The Shotgun Blog
« Canadians Weigh in on US Presidential Race | Main | Liveblogging Super Tuesday »
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Someone call the HRC!
The Confederation of Socialists... err... Canadian Federation of Students (my mistake) passed a motion in January to support student unions that want to ban pro-life student groups.
An excerpt from the University of Western Ontario's The Gazette:
"When asked whether Ryerson students should be exposed to both sides
of the abortion issue, Hudson said allowing an anti-choice group would
be like allowing a white supremacist group on campus.
Hudson added the literature distributed by Life Support likened abortion to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the Holocaust.
The CFS-Ontario decision is welcome news for Joyce Arthur, coordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.
Arthur believes pro-life groups should not receive support from student unions because they seek to repress human rights. She said these groups are comparable to Neo-Nazi movements."
Pro-life students are comparable to neo-Nazis? What is this insanity? Just how are they comparable? In what way?
I may not be pro-life, but I can spot a bullshit analogy from a mile away.
Incidentally, would it be humorous or really sad to see these people get slapped with a Human Rights Commission complaint? What's good for the goose is... never mind. I'm just kidding. No one should stoop so low as to use the CHRC to silence opinion. Including remarkably stupid opinions, like the ones expressed above.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 5, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/25836230
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Someone call the HRC!:
Comments
HRC complaint wouldn't work. Anti-abortion groups don't fit into the enumerated groups which it protects.
The CFS should be called the " Crazy F#@kin' Stupids" for their statements.
There aught to be a law (even though it would limit free speech)
s. 3(6) Anybody who invokes the term Nazi in an argument is guilty of an offense and automatically forfeits said argument.
s 3(7) Section 3(6) does not apply where one party to the argument wears red laced doc martins, swastikas and shaved heads or could reasonably be construed to be the same as those who wear the aforementioned articles.
Stupid also because the automatic response from some on the other side ( and I'm surprised I haven't seen it here yet ) is :
" Oh yeah, who's responsible for the greatest holocaust since Hitler"
Posted by: Nbob | 5-Feb-08 3:56:21 PM
In the future, everyone will be Hitler for 15 minutes.
(someone)
Posted by: Speller | 5-Feb-08 4:17:42 PM
We have a right army of little thought police taking their orders from a deeply entrenched, liberal, pro-abortion, politically correct dogma pervading university campuses across Canada. It does not surprise me to find other instances of this insanity, (below) by Menalson, comparing campus pro-life clubs to the KKK, and using this to justify denying them funding and status on campus. Not only is this is libel, defamation of character, gross misrepresentation with intent to expose these clubs to public contempt, but nothing is done about it! These puny dictocrats go completely unchecked by their university administrations, but the consequences of their shenanigans are having serious effects on important Charter Rights’ values like the freedom of speech. The full text can be found at http://www.theeyeopener.com/article/3733.
"The Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) Ontario passed a motion this month to support Lakehead University Students' Union (LUSU), which denied club status to pro-life group Life Support. Using the term anti-choice, rather than pro-life, CFS-Ontario voted to back an emergency motion that read: "member (unions) that refuse to allow anti-choice organizations access to their resources and space be supported."
"You wouldn't take public money to put in an organization that moves to take away people's rights, you wouldn't fund the KKK," said Shelley Melanson, Women's Representative on the National Executive of the CFS. "Not with student space. Not with student resources."
Also note the motion passed by the self-proclaimed pro-abortion Canadian Federation of Students.
“Be it Further Resolved that LUSU withhold any and all funds, space, resources and services within its control from any group, either on or off campus, …if that group holds any aim, principle, belief, goal, etc. that is anti-choice in nature, explicit or implicit.”
Imagine, a group that holds an implicit belief that is pro-life will be denied any support from their university.
Posted by: Natalie Hudson | 5-Feb-08 4:29:12 PM
Wait until these university kids enter the real world, get a job, get married, have kids (in whatever order ).
Once they hold their own baby in their arms they won't believe how stupid they were to support marxist feminazis.
Posted by: Bocanut | 5-Feb-08 4:44:04 PM
There is no intolerance like the intolerance displayed by those espousing Tolerance.
Posted by: Richard Ball | 5-Feb-08 5:12:33 PM
The Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) is funded by compulsory student activity fees from the student unions. (just like trade union central the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) which gets affiliation fees from its trade unions.)
The CFS is in fact getting pro-life students compulsory monies, as are the student unions but many of them refuse the pro-life students a voice in their "so-called democracy." This is outrageous. But hey, I am not really surprised at what is going on. All these groups be it the CFS or trade unions have connections to each other see "coalition partners at: http://www.cfsontario.ca/english/links.php?id=6
And many of the "coalition partners" are supporters of abortion.
