Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Ron Paul calls it quits. Then calls it starts. | Main | The West asks for little, gets less, yet won't wise up »

Friday, June 13, 2008

My Canada is a laughingstock

Bell_web_3 The New York Times covers the Maclean's BCHRC tribunal in a story entitled: "Unlike others, U.S. defends freedom to offend in speech." (And so did WorldNetDaily)

So now it's official, and recorded, and in print: Canada, my Canada, the place with a long and proud record and history of liberty, is a laughingstock.

Actually, "laughingstock" is not the right word for it. We are now yet another reason for American exceptionalism. For the perpetuation of the myth--which is what it is--that America is the only country steeped, soaked, and dripping with liberty. That proud heritage is my Canada's heritage.

The Underground Railroad terminated in Buxton, Ontario. We have a Buxton Liberty Bell that clanged every time a new slave made his or her way into Buxton, marking and announcing their personal freedom. That's my Canada.

Contrary to the myth of socialist Canada, docile and subservient, we had three (technically four) open rebellions. The Upper and Lower Canada Rebellions, and the Louis Riel rebellions in modern-day Manitoba (Red River Rebellion and North-West Rebellion). All four of them were for balls-to-the-wall freedom. Had America and France joined the simultaneous Upper and Lower Canada rebellions, as Louis-Joseph Papineau begged of them, we would have torn with Britain, much like America did. (It's ironic to think that, without Spain and France, the U.S. may not have been successful). Those rebels are Canadians. And that's my Canada.

Up until about the 60s, when Trudeau re-imagined Canada from its gun-toting, individualist, rugged, bastion of liberty into some sort of "community-of-Parliamentarians-leading-the-rest-of-us-by-the-nose" utopia, we were bigger supporters of liberty than our southern neighbour. We really were.

But we forgot.

And we didn't know that the HRC could haul magazines and news outlets before tribunals intended to make everyone feel good about themselves. We didn't know. I mean that. It says nothing about Canadians that there are these laws. Why not? Because this is the first public and open test of these laws.

Socialized health care? Check the Chaoulli ruling. Economic freedom? Check the Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom of the World ranking [PDF] (we're tied with the U.S. and UK for fifth). Personal freedoms? Our war on drugs is really just a finger-wagging on drugs. Freedom of speech? Check with us a year from now. Because then we'll see. And I'm sure we'll (eventually) side with freedom.

You're not so exceptional, my American friends. Because if you just peek a little into our forgotten history, you'll see that fealty to liberty is as much a Canadian value as it is an American one.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on June 13, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55350c1658833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference My Canada is a laughingstock:

Comments

Inspiring stuff Jaworski!

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-06-13 2:06:16 AM


The writer of the New York Times piece, Adam Liptak, sat beside me during the first day of the BCHRT hearing into the Maclean's case. And I can tell you that Liptak appeared to be personnally appalled by what he saw unfold in that sham court.

Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2008-06-13 8:36:59 AM


Dean Steacy actually had the breathtaking gall to call freedom of speech "an American idea...I'm not here to protect American ideas." The fact that a government-appointed watchdog would dare publicly utter such a thing is a sign that our liberty in Canada is in a very precarious state.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-06-13 8:46:35 AM


Shane Matthews-
Who the f*** is Dean Steacy, and what gave him the idea it's his role to interpret what's an "American idea", a Canadian idea, or anything other than a Dean Steacy idea.

I've an idea, let's fire Dean Steacy.

And while we're at it, can't some of these HRC types who have decided they are a law unto themselves be prosecuted for anything?

Posted by: dave | 2008-06-13 9:59:44 AM


All true PMJ, but I haven't seen Leviathan reversed yet and talk from Harper's minority Government is cheap. Unless or until that occurs, Canada serves as a great example of how one charismatic asshole can destroy a Country. The Dems here, are in a big rush to embrace Trudeau's legacy (Obama-worship) proving that American ignorance isn't a myth.

I would argue about which jurisdiction is marginally freer with example of my hassle-free gun ownership, private health insurance/delivery/access, No CBC, HRCs, or CRTC, etc. On the other hand, America has written the book on over-regulation and human warehousing.

