The Shotgun Blog
« Pierre Lemieux: Don't phone and drive? | Main | Many nations are forced to confront Islamic terrorism; Communist China is not one of them »
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Harper's Amnesia
It's about Prime Minister Stephen Harper's failure to defend free speech in this country.
Crossposted at Making Sense with Nicholls
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on April 8, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e551cb9fe28834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Harper's Amnesia:
Comments
There is a reason for limiting donations . It allows all the little donations to have more meaning . The same principle can be seen in not having strict proportionality ,in the number of MP`s in Ontario . If proportionality were to be enforced , then PEI might end up with one MP and half a senator. What would we do without all that valuable PEI input ?
Posted by: daveh | 2008-04-08 6:45:47 AM
Good article By Gerry Nicholls. Here is another article on Harper and Free Speech By Connie Fournier. SJG.
http://noapologies.ca/?p=520
Apr 04 2008
Mr. Harper, how long is your arm?
"In fact, the current director of the CHRC was appointed by the Harper government, and Dean Steacy’s spy mission on Free Dominion began four months after the CPC won the election and took power.
Published by Connie Fournier at 12:00 am under Guest Columnists
On February 12, 2008, NoApologies released a leaked document to the public. It was a list of ‘talking points’ that was reportedly written by the office of Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson. The document instructed Members of Parliament and their staff in dealing with questions relating to freedom of speech and, specifically, Keith Martin’s motion to abolish Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Readers reacted with indignation to the document, which suggested that Canadians be told that the Department of Justice ‘is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights’, and that ‘The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are independent agencies’ that act ‘without interference from the government’. They were told to direct concerned citizens to the CHRC website, and, most insultingly, to change the subject by detailing their efforts to expand the Canadian Human Rights Act onto Indian Reservations by repealing Section 67. It even suggested using the cheesy slogan, “My Canada includes First Nations”.
It didn’t take long for the Conservative government to distance itself from the controversial talking points by saying that they had not been approved by the Prime Minister’s Office and that they did not represent the official position of the government.
Canadians who were concerned about free speech were relieved, and sat back to wait for the government to step up to the plate.
Unfortunately, on March 12, 2008, a letter from the PMO arrived in the email box of a concerned citizen who had contacted them about the CHRC. The letter stated:
Dear Mr. xxxxxx:
On behalf of the Prime Minister, I would like to thank you for your e-mail regarding human rights commissions at the federal and provincial level. Please be assured that your comments are appreciated and have been carefully reviewed.
The Government of Canada recognizes that freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that may be limited only when it is demonstrably justifiable to do so in a free and democratic society.
At the federal level, the Canadian Human Rights Commission is the independent body responsible for administering the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Commission operates at arm’s length from the Government and reports directly to Parliament. A person may file a complaint with the Commission if he or she believes that an individual or group within federal jurisdiction has engaged in a discriminatory practice.
As the Commission operates at arm’s length, the federal government respects the Commission’s independence and does not interfere in its normal course of operations. For more information about the operations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, we would encourage you to visit the
Commission’s Web site at: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.
Sincerely,
Susan I. Ross
Executive Correspondence Officer
for the Prime Minister’s Office
/je
The letter could have been written directly from the Nicholson talking points if Ms. Ross had just included the bit about forcing the Human Rights Act on our First Nations population, along with the cheesy slogan that accompanied it. She even took the time to direct the correspondent to the CHRC website!
But, the main thrust of this missive from the Prime Minister’s Office was that the CHRC operates ‘at arm’s length’ from the federal government. In other words, their hands are tied.
Less than two weeks after that letter was written, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal held a hearing in Ottawa in the case of Warman v Lemire. The hearing was to allow the defense counsel to question CHRC employees regarding topics which they had refused to answer until Marc Lemire used a ruling from the Federal Court to force their hand.
Sitting in the front row, beside the CHRC lawyer, was a lawyer representing the Minister of Justice, and she was not there to observe. Indeed, she was working with the CHRC lawyer in an attempt to shut down the questioning of the CHRC employees by the defense team.
