The Shotgun Blog
« Who is head of the Nuclear Safety Commission? | Main | Are Canada's "Human Rights" Commissions just slo-mo Kristallnachts? »
Friday, January 11, 2008
Ez in the Post
Our man Ezra is busy fighting the good fight for free speech. Here's the latest from the National Post (don't forget to post updates over here, Ezra!):
"Contriteness implies that you've done something wrong for which you need to apologize or atone," Ezra Levant said moments before his 90-minute meeting with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission in Calgary. "I have not done anything wrong."
And then, later in the article, Ezra says this:
"I don't need to be reasonsable. I have maxiumum rights of free speech," he said later. "I have the right to publish this for the most offensive reason, for the most unreasonable reasons."
That's exactly right. You should not legally *have* to be reasonable, not in a country that upholds free speech.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 11, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/25051444
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ez in the Post:
Comments
Godspeed, Ezra.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 11-Jan-08 11:25:50 PM
Hallo.! Gutes Neues Jahr 2008.!
Posted by: AngelaBridget | 11-Jan-08 11:36:06 PM
Danke schon, AngelaBridget. Und fur sie auch, Gutes Neues Jahr!
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 11-Jan-08 11:53:06 PM
Make peace, not war!
Posted by: TotaapommottE | 12-Jan-08 12:55:14 AM
Ezra knows what he's talking about. The burden is on his accusers to prove illegality; if the publication was offensive TOO BAD! We are free here and will remain so I hope. I happen to be a Christian and there are many things that are publicly said and done and printed that are an offense to His Name. If there was nothing illegal done TOO BAD! for me. That's the price of a free society. If you don't like your neighbour being free then move somewhere that he's not; don't try to take his away
Posted by: Jim Kelly | 12-Jan-08 5:05:20 AM
Rex Murphy on freedom of speech: But where does the BC Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Commission come into this picture? Has anyone been publicly whipped? Has someone or some group been hauled off to a gulag? Is there a race frenzy sweeping the land?
Why is any human rights commission inserting itself between a magazine, a television show, a newspaper and the readers or viewers? Is every touchy, or agenda-driven sensibility now free to call upon the offices of the state and free of charge - to them - not their targets - to embroil them in "justifying" their right to write and broadcast as they see fit? The Western Standard magazine, during the so-called Danish cartoon crisis got hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing the cartoons that all the world was talking about. The action drained the magazine’s resources - but it was free to the complainant.
Meantime real human rights violations - threats of death against Salman Rushdie, riots after the cartoons, death threats against the artists, the persecution of Hirsi Ali, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, neither inspire nor receive human rights investigations.
Maclean’s and its columnists - especially of late - are an ornament to Canada's civic space. They should not have to defend themselves for doing what a good magazine does: start debate, express opinion, and stir thought. And most certainly they should not have to abide the threatened censorship of any of Canada's increasingly interfering, state appointed and paradoxically labeled human rights commissions.
Canadian Human Rights Commission on freedom of speech: When asked by Barbara Kulaszka, a counsel speaking on behalf of a website being charged with "hate crimes", what value does he give to free speech when investigating a "human rights" complaint, Mr. Steacy's answer was: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value". Then he added: "It's not my job to give value to an American concept."
The Canadian Human Rights Commissioner is an officer of the Parliament of Canada; it is therefore up to the Parliament of Canada to put an end to the HR Commission nonsense... How about an investigation by the ethics committee of the House of Commons (sarcasm)?
I think the Canadian Human Rights Commission should only have the authority to investigate complaints involving federal departments and agencies. As an agent of the Parliament of Canada, it should not have the authority to investigate private citizens who, after all, have elected the members of the same Parliament. In other words, the Commission is accountable to us, taxpayers, not taxpayers to the Commission.
Posted by: andré | 12-Jan-08 5:15:16 AM
andre, I happened to catch Rex Murphy's piece on the CBC (a rare occurrence, watching the CBC), and so I think I know what are his words in your comment.
It would be infinitely helpful, however, if you either italicized or put into quotation marks what Rex Murphy actually said, otherwise it looks as though much of the above is your comment on some of the things Mr. Murphy actually said.