Canada, once great, will succeed when or if you get back those lost liberties and toss that Trudeaupian baggage.

The reversion / march to statist totalitarianism is a widespresd civilizational phenomenon and one Country alone cannot stand against it given that the rot is internal.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-06-13 11:55:55 AM


Canada where once we had more freedom than the Americans (no prohibition for example) is close behind the UK in socialist fascism and its demise. I note with sadness that the Americans are not too far behind us even with their Bill of Rights and Constitution. Just a few recent examples are the Supreme Court decision to accord foreign jihadists the same rights as American citizens; the appointment of a lesbian activist as judge for family court, the relentless attack on any reference to religion (Christianity that is) in public schools while allowing the gradual islamisation of same school; the gradual implementation of SSM; on-going attacks against the right to bear arms and a lack of any true conservative politicians.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-06-13 12:37:06 PM


No, none in Manitoba, ebt, but in the land that is now called Manitoba. It was called the Red River Settlement then, mostly a settlement of Metis and other native tribes.

The Red River Rebellion was the first, and the North-West Rebellion was the second, both led by Louis Riel. And it was open rebellion with, sadly, loss of life on both sides, followed by the first court trial of national Canadian interest, and the hanging of Riel.

Interesting note, and more ammo for the Canadian veins run with liberty meme I'm pushing: Riel was elected to Parliament while he was fighting with Ottawa. He was going to sit in Parliament, when he got word that some--including John A. Macdonald--intended to have him arrested and tried. He fled to Montana. Through chicanery, the M.P.s managed to push through a by-election for Riel's seat, and Riel, who resided in Montana and did not campaign for the seat, won again. He never did go to Parliament. Ever.

I'll add some wiki links to my post so people can check out the history of Canada that nobody seems to know anything about...

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-06-13 1:07:50 PM


Alain: Your criticism is not a criticism of America's fealty to freedom, but a criticism against her following certain traditions. It is certainly an expansion of freedom to extend the rule of law to all *suspects* (we don't know whether or not they are jihadists, because they haven't appeared before a bona fide court of law. They've appeared before an HRC-style kangaroo court. And I don't trust them).

The appointment of a lesbian activist to family court says nothing (yet) about personal, civil, or economic freedom.

Non-Christianity is not a criticism of a lack of liberty, but a criticism of a failure to heed a certain tradition. The same goes for same sex marriage (which I support) which, it can be argued, is an expansion of individual liberty to more people.

But my post was about liberty, not about protecting certain institutions. Mine is a post from a libertarian perspective, yours is a comment from a (social) conservative perspective.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-06-13 1:27:55 PM


P.M.J. - I do not agree with your label of libertarian versus (social) conservatism, but it matters not. My point was due to internal rot (the enemy within) the Americans have started on the same road as the UK and Canada. While our tradition of freedom and liberty is organic and that of the U.S.A. is based on the written word, both have failed us. Neither can withstand the teaching of revisionist history which results in ignorance of our true history and tradition. For example a poll done in the UK of the post WW II generations showed that those polled believed Churchill's very existence was fiction. In other words they did not believe he had ever existed. This is only a small but very important example of what has been taking place.

As to SSM, again it matters not if you support or do not support it. It is an example of American judicial activists (just like what we have here) reading in what is not written. We had the same experience with judicial activists adding sexual orientation to the Charter - a much more recent document. Contrary to you I do have a serious problem with the appointment of a lesbian activist to family court, and it is the activist part that concerns me. Men already face enough discrimination in family court without adding such an activist.

My point concerning American public schools is the discrimination against Christians. Either they must be totally secular (no special treatment for Muslims or any group) or they give equal treatment to all. This situation is largely due to the ACLU (a front for communists), a group which has no interest in defending liberty.

As to the court decision to grant foreign jihadists (combatants if you wish) the rights of American citizens, it is another case of judicial activism and a total change from American jurisprudence.

