Cat shorten his, or Five Feet of lengthen hers, or as sometimes happens did Fur marry Fury. It's like the joke about the two Irishmen leaving the pub. It could happen.

Anyway, back to Blazing. Where Ezra Levant shreds ne'er do wells at length and also at breadth, BCF flames them out, or blazes them quickly and points us to the offending documents. So, it's a lot like being Shaidled, but sorta not.

Smouched

Most of the bloggers that I read are really pretty good in their own right at doing what Scaramouche does best, but I like his style, and so I have labeled it s(cara)mouching. Smouching is a form of hoisting with one's own petard. This seems totally appropriate for someone who models himself after the hero of the Rafael Sabatini novel that opened with the line: "He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad."

Scaramouche smouches his victims by replaying their stupidity for you in his blog, and then skewers them with their own nonsense, thereby hoisting them on their own petard. By the way, a petard was a small bomb for breaching gates and fortifications dating back to the 16th century. The word petard also derives from the french word for the expulsion of natural gas in the human body downward as it were, if you get my meaning. So there's a little graphic for you of smouching.

So smouche away lads and lassies, but Scaramouche does it best.

It's not a slow day really, just a slow day mentally, so nothing profound coming out of the brain pan.

How "Chilling" is it Really?

Jennifer and CASHRA Have Chilled The Rest Of Us

When I read Queen Jennifer's Speech recently at CASHRA, I was touched by her commentary of the emotional trauma felt by those who were being interviewed for what might be an upcoming blockbuster bestseller where she sets the record straight after our own white knight, Ezra Levant, picked her and them to pieces with his own best seller "Shakedown".

She spoke of the following: "As personal attacks were made against anyone who tried to correct the record, the number of people willing to make the effort dwindled. There is tangible proof of this: 50% of interviewees for an upcoming book on human rights have stated that they feel “chilled” about speaking up."

Aside from the fact that she misspelled the word "correct" in the first line of this quote, where she meant to spell it "manipulate", I am also curious about the 50% "chill" factor she posits.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if any of these interviews took place on May 11, 2007. On that day Mr. Giacomo Vigna, who works for the Queen (Jennifer not Elizabeth) testified that he was not feeling serene in the Marc Lemire case, and was unable to proceed. She might have also interviewed Mr. Lemire who after this nonsense from Mr. Vigna might have been a little less serene himself. I imagine, his lawyer Ms. Kulaszka, and Alicia Davies for the Attorney General, Paul Fromm for the Canadian Association for Free Expression, and Doug Christie for the Canadian Free Speech League were a little "chilled" too in reverse.

On that day, Mr. Vigna gave this sparkling testimony, probably not his most stellar moment, as he said: "Sorry. Mr. Chair, I don't have the flu but I don't feel in a serene state of mind to proceed with the file today. I don't feel very well. I feel dizzy, I feel anxiety, and I am not in a serene state of mind to proceed with this file today. I have a lot of things worrying me right now and I don't want to elaborate, but my colleague said, Mr. Fine, there are some certain incidents that have occurred which I don't feel at liberty to elaborate right now, which have had an impact on my ability to proceed in a professional way on this file, at least for today, because I wouldn't be rendering the Commission a just service by proceeding in this condition. I am not dying, Mr. Chair, I don't have the flu, but I am not mentally capable of proceeding under these circumstances."

But, I digress, mainly for fun.

Jennifer has this to say also: "Ironically, those who are claiming that human rights commission’s jurisdiction over hate speech is “chilling” to freedom of expression, have successfully created their own reverse chill....

Critics of the human rights system are manipulating and misrepresenting information to further a new agenda: one that posits that human rights commissions and tribunals no longer serve a useful purpose."

Let me be clear about my thoughts here. Not only do I think that the CASHRA members are "chilling" hate speech, they are chilling speech and people standing up for their rights. I came to this realisation this morning as I completed my blog post here. Here is government "chill" in full unadorned glory.