'Speaking as a former editor...once an editor, always an editor... ;-)
Posted by: 'been around the block | 12-Jan-08 5:33:20 AM
Sorry about this been around the block. The Rex Murphy quote ends with this sentence:
"And most certainly they should not have to abide the threatened censorship of any of Canada's increasingly interfering, state appointed and paradoxically labeled human rights commissions" (end of Murphy quote)
I also forgot to mention that Dean Steacy, the fellow who thinks that freedom of speech is not a canadian value, is a senior investigator at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
The Canadian Human Rights Commissioner is not an agent of the government of Canada like the Deputy Ministers of federal departments and agencies (Indian Affairs, Revenue Canada etc..) The HR Commissioner is an agent of the Parliament of Canada. It is therefore up to the entire Parliament of Canada (Commons & Senate) to discipline an officer of Parliament like the HR Commissioner or to terminate his office. I think we should put pressure on our Member of Parliament regardless of political affiliation to terminate the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner and his squad of so-called "investigators".
Posted by: andré | 12-Jan-08 6:01:37 AM
The HRC's are overkill, we do not require such beasts to be used and abused for all manner of petty grievances. We have a Charter of Rights, we have laws to assure they're protected
.
HRC's are nothing but Socialistic infringements on our basic freedoms.
They have to be shut down by our Government.
Why should we have to pay big bucks to fight for our freedoms guaranteed under the Charter?
Just because some Lefty cabal wishes to make some more equal than others and enrich the Legals?
How has this country come to this? How has common sense become defunct? It's tragic, it's dangerous.
Posted by: Liz J | 12-Jan-08 6:44:30 AM
Dean Steacy is just taunting his opponents with verbal technicalities when he says "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value". What he is saying without explaining it is that the term "freedom of speech" does not appear in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That document talks about "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication". So it is not that Steacy does not believe that freedom of speech is a Canadian value or that it is not constitutionally protected, he is just being a dick about terminology to avoid discussing the substance of the issue and to annoy his critics at the same time.
Posted by: Fact Check | 12-Jan-08 8:18:33 AM
"Why should we have to pay big bucks to fight for our freedoms guaranteed under the Charter?"
They are guaranteed under Article 2. However, there's one small problem. Article 1 takes them away.
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
Try to define the word reasonable; it can't be done. It's a subjective term so that what is reasonable to you or me may be completely unreasonable to someone else. Since it's a subjective word and HRCs have the force of law, they're reasonable and demonstrably justified in stomping on every right we have.
No wonder they wouldn't let us vote on the Charter.
Posted by: Kathryn | 12-Jan-08 8:27:29 AM
Kudos to Ezra Levant for his stand.
Particularly for his statement to the "commission."
Too bad he didn't then leave the room, after reading his statement.
At that point I suspect MSM might even take interest in this farce.
Particular mention and kudos as well to Kate McMillan at SDA blog for making the photos available to the blogosphere and many thousands of her visitors world wide.
This is a story that may have profound consequences if the "commission" is successful.
However, the very fact the HRC can drag anyone before it for "hurt feelings" is a tragedy in its self.
I truly hope the Mark Steyn farce will be the end of these kangaroo one sided courts in Canada.
(Complainants getting a free ride insofar as costs go)
Posted by: Joseph ( Joe ) Molnar | 12-Jan-08 8:27:36 AM
If anyone can be the first to win in front of the Troika, it'll be Mr. Levant.
You carry my hope and prayers with you Ezra.
TotaapommottE | 12-Jan-08 12:55:14 AM,
War makes peace.
I will not submit to the Caliphate.
Posted by: Speller | 12-Jan-08 9:08:00 AM
Fact Check got it right! It's all in the verbiage.
Posted by: Hoser | 12-Jan-08 9:39:52 AM
One does not capture "the moment" forever.
Take full advantage of this situation and THROW your entire Charter OUT!
Get rid of Trudeau's stinking rotting corpse.
Consider total dismantling of your Human Rights Commissions as the first attack which breaks down the gates and then move forward through that breach in the wall and tear down the entire Socialist ubiquitous governmental strangulation enterprise.
Write yourselves (and your children) a LIMITED GOVERNMENT Constitution, and keep it through a morality of what is right in terms of Natural Law, not what is perversely destructively possible.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 12-Jan-08 10:08:01 AM
Kathryn, yes 'reasonable' is subjective term and the Socialists idea of reasonable is anything but if common sense were to enter the picture at all.
Posted by: Liz J | 12-Jan-08 10:15:01 AM
Fact Check: "What he is saying without explaining it is that the term "freedom of speech" does not appear in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That document talks about "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"."
Ours was written by lawyers and politicians, two professions not known for using 1 word when 8 will suffice. It still boils down to FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
You are only guessing about that "saying without explaining"; it is equally reasonable (there's that undefinable word again) to guess that he really doesn't believe in freedom of speech. And since Steacy works for the HRC, that second guess is far more likely to be true.
