The Shotgun Blog

Friday, December 11, 2009

Parliament security bans free speech

The Toronto Star is reporting that Greenpeace t-shirts have been banned from Parliament Hill. This is in response to the illegal protest by Greenpeace earlier this week. Such an excuse is not a good enough reason to trample on the Freedom of Expression.

I'm no fan of Greenpeace, but I don't see why people wearing their t-shirts should not be allowed in Parliament. A spokesperson from the Speaker's office said that it was a routine precaution and went on to say:

"When someone is invited in as a member of the public in either the chamber or a committee, they're invited in as an observer, that's it," she said. "They're not a participant, they're an observer."

First of all you aren't invited into the chamber, we as the people have the right to see what our Parliament is doing. Yes when we do visit we must understand that we are observers, but how does wearing a t-shirt make you a participant? Is it because of the political message of the shirt? I own several t-shirts that make political statements, including one that mimics the Coca-Cola logo by saying "Enjoy Capitalism." Does wearing that shirt make me a participant?

No of course not, the reason is because members of that organization pissed off Parliament's security. They made them look incompetent, so they are cracking down on anyone who may be associated with Greenpeace.

It should be pointed out that not everyone wearing a Greenpeace shirt is a member of Greenpeace. My shirt that I mentioned before is a Bureaucrash shirt, but I have never been a member of Bureaucrash. I wear the shirt, like many that wear Greenpeace shirts, because I support the organization (and find the shirt amusing). Basically Parliament security is accusing Greenpeace supporters of being troublemakers just because they support Greenpeace.

Actually maybe it isn't about the supporters of Greenpeace but the message. The Star article said that a reporter was allowed to enter with a Greenpeace shirt if she agreed to turn it inside out. So obviously they aren't trying to exclude Greenpeace supporters. It is the message of Greenpeace that they are trying to keep out; not dangerous individuals that could disrupt Parliament, but the ideas that Greenpeace represents.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on December 11, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (11)

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Karen Selick says "censorship is not the answer"

Karen Selick, popular libertarian writer, pundit, and lawyer, appeared before the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) yesterday on behalf of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, where she works as t Litigation Director, to tell the parliamentarians that "censorship is not the answer."

Selick's message was simple, and powerful. She made three main points, namely, 1. "hate speech laws backfire," 2. "Subsidize anything and more will be produced -- including hurt feelings," and 3. "The state is the biggest danger to life, liberty and security of the person."

Here's an excerpt from the remarks:

...when the state itself becomes the arbiter of what people can say and what they can’t say, the potential for harm against its citizens is virtually unlimited. The state is the repository of the legal use of power. The state holds the legal power of coercion, of confiscation—literally, the power of life and death—and there is no other countervailing force strong enough to combat it.

So the last thing we want to do is to strengthen the state—to give it the legal power to dictate who can speak and who cannot speak, and what they can say. Because if the state ever falls into the wrong hands—which can happen in an election, as it did when Hitler was elected, when Robert Mugabe was elected in Zimbabwe—we don’t want it to have all the machinery already in place for outlawing speech.

We don’t want the citizens to accept that it’s a legitimate role of the government to put people in jail or fine them and confiscate their property for expressing political opinions. Because that’s when all hell breaks loose, and nobody any longer has the means to oppose it.

You can read the rest of Selick's presentation before the committee on the CCF website here.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on November 25, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (8)

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Happy Blasphemy Day

Today marks the first, probably annual, international "blasphemy day."

Launched by the Center for Inquiry (CFI), Blasphemy Day is an attempt to defend freedom of expression by reminding everyone that the right to express offensive opinions is just that -- a right. A genuine, honest-to-goodness, full-throated human right.

September 30th was chosen because it marks the anniversary of the publication of the 12 Muhammad cartoons in Denmark by the Jyllands-Posten. Something we here at the Western Standard know a little something about...

CFI president and CEO Ronald A. Lindsay explains:

“Preserving the right to uncensored expression is important not only because it is indispensable for an objective examination of truth claims -- it is no accident that dictatorships uniformly suppress speech—but also because it has intrinsic value. Human dignity requires the freedom to express oneself as an individual.”

International Blasphemy Day is part of the Center for Inquiry's "Campaign for Free Expression." Here's the mission of the campaign from the Center's website:

Some governments and institutions—and even some individuals—want to keep certain topics off limits. This is especially true with religion. In many places, discussions and questions about religion are discouraged, even punished. But how can we come to our own conclusions about religion if we can't freely examine and discuss it?

The Campaign for Free Expression is a CFI initiative to focus efforts and attention on one of the most crucial components of freethought: the right of individuals to express their viewpoints, opinions, and beliefs about all subjects—especially religion.

Various United Nations bodies, including the UN’s Human Rights Council, have recently adopted resolutions condemning so-called “defamation” of religion. These resolutions lend credibility to efforts to suppress dissent and criticism, especially in Islamic countries, but Western European countries are also debating laws that would criminalize religiously offensive statements. For example, Ireland recently enacted a new blasphemy law that prohibits publication of material “insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.”

CFI believes we must increase public awareness of these threats to freedom of expression, discuss and develop plans to prevent curtailment of free expression, and demonstrate that people care about their rights to free expression and are eager to exercise them.

The Toronto Star covered International Blasphemy Day, and quoted Justin Trottier, spokesman for CFI Ontario, as follows:

Organizers are "inviting people to speak their mind on issues related to religion, free speech, censorship, secularism" and other related topics, said spokesman Justin Trottier...

"We feel there's no such thing as a human right not to be offended," he said. "We live in a democratic society, which means you get offended and you better get used to that."...

"Our point is that if people are offended, then that's something they need to learn to deal with, that's not something we're going to shy away from."

Obviously, we wish them a great deal of success in their fight for freedom of expression. So here's to freedom of expression. And Happy Blasphemy Day!

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on September 30, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (9)

Thursday, September 24, 2009

The existential drama of Canadian communists

This post could also have been called, "How Canadian communists must come to terms with history", or even, "Why I have to re-post more pursuant to Gerry Nicholls' post". According to an article in Epoch Times, plans to construct a monument in Ottawa to honor the victims of communism are being obstructed by due regard to the feelings of Canadian communists.

The ever-industrious National Capital Commission (NCC) wants to change the name of the monument from “Memorial to the Victims of Totalitarian Communism” to something that does not demean or tarnish the self-esteem of card-carrying communists in Canada. Initially, the monument was going to be called the "Memorial to the Victims of Communism", but NCC board members found it to be polarizing, hence the addition of the term "totalitarian". Now it seems no one is completely certain about the monument, the emotional states of Canadian communists, the value of historical memory, or whether communism really deserves the bad rap it seems to have earned over the past few decades.

There are exceptions to this Canadian confusion over communism. Tribute to Liberty, one of the groups trying to get this monument built, probably never anticipated so much controversy and stalling in the naming phase. After all, one would be hard-pressed to find honest individuals arguing against naming a monument to the victims of Nazism or fascism qualifying this description with the obvious, namely, "totalitarian".

Of course governments ruled under the ideologies of Nazism, fascism, or communism are totalitarian-- in fact, "totalitarianism" (as opposed to freedom, rule of law, or human rights) might just be their original contribution to political history. Name one communist country in the history of the world which has not been totalitarian. In fact, adding the word "totalitarian" to qualify communism is not just ignorant--it is blatantly false and dangerous. The refusal of communists and their defenders to admit the nature of communism should not prevent the public square from being the place where a spade is called a spade and the victims of communism are duly honored.

Posted by Alina on September 24, 2009 in Canadian Conservative Politics, Canadian Politics, Current Affairs, Economic freedom, Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (35)

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Mark Steyn heralds the demise of the CHRA's hate messages censorship clause

Mark Steyn makes my day:

Before I attracted the attention of the thought police, I wasn’t entirely up to speed on state censorship in Canada, and I asked my friend Ezra Levant what he knew about this Section 13 business. He sent me a printout with the history of every single case. Two things stood out: first, while the plaintiffs had the costs of the case paid for by the taxpayer, almost all of the defendants had been too poor to have legal representation. That’s an inversion of basic justice. Second, one man had been the plaintiff on every single Section 13 case since 2002—Richard Warman. That didn’t pass the smell test.

The list had been compiled by someone called Marc Lemire, a man who’d been caught in the “human rights” crosshairs for half a decade. You might not care for his opinions, but that, as they say, is a matter of opinion. That he has been traduced by the Canadian justice system is a matter of fact. But he’s a dogged type, and he pushed back, and he got the goods on his abusers. He demonstrated that evidence exhibits were switched in mid-trial by the CHRC. He proved that Warman and CHRC investigator Dean Steacy were themselves members of and posters on white supremacist websites under various aliases. Indeed, in a remarkable conflict of interest, Warman, as the plaintiff, was permitted to stroll into the CHRC, the investigating body, and share passwords and Internet aliases with Steacy. [...]

This month the wheels fell off the racket. On Sept. 2, Athanasios Hadjis in effect acquitted Marc Lemire of all charges but one. This unprecedented verdict is, as Joseph Brean reported in the National Post, “the first major failure of Section 13(i)” in its history. Was Mr. Lemire the beneficiary of a unique dispensation from the CHRT? No. Judge Hadjis pronounced the accused guilty of a Section 13 infringement on one narrow charge—an Internet post headlined “AIDS Secrets” that (in David Warren’s words) “went on rather tendentiously about blacks and homosexuals” and was written by someone other than Mr. Lemire. Nevertheless, the court declined to punish the defendant even for this infraction on the following grounds:

“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.” [...]

For the moment, whatever Parliament or the Supreme Court does, Section 13 [of the Canadian Human Rights Act] is dead. The camel’s nose of liberty is under the CHRC tent. Now let’s give ’em the hump.

Go read it all. Ding-dong.

Posted by Kalim Kassam on September 17, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (13)

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Live from Toronto, it's Ezra Levant!

Lest our dear readers despair for the future as a result of the present conversation about the "thought monopoly of Academia," let them take heart that opposition to the soft totalitarianism of the collectivists is not completely dead on the Canadian university campus. These are the flyers I'll be posting around the University of Toronto's downtown campus this weekend:

Posted by Kalim Kassam on September 10, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (12)

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Censorship tribunal rules censorship is unconstitutional (or does it?)

Strange goings on in the Canadian freedom of speech movement today. A tentative victory for us?

From the National Post:

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13, Canada's much maligned human rights hate speech law, is an unconstitutional violation of the Charter right to free expression because of its penalty provisions.

Even the censors are now admitting that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is unconstitutional? That means we win, right?

Not so fast.

The context is Warman v. Lemire. I haven't had a chance to dig into the ruling, and still less of a chance to reflect on it. So this assessment will be cursory, and possibly completely wrong (I'm sure our commenters will correct me if this turns out to be the case.)