So it is not a case of a social conservative argument but of common sense that I advance.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-06-13 2:58:29 PM


Uhm, ebt, why the ridiculous over-the-top response? Don't be a spaz.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-06-13 3:39:25 PM


"No, Mr. Jaworski. Clean the shit out of your ears and listen."

Okay, I'll try. But you do know that what's on my computer screen is actually not audible?

"There was no rebellion in Manitoba in 1870. I just told you what happened there. Go back and read it."

It's called the Red River *Rebellion*. I didn't give it that name myself.

"Riel was not elected "when fighting against Ottawa". There was no fighting against Ottawa in 1870."

1. There are different senses of the word "fighting." You don't literally need to be throwing fists or shooting guns to be considered "fighting." Standing in open opposition to Ottawa and the policies emanating from there is considered "fighting."

2. I never said he was elected in 1870. Re-read what I wrote. It is intended as a separate historical bullet-point. (Riel was elected in 1873, but didn't take his seat. In the 1874 general election, he won his seat again. He went to Parliament, said the oath, but never took his seat. He was expelled in that same year, and then won the by-election, also held in 1874.)

"There was no intention to have Riel "arrested and tried", since he had committed no crimes. The intention was to have him arrested on openly fraudulent charges so that once in custody he could be lynched without trial."

You're right. Send the history police.

"Yuo don't seem to know any history, and you don't seem willing to learn. Smarten up."

False, and false. (Spaz)

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-06-13 3:59:20 PM


Just think about how boring and dull this country would have been/be if it wasent for french decendants.

Vive la Liberté, vive l'Indépendance !

Posted by: Marc | 2008-06-13 4:58:10 PM


Just think about how boring and dull this country would have been/be if it wasent for french decendants.
Posted by: Marc | 13-Jun-08 4:58:10 PM

Yeah we wouldn't have "los tabarnacos" to laugh at.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-06-13 5:32:57 PM


Laugh my boring friend, laugh.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-06-13 5:34:15 PM


Marc

"Just think about how boring and dull this country would have been/be if it wasent for french decendants."

And think how poor and oppressed we'd be if not for English descendents.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-13 5:36:47 PM


Hahahahahaha !
"And think how poor and oppressed we'd be if not for English descendents"

without Anglos, poor and oppressed would not be words.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-06-13 5:41:48 PM


Marc

"without Anglos, poor and oppressed would not be words."

Thank you for recognizing the truly invaluable gift given to the world by the Anglosphere. Freedom and prosperity.

Without them, most would still be living in desperately poor and crushingly oppressed countries.

Perhaps, some day, the descendants of France will also know the words "poor" and "oppressed" because they will be able to compare their lives to the rest of us and begin to experience freedom and prosperity and begin to abolish the old world customs that continue to enslave them.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-13 5:57:26 PM


Marc: I'm in agreement with you. Having read Pierre Lemieux's work, I'm beginning to slowly see the pro-liberty heritage of Quebec and the Quebecois.

Vive la (vrai) Quebecois. Vive la liberte. (Pardon the grammar).

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-06-13 6:15:29 PM


Laugh my boring friend, laugh.
Posted by: Marc | 13-Jun-08 5:34:15 PM

We laugh at you, the Americans laugh at you, jeez even the Mexicans laugh at you. Are you going to Olliewood Florida or Hold Orchard for your vacation this year?

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-06-13 6:41:00 PM


Steve Sailer writes:

"It's totally obvious how Liptak is slanting this New York Times article to get readers to presume that Steyn's article is "hate speech." There's not a single quote from Steyn's essay "The Future Belongs to Islam" in Liptak's entire 1,838 word article. On the other hand, Liptak uses the word "hate" (or "hateful") 18 times, "Nazi" three times, [holocaust twice]and "Hitler" once."

Not once does Liptak mention the Canadian Jewish Congress who, according to Levant, is the "the special-interest lobby group most responsible for criminalizing speech in Canada", unless of course the record of the Jewish Labour Committee is examined.