Posted by: Kathryn | 12-Jan-08 11:03:11 AM
Fact Check: "What he is saying without explaining it is that the term "freedom of speech" does not appear in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That document talks about "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"."
From answers.com: definition of expression:
1. The act of expressing, conveying, or representing in words, art, music, or movement; a manifestation: an expression of rural values.
2. Something that expresses or communicates: Let this plaque serve as an expression of our esteem.
3. Mathematics. A symbol or combination of symbols that represents a quantity or a relationship between quantities.
4. The manner in which one expresses oneself, especially in speaking, depicting, or performing.
5. A particular word or phrase: “an old Yankee expression . . . ‘Stand up and be counted’” (Charles Kuralt).
6. The outward manifestation of a mood or a disposition: My tears are an expression of my grief.
7. A facial aspect or a look that conveys a special feeling: an expression of scorn.
8. The act of pressing or squeezing out.
9. Genetics. The act or process of expressing a gene.
Therefore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms not only guarantees freedom of speech; it guarantees freedom of expression which is a superset of speech.
Although the Charter could be improved upon, the fundamental problem in Canada is not the Charter; the fundamental problem in Canada is the failure of legal bodies to enforce and abide by the Charter.
See Part I, Number 2 in the Charter:
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html
Posted by: Brent Weston | 12-Jan-08 11:13:23 AM
Conrad:
Your normally well thought out posts seem to have more and more emotion associated with them. There are many of us who are bothered by the situation in Canada. However, I think your posts carry more weight if they reflect the facts on the ground, so to speak.
The fundamental legal problem in Canada is the Justices do not apply the Law in a consistent manner and they do not interpret the Constitution in a manner consistent with several centuries of British legal tradition. It is what one commenter once called "The Court Party" using the word "Party" to denote a political party.
I will thus amend one of your sentences to more properly reflect the current situation (while retaining your emotion):
"Take full advantage of this situation and THROW your entire Court Party OUT!"
Posted by: Brent Weston | 12-Jan-08 11:24:21 AM
Rex Murphy video link
http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/rex_murphy/human_rights_gone_awry.html
Posted by: Brian | 12-Jan-08 11:30:54 AM
I rather like Conrad's idea better. Throw the whole Charter out and use the US constitution and
Declaration of Independence as blueprints for a new one.
Posted by: atric | 12-Jan-08 11:34:30 AM
atric:
You, too, have missed the fundamental point. A Constitution is only a piece of paper (or several kilobytes in Cyberspace) if it is not followed.
Changing only the Constitution and leaving the current Justices employed only means that they have a different piece of paper not to follow.
If they do not follow the one, why do you think they will follow the other. After all, if the US does not follow its own Constitution, why would Canadian Justices follow it?
Posted by: Brent Weston | 12-Jan-08 11:44:03 AM
Brent -
Undoubtedly you are correct regarding enforcement versus actual content of your Charter.
I am naive and angry and perhaps too willing to shoot my mouth off about the product of a Leftist (PET) which certainly coincided with a huge Leftward shift in Canada (at least in my limited perception).
My actual belief regarding the corruption (i.e. Leftward shift) of Western Civilization is the horrible effects of the Roman Catholic Church, Second Vatican Council (in the early 1960s) and its subsequent-coincident secretive insinuation of homosexual males into the Ordained Clergy.
I think that introduction of profound "anti-man" mental illness into the heart of a paternalistic institution for the guidance and counselling of mainly married women (e.g. women really do hang around Churches more than men do) has led to the creation of the Feminist movement and the consequent destruction of the natural human family (only to be replaced by massive Socialist-Atheist government).
In my "travels" around this blog, the main thing that has struck me is the evident abundance of Atheists in Canada. And they all seem to have come from the same source (e.g. the Catholic Faith, upon reaching the age of fourteen - I don't know how many times I've read that "testimony" on this blog).
Down here, we got the emergence of the Evangelical Protestants to somewhat counter or stem the tide of flight from the Catholic Church which would either go over the cliff into Atheism or (equally sadly in my view) into the Evangelical (highly flexible) "Faith" tradition.
I'm not in the least bit "interested" in a big sweeping change in our Constitution, as I seem to be proposing for you regarding your Charter, so I talk a good game but don't play it.