Simply put, the NP's headline is wrong, or at least misleading. Athanasios Hadjis, the tribunal chair, did not rule that Section 13(1) is unconstitutional. What he ruled is that Section 13(1), when combined with the penalty provisions set out in another portion of the Act (Section 54(1), I think) amounts to an unconstitutional violation of Charter rights (e.g. freedom of expression.)

The penalty provisions in 54(1) were added to the CHRA after the Taylor decision, which upheld the constitutionality of 13(1) itself.

So, no, Hadjis did not overrule the Supreme Court. Nor could he.

The constitutionality of Section 13(1) remains intact. It's just that a major sanction in the Tribunal's toolkit has now been removed, or at least blunted. The CHRC/T can still silence you; it just can't bankrupt you in the process.

And Warman et al. is likely to appeal the ruling -- and he'll probably succeed (hint: Hadjis should have "read out" the constitutionally questionable portion of the Act.)

Big City Lib's take is here. The Canadian Jewish Congress expressed its discontent with the ruling here.

Jay Currie's erudite take can be found here and here.

Posted by Terrence Watson on September 2, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (21)

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Blog round-up: Lindy's Shakedown song blasting the CHRCs is getting plenty of coverage

Yesterday, we posted the first video from this past weekend's ninth annual Liberty Summer Seminar. The video captured the debut of Toronto-based Lindy Vopnfjord's ode to freedom of expression named "Shakedown" in honour of Ezra Levant's battles against Canada's censorious Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals.

The rousing anthem was a hit with everyone at the Seminar, including Cabinet Minister Jason Kenney, who came for the music and conversation on Saturday evening. Western Standard blogger Mike Brock caught the encore of Shakedown on his video camera and posted it on YouTube yesterday afternoon. By evening, the video had gone as high as the #57 most-watched video in the Canadian Music category, and #72 in the Canadian Politics category, with 815 views. Today, the video counter is still stuck at 815 views (YouTube views sometimes lag behind actual views), but the video has three honours as of my writing this; it is the #46 Most Viewed, #55 Top Favourited, and #64 Highest Rated video in the Canadian Music category.

Helping the view counter increase are blogs and forums that have embedded the video on their websites. Here is just a sample of the coverage the song has received thus far:

Ezra Levant wrote:

The most amazing thing happened: Lindy made a rock song about my book, Shakedown. I love it!

...That is so catchy, I can't get the refrain out of my head: "it's a shakedown of us all!"

...I love the song -- and I love the warm reception it got that night. I think we've got a hit on our hands!"

Maclean's blogger Aaron Wherry was ironical when he wrote about the song in a post entitled, "Rockin' out against the man with Jason Kenney."

"I met Lindy at a party in Montreal once. He was quite tall. And his girlfriend said she was an actor for medical school seminars. Like Kramer in that Seinfeld episode.

Anyway. Lindy now sings songs about Ezra Levant, apparently. He’s quite popular with libertarians. And, as you’ll see at the end of this video, Jason Kenney."

Gerry Nicholls, who was at the Seminar, posted the video writing:

Shakedown, Ezra Levant's impassioned take on how Human Rights Commissions are underming our individual rights, has inspired lots of people.

And one such person is a young performer named Lindy Vopnfjord who wrote a song to honour Ezra and his battle.

Mark Fournier posted about the song on Free Dominion (both Mark and Connie were in attendance at the Liberty Summer Seminar):

This is the latest song and video about the censorship and attacks on our freedoms by the Canadian Human Rights Commission perfomed by Lindy. It was recorded at the Liberty Summer Seminar in Orono, ON.

Don't miss this one!

Mark Steyn made a little reference to the song when he wrote, "...don't forget Lindy Vopnfjord's new Shakedown Song. Whole lotta shakin down' goin' on", including a link to Deborah Gyapong's blog which had the video embedded.

Gyapong wrote, "Spread the word. Let's see if we can get 100,000 views." 100,000 views is a tall order... but it might happen. And just how angry would the censors at the CHRC be if it did? It would be a PR nightmare. Nothing like an anthem to galvanize even more public opposition to the censorship powers of the CHRC.

Kathy Shaidle made reference to the video, and embedded it in a post today, as did Dr. Roy Eappen, who attends just about every Institute for Liberal Studies seminar.

Associate Editor Jesse Kline promptly posted a link over to the Western Standard's coverage of the song in a post titled "New song supports free speech, blasts HRCs", commenter Calgary Libertarian did as well, promising to attend next year's Liberty Summer Seminar, and Leigh Patrick Sullivan ("The Moderate Separatist") did his part by embedding the video.

If you have a blog, embed the video, and let us know in the comments. If you find references to the video in blogs that I haven't mentioned, please post that in the comments as well. The more the merrier. (And don't forget to rate the video, and to favourite it as well.)

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on July 29, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (14)

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Lindy performs "Shakedown," the pro-freedom of expression song, at the Liberty Summer Seminar

This past weekend was the ninth annual Liberty Summer Seminar held in Orono, Ontario. We will release video of all the speeches and events shortly, but we have a very special video that we are releasing right now.

The incredibly talented musician Lindy Vopnfjord put together a song in honour of our friend and former publisher, Ezra Levant, and his continuing battle against the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The song, appropriately called "Shakedown," sharing a name with Ezra's book, is a tribute to freedom of expression, and hammers home the message that the Canadian Human Rights Commissions are in violation of this traditional Canadian freedom.

The song was debuted at this year's Liberty Summer Seminar. Here is the video:

The song will be released on iTunes within the next two weeks. We will let you know when it's available, so that we can all support a Canadian musician who deserves to get some change out of our pockets for his efforts.

Posted by Matthew Johnston

Posted by Western Standard on July 28, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (13)

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Crushing: a limit on freedom of expression

There is a practice known as 'crushing'. It involves taking videos or pictures of a human being crushing an animal, often a dog or a cat, with heals or some other cruel device. I won't link or post any of these pictures but I'm sure if you look for them you will find them. They are disgusting and heart breaking but freedom of expression is used to defend such practices.

This raises an interesting question. To what extent do animals have rights? Or maybe to put it a better way, how much is the state obligated to protect animals against cruelty? Does John Stuart Mills' harm principle apply to animals? If it does then meat should be banned if it doesn't then these practices are tolerable.

Luckily I don't have to be that black or white about it. Doing a harm to a non-sentient creature is not morally nor should it be legally equivalent to doing harm to a sentient creature. Yet the non-sentient creature is alive and should be afforded greater consideration than a chair or a rock. After all in the case of a fire there is not a fireman alive that wouldn't save a puppy before they would save a chair. So the question becomes to what extent should we give animals consideration.

Torturing an animal to death for pleasure is over the limit. The harm is too great to be tolerable, even if it is just a rabbit.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on July 18, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (76)

Sunday, July 05, 2009

Nazi children taken away

Last year in Winnipeg, a 7 year old girl went to school with a swastika drawn on her arm. It was later revealed that the girls mother drew the symbol on her daughters arm to send a message to the school; that she was upset about discrimination against white people at the school, which prominently displayed posters boosting minority pride, but not for white people.

Child and Family Services were called in who went to the home of the girl. Once there, they saw neo-Nazi symbols and flags. On the spot, CFS took the girls 2 year old brother away from his family, the girl was taken from the school and never went back home.

Social workers at the time had this to say.

In court documents, social workers say they're worried the parents' conduct and associations might harm the emotional well-being of the children and put them at risk.

I find a threat that the emotional well-being "might" be harmed to be quite non-specific. That could be said of nearly every household in Canada.

Since the kids were originally taken more details about the parents have come out; that the mother may have a mental defect, some drug and alcohol abuse, and instability in the home. These points are moot though since they kids were removed from their parents long before these details came out; they were taken because the CFS workers didn't like the beliefs of the parents.

For now it's neo-Nazi's, later it may be people who teach bigotry about Aboriginals, or homosexuals, or another particular group.

Manitoba Child and Family Services are seeking permanent custody of the children, who have been in foster care since being kidnapped from their parents. The custody trial wrapped up on Friday, which a decision still to be made by the courts, which could take weeks or months.

While I do not approve of racist attitudes and beliefs, I also believe in free speech and free thought, even when I disagree with that speech and those thoughts. It is and should not be illegal to be a racist, promote your racism and teach it to your children; if you want to be able to teach your kids your values then you must allow the same for other people.

Posted by Freedom Manitoba on July 5, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (58)

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

CTF censored by YouTube?

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is claiming that shortly after the group posted a video to YouTube exposing how the Canadian government paid an American artist to create a giant red ball for a Toronto arts festival, their entire YouTube channel was hit with a copyright violation from Business News Network and forced to shut down. Coincidence? Maybe.

While the YouTube channel is back online, I have taken the liberty of creating a backup of the video to help ensure it is not censored again:

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Posted by Jesse Kline on June 23, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (27)

Monday, June 22, 2009

Jennifer Lynch may have a file on you

As revealed in The National Post, Jennifer Lynch, head of the CHRC, has been keeping a massive file on bloggers who criticize the Commission.

Who knows what's in that file? Lynch is quoted as saying she has "1,200" entries. Maybe I'm in there. Maybe you are, too, especially if you blog or comment under your real name.

Taking a suggestion from Jay Currie and Blazing Cat Fur, perhaps it's time to find out what's contained in the file Lynch keeps on her most impudent critics. Five bucks and this form will start you on your way to an Access to Information request.

I'm not going to argue with Dawg, who claims it is standard practice for government agencies to keep tabs on their media critics. Maybe it is. But the CHRC is a particularly contemptible branch of the government; burying it under a mountain of paperwork seems the least we can do.

Besides, Lynch and her merry band of censors could use a distraction. From what I hear, the trouncing they're getting from people like Erza has them all feeling a little under the weather. With few friends left, a flurry of information requests might make those at the CHRC feel wanted again.

And it's nice to feel wanted, isn't it?

UPDATE:

Jay also suggests that Lynch's file may violate the Privacy Act.

UPDATE2:

Thinking about it, there's something slightly more disconcerting about the CHRC keeping files on its critics than, say, someone at the Food and Drug Administration in the United States. In Lynch's case, the same people keeping the files will be the ones investigating hate speech complaints. Compare that to an equivalent case with the FDA: when a prominent anti-drug law libertarian denounces the FDA's classification of marijuana as a Section 1 drug, perhaps the FDA makes a note in a file. But big deal. It's not the FDA that investigates and prosecutes people for drug offenses, and so at least an illusion of impartiality can be maintained.

Not so with the CHRC. The very people keeping tabs on their critics will be assessing and investigating complaints made, possibly complaints about those very critics. I wouldn't want to bet that I'd get fair consideration under those circumstances. Would you?