We all know how they have beaten up on Stephen Boissoin, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Marc Lemire, and the only one they have a chance of getting away with final victory on is Stephen Boissoin, and their chances are getting slimmer day by day. This does not mean they haven't put them all through the wringer financially and emotionally. That's pretty "chilling" and in itself makes this so called "reverse chill" petty at best.

But when I spoke to my friend the former primary school principal recently, and she told me that with the reinstatement of the recently dismissed claim against her by one of her wacky protaganists, she was just going to bow out, it dawned on me that the "chill" Queen Jennifer was talking about was alive and well. Also, any fake sympathy that I could have mustered for the reverse "chill" her buddies were feeling when she wanted to interview them for her soon to be blockbuster novel went out the window or formed into cubes for a cool beverage.

Just so you understand how the CASHRA chill works, I have been very careful to protect the identity of my "friend", including the community she lives in, any names of people involved, how I know her etc. Why? She does not want to jeopardize her case further in this ongoing insanity. Really, would you want to rattle the cage of someone as power hungry as Barbara Hall and her wandering band of minstrels? The same goes for Gator Ted, and John Fulton, also victims of Barb's Boys. I tried to communicate with them when I was reviewing their cases, and they chose probably wisely not to respond to me. I don't blame them.

I wonder what kind of a parallel universe that Queen Jennifer lives in where she thinks her critics have to manipulate and misrepresent information about the shenanigans that go on with the CASHRA members. Truth is far more ridiculous than fiction could be. You can't make this stuff up.

But I will posit this for her so there is no mistaking my intention. "Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals as they are currently configured and governed do not serve a useful purpose."

Free Speech - What Ezra Levant and Stephen Boissoin are Fighting For

What Happens if Jennifer Lynch Gets Her Way

Jennifer Lynch wants to tighten up the Hate Speech areas of freedom of speech legislation in our country, to properly criminalise hatred. I for one do not want her to have anything to do with it. Get out of the hate speech/free speech business like you belong Jennifer. You are wasting my tax dollars, while you mainly persecute people that He Who Will Not Be Named In My Blog thinks are worthy of persecution, not necessarily a good basis, and that nobody else has ever heard of. Oh, and the others that you and your CASHRA colleagues have chosen to behead metaphorically, have spoken the truth, but have offended somebody's feelings, and we have this wonky legislation around the country that allows their lives to be made hell for of all things, telling the truth.

It's really not that bad. What are you going on about anyway, mbrandon8026? Wake up, people. Look over at England to see where we will be in a few years, where offending somebody's feelings gets you, if they have the might of government and legislation they can tweak to their liking to make you dance to their tune.

In the United Kingdom, they have these things called Anti-Social Behaviour Order or ASBO. An ASBO may be issued in response to "conduct which caused or was likely to cause harm, harassment, alarm or distress, to one or more persons not of the same household as him or herself and where an ASBO is seen as necessary to protect relevant persons from further anti-social acts by the Defendant".

Anti-social behaviour has typically included such egregious acts as spitting, begging, fare dodging, dumping your garbage where it does not belong, making unnecessary noise, intimidation and the like.

These cases go before magistrates, and hearsay evidence is allowed, though higher courts can choose to discount hearsay evidence totally, partly or maybe.

An anti-social behaviour order is a Court Order which tells an individual over 10 years old how they must not behave. An Order can contain only negative prohibitions. To obtain an ASBO a two-stage test must be satisfied by the applicant authority. The first is that the defendant has committed acts causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress within six months of the date of issue of the summons. The second is that an order is necessary to protect persons from further anti-social behaviour.

This all sounds like our kangaroo courts we lovingly call HRCs/HRTs.

So, into this nonsense comes Ted Atkinson. Ted, who is now over 80 years of age is a former member of Her Majesty's Military Service, and is active in Pro-Life work, though hobbled by disease. Here is some of what happened to him in his own words.

"On May 4th, 2006 I was convicted at Swaffham Magistrates Court, Norfolk under the Malicious Communications Act for sending pro-life material through the post to Mrs Ruth May, Chief Executive of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kings Lynn.

