The Shotgun Blog
Monday, December 17, 2007
California based radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt is to boycott Canada. Why? Because Canada's Human Rights Commission, a tool of socialists' oppression, wants to silence Mark Steyn:
"I thought the Human Rights Commission complaint against columnist-to-the-world Mark Steyn was a joke, or a nuisance filing that would be rejected by the Canadian bureaucrats in a nanosecond: But it isn't turning out that way. "
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Boycotting Canada:
» Hugh Hewett starting a boycot of Canada over our lack of free Speech, from Marginalized Action Dinosaur
Freedom of Speech doesnt mean Stalin wrote it on a paper and you actually have it if he shoots everyone who tries it. Its something you have or you do not. Especially if the Speech is something you disagree with. California based radio... [Read More]
Tracked on 2007-12-31 10:47:37 AM
We can only hope that this insane attack on the Great Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine will be the straw that breaks this camel's back ... pun intended.
The human rights commission is become a sympathy repository for the perpetually outraged middle eastern block living in this once free country.
When they are not insulting and what's left of civil society for being a bit freaked out about the trans-gendered and gay parades and trashing of traditional marriage, they are attacking anyone who has an opinion on the Islamic scourge in this world.
They may have bitten the wrong letter carrier this time.
We must put an end to this Star Chamber.
Write and Email your parliamentarian today and tell them to get rid of these freaks right now.
The freedom to bitch about stuff nearly the only freedom we have left and now they are taking that away through these disgusting leftist tribunals.
We must have freedom of speech in Canada or we will soon not have any freedom at all.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-17 6:31:17 PM
"That's how nations die — not by war or conquest, but by a thousand trivial concessions, until one day you wake up and you don't need to sign a formal instrument of surrender because you did it piecemeal."
That sums it up, alright!
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-17 6:32:51 PM
First, let there be no doubt: There ought to be no laws against speech that promotes hatred, so even if the claim against Steyn were true, his writing should not be criminal.
Having said that, why all the animosity towards the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission? Isn't this like blaming the cop who arrests someone for violating a bad law? I think laws requiring adults to wear seat belts are also wrong, but I don't scream that cops are evil because they enforce that law. Isn't the same true for the HR Commission?
It also should be said that Winston is WAY jumping the gun. He claims that the Commission "wants" to silence Steyn, which is not true. He also has Hewitt already calling for a boycott, which also is not true. You do no good to a worthy cause by being hyperbolic about it, Winston. Stick to the truth. There is enough of that to do the job.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-12-17 6:51:38 PM
I really think it requires more than an(other) eggregious example to "fix things."
A much more comprehensive and actual PLAN to overthrow and replace your Charter seems in order.
How does something like that happen?
Is that too much to hope for? If Trudeaux could did it, why can't present day Canada undo it?
Is the present situation considered sort of OK? by most people? It just seems HORRIBLE to me, like living or having to work on an all girls college campus run by middle aged divorcees with short gray hair.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-17 6:56:33 PM
Conrad-USA the Canadian charter of rights isn't the problem this time. It specifically grants the right to free speech, thought, press, etc under fundamental freedoms aka section 2
The problem is the Tribunals can cherry pick your rights and take them away from you if you are a right winger. If you are a Muslim calling for Christian blood or a feminist who hates men, or a socialist who hates Christians, they will never touch you.
In fact a recent Anglican newsletter said the number of churches being burnt to the ground is on the rise. Ever hear of a gay bar being burnt down?
It also should be said that Winston is WAY jumping the gun. He claims that the Commission "wants" to silence Steyn, which is not true.
LOL, "FACT CHECK helllloooo wake up! Yeah they want everyone to have the freedom to say anything our socialist censors allow. You can say up with big brother all you want just don't say down with big brother or anything Big brother likes.
I'm glad he's doing it.
They sued Bill Whatcott for pointing out that homosexuals were advertising for sex with young boys. See them trying to molest young boys is ok the fact it was done in a magazine was ok just don't report that others are breaking the law. They have fined Hugh Owens they sued him for quoting biblical passages that offend homosexuals,
They have told people that for merely quoting the wrong part of the bible they can do 5 years in jail. They do want to silence anyone who isn't one of the lefts protected groups do find one instance of a human rights commission anywhere in Canada suing anyone for hating Christians. No matter how many Churches are destroyed by hateful socialists.
Scott Brockie had to pay over 100 grand for not wanting to work with homosexuals something that should be allowed under charter right 2 but nope that gets cherry picked and thrown away because he's a right winger.
So when a muslim doesn't want handicapped people in the car because they have a thing about dogs they were given the same sentence as a punishment that Scott Brockie tried to use as a resolution "before" they sued his ass off. Ie pointing out an alternate. So if you are Muslim you just provide an alternate venue if you are Christian and tried to provide an alternate venue 100k and your life is ruined.
The Devil has truly blessed us with Pure evil.
Then there's the whole Richard Warman factor.
They were never needed we are a democracy if the people in question did something bad we have laws but laws don't buy you another Car. Just ask the most sensitive Canadian, who has with the money they gave him.
Posted by: dinosaur | 2007-12-17 7:44:30 PM
...reminds me of a song
Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-12-17 8:44:50 PM
A worldwide audience is watching the machinations of the Canadian Islamic Congress charge against Mark Steyn in Maclean's mag.
The CIC has chosen Mark Steyn very deliberately.
Their understanding of how the CHRC functions has given them the courage to test the waters.
A courtroom battle is not where CIC care to do their prodding, where due process and hearsay evidence is not accepted as it IS in the kangaroo courts of the CHRC.
If the CIC succeed in their complaint before the Canadian CHRC kangaroo courts, they will have a chokehold on speech and an unbelievable impact on the future the face of Canada.