Posted by Terrence Watson on June 22, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (22)

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Self-censorship is not the answer

Although the article that I’m about to discuss is hardly news anymore, with the increasing awareness of the Canadian HRC’s shenanigans, it’s as relevant if not more than it was when it was released. The article appeared in the March 18, 2009 edition of Saint Mary’s University’s student newspaper The Journal. Professor Mark Mercer writes a column in the paper oddly titled “The Cranky Professor”. Apparently having an opinion is considered cranky these days – who knew? I have to admit even as a student of SMU, that Mercer’s words are the only ones in the entire paper that doesn’t make me want to vomit. The rest of the typical, far left, anti-Harper garbage riddling Canadian universities, but that’s a whole different topic.

As a brief summary of the background behind Mercer’s article “Making Saint Mary’s a safe place for discussion and debate”, the pro-life speaker Jose Ruba was personally invited by a student group to come and talk. As expected, a large pro-choice student group stormed in and disrupted the discussion, closing the door of what could have been excellent university debate with a respected man. Mark mercer points out how badly the fiasco was handled. Again to summarize, the security at SMU could not handle the mob of angry hippies yelling at the invitee standing perplexed at the front of the lecture room, and also failed to get any sort of back up. The normal thing to do would be to call the police right away and let them handle the situation – cops are the kryptonite of far-left activists after all. When the police finally arrived, the school makes the Jose Ruba and the students that were listening to him move. Somehow giving the protesters what they wanted (to a lesser degree of course, God only knows what they would have liked to do to Ruba) while punishing those involved in the lecture at the same time doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, or Mercer for that matter. Mercer outlines what the school should have done in the first place and what they should do in the future, which is great. What isn’t great is the high probability of the school not heeding a word he says. The point here anyway is to highlight professors that aren’t sheep in the herd and to expose the degradation of free speech in Canadian universities.

As far as I know, the school also failed to invite Jose Ruba back for a secured presentation and didn’t issue a public apology. Instead, the school declared victory over the protesters by moving it. They sure showed those pesky protesters who’s boss! The public letter also conveniently forgot to condemn the disruption or warn against future disruptions. After all, according to the world of academia, a supposed “balance” is more important than silly things like civil rights. If civil discussion is now equated to yelling, screaming, cursing, and angrily chanting, then I have no hope for the future of Canadian universities. As Mr. Mercer puts it:

We have to insist that the university and all university groups, not engage in self-censorship. We must not fear protests or human rights complains. We have to ensure that Saint Mary’s not give in to bullies who would threatened to bring before a human rights commission.

It appears that the message of Ezra Levant and other champions of recent civil rights is popping up just about anywhere common-sense and morality is. It’s an issue that transcends groups and parties with a common theme: Today’s “human rights” organizations are feared no matter where you go, and rightly so. It’s bad enough that SMU failed horribly with this matter, If the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission got involved, it would be quite the story, to say the least.

[Cross-posted at The Right Coast]

Posted by Dane Richard on June 21, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (2)

Thursday, June 18, 2009

The Left-o-sphere and the CHRC

Academic and blogger Marc Bourrie had a good post recently on the Orwellian tactics of Commissar Lynch and the CHRC. Given that he has done doctoral research on the history of state censorship in Canada, his opinions on this matter carry some weight.

But there's another reason why his post is worth reading, for if you take a look at the comments section you will discover everything you need to know about the intellectual bankruptcy of the port side of the Canadian blogosphere. In response to Bourrie's reasoned criticisms of the HRCs, the luminaries of Canada's nutroots - Dawgie and BCL in particular - have nothing to say. They evince no concern about due process, the rule of law, free speech rights, Warman's internet shenanigans, etc. No, for them the real issue is Ezra Levant's honesty (Robert McClelland calls him a "lying douchebag" in the first comment).

Setting aside the hilarity of BCL lecturing anyone about factual accuracy, the refusal of these bloggers to debate the real issues is in sharp contrast to the principled stance taken by Borovoy, Saul, PEN Canada, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Egale Canada, Professor Moon (and many other left of center voices), all of whom have come out against Section 13 and its provincial equivalents (or at the very least admit that there are serious problems with the way the commissions and tribunals operate).

But why bother debating the real issues when you can smear your opponents as liars and crypto-Nazis?

Posted by Craig Yirush on June 18, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (122)

Monday, May 25, 2009

Jonathan Rauch assesses the state of free speech

The Economist's Democracy in America blog interviews Jonathan Rauch:

The Economist: Since your book "Kindly Inquisitors" came out, free speech has taken quite a few more knocks, culminating in a recent non-binding resolution from a UN body banning "defamation of religion". Have things gotten worse since 1995? And are free-speech advocates right to fight back by, for example, publishing cartoons of Muhammad in Danish newspapers?
Jonathan Rauch: Things are worse and better, depending where you look. Since K.I., free speech has learned to fight back against political correctness on university campuses. FIRE, for example, has made university administrators worry about getting sued or shamed if they cave in to repressive demands. That represents an important shift in the power equation.
On the other hand, campaigns by Islamic extremists to shut down full and frank discussion of religion seem to have made headway in Europe, or so Bruce Bawer says. I haven't yet read his forthcoming book on the subject, but I pay attention to Bruce on this issue, partly because he is openly gay and gay people are the canary in the mine shaft where civil liberties are concerned. First the gays, then...
Yes, I think free-speech advocates do need to fight back. I don't mean violently, of course. But freedom of expression and freedom of religion are the two great bulwarks of modern liberalism, and neither is self-enforcing. As we have learned in American universities, political correctness and other kinds of campaigns to muzzle dissent on grounds of sensitivity are really about power, not compassion, and the only thing power respects is power.

Like John Stuart Mill, the case Rauch makes for free speech against humanitarian, egalitarian, fundamentalist, and politically correct impulses is largely epistemological:

In a liberal society, knowledge is the rolling critical consensus of a decentralized community of checkers. That is so not by the power of law but by the deeper power of a common liberal morality...
Liberal systems, although far from perfect, have at least two great advantages: They can channel conflict rather than obliterate it, and they give a certain degree of protection from centrally administered abuse. The liberal intellectual system is no exception. It causes pain to people whose views are criticized, still more to those whose views fail to check out and so are rejected. But there are two important consolations. First, no one gets to run the system to his own advantage or stay in charge for long. Whatever you can do to me, I can do to you. Those who are criticized may give as good as they get. Second, the books are never closed, and the game is never over.

(h/t Andrew Sullivan)

Posted by Kalim Kassam on May 25, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Totalitarianism is gross

At what point do restrictions on artistic free speech begin the slippery slope towards totalitarianism? Gary Clements thinks it begins with "degenerate art"...

Posted by Alina on May 19, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Ezra Levant appears on Fox News' Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld

Ezra Levant, former publisher of the Western Standard, and author of the best-selling Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights, appeared on Fox News' Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld last night. Here's video of Ezra's appearance:

Ezra is right, of course. The Canadian Human Rights Commission really is un-Canadian. One way to really let the Canadian censors know they're not welcome in Canada is to continue to keep Ezra's book at the top of the best-sellers list. You can do your part by buying the book on Amazon.ca.

h/t: Ezra's blog

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on May 19, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (1)

Saturday, May 16, 2009

5 arrested for waving Tamil Tigers flags in Britain

Canada isn’t the only western country facing protests by ethnic Tamils. While not on the scale of what we see in Toronto, similar protests (including blocked streets) have appeared in Washington, Sydney, and London.

The Toronto Star call’s it a test of our tolerance. In a way I think it is, and in London they’ve failed it:

The Metropolitan Police of London said they have arrested five LTTE [Tamil Tiger] demonstrators opposite the Russian Embassy at Kensington Palace Gardens at Bays Water Road junction in Central London for displaying material which supports a proscribed organization in the United Kingdom.

The Russian Embassy is the latest place the usually violent LTTE went for demonstrations but unlike at the Sri Lankan, Chinese and Indian offices of envoys the 150 strong crowd was more tamed. The five were arrested under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act for displaying material in support of a terrorist group.

Although the LTTE members were blatantly displaying the Fascist terrorist flags of their outfit before in front of foreign diplomatic offices this is the first time they were arrested for carrying the flag of the leaping ferocious Tiger.

Leave aside the usual immigration and multiculturalism angles for the moment – let’s be clear of the facts here: the protesters in London were peaceful and they were arrested for carrying the flags of a terrorist group. British or not, immigrant or not, it’s a clear violation of their human right to free expression.

If you call yourself a speecher, or a libertarian, then you must (and I do) totally and unreservedly support the right of these terrorist sympathizers to wave the flag of the organization which invented the suicide vest.

Not to be overly dramatic, but as the old saw goes “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I’m not asking you to jump on a landmine, but spare a word or two in the comments in support of the rights of these people to wave their rotten flag.

Posted by Robert Jago on May 16, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (24)

Monday, May 11, 2009

Campaign finance laws: the road to censorship?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was heard by the US Supreme Court in March--if the court were to agree with the FEC's interpretation of the campaign finance laws already on the books when the decision comes down this summer, the First Amendment would be completely gutted and free speech would be no more in the land of the free.

The arguments presented by the FEC's lawyers demonstrate just how slippery that slope of regulating campaign finances and political speech can be. I'm just hoping we don't find out what's at the bottom.

Posted by Kalim Kassam on May 11, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (2)

Monday, May 04, 2009

Alberta government criticized for failing to reform the human rights commission

A modified excerpt of former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant's book Shakedown: How the Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights appears in the June 2009 edition of Reason Magazine. In the article, Levant gives a good account of how he was dragged in front the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (AHRCC) in an apparent attempt to punish him for publishing a series of Danish cartoons that depicted the prophet Muhammad. Levant explains how he told off the commission and used the power of the Internet to publicize it's outrageous behaviour:

I had prepared an opening statement. 'When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of Muhammad two years ago,' I said, 'it was the proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today.…I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, EzraLevant.com.' It was more refined than telling McGovern to fuck off, but it had the same effect. She was stunned.… When I got home, I watched the video of the interrogation. Then I spent the weekend uploading clips onto the Internet, using the video site YouTube. I emailed a couple of dozen friends, relatives, and colleagues about them. I thought the clips would get 1,000 views, maybe 10,000 at most. But that weekend, my 'channel' on YouTube was the fifth-most-watched video site on the Internet. Within 10 days, 400,000 people had seen them.

Levant did not stop there. His recently published book and whirlwind media tour have done much to promote freedom of speech and expose the egregious policies of provincial and federal human rights commissions. As of a few weeks ago, it looked as though his efforts may have spurred concrete policy reforms in the Province of Alberta.

"We want the [human rights] commission to be a quasi-judicial body that has some teeth, that has some credibility but doesn't operate like a kangaroo court," said Lindsay Blackett—the minister responsible for the commission—after The Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership released a report that was critical of the AHRCC.