It is quite apparent that the Conservative government has no interest in curbing the powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Their ‘arm’s length’ relationship with the CHRC gets up close and personal when the CHRC needs help in protecting the little empire that has been created. In fact, the current director of the CHRC was appointed by the Harper government, and Dean Steacy’s spy mission on Free Dominion began four months after the CPC won the election and took power.
It is time that Canadians started calling Mr. Harper on the length of his arm. We cannot allow the government to plead helplessness when they are actively protecting an agency that is determined to erode our freedom of speech. We have to send this government a strong message that we expect them to fight the political fight for the freedoms that our forefathers died to protect.
When all of the major newspapers in this country have made a case for Keith Martin’s motion, and even a leftist organization like PEN Canada has stepped up to the plate, it would be the height of cowardice for the Conservative Party to refuse to pick up the ball.
They must be willing to stand up for our most basic freedoms if they expect to get our votes. Supporting Keith Martin’s motion and launching an investigation into the practices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission should be the minimum we are entitled to expect from any political party that claims to be committed to freedom.
So let’s ask for it.
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-04-08 10:31:36 AM
Terrible bunch that Harper and his gang. Dion and the Liberals would be so much better to have running the country. Keep up your hard work to put fodder in front of the Liberals, just a little at a time Gerry, they're lovin' ya for it.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-08 10:42:37 AM
LOL! Harper is an opportunist par excellence! He would sell his own grandmother to get a majority government! All that hog wash about Harper being a person of principle was horse manure. Harper will say and do whatever he has to to win, even sending truckloads of money to Quebec to buy votes, giving Separatistes recognition for distinct nationhood, and spending money like a drunken sailor in a brothel on everything from athletics for kids to money for stay-home moms to multimillion dollar corporate welfare to Alberta companies. Harper has blown the surplus to hell and now we face deficits from his and Flaherty's mismanagement of the finances.
About free speech, Harper believes in silencing everyone! Under Harper, Canadian citizens are being kept in the dark, and that is the way Steve likes it! Free speech is a threat to Harper's control freak mentality. Harper is ethically and morally unfit to govern Canada.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-08 12:13:05 PM
Liz: You make a simple error. In saying that Harper isn't good enough, Gerry is in no way suggesting that Dion would be better. I don't care, and neither should anyone with a real conservative or libertarian backbone, that the lesser of two evils might get knocked down a rung or two. Better to build for the future with Goldwater types, than stay stuck in semi-socialism with the Bushes.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-04-08 12:50:26 PM
I have to agree with Gerry that Harper's silence on the CHRC section 13 is stunning. It's not as though the majority of Canada wants this gestapo outfit watching us.
Most people are still oblivious to what it even is all about, what with hockey and all. It would be a no-brainer to step up and shut them down.
I was about to reconsider my oath to not vote in the next federal election after the Income Trust lie, but now it will depend on whether Harper does something to end the tyranny at the CHRC or not.
I cannot vote for any other party, but I can sure withhold my support for the CPC and so can my wife, by brothers and their families. We all think alike on this issue. And so does pretty much everyone we know and are connected with.
Posted by: John West | 2008-04-08 12:57:24 PM
LOL! So, when did you discover Harper was a cynical opportunist? I told everyone that long before the last elections! But his supporters claimed Harper was a man of principle! I had dealings with Harper when he was at the NCC and know he is now what he always was, a cynical opportunist. But Harper supporters in the one-party state of Alberta are owned by the CONservative Party. People who do not vote are fence sitters.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-08 1:03:10 PM
When a party knows they own the loyalty of voters, they no longer have to listen or care what you think. That is what happens when you have a one-party province and loyalty to one party. So now Harper can kick you folks around and you will learn to like it or lump it! LOL!Albertistan. Harperism.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-08 1:07:54 PM
Nichols is right. Harper knows cozying up to Nazis, esp. now with the Lukwiski thing and Kate getting denounced out in Sask., is a vote loser.