I hope you folks can beat this horrible Human Rights Commission garbage (we have it down here and it has metasticized all throughout the Roman Catholic Church via our many formerly private charities, which after the first STUPID President Bush were all corrupted by connecting them with the horrible rotten corrupting government, though that fool's "Thousand Points of Light" concept of funding horrible government programs via the existing network of private charities (the first dollar of government money purchases control).
Best wishes for success for Ezra and the rest of you who have the courage to recognize the stakes which you're playing with and the love of country to persevere against the Communists.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 12-Jan-08 11:56:33 AM
Some observations.
If the Charter is meant to guarantee rights and freedoms, then any citizen is capable of ensuring his rights are protected.
Trouble is, the first out of the gate were special-interest ‘victim' groups who twisted the spirit for their own political gain.
Ezra's stance is commendable, since he articulates how citizens whose rights are trampled on have a right to defend themselves.
The thing is, this door swings both ways.
What's stopping anybody from filing a HRC complaint against a professional victim group?
That would put the special interest group on the defensive and they would have to foot all the bills.
Of course, the problem would be the filtering system beforehand, but that is also subject to an action that a complaint is being unfairly quashed.
For example, had Ezra launched a counter-complaint that his rights were being encroached upon at the same time he was served, would not this Islamic activist have to pay costs of Ezra's equivalent complaint?
Or, does the HRC process not allow counter-claims?
Posted by: set you free | 12-Jan-08 11:57:00 AM
I might be wrong about this but I think that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will only investigate complaints made by a member or members of designated groups: women, the disabled, visible minorities. An individual who is not a member of these designated groups can lodge all the complaints he wants, but the Commission will refuse to investigate them. The division of society into groups is the worst disaster created by the Trudeau Charter. Today, the Charter, and the Commission that enforces its human rights provisions, can only be amended by our Parliament (and I think that a majority of the provinces would have to approve the amendments). Repealing the Charter would be a non-starter as the opposition parties would oppose it etc... The current government of Canada and future governments are totally powerless because the CHRC does not report to the executive branch of government. I think that the only solution is to limit the scope of investigations by the CHRC to alleged human rights offenses committed by federal public servants and federal institutions(if that is possible) while letting each province set up their own Human Rights Commissions... In other words, Parliament could try to amend the Human Rights Act and more specifically, the provisions of the Act that define the role and scope of powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Posted by: andré | 12-Jan-08 12:18:52 PM
Conrad:
Fair comments. If you actually follow my above link and read Item 2 in the Canadian Charter and compare it to the First Amendment of the US side, you will find quite a few similarities. I suggest you might even find there are greater freedoms stated in the Canadian Charter. However, there is much agreement that, in practice, the US side is quite freer than the Canadian side. The key, then, is "in practice". The "in practice" part is in the domain of the Justices.
I am intrigued by your comments on the number of atheists in Canada. I agree that there are considerable more atheists and agnostics (per capita) in Canada than in the US. I am also intrigued by your comments on the RCC.
I have to go so I will have to carry this on later.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 12-Jan-08 12:24:55 PM
Saturday morning, half-asleep, and as usual I eagerly anticipate reading the National Post, as I have for the past six years. I glance at the headlines, flip it over, and whoa, what's this? Ezra Levant, that spunky, irreverent, challenging, courageous man from Alberta has done "it" again!
Oh, joy! I laugh out loud and I am so off-balance, my brain has gone from 0 to 100 in a few seconds, that it takes me a full twenty minutes to make one cup of coffee.
Ezra isn't going to take it, neither is Mark Steyn and Macleans magazine or the National Post. This is a fight that must be fought by all freedom loving people in the world and I am so damn proud that it's Canadians that have taken up the fight and will not be intimidated or threatened or silenced by the forces of fanatical unreason.
Ezra, I am in awe. You are a true Canadian hero.
Posted by: sgi | 12-Jan-08 12:28:49 PM
We are on dangerous ground when a cabal of government-appointed lickspittles can haul people before tax-funded tribunals for expressing an opinion. This is not what more than 100,000 Canadians died to defend.
You go Ezra! Don't ever, ever apologize or even hint at contrition. You did nothing wrong. If the Jihadis in our midst don't like our freedoms, they can get the hell out. Maybe they would feel more at home in Wahabist Saudia Arabia.
Posted by: JMD | 12-Jan-08 1:52:07 PM
"What was your intent?" ... is this Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR ?
No ... it is totalitarian HRC Canada courtesy of the left-wing Liberal mob!
Who gives these HRC self-righteous appointees to right to even pose such a preposterous question ?