Having the minister lash out against this quasi-judicial body, however, was not enough to force the Stelmach government to make the changes necessary to get the commission out of the censorship business altogether. The government recently tabled Bill 44, which will amend the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act but fails to deal with section 3, which gives the commission the power to deal with matters of expression and speech (this was previously reported on by the Western Standard here and here).

Not only does the bill fail to protect freedom of speech, it also introduces a controversial new measure that protects the rights of parents to pull their children out of classes that deal with religious subject matter, even though the same rights are given under the School Act. The redundancy of this legislation can only be construed as an attempt to divert attention away from the free speech issue. Even Blackett doesn't seem pleased with the way this has turned out. In a recent interview with Rob Breakenridge, Blackett spent most of his time blaming his caucus colleagues for the government's failure to enact any meaningful reforms, rather than defending the policies of his own ministry. These sentiments were echoed by Levant who placed the blame squarely on the premier.

The Sheldon Chumir Foundation has also criticized the proposed reforms for failing to protect freedom of speech. "While there are positive aspects to Bill 44, on balance the proposed legislation is a great disappointment," said Janet Keeping, president of the Foundation.

Despite these recent setbacks, Canadians need to remain vigilant. We need to keep this issue in the media and continue to pressure governments to reform these commissions. Freedom of speech is not just an important human right, it is essential to the maintenance of a free and democratic society. The Stelmach government should be ashamed by its failure to rein in the commission and uphold such a fundamental value.

Posted by Jesse Kline on May 4, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (6)

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Pro-Randy Hillier website pops up, insists we need to abolish the HRCs

I got an email today alerting me to a new website -- "abolishhrcs.ca".

The website is fairly minimalist, and looks to be a one hour job. In addition, it seems to be a Randy Hillier support site. Hillier, as Shotgun readers are well aware, is running for the Ontario PC leadership and has released policy which would, in effect, abolish the HRC in Ontario. An excerpt:

Across Canada, human rights tribunals are being used to silence Christians and force them to violate their conscience. This is just plain wrong, and elected lawmakers have a duty to address the emerging problem.

Finally – a politician is running for office who is prepared to do something about it!
Ontario’s PC Party is currently preparing to elect a new leader. One of the candidates – Randy Hillier – has proposed abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Commission and enacting freedom of conscience legislation to protect the rights of professionals and businesspeople of all faiths.

This is the first time that a candidate for leader of a major political party in Canada has put forward such a policy; but unless Ontario residents support the initiative it may be the last time!

The website comes with this interesting video, which focuses on the particular attention that Christians have received at the hands of the Human Rights Commissions:

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on April 30, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (6)

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

London Free Press editor lacked energy to cover the free speech panel in London

Remember that big event in London, Ontario last week? The one that drew 600 people to an IMAX? The one that had that national best-selling author?

If you don't remember, it might be because newspapers didn't think covering the free speech panel -- put on by the Forest City Institute, with Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle and Salim Mansur as speakers -- was worth their while. Not even the local paper, the London Free Press, thought to send a reporter to cover it.

Thankfully, Paul Berton, the editor, is catching some flak over failing to cover the event, as evidenced by this long thread (which you can participate in as well).

For more on the story, check out Mark Steyn's commentary here, and here. An excerpt from the first:

Aside from Paul Berton's lack of "energy", which is certainly reflected in his prose style, there's basic journalistic malpractice going on here: Bicycle Boy decided he'd determined the narrative - "Hatemonger en route to London!" - and when the plot wiggled free of him the paper simply dropped the story as if it had never happened.

Meanwhile, for your viewing pleasure, here is the event in its entirety, courtesy of Lumpy, Grumpy and Frumpy (first segment above the fold, the rest below). You can judge for yourself whether or not it was newsworthy. In my judgment, it definitely was.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on April 22, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (2)

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle and Salim Mansur draw massive pro-free expression audience in London

The Forest City Institute hosted three of Canada's finest free speech defenders in London, Ontario this past Monday, April 13th. The event drew 600 (!) people, packing in the London IMax theatre. That's an enormous audience. Considering that there was a $5 cover charge, you're looking at what can only be called a tremendous success.

The speakers were Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle, and Salim Mansur. Shaidle has provided a copy of her speech here, which you can read. If, instead, you prefer to watch her give the talk, here's the video (we'll post the other parts just as soon as they're online):

Human Rights Commissions: Useful or Obsolete? Part 1: Intro & Kathy Shaidle from josephinejosephine on Vimeo.

Meanwhile, Mark Steyn has a wonderful round-up of bloggers' reactions. Why just reactions from bloggers? Because, near as I can tell, no major news media decided to cover the event. If you've got better skills at foraging in the MSM than I do, please provide a link in the comments. In fact, if you have a blog, and you were in attendance, drop a link in our comments and we'll check it out.

Video h/t: Lumpy, Grumpy and Frumpy

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on April 15, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (8)

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Ezra Levant talks Shakedown at Fraser Institute's "Behind the Spin"

Here's our former publisher, and good friend, Ezra Levant discussing the Canadian Human Rights Commission and his national, best-selling Shakedown: How our government is undermining democracy in the name of human rights:

h/t: Ezra Levant

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on April 11, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (4)

Friday, April 10, 2009

Is Canada a safe-haven for Communist apparatchiks?

The chairman of the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Union published an opinion piece yesterday in the Kiev Post expressing concern about Canada becoming a safe-haven for the criminal minds of Communism. He notes that in April 2005, a journalist broke a story in a national Canadian newspaper about Communist NKDV members in Canada. Since then, the issue seems to have dropped off the Canadian media's radar. In the author's words:

Even more intriguing is how the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s War Crimes Unit, asked to investigate allegations about Communist collaborators in Canada, responded with the rather limp finding that they had insufficient evidence upon which to act.

Apparently, when a man admits he was in the NKVD and brags about the people he killed and provides his memoirs in English in a book available in public libraries, the police don’t see that as proof of any wrongdoing. Maybe they’re waiting for Hollywood to turn the manuscript into a movie.

After World War II, screening procedures were supposed to exclude Nazis and Communists from Canada. So if a man declares he was in the NKVD and broadcasts that fact from Toronto, either he is a liar or he lied to get into Canada. In any case, we know that Communist killers are here. They shouldn’t be.

All of Stalin’s surviving minions are elderly. Yet it’s not too late to see justice done. They deserve no more mercy than they meted out. And now they should be expelled. They can finish out their lives as burdens upon those whom they served. I’d bet they won’t find Moscow or Minsk as comfortable as Montreal.

Canadians are compassionate. Not only do we strive to do what’s right, we also honor the righteous. We did in 1985 when Canada conferred honorary citizenship on Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who saved Hungarian Jews during the Holocaust. Yet it was not the Nazis who did him in. SMERSH agents abducted Wallenberg in Budapest in January 1945, then carted him off to the notorious Lubyanka prison in Moscow. Probably no one now here was directly involved, yet all who served Stalin in those days are complicit. No one wants such scoundrels here. You’d think a Conservative government would get that. Apparently they don’t. They will.

I don't think the author is being unfair here. This is not a free speech issue; he is not calling for outlawing the Communist Party of Canada, for example. He is merely pointing out that Canada should not be a safe-haven for Communist oppressors. The fact that many of these Communist oppressors have not been officially designated war criminals is a result of failings in the international community to apply human rights law to the crimes of the Soviet Union and former Eastern bloc states. It is not because this criminal class of Communists does not exist.

The conservative Canadian government should exercise more discretion in offering the privilege of citizenship. Perhaps Stephen Harper's political courtship of the radical center is distracting him from maintaining a conservative position on who is deserving of Canadian citizenship. After all, citizenship is not available to wild animals or convicted Nazis-- why should former Communist criminals receive this privilege? I can't imagine how men like Joe Schlesinger might feel knowing that these communist criminals could end up living across the street from him.

Posted by Alina on April 10, 2009 in Canadian Conservative Politics, Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (14)

Monday, April 06, 2009

Ezra Levant on Fraser TV talking about Shakedown

Here's our former publisher Ezra Levant talking about our ridiculous "human rights" commissions, which he has chronicled in his best-selling (!) new book entitled Shakedown: How our government is undermining democracy in the name of human rights:

h/t: Ezra's place, of course

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on April 6, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (2)

Monday, March 30, 2009

George Galloway's speech, live now

British MP George Galloway has been banned from Canada, but that hasn't stopped him from speaking his mind, or reaching Canadians. Here's the live video from Rabble.TV:

[Note: We may not support what Galloway has to say, but we do support his freedom of speech. His being barred from Canada is part of the reason why we are posting this video. It has become significant news. Whereas, had Galloway just been permitted to come into Canada, it would have been a minor story.

Meanwhile, general manager Kalim Kassam is at a church in Toronto where the telecast is being broadcast live. He will report back to us later tonight, or early tomorrow.]

UPDATE: Our coverage of the banning of George Galloway: Lorne Gunter on Galloway, NDP press release on Galloway, BC Civil Liberties Association on the banning of Galloway.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on March 30, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (38)

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Ezra Levant on the Michael Coren show, talking about Shakedown

Here are the clips of Ezra Levant chatting with Michael Coren. The conversation is about Ezra's brand-new book entitled Shakedown: How our government is undermining democracy in the name of human rights.

I haven't had a chance to pick up Ezra's new book, but Matthew Johnston, our publisher, tells me that it's "incredible." Matthew says he picked it up to read one morning, and didn't stop until he was finished. That's very high praise.

You can pick up Ezra's book by clicking on the image below. For U.S. customers, use this link: Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights

Part 1 (the rest below the fold)

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

h/t: Ezra, of course

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on March 25, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (9)

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Britain talks "Modern Liberty"

Britain's left and right got together yesterday for a "Convention on Modern Liberty". It has a broad agenda - not just the obvious threats to liberty like state-owned DNA data banks, and Antisocial Behaviour Orders, but also subtler things, like the smiley-faced multilateral 'caring and sharing' fascism we Canadians know and loathe:

[Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censorship] explained the difficult task of promoting freedom of expression and fighting censorship when even UN bodies were tasked with monitoring speeches or writings on the grounds of religious or racial "discrimination". She pointed to the recent decision of the UK government to ban the Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering the country on the grounds that his hostility to Islam threatened public security. "Pre-emptive censorship enflames the situation", she said. The claim that liberty was better served by censorship was an "Alice in Wonderland view of human rights".

To illustrate just how tedious the situation has become in Britain, just look at what's actually involved in holding a convention in the modern security-state:

A grim future of form filling and bureaucracy is the one that the government plans for us all. In just four new forms –the application form for the National ID Card, the controversial 696 form for promoters of live events in London, Form 27 issued as a dispersal notice and the form for all travellers leaving Britain – there are 153 questions to be answered.
The organisers of the Convention on Modern Liberty believe that these questions not only symbolize a new era of intrusiveness but they represent a huge waste of time, which will cost hundreds of thousands of man hours. “It is classic mark of authoritarian regimes to make life difficult for the ordinary citizen and fill his time with needless bureaucracy,” said Convention co-director Henry Porter. ‘ We hold that all these forms are unnecessary and they intrude upon the life of the man in the street to unacceptable degree.”