Mrs Ruth May sent for the Police because this material alluded to the murder of unborn babies. I was fined £500 and was made subject to a 5 year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO). The hospital placed me on the barred list and will not treat me unless I’m in a life threatening condition. I subsequently discovered that the same hospital murders more than 5 babies per
week.

On 12th December I was arrested for the same thing, this time for sending material to the Adjustamatic bed company in North Wales when cancelling an order for an adjustable mattress. This time I was charged for both breaching the Malicious Communications Act and breaching my ASBO which runs for 5 years.

After a committal hearing at Kings Lynn Magistrates court on Friday, 9th January, I was committed for trial at Kings Lynn Magistrates for Wednesday, 4th March, 2009.

I am already having £5 per week deducted to pay off the £500 fine. It seems that if I am found guilty, I could go to prison for 5 years.

I am 77 years of age, I have diabetes, inflammation around the heart with a narrowing of the arteries, arthritis affecting both hands and a bad hip.

However, I have no trade, no profession, no debts and no dependents so I can afford to place my neck on the block.

I am under no illusions, as the world sees these things, that it is an exercise in futility, like a man who tries to hold up a Churchill tank armed only with a pea shooter and a pocketful of peas, but I can clear my conscience before Almighty God.

Perhaps it shows the double standards that are practised in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital when I tell you that in that same hospital there is a leading surgeon, a Mr Bone, who has undergone a sex-change operation (as if anyone could) because he has some weird notion that he is really a woman.

This ASBO was issued against me to render me inactive and silent in the face of the abortion holocaust. At Swaffham Magistrates Court in 2006 I asked the Judge, Philip Browning if he thought that murdering unborn babies is antisocial but he ignored me."

In Court, Mr. Atkinson said the purpose of sending the images had been "to educate", adding:

I accept that the documentation was highly distressing. It's horrendous, monstrous and sickening but it represents the truth of what is going on in our world. Everyone in this courtroom knows that abortion is murder and no one has the guts to say it.

In sentencing Atkinson, the judge said: "It is clear that you intended to shock and I am certain your purpose was to cause distress and anxiety."

For having forcefully exercised his right of free speech in protecting unborn babies and causing 'upset':

• On 4 May 2006, Atkinson was jailed for 28 days.
• Plus an extra 14 days in prison for non-payment of a £650 fine imposed in 2002 for a similar offence.
• Plus the old age pensioner was told that an order would also be made for £500 of the £700 court costs to be deducted direct from his pension.
• Plus he was given a five-year anti-social behaviour order and was told by district judge Phillip Brown that if he disobeyed the ASBO he faced five years in jail. But Atkinson replied "Then you may as well lock me up and throw away the key."
• Plus his area hospital now formally denies him all but treatment for life threatening illnesses
• Plus his area hospital has taken him off their waiting list for surgery on his hip justifying it with this statement: "Our legal advisers were consulted and their opinion was that this man's actions contravened the Natioinal Health Service Zero Tolerance policy in cases of abuse or unacceptable behaviour towards our staff."

Mr. Atkinson hurt people's feelings by telling the truth. The people who's feelings were hurt were more powerful than him, and had legislation working in their favour even if they had to bend it to their purpose, since it sure did not fit as it was designed.

Mark my words. If we stay silent in this country, this will be our fate. I do not want Stephen Boissoin's blood or the blood of any other martyr for free speech on my hands.

Stephen, if you have the courage to speak the truth as you understand it, do so, not that you need my permission to so do. If my feelings are hurt, I will get over it, though I may pout for a bit. I have done sinful things in my life and I wish someone who spoke with truth and authority had had the courage to speak up to me and tell me I was on a wrong path at those times. I might not have listened, but then again, I might have, and saved myself and people I love a lot of heartache. But, we will never know, will we?

We need people speaking the truth as they understand it in this country. Then we have the chance to build up our own consciences and form ourselves and conform ourselves to the truth. Everything else is Blah, Blah, Blah.