Posted by: Brian | 12-Jan-08 2:14:48 PM
Cross-posted at SDA:
It must be remembered that these cartoons were originally published in Denmark. Therefore, the question of freedom of speech/expression/press belongs in Denmark.
When the Western Standard picked up the story about 2 years ago, it was simply to publish the facts about what was causing such a stir in the Muslim world.
Here is a link in a Brussels publication:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698
While these cartoons would be considered mildly humourous if any other group or politician had been the target, it must be remembered that the WS did not create the cartoons or re-publish them with the goal of humour. It re-published them so that its readers could have the correct information as to what was riling Muslims.
Therefore this case is even more troubling than if thw WS writers had created these cartoons on their own.
WHAT IS REALLY ON TRIAL HERE IS THE RIGHT FOR A MEDIA ORGANIZATION TO PUBLISH FACTS ABOUT A GROUP THAT THAT SAME GROUP DOES NOT WANT PUBLISHED BECAUSE IT FINDS THOSE FACTS EMBARASSING.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 12-Jan-08 4:15:53 PM
I am impressed by Ezra's eloquence in defense of a basic human right, the right to think and say what we want. I saw the video at Ace of Spades and I have to say, this man deserves a medal. If I were a Canadian, and I am not, I would be extremely angry at these little insignificant twerps that do not deserve to be in Ezra's presence.
Posted by: Harry | 12-Jan-08 4:43:32 PM
Hot Air, of all places, has video of Ezra's time before the People's Court...err, Human Rights Commission.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 12-Jan-08 4:59:10 PM
Two comments:
First, I'm astonished that Ezra's inquisition was recorded. I was always under the impression that these Star Chambers operated strictly behind closed doors, with no record made of the proceedings.
Second, on the discussion comparing the US and Cdn constitutional guarantees, I have always considered the US Bill of Rights (the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution) to be superior to the Cdn Charter simply because it is phrased in the negative rather than the positive.
What I mean by this is that the US Bill of Rights says nothing about a citizen's rights. What it does do is say, very clearly, what the State may NOT do with respect to a citizen's rights. The State may not infringe on religious freedom, or free speech, or press, or assembly, and so on. The citizen is free to do anything except for those relatively few things proscribed by law, and the law may not make proscriptions in the areas named in those first Ten Amendments. All the limitations and restrictions and inhibitions in the American Bill of Rights are imposed on Government, not the People.
The Cdn model, on the other hand, lists the rights that Cdn citizens supposedly enjoy. But what the State granteth, the State can taketh away, and the Constitution contains nothing to preclude the Government of the day from infringing on peoples' liberties if it deems it necessary. It's carte blanche.
Not my idea of a good arrangement.
Posted by: Doug | 12-Jan-08 5:18:13 PM
Doug:
Look at who created the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" = Pierre the Terrible, the heartless dictator who, prior to the Charter, violated the human rights of Canadians not once but twice!
In 1970 he sent the army to occupy Quebec on the pretext of fighting terrorists. However, the real purpose was to remind Quebecers that the English would always be in charge. Need I point out that the 'terrorists' were allowed to escape, and subsequently received a slap on the wrist when they returned.
In 1980, he deprived Albertans of the right of equality before the law during the National Energy Policy fiasco. Hundreds of thousands of people lost everything they had in that disaster.
It should come as no surprise that this cruel man created the Charter. If he were alive today, he should be put on trial for violations of human rights.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 12-Jan-08 5:33:57 PM
I don't give a shit what you think about Trudeau Zebulon Pike, but don't serve us this crap about the FLQ. The FLQ were not freedom fighters, they were terrorists.
In August 1970, two months before an FLQ goon squad kidnapped British diplomat James Cross, staff from the CBC French Network on a trip in the Middle East reported that they saw two FLQ members being trained in a PLO TRAINING CAMP. This is a fact, not some fiction I invented to contradict you!
When the legitimately elected governments of Canada & Québec put an end to the FLQ terror activities in October 1970, there had been 80 bombs planted, mostly in the Montreal area. These bombs killed 4 and wounded 41 others, including a little baby. Most of the victims were French-speaking workers at their place of work (factories etc..). An FLQ bomb also killed a 16 year-old boy who was carrying it for the FLQ.
We all know the FLQ members requested to be deported to Cuba because they wanted to live in a communist paradise. Yes, the creation of a communist paradise in Quebec was the ultimate goal of the FLQ and they were ready to kill as many innocent victims needed to achieve that goal. So don't give us this "I love the terrorists BS". This attitude belongs to the hard core leftoids, not on this blog.