You can find a lot more on the convention on the Guardian's Civil 'Liberty Central' page.

Exit question: is there a single newspaper or magazine in this entire country with an equivalent of the Guardian's 'Civil Liberties' section?

Posted by Robert Jago on March 1, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (21)

Monday, February 23, 2009

No fare: Atheist bus ads get booted from buses

The atheist bus campaign, a campaign to post atheist advertising on public transit, has hit a snare in the cities of Halifax, Vancouver and Ottawa. While several cities in Canada, including Toronto, have happily displayed the advertisements, the public transit authorities in Halifax, Vancouver, and Ottawa have refused to permit them on their buses. It might cause offense, you see.

The adverts, which read "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life," have caused some offense, but they've also sparked a public discussion about ethics and public policy. And the hypocritical nature of the selective prohibition by public transit bureaucrats has raised our ire here at the Western Standard (Shotgun blogger and Catholic Terry O'Neill posted about the Vancouver decision here). If religious messages are permitted on public property like buses, then so, too, should these atheist bus ads be permitted as well.

We asked Justin Trottier, executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Ontario, to put together a piece for us on the atheist bus ads and freedom of expression. Trottier sent us a piece entitled "No fare: Atheist bus ads get booted off the bus."

Here are a few excerpts:

Atheists are... naturally quite uncompromising defenders of free expression. It is our hope that as champions for everyone’s right to this fundamental freedom, atheists will find common ground with other defenders of speech and expression and enter the mainstream. This includes championing free speech against city transit policies that would keep any statement that is religious or ideological in nature off transit property.

Freedom of speech was a key issue for our community long before this campaign, which itself was launched for other goals, like atheist and humanist acceptance and mobilization. The Centre for Inquiry’s Campaign for Free Expression was a response to many developments local, national and international that point to free speech as a defining issue at this time.

Read the rest here.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 23, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (43)

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Orin Kerr's Guide to Blogging

Rule #128:

In a moderated comment thread, there is a 50% chance that a commenter who had an uncivil comment deleted will accuse the moderator of censorship and question the moderator's commitment to free speech. (Because if the First Amendment means anything, it's the right to do what you want with someone else's private property without the property owner being able to clean up your mess.)

Posted by Kalim Kassam on February 12, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (7)

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Canadian Civil Liberties Association defending the freedom of expression of campus pro-life clubs

With the University of Calgary's student union decision to eliminate club status for a Campus Pro-Life student club, and the club facing trespassing charges for a Genocide Awareness Project, a few commenters were wondering what the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) position on the issue was.

Kalim Kassam, general manager of the Western Standard, sent a request to the CCLA for comment on the issue. They obliged with much more than merely a comment, they sent us a copy of a letter they sent to the Canadian Federation of Students when they had decided that they would support student governments that chose to withdraw club status from pro-life campus groups.

The full letter appears below the fold:

Re: Freedom of Expression and Association on University Campuses

This is to express the concern of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) regarding a resolution adopted, not long ago, by the Canadian Federation of Students. According to this resolution, the support of the Federation would be provided to those "member locals that refused to allow anti-choice organizations access to their resources and space". In short, anti-abortion organizations would become ineligible for the kind of basic services and amenities currently available to a wide variety of political, social, religious, and ideological organizations on the university campuses of this country.

Before and since the enactment of this resolution, numbers of student governments across the country have moved to disqualify "anti-choice" organizations. Such student governments include those at Carleton, York, Memorial, Lakehead, Victoria, British Columbia-Okanagan, Guelph, and Capilano College.

The irrepressible question is: "Why?" Of the wide variety of philosophies and points of view whose organizations can obtain and retain such campus recognition, why should the anti-choice side of the abortion debate be singled out for such official stigmatization? On so many of these campuses, there are Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim organizations conducting their respective activities. What is there about these anti-abortion groups that warrants such special denigration?

A fairly typical explanation came from the coordinator of the Sexual Assault Centre at the University of Victoria. She reportedly said that the anti-choice organizations "are asking to take away women's control of their own bodies, ...". A member of the national executive of the Canadian Federation of Students charged that anti-choice groups would "take away people's rights". She even compared them to the Ku Klux Klan.

These may be valid reasons to challenge anti-abortion organizations, but not to muzzle them. The proper response is argument, not censorship.

As for the comparison with the Ku Klux Klan, it is simply inappropriate. For these purposes, it is not necessary to resolve - or even to address - the issue of what, if any, limits can validly be imposed upon all campus controversies. Suffice it to acknowledge that anti-abortion organizations are not remotely similar to the KKK. The arguments against abortion engage the vexing issue of when life and/or personhood begins and the balance between the protection of such "persons" and the autonomy of women. This is certainly a legitimate subject for debate at the university and in general society.

Moreover, to whatever extent any organization operating on campus advocates the enactment of laws, they could well "take away [some] people's rights". In urging additional taxes on corporations, the New Democratic Party would "take away" the rights of certain investors. In promoting more effective human rights laws, many minority groups and their allies would "take away" certain rights of employers and landlords. In promoting the expansion or contraction of medicare, advocates would "take away" the rights of either medical consumers or providers, as the case may be.

Indeed, it's hard to imagine a current conflict that is not susceptible to such an analysis. On many campuses, for example, there are severe controversies regarding the Middle East. Each side would probably "take away" some rights from either Israelis or Palestinians. On the basis of their analysis, therefore, the student leaders who would restrict the anti-abortion groups would have to eliminate virtually all campus debates. The logical outgrowth of such an approach is the absurdity recently adopted by the Lakehead student government: only positive messages will be acceptable.

Despite the strongly pro-choice orientation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, we are deeply disquieted over these developments in the university student community. At issue, in our view, is nothing less than the viability of free speech on the university campuses of this country. It appears that a great many students harbour an inadequate appreciation of this fundamental freedom.

Of all the freedoms in the democratic system, freedom of expression may be the most crucial. It is the vehicle through which any of us may attempt to mobilize public support for the redress of our various grievances. Experience has taught us that injustice is less likely to endure - or even to emerge - in an atmosphere of free public debate and controversy. Shine the spotlight of public opinion on an unjust practice and you have set the stage for that practice to wilt. In this sense, freedom of expression is a strategic freedom. It is the freedom upon which all other freedoms depend. A wise old trade unionist once described free speech as the "grievance procedure" of the democratic system.

But free speech is even more. It is also the means by which the quest for truth may be pursued. It enables a plurality of ideas to compete openly so that they might demonstrate their respective validity. Political, social, and philosophical questions are resolved, not by forced coercion but by free discussion. And that discussion is enhanced by the right to explore contesting ideas and alternate approaches.

Indeed, the pro-choice side of the abortion debate owes its many victories in this country to the availability of free speech. This right enabled free choice advocates to demonstrate, remonstrate, educate, and agitate on behalf of their cause. Like with so many other social issues, the campaigns for choice were waged on university campuses as well as in the community at large.

One of the central tenets of a university education is the adventurous search for truth. This means that faculty and students must be free to ask challenging questions and to express provocative opinions. As an institution, the university's commitment should not be to any particular ideology or point of view, but to the methods of intelligent inquiry itself.

The moment that universities and student governments depart from the principle of institutional neutrality on such questions, they incur a considerable risk that raw political power will determine the scope of permissible campus speech. Such an outcome represents the very antithesis of intellectual freedom. The right of effective participation in campus life would become dependent upon the vagaries of what ideology enjoyed political ascendency at any given time.

Thus, the best hope there is for a meaningful state of intellectual freedom is to promote as wide a consensus as possible that the university and its student governments must eschew ideological positions of this kind. Those pro-choice advocates who may be enjoying campus power today are being very short-sighted. They are paving the way for anti-choice advocates to behave similarly in the event that power alignments begin to change.

Whether, therefore, we be pro-choice or anti-choice, capitalist or socialist, religious or secular, federalist or separatist, it behooves us to defend, sustain, and promote a viable regime of free speech. We all have a stake in it. For these purposes, it is important to defend our opponents as well as our supporters.

In consequence, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association calls upon your student government to dissent from the position adopted on this matter by the Canadian Federation of Students. We ask that you apply your club recognition policy in accordance with the free speech principles articulated above and that you petition the Canadian Federation of Students to rescind its resolution. In our view, the action we recommend is vital to the restoration of the kind of principles that ought to prevail in university life -- and indeed in our democratic society as a whole.

We thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

A. Alan Borovoy
General Counsel

Noa Mendelsohn Aviv
Director, Freedom of Expression Project

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 11, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (2)

(Video) Ezra Levant on the Michael Coren Show

Ezra Levant, former publisher of the Western Standard, was on Michael Coren's television show to, once again, man the barricades for freedom of expression.

Here's part one, the remainder are below the fold:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 11, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (7)

University of Calgary Campus Pro-Life student club loses its status

According to the Calgary Herald:

After a hearing that lasted less than 10 minutes Tuesday, the U of C's clubs committee decided to de-sanction the Campus Pro-Life club because its Genocide Awareness Project violated policy in November.

"This action is a disturbing abuse of power," said club vice-president Cameron Wilson. "It is an abuse of power when the body elected to protect us heaps further oppression upon us."

Without students' union sanctioning, the Campus Pro-Life club will lose privileges such as the use of meeting rooms, the ability to borrow equipment and some funding.

During Tuesday's hearing, pro-life club secretary Asia Strezynski repeatedly asked committee chairwoman Alex Judd what policy had been violated, but the committee referred only to a bylaw that gives the students' union the right to punish a club for breaching policies.

Outside the hearing, students' union president Dalmy Baez said a letter sent to the club by the U ofCadministrationrequiring it to turn displays of images of aborted fetuses inward constituted a policy. The display juxtaposed the photos with images of murdered victims of the Holocaust and Rwandan genocide.

Baez admitted the enforcement appears to be narrowly applied.

"We have not seen that policy implemented for any other group," said Baez.

She also said the students' union, which received a copy of the letter, chose not to oppose the university policy.

"We felt the limitations stipulated in the policy were not unreasonable," she said.

"It was not an infringement on free speech."

Not an infringement of freedom of speech? That may be, but, as the Metro reports, the pro-life students have not yet dealt with the trespassing charges in court. Unless the students really are guilty of trespassing, shutting them down is a violation of their freedom of expression:

“They haven’t even provided us with a specific violation that we’ve committed,” said Alanna Campbell, pro-life group treasurer. “We were hoping our Student’s Union would stick up for their student’s rights and freedoms, but they are obviously not going to.”

Campbell confirmed the group would no longer be able to access funding.

The club plans to make an appeal to the Student’s Union within the allotted five days.