"Not surprisingly, the JLC had close ties with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), a party that was social democratic on economic matters and liberal on human-rights.11 For example, David Lewis, the CCF’s first National Secretary, was the son of Morris Lewis, a Workman’s Circle socialist, and for many years the Secretary of the JLC. Similarly, Maurice Silcoff, a vice-president of the JLC, was a CCF activist.12"

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/47/03lamber.html

"Private property was not covered by the Glass rule, so it remained perfectly legal for owners and managers to exhibit "Gentiles Only" signs, or even more blunt warnings to discourage Jewish customers in hotels, restaurants or other facilities. This was addressed in the Ontario government's Racial Discrimination Act, passed by the legislature in 1944. Although it became a government measure, the bill was inaugurated by MPP Joseph Salsberg [who was still praising Stalin in the ON legislature as late as 1953] who, with his Communist colleague, Alex MacLeod, had made anti-discrimination legislation a campaign issue in the 1943 provincial election. Premier George Drew formed a minority government and was therefore open to pressure, and the CCF opposition was ready to cooperate in an anti-discrimination measure. Mr. Salsberg informed the premier that such legislation was his party's most urgent priority, and Drew invited Salsberg to present a draft bill on the subject. Salsberg proposed that discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and recreation should all be dec lared illegal. (17)

When the government bill was introduced in March 1944, however, it dealt only with the issue of discriminatory public notices. Even in this moderate form it provoked considerable opposition. The Globe and Mail argued that minorities were already protected by existing law, and that Drew's bill would endanger freedom of speech. The Toronto Telegram went further, claiming that the legislation threatened Canadians' right to make distinctions among their associates. (18) Speeches during a public rally at Massey Hall denounced the bill as an infringement on freedom of expression. (19) Drew felt compelled to add a section to the effect that the bill would not affect the free expression of opinion, leading the Globe and Mail to withdraw its objection. Still, the Globe complained, legislation was not the appropriate solution to the problem of prejudice, and "restrictive laws cannot be a substitute for conscience." (20) In its final version, the Racial Discrimination Act passed the legislature on 13 March 1944, prohibiting the publication or display of signs, notices or symbols expressing racial or religious discrimination in Ontario."

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1561386/The-Jewish-Phase-in-the.html

The rest, as they say, is history.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-06-13 11:44:26 PM


"Are you going to Olliewood Florida or Hold Orchard for your vacation this year?"

Like I've said, I will probably stay home and wait for your anglo sisters rushing to Mtl to experience the only fun part of Canada. We don't hear them laughing, we hear them begging.

*

"they will be able to compare their lives to the rest of us"

"I don't want to oppose the system, I want to get out of it."
- Jacques Parizeau

Posted by: Marc | 2008-06-14 9:59:31 AM


Marc

"I don't want to oppose the system, I want to get out of it."
- Jacques Parizeau

Also by Jacques Parizeau

""C'est vrai, c'est vrai qu'on a été battus, au fond, par quoi? Par l'argent puis des votes ethniques, essentiellement. Alors ça veut dire que la prochaine fois, au lieu d'être 60 ou 61% à voter OUI on sera 63 ou 64% et ça suffira. C'est tout. Mais là, mes amis, dans les mois qui viennent, on va... Écoutez : Il y a des gens qui ont eu tellement peur que la tentation de se venger ça va être quelque chose! Et là, jamais il ne sera aussi important d'avoir à Québec ce gouvernement du Parti Québécois pour nous protéger jusqu'à la prochaine!"

He doesn't want out of the system. He just wants to be in charge of his own version of a system.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-14 10:07:52 AM


"He doesn't want out of the system. He just wants to be in charge of his own version of a system."

Parizeau never talk at the first person.
That would be Stephen Harper.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-06-14 10:24:13 AM


Marc,
What's wrong? You get shot down so now you must change the subject to Stephen Harper?

You want to live in your society under the rules that you like. Just like Parizeau.

Fine.

At least have the courage to admit it. Finally, you must also be prepared to pay the price of that decision.

Quite simply, historically, the Anglosphere is more productive and in general, more free individually than the descendants of France to date.

I do happen to share the view that the people of Quebec should decide for themselves what society they want. I reserve that right for myself as well. Racially, culturally, politically, religiously, etc.