Doesn't matter if a bunch of blogging nerds can out quote JS Mill to one another, if this story ever really seized public attention it would be about protecting Nazis vs. some argument some philosopher made. Harper justifiably wants to stay on the right side of that one.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-04-08 1:18:30 PM
Excellent post and I am with John West on this one. The do-nothing about the gun registry could possibly be explained by being a minority government, but there is absolutely no excuse for the deafening silence on the on-going corruption and scandals by the HR thugs.
Calling a spade a spade in no way makes the Liberals and NDP any more acceptable.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-04-08 1:24:29 PM
BigCityLib,
You don't know what a Nazi is so stop tossing that name around at anyone who you disagree with. It reveals your stupidity.
And Roger ... just plain old fuck off ... you are smegma.
Posted by: John West | 2008-04-08 2:22:38 PM
John West,
Seems to have worked with Harper. Who else counts?
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-04-08 6:23:28 PM
We all do a lot of complaining about the free speech issue. How about writing your CPC MP and telling him/her that unless the free speech issue is properly resolved with disputes being properly resolved, as in a proper court of law, you will switch your vote to another party. Even though you have to hold your nose you should be prepared to switch.
You will probably get the standard banal reply. If so send another letter repeating your ultimatum.
Posted by: DML | 2008-04-09 12:20:05 AM
LOL! Switch to another party? LOL! Face facts boys, Harper owns you and can kick you around all he wants cuz you aint got no where else to go! LOL! These one-party knuckledraggers are such predictable fools. Look at the mess Alberta is in with a one-party state and mismanagement everywhere and idiots like Klein as a premier! Now they have another do-nothing type as premier, and there is sweet diddly they can do if they don't like it! Harper owns these flock of sheep.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-09 1:24:40 AM
ROGER once again, is it true that you are a faggot who claims that he is 60 years old muslim ginecologist with four wives???
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 9-Apr-08 8:40:05 AM
ROGER is a wog and not worth the bother
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-04-09 9:03:32 AM
Karol - the hateful slurs are bad enough, but the spelling and grammatical errors are truly horrifying. Do you mean "gynaecologist"?
Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-09 9:20:38 AM
WHERE ARE THIS MAN'S CHARTER RIGHTS of FREE SPEECH and FREE EXPRESSION? HE IS BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. Read the article belowSJG
---------------------------------------------------------
Conduct unbecoming a free society
Chris Kempling, National Post Published: Wednesday, April 09, 2008
On the first day of the counselling psychology class, the instructor asked us to share what was the most important fact about ourselves. Jim (not his real name) identified himself as gay. I identified myself as a Christian. I decided to befriend him and we went through the two-year program together. I even stayed overnight at his house when we had a weekend seminar in his town.
Fast forward to the present. I encouraged my high school-aged son, a social leader, to befriend gay classmates, protect them if they were bullied and invite them over if he wished. He did (and was harassed for doing so). After graduation, his friend "Andy" moved away, but stayed overnight at our house on two occasions when back in town visiting.
I mention these anecdotes, because some people are convinced that I am "homophobic." They believe this because I publicly express opinions consistent with socially conservative views of sexual behaviour. I have been suspended, without pay, twice from my job as a school teacher -- once for one month, and once for three months. It was hard on my family. Yet I maintain that people can hold, and express such views but still treat those who practise different values with decency. I do, and so does my son.
The British Columbia College of Teachers won a court decision against me in 2006 for "conduct unbecoming a member." The reason: Between 1997 and 2000, I wrote several letters to newspapers, outlining research data related to homosexual behaviour, and what position major world religions take on the matter. There was a vigorous exchange of views on the editorial pages of my local newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo Observer. I had thought that was the place where people are free to debate the issues of the day.