Gerald Gall, a law professor at the University of Alberta, said the Student’s Union should have waited for the court case’s verdict on Feb. 27 before making its own.

“They’re innocent until proven guilty — it’s as simple as that. They should have just been patient and waited to see what happens in the criminal process.”

Here's video from CityTV Calgary about the hearing:

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 11, 2009 in Campus watch, Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (13)

Monday, February 09, 2009

Justice committee to debate merits of section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act

Conservative MP Brian Storseth wants a review of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, as well as the role of the commission itself.

According to the Globe and Mail:

He told the committee last week that "concerns have been raised regarding the investigative techniques of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the interpretation and application of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act."[...]

The issue of whether the commission should be permitted to investigate alleged incidents of hate speech has prompted passionate responses from those on both sides of the debate.

The federal Conservatives voted at a party convention in November to support an end to Section 13, which deals specifically with hate messages spread by telephone or the Internet. It was a decision that was roundly applauded by conservative bloggers.

In a high-profile report on the matter released in November, University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon urged the commission to get out of the business of trying to censor hate speech.

Prof. Moon argued that freedom of expression trumps overbroad minority-rights laws and that any policing of hate messages should be handled under the Criminal Code, which prohibits willfully inciting hatred.

Jennifer Lynch, the chief human-rights commissioner, has promised to consult with the public regarding possible changes to the act and report to Parliament this year.

The question on everyone's mind is, of course, whether or not Jennifer Lynch will have time in-between her flights abroad to do all that consulting. Perhaps she can consult Canadians who also happen to be vacationing in Vienna.

Separately, you can catch the discussion here from 3:30 until 5:30 Eastern Time.

h/t: SDA

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 9, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (7)

Saturday, February 07, 2009

Ezra Levant: Alumni should stop giving money to the University of Calgary

Our former publisher, Ezra Levant, has issued a call for alumni of the University of Calgary to stop sending money to their alma mater until the University issues a public apology for charging Campus Pro-Life members with trespassing (see the document the U of Calgary sent to the students here in a PDF file). The students were charged with trespassing on the property of the school where they are registered. Here's Ezra

There is a sickness of censorship in Canada, and its depressing to see that it has such deep roots in academia. One of censorship's other foul manifestations is the human rights commission industry. But it seems to exist wherever you find politically correct, leftist, unaccountable government institutions. They're the ones bullying peaceful political dissent. This case is even more grotesque than the HRCs, because the police are involved, like they would be in a banana republic.

It’s unCanadian. The University of Calgary is unCanadian. And Canadians should punish it, punish it, punish it in the only way it cares about.

The U of C obviously doesn’t care about its reputation for academic freedom. You don’t issue letters like that if you care about what the newspapers say about you, or other scholars.

So there’s only one thing left: cut off donations from alumni.

Cut millions.

Cut millions and millions and millions until they publicly apologize, and until they discipline whichever educrat it was who thought that calling the police on a couple of schoolgirls was an appropriate response to dissenting political speech.

In the U.S., socialists have to conceal their socialism by calling themselves "progressive." In the U.S., socialism is unAmerican. But in Canada, just about nothing counts as unCanadian. Not in the popular imagination.

Possibly one reason for this is because the country was re-imagined in the 1960s. From our founding until the '60s, the great ideological battle was between classical liberalism, represented by the Liberal Party of Canada, especially in the person of my favourite prime minister Wilfrid Laurier, and the nationalist centralizers and supporters of big government programs, the Conservative Party (captured mostly in the person of prime minister John A. MacDonald. Who was not my favourite).

Under Trudeau, the Liberals abandoned their heritage, and the heritage of Canada. The Conservative Party took up the cause of free markets and small government, and the Liberals took up the task of being, uhm, all things to all people.

At no point did anything definitively "Canadian" creep into popular sentiment. But that doesn't change the following fact: Until very, very recently, Canada was a bastion of freedom of expression. Laurier fought against the Roman Catholic (in league with the government) censorship in Quebec of various books deemed heretical. Laurier was a member, after all, of the Institut Candien, ground zero for (classical) liberals and teeming ground for lovers of liberty. Members of the Parti Rouge (their motto: Justice pour nous, justice pour tous; Raison et liberté pour nous, raison et liberté pour tous), and the burgeoning future leaders of the Liberal Party with love of liberty constituting the marrow of their bones, spent their time there.

It can hardly be an exaggeration to say that quashing freedom of expression is as unCanadian as socialism is unAmerican. Ezra is right, the Human Rights Commissions are unCanadian. And the move by the University of Calgary to charge their own students with trespassing borders on the same. Let's hope the University either comes to their senses, or is forced to by the sound of chequebooks slamming shut.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 7, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (16)

Catholic Civil Rights League stands up for University of Calgary's campus pro-life community

Western Standard general manager Kalim Kassam covered the shocking story of University of Calgary Campus Pro-Life students being charged with trespassing on their own school here. We also published president of Campus Pro-Life Leah Hallman's stirring speech in defense of freedom of expression here.

Now, the Catholic Civil Rights League has weighed in on this story.

According to the Western Catholic Reporter (in a piece written by Deborah Gyapong):

The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) has protested the trespassing charges laid against pro-life students by the University of Calgary.

The National Post and the Calgary Herald reported Feb. 3 that police officers were visiting the homes of pro-life students to lay trespassing charges for mounting a Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) exhibit last November. Three students so far have been ordered to appear in court Feb. 27.

The GAP exhibit juxtaposed posters of aborted fetuses with victims of the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. The university told the students to turn the posters inward, warning they would be charged with trespassing if they disobeyed. It posted its warnings online at the end of November.

“The principle of free speech is more important than the fact that some people are going to find the posters disturbing,” said League Executive Director Joanne McGarry. “Not everyone is in favour of this kind of imagery, and that includes people who are pro-life.”

“However, universities are publicly-funded institutions and should not be in effect discriminating against one side of a controversial question,” she said.

The Catholic Civil Rights League issued the following press release in response to the trespassing charges:

“The principle of free speech is more important than the fact that some people are going to find the posters disturbing,” said League Executive Director Joanne McGarry. “Not everyone is in favour of this kind of imagery, and that includes people who are pro-life. However, universities are publicly-funded institutions and should not be in effect discriminating against one side of a controversial question.”

According to a statement from [Campus Pro-Life], the university has not taken action against other students or groups using shocking photographs to communicate their message. “At the same time that GAP was displayed in November, another display showed disturbing photographs of the atrocities committed by the Chinese government against the supporters of Falun Gong. The university has extended generous tolerance towards campus pro-choice groups, even when engaged in the physical blocking of the pro-life display,” CPL said.

A number of student pro-life clubs, including those at York and Carleton in Ontario and Memorial in Newfoundland, have had problems gaining or retaining accreditation in recent years. Those problems relate to a “pro-choice” resolution passed by the Canadian Federation of Students, and how individual student councils choose to apply it. The charges at Calgary, however, are coming from the school’s administration. The League is particularly concerned that the attempt to curb free expression is coming from such a senior level.

The Catholic Civil Rights League describes itself as follows:

Catholic Civil Rights League is a national lay Catholic organization committed to combating anti-Catholic defamation, working with the media to secure a fair hearing for Catholic positions on issues of public debate, and lobbying government and intervening in court challenges in support of law and policy compatible with a Catholic understanding of human nature and the common good.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 7, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (1)

Friday, February 06, 2009

Dan Shapiro: Even obnoxious speech should not be censored

Writing for Troy Media, Dan Shapiro, a research associate with the Sheldon Chumir foundation for ethics in leadership, stands up for our Canadian right to freedom of expression.

Here is an excerpt:

It is time to amend Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, which prohibits writing or saying anything that is “likely to expose” a person to “hatred or contempt.”

Why? Because Section 3 casts far too wide a net and risks chilling legitimate expression on topics of importance to public discussion, such as gay marriage or Islamic terrorism. While the Act states that Section 3 is not to “interfere with free expression…,” it is susceptible to politically-motivated use, much more so than other parts of the Act which prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, and publicly available services.

Freedom of expression should be given the widest legal scope possible because the effects of allowing human rights bureaucrats to determine what we are allowed to think and say are too ghastly to contemplate. Think Soviet Russia. Of course, Alberta today is nowhere near totalitarianism, but history has taught us that freedoms are fragile and vigilance has to be eternal.

For Shapiro and the foundation for which he works as a research associate, the relevant section should not be repealed, but amended. Writes Shapiro:

Section 3 should be amended to read as it did prior to 1996. This would mean the removal of the words “issue,” “issued,” “statement” and “publication.” It would also remove that part of the law which refers to material which is “likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt.” In our view this would suffice to eliminate the menace presented by the section in its current form. (See our recent report, Toward Equal Opportunity for all Albertans: Recommendations for Improvement of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, for more details.) [PDF link]

We do not, however, recommend repeal of section 3 in its entirety. If amended as we suggest, the provision will still capture cases such as the sign saying “No Natives” in a restaurant window, as happened in Lethbridge not long ago. Many Albertans will be surprised to learn that this kind of blatantly crude discrimination still occurs. We do not see any significant threat to free expression from the law if it continues to apply only to such limited forms of speech.

The amendments to section 3 which we suggest, however, have to be complemented with other needed changes, such as a more active and publicly engaged Human Rights Commission which would speak out at appropriate moments on the harm done by hurtful and offensive speech. The Commission must show ethical leadership in support of people - for example, Muslims, gays, or fundamentalist Christians, who feel they are under siege - but without using the force of law to stifle speech which, no matter how unethical, obnoxious or just plain ill-considered it may be, should not be censored by the State.

Shapiro is partly right on the money. Liberty is all-too-fragile, and too easily taken from us by appeal to some current "emergency" (take our current economic emergency, for example), or by way of little exceptions here and there that amount, in the end, to a rule against liberty. While my personal preference is for the repeal of the section in its entirety, and the repeal of section 13.1 from the federal Human Rights Act, Shapiro's call for an amendment would go a long way towards removing some of the more offensive practices and cases.

You can read the rest of Shapiro's defense of our freedom of expression here.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 6, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (4)

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Is pro-life activist Bill Whatcott the victim of malicious prosecution?

The Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan found against Bill Whatcott today in his legal action for malicious prosecution against several Prince Albert police officers.

Whatcott has been repeatedly arrested and jailed in Prince Albert for protesting abortion using some rather objectionable visual aids to make his case for what he considers to be a murderous practice. The charges, however, are always dropped or Whatcott is acquitted. The police are arresting Whatcott and the courts are setting him free, creating a pattern that looks suspiciously like malicious prosecution.

The charges by Prince Albert police were first laid against Whatcott for showing pictures of aborted fetuses on busy street corners in Prince Albert.

The following is a summary of the charges against Whatcott provided by his pro bono laywer Tom Schuck:

a) 2002 - Charged with Obscenity for showing pictures of aborted fetuses and jailed.