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 5-Feb-08 5:46:59 PM
It never fails. The people who call most loudly for universal rights are the first to underwrite them with tack-ons and codicils that exempt whichever group they don't like, for whichever reasons they can think up on the spot. Hint: Look for ANY reason based on emotion. Comparing your opponents to Nazis is a pretty good example.
Of course, these feministas are blind to a ghastly irony. Since on average over a million babies a year have been aborted in North America since the early 1970s, the numbers of the original Holocaust have long been far exceeded. The feminists are the real Nazis. And they have the nerve to apply the label to others who would stop the practice.
I really don't think there is any creature in contemporary Western society that is as self-serving, as vile, as base and depraved, as wilfully blind and overflowing with hate, as loathsome and despicable, as damaging to society and to ethics, as insidious and as sinister, as the modern radical feminist.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 5-Feb-08 6:06:17 PM
Killing people who have no legal standing is okay in Canada because they have no legal standing, that might be fine with the student's, but they have no right to suppress the opinion of people who have different views. The 'uni'versity of thought on University campuses is practically fascist.
Posted by: philanthropist | 5-Feb-08 6:10:23 PM
The reason why all these assaults on freedoms are taking place is:
1 The Charter of Rights was imposed without the people individually getting a vote on it. We are ruled by a document we did NOT get to vote on.
2 Trade union dues are compulsory. (This was done by an appointed judge.) And the unions use the dues to support all kinds of groups and causes. Abortion and so called "same-sex marriage are but two examples.
3 Student activity fees are compulsory and the student unions are in coalitions with the trade unions.
4 Human Rights Commissions (HRCs) are appointed by the politicians who in turn get the HRCs to do their dirty work
5 The Supreme Court judges are appointed not elected thus they "read in" words not in the Charter "sexual orientation" is but one example. And of Course the charter is a "living tree" spreading its diseased branches across the country.
These are but some examples of how "democracy" in this country has become a farce and a play-thing for the politically correct.
So what can be done to right these wrongs? Any suggestions, because at the moment we are prisoners of the system imposed by politicians, run by judges and the methods are COMPULSION by its foot soldiers coalitions.
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 5-Feb-08 6:21:44 PM
First I want to say that Speller's comment is classic.
Then, regarding the actual topic. Is it degrading for conservatives to use the HRC? Well, we don't believe in it, so there would be a level of hypocrisy. But... think about our main enemies: Islamists. They fight war in such a way that the standard rules of warfare to which we adhere are often ineffectual. And often times, we lost battles because of it. I have often thought we should fight them as they fight us: Dirty. And with that in mind, it might not be a bad idea to file a series of nuisance suits with the various HRCs. Same idea: Fight them with their own methods.
RG
Posted by: RightGirl | 5-Feb-08 7:13:06 PM
At this point, Stephen, I think it's going to take a lot of deaths. Either the PC gestapo will piss off the wrong person and some commissioners will get a Molotov cocktail through the window, or else the innocent victims will begin piling up to the point where they'll no longer all fit under the carpet, as with the disgraced pathologist Charles Smith. These people are mostly baby boomers and are far too old to learn any better now, having silenced all opposition and granted themselves as much immunity as they can. The only weapon to which they remain vulnerable is scandal. That, or the assassin's knife.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 5-Feb-08 9:08:22 PM
"It never fails. The people who call most loudly for universal rights are the first to underwrite them with tack-ons and codicils that exempt whichever group they don't like, for whichever reasons they can think up on the spot. Hint: Look for ANY reason based on emotion. Comparing your opponents to Nazis is a pretty good example."
You mean like the CJC?
By Ezra Levant on February 5, 2008 1:53 PM
"Hardly a day goes by when the Canadian Jewish Congress doesn't put out a press release hectoring the government to enforce some form of state censorship against its political enemy of the day. Here's a list of all of their news releases for 2008 so far: a third have been about thought crimes.
Is this really what the Canadian Jewish Congress is about?"
Posted by: DJ | 5-Feb-08 9:20:18 PM
As I mentioned earlier all these groups are connected to each other. Here is some info on these groups who unite to suppress free speech and free expression. They are organized, and it is apparent that the pro-life students in Univerities are ALL under attack.
Attempted Suppression of Free Expression at UBC
By Stephen Gray
On April 5, 2007 at the University of British Columbia (UBC) the student club Lifeline held a Genocide Awareness Display (GAP). Some pro-abortionists on campus attempted to shield the GAP display by holding up banners. The banners had the following organization names on them: Pro-Choice Action Network, National Action Committee on Status of Women (NAC BC), Medical Students for Choice, UBC-New Democrats, Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), Pride UBC, Anti-Racist Action, Social Justice Centre, Capilano Students Union, and AMS Women’s Centre. It was interesting to note that most of these banners had the same slogan, “Choice,” although the Pride UBC’s slogan was “Queers Unite Against Hate” and the UBC New Democrats slogan was “Protecting a Woman’s Right to Choose.”