Posted by: andré | 12-Jan-08 6:19:21 PM
andre: they were common criminals, not terrorists. They deserved to be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned for life. I am well aware of what the FLQ did, including the bombing of the stock exchange. But that does not alone make them terrorists.
Action was needed, but to describe what they did as "terrorism" serves only to legitimize the genuine human rights offense - suspending civil rights to oppress an entire population. The real terrorist was Trudeau.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 12-Jan-08 6:34:48 PM
Sorry but andré is correct not Zeb on the FLQ. When one intentionally targets and murders civilians in hopes of fomenting terror (as the FLQ), one is a terrorist. It was wrong to allow these thugs to escape to Cuba and even more wrong to allow them back the way that it happened. Still this is not the present topic.
It is indeed refreshing to see Canadians, as Mr. Levant, take a stand for our tradition of free speech. Hopefully with his case and that of Mr. Steyn and Maclean's, the majority of Canadians will wake up and demand an end to this kangaroo tribunals. If not, then we do not deserve the freedoms we inherited.
Posted by: Alain | 12-Jan-08 7:48:21 PM
The best suggestion so far is to write to our MP's and ask them to get rid of the HRC's. Group rights are a farce. We should focus on negative rights of the individual. That is where the office of the ombudsman comes in. Perhaps Ezra should lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman about the jackboots of the HRC.
Posted by: DML | 13-Jan-08 12:52:58 AM
"the majority of Canadians will wake up and demand an end to this kangaroo tribunals"
Alain, you mean the same "majority" that voted in over a hundred liberal seats last election, a known corrupt and useless government, and recent polls show they would do the same given a chance?
This "deranged dominion" is in very bad shape, even with a majority conservative government it would take years to straighten out this disaster.
You think the demented Trudeau minions are gong to let that happen?
Posted by: deepblue | 13-Jan-08 1:29:19 AM
Doug:
Actually, I feel that the Canadian Charter is better on paper than the US side for the very reasons you state. The US side does indeed prohibit Congress from doing certain things and it does not prohibit states or individuals from doing those same things.
Under the original US side, something like slavery would have been permitted as long as it was only states or individuals owning the slaves. It would only be prohibitted for the national government to engage in slavery.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 13-Jan-08 6:17:21 AM
Hi everyone,
Just wanted to introduce myself. This seems like a nice place and I look forward to hanging out here :)
Pam
http://sacredheartdietforreal.blogspot.com/
Posted by: pamelakworkoutgirl | 13-Jan-08 8:18:05 AM
Oh for Heavens sake Brent Weston, give your head a shake!! You cannot compare that 'scrap of paper' regurgitated by the slimy slug Pierre Turdo errr..Trudeau and his minions to the masterpiece written by brilliant minds in the United States of America.
If you want to have a comparable document for Turdo's version, go read the Constitution written for the Russian people by Lenin after the Bolsheviks took over from Czar Nicolas II in 1918. It is almost word for word what Turdo wrote for us!
The Russian people had been under the thumb of a Dictator (Czar) for centuries - they thought they had died and gone to Heaven when they were 'given' a few human rights on a hunk of paper - of course these were not 'real' rights anywhere but on paper and the paper was worded to defraud them - like the EXCLUSION of Property Rights - ring a bell??
The Russian People had been bled blue by WWI and had never had education or wealth - the serfs in Russia were the PROPERTY of landowners until the mid 1800's (when under Czar Alexander II - they were to be untied to the land they were born on and given limited representation in a Duma; however the socialist intellectual activists of the day murdered that Czar before he could sign the papers and the next Czar, Alexander III went into reactionary mode after seeing what had happened to his Dad when 'he gave an inch' - just who was on the 'side of the people'?
What I am saying is that the Russian people had an excuse for their naive ignorance allowing the bolsheviks in the gate; Canadians did not; we sold our Liberty for nothing.
I think that most of us here agree with you, Conrad - USA. I certainly do. No time like 'the moment' to tear that Turdo paper up and demand a new charter protecting we, the people, (citizens) from our own government; should the government DARE to get out of line and forget who is the boss.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the 4th amendment to deal with internal problems. To protect individual's (as verses 'collective') rights.
Posted by: jema54j | 13-Jan-08 4:02:36 PM
What do you mean ?
Posted by: music | 30-Jan-08 3:23:08 AM
Post a comment