Charges dropped after a not guilty plea was entered.

b) 2003 - Charged with stunting and resisting arrest and jailed for picketing.

Convicted.

Reversed on Appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench (lawyers in Prince Albert argued this appeal, Philip Fourier and Dan Heffernan).

c) 2003 - Charged with mischief for leafleting homes and jailed.

Charges dropped after plea entered.

d) 2003 - Arrested and jailed (ostensibly for unpaid Regina parking ticket) while picketing.

Whatcott expressed his dissatisfaction with the result of today's court decision, as the decision, in his view, failed to provide any balance between freedom of speech regarding controversial topics and the power of arrest of police officers. “It seems like the police in Prince Albert freely use the power to arrest people who disseminate information that they disagree with, and use their power to silence others, and especially so for poor people who usually do not have the resources to challenge the police”, Whatcott said. “I was just lucky to find lawyers who took my cases pro bono.”

In addition to the Prince Albert arrests, Whatcott has had several other legal difficulties as a result of his protests on issues. The following are a list of the cases won or pending by Whatcott in addition to the Prince Albert cases referred to above:

1. Charged with littering for leafleting University of Regina
Convicted on trial.
Reversed on Appeal to Queen’s Bench (QB).

2. Charged in Moose Jaw with creating a disturbance and resisting arrest while picketing. (As with all his picketing, he showed pictures of aborted fetuses)
Convicted.
Reversed on Appeal to QB.

3. Sued by Planned Parenthood for picketing and for an injunction.
QB refused to stop all picketing by Whatcott.
Case not proceeding.

4. Charged by Regina City Police with stunting. Charges ultimately dropped.

5. Successfully sued and settled legal action against University of Regina for libeling Whatcott on their web page.

6. Saskatchewan Licensed Practical Nurses Assoc. disciplined Whatcott for picketing Planned Parenthood (PP).
Suspension upheld by QB.
2008 Reversed by Court of Appeal.
Leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada was denied.

7. Charged by Human Rights Commission for spreading hate.
Convicted and fined $17,500.
Conviction upheld on appeal to QB.
2008 Appealed to Court of Appeal, decision pending.

8. A successful Intervention and appeal was also made to the Court of Appeal on the Hugh Owens case by lawyer Tom Schuck for the Christian Alliance that assisted Whatcott as it dealt with a Human Rights Tribunal fine on the same issue.

It is believed that it is unprecedented for one person to face so many charges and to win them all.

No decision has been made, as of yet, as to whether to launch an appeal.

Whatcott’s lawyer, Tom Schuck of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, has been acting pro bono for Whatcott on all the above cases, except for one appeal in Prince Albert that was handled by Prince Albert lawyers, Philip Fourier and Dan Heffernan, who argued the appeal on the stunting charge.

Read more Western Standard abortion related stories here.

[Picture: Upon hearing that abortion doctor Henry Morgentaler was to recieve the Order of Canada, Whatcott responded viscerally:

“I got an image of the Order of Canada, crapped on it, wrapped it up and mailed it to the Governor General to communicate my utter contempt of her office, her arrogance, her anti-Christian, anti-life bigotry and the now corrupted and irrelevant Order of Canada in general.”]

Posted by Matthew Johnston

Posted by Western Standard on February 4, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (2)

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

A 'double repression'

Kevin Libin's story in the National Post this morning, about the University of Calgary's crushing of freedom of expression on campus, reports on a speech delivered by pro-life leader Leah Hallman. Libin writes that Hallman intended to cast her organization's dispute with the school's governors as "an historic battle for Canadian liberties."

Was she successful? I'll let you decide. You can read Hallman's speech by clicking here.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 3, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (4)

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Event: Are Canadian freedoms being crushed in the name of human rights?

If you're in London, Ontario tonight, you can check out Kathy Shaidle and Salim Mansur discuss the disaster that is the Canadian Human Rights Commission hosted by Forest City Institute. Here's information from their flyer:

Join Kathy Shaidle, “Five Feet of Fury” blogger and co-author of The Tyranny of Nice and Salim Mansur, Sun Media columnist and Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario to find out how unelected bureaucrats and lawyers are abusing human rights legislation to undermine our traditional freedoms of speech and belief.

Speaking Out For Free Speech 2009

Hosted by the Forest City Institute

Where: Westmount Public Library, 3200 Wonderland Road South [London, Ontario]
When: Thursday, January 29th, 7:00 to 9:00 pm (doors open at 6:30)
Price: $10.00, $5.00 for students and seniors

Tickets available at the door. Seating is limited (Capacity 100). Please RSVP to info@forestcityinstitute.ca

Book signing: Copies of The Tyranny of Nice will be available for sale both preceding and after the event

CONTACT THE FOREST CITY INSTITUTE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
info@forestcityinstitute.ca
www.forestcityinstitute.ca
519.438.8606

Ezra Levant, our former publisher, links to Salim Mansur's recent column in the Sun. Here are a few excerpts from Mansur's piece, entitled "Speak up for Canadian freedom":

This is the grassroots campaign supporting freedom of speech unconstrained by the coercive arm of the state -- the federal and provincial Human Rights Commissions (HRC). It is truly bizarre that in the 21st century such a campaign has to be organized in one of the oldest liberal democracies.

It is also bizarre that so many Canadians remain unconcerned that the foundational principle of liberal democracy -- freedom of speech -- has been assaulted systematically in their country in the name of tolerance.

And then making matters worse, the Canadian state armed the federal HRC -- provincial governments have followed Ottawa -- with section 13 in the Canadian Human Rights Act to penalize speech if it is "likely" to expose someone to contempt or hatred even though it might not be proven in court.

What might now seem a long time ago to Canadian legislators and bureaucrats of the HRCs, J.S. Mill, writing in On Liberty, observed some eight years before the Dominion of Canada was established that "unless the reasons (for free speech) are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."

Going back further by more than two centuries, the English poet John Milton laid out the argument against censoring free speech in his tract titled Areopagitica, Milton contended -- and Mill returned to it -- that truth does not need the aid of censor's coercive powers to prevail.

Milton famously wrote, "Let her (truth) and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?"

Individuals speaking confidently armed with reasons stand on their own without requiring state support against opponents. And those appealing to censors in making their arguments do so because their case is weak, or false.

Our politicians have lost sight of how, through hard and bloody skirmishes, the principle of free speech was advanced to give strength, virtue and purpose to liberal democracy that we take for granted with so little thought.

If you plan on attending the event, send me or someone else at the Western Standard an email. We'd like to hear how it went.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 29, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders will face prosecution for anti-Islam film and comments

The controversial leader of Dutch-based Freedom Party and member of parliament, Geert Wilders, is facing criminal prosecution for anti-Islam statements. In a statement, the appeals court wrote: "The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs."

Wilders is responsible for putting together "Fitna," an internet movie linking passages in the Koran with violence, and has penned editorials comparing Islam with Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

Bloomberg reports:

The Court of Appeal said it “considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers” after Wilders compared parts of their faith with Nazism. The ruling, posted on the court’s Web site today, overturns a decision by the prosecutor last year not to charge Wilders.
“I see this as a black day,” Wilders said in statement on the Web site of his Dutch Freedom Party. “If you voice your opinion you run the risk of being prosecuted.”

Wilders released his film “Fitna” on the Internet in March 2008. The 15-minute movie features verses from the Koran alongside images of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

In the movie, he calls on Muslims to rip out “hate- preaching” verses from the book. The politician called the Koran “fascist” in an editorial in De Volkskrant and said it should be banned.

Meanwhile, the BBC adds:

"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.
Mr Wilders said the judgement was an "attack on the freedom of expression".

"Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted," he said.

Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the "Islamisation" of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned.

"Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?" he added.

UPDATE: Here's Geert Wilders on Glenn Beck:

Image credit: Kurt Westergaard, found here

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 21, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (27)

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Freedom House: CHRC threatens freedom of expression

As if the Canadian Human Rights Commission wasn't sufficiently embarrassing for us Canadians, the Freedom House survey I posted January 14 contained a bit about Canada that I missed, that has me feeling some deep shame.

Ezra Levant noticed it. So did Michael Petrou from Maclean's. Freedom House makes explicit reference to Canada, noticing the apparent mission of the CHRC and their provincial counterparts. That mission seems, near as I can tell, to be to a) make us the laughing-stock of other countries, and b) shatter freedom of expression in Canada. That's if we figure out an organization's mission by seeing what it actually accomplishes. And on both scores, this government agency is actually effective.

From the Freedom House report:

Canada faced threats to freedom of expression as government agencies brought charges against journalists who wrote commentaries that were critical of Islam.

There you have it, my fellow Canadians. Now we can all collectively hang our heads in shame. I know I did.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 20, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (23)

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Czech artist insults Europe with sculpture of European stereotypes

David Cerny, an artist hired by the Czech government to put together a sculpture to mark the six-month Czech presidency of the European Union is raising quite a stir in Europe. Instead of collaborating with other European artists, Cerny got a group of friends to help him construct a statue called "Entropa" that depicts the shapes of the various countries in the European Union embellished with themes that are intended to capture the essence of the countries. The result, at a cost of 373,000 Euros, is full of stereotypes that has some screaming "foul."

From Germany's Der Spiegel:

"It is preposterous, a disgrace," Betina Joteva, press officer for Bulgaria's permanent representation in Brussels told the euobserver Web site. "It is a humiliation for the Bulgarian nation and an offence to national dignity."

Joteva has, perhaps, reason to be upset. Her country is depicted in the eight-ton sculpture as a Turkish toilet. Many speculated that the reference might be to the centuries Bulgaria spent under Turkish rule.

But in a conversation with SPIEGEL ONLINE, the artist responsible for the sculpture, David Cerny, said it was intended to point to one of the things that is most obviously different for people who travel to Bulgaria. "No other country in Europe has those kinds of toilets," he said, before adding that he had officially apologized to Bulgaria for offending them.

Here is the depiction of Bulgaria referenced above:

Of particular interest might be the depiction of Denmark. See if you can spot the not-too-subtle image made out of Lego blocks (hint: Denmark...):

A few other images are below the fold. To read the intentions of the artist, and the explanations for each of the depictions, check out the official brochure accompanying the piece here (PDF).

Holland doesn't get off easy either:

Germany is depicted as a series of Autobahns. Some are concerned that the Autobahns appear to resemble the swastika, although Cerny insists that that was not his intention at all:

France is depicted as being on strike:

Romania is home to Dracula:

Finally, Here's Poland with Roman Catholic priests raising a gay pride flag (Poland is furious with the depiction):

h/t Andrew S.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 17, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (8)

Saturday, January 10, 2009

BC gag law in effect from February 12th

It’s called Bill-42, and it’s the BC Liberals’ amendment to the Election Act. Under this new law, more stringent voter identification rules will be put in place, and more importantly, spending limits will be put on third parties to prevent them from speaking their mind.