This makes one wonder, are these pro-abortion banners being paid for by students compulsory fees? It is also worth noting that some of the groups involved have received government grants or money from compulsory union dues. For instance, NAC has received government grants and has also been the recipient of union money. The NDP has been funded over many years by compulsory union dues. The CFS is funded by compulsory student activity fees. The CFS states on its website that, “Through the Federation, students' unions collectively pool their resources…” One wonders how many students agree with their “resources” being used to take a side in the abortion debate? Capilano Students Union (CSU) is also funded by compulsory student activity fees and is a member organization of CFS. The CSU states on its website: “…The Capilano Students' Union (CSU) is the collective voice of over 7, 500 students at the college. As an autonomous democratic organization, the CSU is dedicated to advancing student interests…” The AMS Womens Centre is also funded by compulsory student activity fees.
Of course this is not the first time that pro-abortion student radicals have attempted to suppress free expression on UBC campus. In November 1999, pro-life students at UBC held a GAP display, this was attacked and trashed by three pro-abortion students on campus. One of the leaders of this assault on the GAP display was a “founder of Students for Choice, a group formed in opposition to GAP…” (The Ubyssey magazine November 26,1999). This incident was captured on video and can be seen at:
http://www.abortionno.org/GAP/violence/violence.html
The students who destroyed the GAP display in 1999 were taken to court and had damages awarded against them. To this day none of these former students have paid the damages and are still running free in society. Meanwhile, the Lifeline students had to pay the costs of taking these criminal lawbreakers to court. Which raises the question: Are these pro-abortion students on UBC campus today going to be allowed to suppress the free expression of law abiding pro-life students? It certainly looks like it when the perpetrators of the 1999 assault on freedoms have not paid for their crime. Therefore, is it any wonder today’s pro-abortion student organizations on campus feel free to attempt to suppress the free expression of the Lifeline students on campus. Their previous cohorts got away with their jackboot tactics. Today’s radicals may not have been physically violent at the most recent display, but they were trying to prevent the truth from being seen. Which raises the question: What about the “choice” for students on campus to view the GAP display unimpeded?
Stephen Gray
April 7, 2007.
graysinfo@yahoo.ca Website http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 5-Feb-08 9:34:33 PM
Yo DJ Your a Nazi !
Posted by: Nbob | 5-Feb-08 9:56:43 PM
I'm sorry DJ -
I should have said YOU'RE a Nazi
Posted by: Nbob | 5-Feb-08 10:29:30 PM
Nbob,
I enjoyed how you in your original response came up with an "oughtabealaw" that you shouldn't invoke Hitler in an argument and then immediately compared abortion to the holocaust. I'm not sure whether you're a comic genius or it was completely unintentional, but I find it hilarious either way. Good show.
That said, there oughtn't be a law. Students ought to have the option to opt-out of CFS (or whatever other student union) fees, particularly if they're being selectively spent based on personal and controversial beliefs, but other than that it's up to a student union to decide its policies. (The Nazi comment is despicable in the same way that being a racist is despicable. Neither should be illegal, though.)
Posted by: Janet | 6-Feb-08 11:17:55 AM
No, No I think the CHRC's should be used EXACTLY for that purpose. Calling someone a "White Supremacist" is clearly likely to lead to them suffering scorn, contempt and probably all kinds of ugliness. It definitely affects their chances of getting hired, etc. and as the Mark Steyn case has shown, TRUTH IS NO DEFENCE! So off to the CHRC's we go. Someone called you "Islamophobic"? Now there is a definite breach of Section 13. You are definitely placed in mortal peril by such an assertion (Theo van Gogh?) and therefore that too is hate speech. And then of course there's Carolyn "I hate those (American) bastards" Parish, who is clearly guilty of a Section 13 violation too. I mean the US is clearly a Nation subject today to the most extraordinary hatred (as the non-West keeps reminding us) and this kind of speech has in fact led in the past to all kinds af actual harm being done to US citizens. This surely meets the CHRC's standards for a charge...
Come on people. Let's get busy, there is so much to be done. Personally I'd like to have the Khadr family charged next, and quite frankly anyone who calls me a "Rightwing Hatemonger" for instance. Go on, call me that name, my Rolodex is waiting...
Seriously, what if we go after the CBC and its portrayals of Western Canadians as "dumb hicks". That is likely to lead to all us folks in the wheatfields suffering all kinds of contempt and hatred. If each one of us just filed one complaint apiece, there'd be no need to scrap the CHRC's. They'd be tied up in their own red tape for decades to come...
Posted by: bcf | 6-Feb-08 5:27:51 PM
The best way to deal with these CFS folks is to form a pro-life group or better 5 or 6 on campus. Pro-life T-shirts and bumper stickers for everyone who wants one. Let the CFS and other closet Marxists howl!!!
Posted by: T. Horton | 28-May-08 11:23:06 PM
Post a comment