The College of Teachers, and my employer, the Quesnel School District, believe that my published opinions had the potential to "poison the atmosphere" in my school. I provided letters from five school administrators which said that my letters had no impact whatsoever on the school atmosphere, but they were ignored.
The college's lawyer stated categorically that "everything you have written, in its entirety, is derogatory and discriminatory." I continue to find that a bewildering statement, because I was quoting peer-reviewed research data, including research done by investigators who are homosexual themselves. Furthermore, I have never had a human rights complaint laid against me.
In fact, all sides agreed that there was no negative impact in my school. No parent, student or homosexual person complained to the college or my employer about my letters. I never raised the issue in my classroom or with students with whom I worked. I have even received two letters of commendation from my principals for my work with sexual minority students. Nevertheless, the courts ruled that no "evidence of harm" is required to discipline a member. Having wrong opinions is sufficient reason to deny a worker his paycheque for four months.
One would think that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association might be concerned about this attack on free speech. On the contrary, they were granted leave to intervene against me on the side of the College of Teachers.
On Jan. 28 of this year, the college issued a new citation of "conduct unbecoming," with 12 new offenses for items written between 2003 and 2005. Once again, no evidence of "harm" was alleged, and in fact, there isn't even a complainant.
My offenses include signing two letters to the editor as "the local representative of the Christian Heritage Party." This is true. I did run as a candidate in the last federal election for the CHP, and came in fifth out of eight candidates. I wrote the letters in question, after the national leader of the CHP asked me to be the candidate. In my role as CHP spokesperson for my riding, I outlined the party's position on the nationally debated issue of same-sex marriage. If a teacher can be sanctioned for letting the public know what his party's position is on matters of national debate, does this not make Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom meaningless?
Chief Justice Beverley Mc-Lachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada, writing in the Figueroa decision stated: "Section 3 should be understood with reference to the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process …Full political debate ensures an open society benefiting from diverse opinions … Marginal or regional parties tend to raise issues not adopted by national parties."
The possibility that a political candidate may be sanctioned for representing his political party is alarming to say the least. I think citizens of a free democracy need to be able to join and speak for the party of their choice, notwithstanding their occupation.
I have also been censured for writing an essay on the philosophical differences between social liberals and social conservatives, and for discussing the therapy services of my private Christian counselling practice, in a CBC radio interview.
Frankly, I find it disconcerting that my professional body wishes to sanction me for my political involvement, for conduct in a completely different profession servicing my own faith community and for opinions published in other provinces or countries. This action has potentially alarming consequences, not only for Canadian teachers, but for all regulated professions (social workers, psychologists, nurses, etc.), for whom such cases end up establishing legal precedents.
I refuse to be marginalized as a second-class citizen, simply because I publicly state social conservative opinions or represent a "fringe" political party. And I don't think publicly espousing the Christian worldview should be prohibited for public school teachers. If I don't have free speech, or freedom of political association, then no Canadian does.
[email protected]
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-04-09 9:35:53 AM
LOL! Harper promised to act on same-sex marriage before and during two election campaigns, but once in as Prime Minister, what has Harper done? All together now, "nothing!" LOL! Same sex marriage and gay rights are decided matters entrenched in the rich tapestry of Canada, enshrined in law and constitutional reality. No one and nothing is going to change that, ever.
Karol, I love your posts! Keep up the good work!While your Roger Studies keeps you occupied, the adults can have a discussion. LOL!
Glad to see the BC College of Teachers are keeping an eye on their teachers.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-10 11:21:03 PM
Harper owns your votes so he no longer has to listen to you. Fact. Income trust promise broken? Unhappy about it? Who cares? Harper owns your vote. Harper disappoints you? Harper doesn't care what you think, because you have no where else to go with your vote. Remember when Reform promised populism, direct democracy, referenda on everything, grassroots democracy? LOL! Sure you do. Seems like such a long time ago though. No even cabinet ministers don't speak unless the script has been vetted by the PMO! Some grassroots democracy. This from the one-party state of Albertistan.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-10 11:30:12 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.