First discussed here on the Western Standard back in May, the law comes into force just over 4 weeks from now.

Under the law, political parties have had their spending limit increased to $5.5 million while everyone else is limited to $3,000 per riding – this for a full 88 days leading up to election day (BC has fixed election days).

While even that paltry amount may sound like plenty, a close look at real advertising costs in Vancouver shows otherwise:

A large colour advertisement in the [free bi-weekly] Vancouver Courier Newspaper – $2,294 + tax*
City-wide placement of 5,000 small, letter-sized posters - $2,250 + tax (not including design and printing)*
Canada Post targeted ad mail to each home in a provincial riding $2,560 + tax (not including design and printing)*
Standard bus ad, $2,730 + tax for 6 buses [equivalent to one route] (not including design and printing)*

What this is doing is limiting dissent to Craigslist. Any union, business group, any church, or community group is effectively shut up. A single ad in the Courier will not shape opinion any which way, nor will a week long run of telephone pole postering, or a few weeks on the side of the #4 bus.

For the entire lead up to the election, you can spend no more than $34 per day. There’s no way to make a concerted effort at opposing a BC political party or standing up for local issues. You can be heard once, and then you are shut up.

This law was brought before the BC Supreme Court a few weeks ago – with predictable results:

But Supreme Court Judge Frank Cole dismissed the application [for an injunction to suspend portions of Bill-42], saying the unions' complaints don't outweigh the intended benefits of what is still a valid law.

Cole said that to be granted such an injunction, the unions needed to prove that the public interest was better served by suspending the law than by leaving the law in place.

However, he said the legislation's goals of electoral fairness serve a "valid public purpose" and suspending the law before the case is settled would disrupt the balance that the legislation strikes.

"To suspend the operation of only the third party election advertising restrictions would upset that balance to the detriment of the other participants in the electoral process," wrote Cole in a decision posted to the court's website Monday…

The B.C. government has defended its election advertising restrictions, saying allowing outside groups to spend as much as they'd like isn't fair to voters.

Attorney General Wally Oppal has said the law is intended to keep the focus on the candidates and political parties, rather than allowing third parties influence the outcome of the vote.

It’s a narrow definition of democracy – and one that betrays a sense of ownership on the part of the BC Liberals (it’s their province, we just live in it). In any practical sense this is a virtual ban on third parties. As Oppal says, they’re not welcome. So what can you do about it? Nothing – which is the whole reason for laws like this.

For more info – visit: JustShutUpBC.com

Posted by Robert Jago on January 10, 2009 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (4)

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Former Libertarian leader Brisson wins his case against mandatory bilingual sign bylaw

On Friday, Jean-Serge Brisson, former Libertarian Party leader, won his court case against the mandatory bilingual sign bylaw in Russell, Ontario.

Brisson received a fine from the municipality of Russell for putting up a sign on his business in French-only in violation of a bylaw passed in June making it mandatory for all exterior signs to be in both official languages. The bylaw offended English rights advocates like those with Canadians for Language Fairness, and it also offended Brisson, a Francophone, who immediately set out to erect a French-only sign to challenge the bylaw.

Because of the some ambiguity in the bylaw with respect to the maintenance of existing signs, Brisson won his case on a technicality. That’s not, however, how Brisson wanted things to go down. When he attempted to challenge the absurdity of the law itself, the judge immediately said that he did not have the authority to deal with that particular matter and would not entertain Brisson’s argument.

In the end, a win is a win. Brisson thumbed his freedom-loving nose at the bad law and won.

“So now I’m hoping that the people who were waiting for this decision to come about will start calling the municipality of Russell and complain that I have a sign in one language only, French, and that it is infringing on the bylaw that makes it illegal to have a sign that does not have both official languages on it,” said Brisson.

Brisson is no stranger to civil disobedience. According to his Wikipedia page:

He spent twenty days in jail in 2000 after being convicted of driving while under suspension for not paying a seatbelt-related charge dating back to 1989, and was placed in solitary confinement after starting a hunger strike. At the time of his incarceration, his unpaid fines relating to seatbelt violations and driving while under suspension totalled over $12,000.

Brisson has also not submitted an income tax return since 1991, has never collected the federal Goods and Services Tax (GST), and has not collected the provincial sales tax since 1991.

Brisson resigned as Libertarian Party leader in May to focus on Ontario provincial politics with the Ontario Libertarian Party. He is currently serving a 90-day sentence on weekends for his ongoing refusal to wear a seatbelt.

Posted by Matthew Johnston

Posted by Western Standard on December 21, 2008 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (6)

Sunday, December 07, 2008

International Human Rights Day is a good occasion to celebrate property rights and individual liberty

December 10th is the 60th anniversary of International Human Rights Day, a day that commemorates the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations.

The Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is using the occasion to promote its own efforts to “foster equality, promote fairness, and encourage the creation of inclusive workplaces and communities.”

The AHRC is in damage control mode these days, largely due to Ezra Levant’s campaign to “denormalize” the work of these commissions across Canada. Former Western Standard publisher, Levant successfully defended a human rights complaint against the magazine for our decision in 2006 to re-print cartoon images of the Muslim prophet Mohamed. He continues to fight to remove Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits so-callled "hate speech' on the Internet.

The 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an ideal occasion to reconsider the nature of human rights and the work of government human rights bodies, especially as this work concerns freedom of speech and expression.

Equality, fairness, inclusion – these are all admirable values, but should they be the foundation for human rights legislation?

Philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand wrote that property rights are the foundation of human rights, and any claim to a universal legal right to equality, fairness and inclusion, for instance, violates legitimate individual rights.

Here are some excerpts from Rand on property rights:

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 94

The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of “human.”

John Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 182

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 96

It is only on the basis of property rights that the sphere and application of individual rights can be defined in any given social situation. Without property rights, there is no way to solve or to avoid a hopeless chaos of clashing views, interests, demands, desires, and whims.

"The Cashing-in: The Student Rebellion," Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 259

Let’s make this International Human Rights Day a celebration of property rights and individual liberty.

Posted by Matthew Johnston on December 7, 2008 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Monday, December 01, 2008

Anti-blasphemy law movement gaining steam at United Nations

Meanwhile, at the UN:

Islamic countries Monday won United Nations backing for an anti-blasphemy measure Canada and other Western critics say risks being used to limit freedom of speech.

Combating Defamation of Religions passed 85-50 with 42 abstentions in a key UN General Assembly committee, and will enter into the international record after an expected rubber stamp by the plenary later in the year.

...

Muslim countries say they are only trying to cut down of what they see as extensive bias against Islam in the West. In the lead-up to Monday's vote, many referred, for example, to the 2005 publication of Danish cartoons that satirized Muhammad, and which touched off riots through the Muslim world.

There is something a bit ironic about Canada's strenuous opposition to laws that would prohibit publication of the Danish cartoons, isn't there?

Link

Posted by Terrence Watson on December 1, 2008 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Salim Mansur joins the partisans of free expression

Salim Mansur, UWO Associate Professor of Political Science and one of the Directors of the Center for Islamic Pluralism in Washington is the latest person speaking out for free speech in Canada and calling for the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The indefatigable Ezra Levant, the Western Standard's former publisher, writes on his blog:

Here's [Mansur's] column in the Toronto Sun, which will likely run in other newspapers in the Sun chain. Here's a few interesting sentences from it:

The Canadian Islamic Congress complaint -- as I wrote following its dismissal by the CHRC in June 2008 -- made Canadians take note, unlike any previous complaint, how the censorious provision of Section 13 is a blot on Canadian democracy.

Canadians got instruction as never before, due to the Canadian Islamic Congress complaint, on the principle and value of free speech as the foundation of an open democracy.

I predict that Salim Mansur, who is Muslim, will be denounced as anti-Muslim, just as I have been denounced as a Nazi, even though I'm Jewish.

That's the last, best defence the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its few, lonely defenders have: trying to paint anyone who disagrees with them as racist.

Nope. We just believe in freedom.

Us too, Ezra, us too.

As our editor in chief Peter Jaworski likes to say: "we're biased in favour of liberty".

Posted by Kalim Kassam on November 30, 2008 in Freedom of expression | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Friday, December 11, 2009

Parliament security bans free speech

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Karen Selick says "censorship is not the answer"

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Happy Blasphemy Day

Thursday, September 24, 2009

The existential drama of Canadian communists

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Mark Steyn heralds the demise of the CHRA's hate messages censorship clause

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Live from Toronto, it's Ezra Levant!

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Censorship tribunal rules censorship is unconstitutional (or does it?)

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Blog round-up: Lindy's Shakedown song blasting the CHRCs is getting plenty of coverage

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Lindy performs "Shakedown," the pro-freedom of expression song, at the Liberty Summer Seminar

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Crushing: a limit on freedom of expression

Sunday, July 05, 2009

Nazi children taken away

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

CTF censored by YouTube?

Monday, June 22, 2009

Jennifer Lynch may have a file on you

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Self-censorship is not the answer

Thursday, June 18, 2009

The Left-o-sphere and the CHRC

Monday, May 25, 2009

Jonathan Rauch assesses the state of free speech

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Totalitarianism is gross

Ezra Levant appears on Fox News' Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld

Saturday, May 16, 2009

5 arrested for waving Tamil Tigers flags in Britain

Monday, May 11, 2009

Campaign finance laws: the road to censorship?

Monday, May 04, 2009

Alberta government criticized for failing to reform the human rights commission

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Pro-Randy Hillier website pops up, insists we need to abolish the HRCs

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

London Free Press editor lacked energy to cover the free speech panel in London

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle and Salim Mansur draw massive pro-free expression audience in London

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Ezra Levant talks Shakedown at Fraser Institute's "Behind the Spin"

Friday, April 10, 2009

Is Canada a safe-haven for Communist apparatchiks?

Monday, April 06, 2009

Ezra Levant on Fraser TV talking about Shakedown

Monday, March 30, 2009

George Galloway's speech, live now

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Ezra Levant on the Michael Coren show, talking about Shakedown

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Britain talks "Modern Liberty"

Monday, February 23, 2009

No fare: Atheist bus ads get booted from buses

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Orin Kerr's Guide to Blogging

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Canadian Civil Liberties Association defending the freedom of expression of campus pro-life clubs

(Video) Ezra Levant on the Michael Coren Show

University of Calgary Campus Pro-Life student club loses its status

Monday, February 09, 2009

Justice committee to debate merits of section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act

Saturday, February 07, 2009

Ezra Levant: Alumni should stop giving money to the University of Calgary

Catholic Civil Rights League stands up for University of Calgary's campus pro-life community

Friday, February 06, 2009

Dan Shapiro: Even obnoxious speech should not be censored

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Is pro-life activist Bill Whatcott the victim of malicious prosecution?