And while the Canadian Charter does purportedly protect free speech, there also exists another clause elsewhere that states - -
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits as are generally accepted in a free and democratic society with a parliamentary system of government.”
Frankly, I much prefer the American First Ammnedment right to ours.
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2007-12-17 9:02:01 PM
"Stick to the truth. There is enough of that to do the job."
Fact Check, might I suggest you follow your own advice.
Comparing the enforcement of wearing your seat-belt laws to freedom of speech HRC witch burnings is beyond ludicrous. The HRC tribunals are not qualified or within there mandate to judge this type of case. A police officer is a qualified/trained law enforcement professional and is well within his/her mandate to enforce seatbelt laws.
Is that clear now commie?
Posted by: missing link | 2007-12-17 9:34:13 PM
"The HRC tribunals are not qualified..."
If they are not qualified to make the judgements they are making, then fault lies not with them but with those who allow the system to exist whereby they have this power. Just as if unqualified cops are hired by a city, it is those doing the hiring at fault.
"... or within there [sic] mandate to judge this type of case."
False. Look up the Human Rights Codes of various provinces. In many of them they specificly describe exposing people to hatred through speech as against the code. Human Rights Tribunals exist to enforce the code, so it is within their mandate.
"Is that clear now commie?"
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-12-17 9:54:01 PM
Remember to sign the petition to disband the HRCs in Canada at
Posted by: Jerri | 2007-12-17 10:07:38 PM
I like the Boycott Canada idea. The threat of boycotts gets results, particularly from a nation as dependent on exports and ultra sensitive to tourists as Canada. The Greens have used them very effectively to screw forestry and mining for decades. The idea of using them to screw HRCs is delightful.
If Hewitt has any success, the Canadian MSM will actually be forced to cover the action raising awareness to the masses.
People who support removing the HRCs must be principled enough to defend real free speech meaning that in a world where Steyn can freely opine, so can Zundel et al. Thought police will pick your argument apart if you aren't consistent.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2007-12-17 10:31:18 PM
"Thought police will pick your argument apart if you aren't consistent."
Correction: If you aren't consistent, you ARE the thought police.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-12-17 10:50:23 PM
Posted by: John Chittick | 2007-12-17 11:32:08 PM
Fact Check compares human rights tribunals to cops, asking why they should be castigated for simply enforcing the law. Fact check is only half right. Not only do human rights tribunals prosecute, they also judge. That's right they are the prosecutors (investigators) who assemble the facts. Then they change hats and sit in judgement on the case they have built. Human rights tribunals truly fit the definition of kangoroo courts. They have no place in a democracy.
Posted by: JMD | 2007-12-18 6:41:32 AM
Judges do somtimes say in making decisions that they disagree with a law, but based on what the law says they are bound to find a certain way. So to use my seat belt analogy, the cop who gives me the ticket might think it's a stupid law, but it's his job to enforce it. And when I contest the ticket, a judge might agree that it's a stupid law, but still uphold it. In both cases (or, in the science fiction case where the same cop who wrote the ticket gets appointed as a judge in time to hear my case, so it is one and the same person) it seems odd to blame the cop or the judge when it is the law itself that is wrong.
In Ezra's recent NP column (linked here: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2007/12/wsers-in-the-ne.html ) he even acknowleges that the HRCs had a legitimate purpose that warranted their creation and, when issues they were created to attend to still arise, they are still valid mechanisms for dealing with them. The problem, however, is their mandate has been widened to include now acting as a thougth police.
HRCs certainly have an important place in a democracy, but only when they are actually dealing with Human Rights issues. When they are given an inappropriate mandate, then we should direct our anger at those who have the power to define their role, not those who are just doing their job in enforcing the law.
People here complain all the time about "judicial activism" and how they don't want judges making laws. To expect the HRC to do anything other than enforce the laws as they stand is to ask them to be activists. To blame them for enforcing the law is to blame them for not being activists. There is something rotten in the State of Denmark, but the stench comes from the HR legislation itself, not how it is being enforced.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-12-18 7:16:25 AM
Dear everyone here who's slamming the HRC,
You can't make a civil and thoughtfully compelling case for your point of view, so you post a clumsy attack piece pandering to a sympathetic audience, and then when your rant fails to spark a fire—instead backfiring at the HRC—you try to rekindle that same fire with the same clumsy attack rhetoric. If you're _really_ trying to change Canada, then try inspiration rather than instigation. Canadians—pardon me, "leftoids"—generally gather around lofty ideals rather than around angry men on podiums.
There's a reason most of us(to your disgust and outrage) have this friendly image of David Suzuki. More often than not he's known as the soft spoken narrator of the Nature of Things. The few times he's been seen shaking his fist at the government are outweighed by our collective memory/impression of him. The same goes for just about every well-respected public figure.
Try it. Humor, gentle persuasion, compromise, diplomacy, tact, and above all a sense of a genuine concern for Canada's well-being will get you a lot further along and win you far more general support than will dark fuming lofty condescending diatribes. But you know that.
"While I disagree with many of the fringe policy positions taken by some of their readers, on the overall I respect how the Western Standard strives to maintain a voice for a largely overlooked portion of Canada."
"Hey kids, the moonbat fringe neocon faux libertarian echo chamber clubhouse a.k.a The Western Retard (with a paltry web ranking of 1.6 millionth overall, slightly behind Aunt Emma's Yarn Craft Blog) is at it again with thinly veiled racism slathered over with a veneer of ninth grade over-inflated Social Studies 33 Essay english."
Which one's going to open a results-producing dialogue? And which ones going to pull the pin out of a flame-war grenade?
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2007-12-18 9:00:58 AM
Sometimes you do make sense.....for a commie LOL
Posted by: missing link | 2007-12-18 8:37:55 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.