Of course, for me, it's easy. I'm confident that my way of life brings prosperity and freedom. I wish you the same but I won't lift a finger to help you flush your society down the toilet.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-14 10:36:21 AM


P.M. wrote: "Non-Christianity is not a criticism of a lack of liberty, but a criticism of a failure to heed a certain tradition. The same goes for same sex marriage (which I support) which, it can be argued, is an expansion of individual liberty to more people."

It also "could be argued" that allowing mothers to marry sons, fathers daughters, and brothers sisters, is also "an expansion of individual liberty." In my experience, P.M., if someone prefaces a point with words like "it could be argued" or "you could make an argument for," the following argument is usually pretty weak.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-06-14 10:41:35 AM


P.M. wrote: "Non-Christianity is not a criticism of a lack of liberty, but a criticism of a failure to heed a certain tradition. The same goes for same sex marriage (which I support) which, it can be argued, is an expansion of individual liberty to more people."

It also "could be argued" that allowing mothers to marry sons, fathers daughters, and brothers sisters, is also "an expansion of individual liberty." In my experience, P.M., if someone prefaces a point with words like "it could be argued" or "you could make an argument for," the following argument is usually pretty weak.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-06-14 10:42:02 AM


What ?
The point made was that Parizeau never looked to be "in charge of his own version of a system". He just want Québec to be free of a system ruled by a federal administration and the Queen of England. After that, he dosent cares who's "in charge".

Québecers are capitalists, but with good values. It dosent fit yours ? Who cares ?

The fact that you beleive getting rid of the federal and the Queen of England means "flushing your society down the toilet" reinforce my point that I'm the defender of Liberty and you're the asshole. Good luck to you too.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-06-14 11:08:24 AM


Marc

"The fact that you beleive getting rid of the federal and the Queen of England means "flushing your society down the toilet" reinforce my point that I'm the defender of Liberty and you're the asshole. "

Feeling defensive. You must resort to name-calling?


"The point made was that Parizeau never looked to be "in charge of his own version of a system". "

Actually, he was premier. By defintion...he sought and won the right to be "in charge of his own version of a system".

You just don't like the fact that I recognize that his version of a system is different from mine and I called you on it.


Who said I supported the Queen? She's just a nice old lady whom I don't even bother listening to her speeches. And her son is a 1st class moron. Please pay attention.

"Québecers are capitalists, but with good values."

Very funny. This is your way of saying that they are socialists but you agree that when someone makes it good, they should be ravaged like jackals for the motherland.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-14 11:16:19 AM


Jaworski,
I'm glad you beleive in this idea, Liberty.

Please accept this as a gift to you:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ldsSTPmU-Bk

Posted by: Marc | 2008-06-14 11:17:38 AM


Marc?

How goes the financial/business, political, cultural, scientific independence movement in Quebec these days?

Is the Queen really oppressing you that much? Perhaps you can elaborate on the ways she keeps you down.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-14 11:31:51 AM


Well, it's official.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/48121/Abolish-the-monarchy-UN-report-tells-Britain

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria all agree the British monarchy must be abolished. You're in good company when it comes to defending liberty Marc.

I used to think the monarchy was out of date, but this report may have rekindled my monarchist spirit.

Posted by: dp | 2008-06-14 12:32:10 PM


To be blunt P.M., my Canada is dead. All that's left are parasites feeding on the carcass. We had dreams in 1967. We woke up to a nightmare in 1969.

Posted by: dp | 2008-06-14 12:36:41 PM


dp.
"To be blunt P.M., my Canada is dead. All that's left are parasites feeding on the carcass. We had dreams in 1967. We woke up to a nightmare in 1969."

You sound as desperate and defeated as the global warming fanatics. Governments, political fashions, trendy opinions, *like the climate* wax and wane slowly over time.

Patience, my friend. Let the older generation of the misguided boomers die off. Sanity may yet prevail. Actually, reality has a way of making people come to their senses regardless.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-14 1:38:49 PM


Unfortunately h2o, I am a boomer. I've watch my misguided classmates perpetrate this crime from the beginning. My goal is to outlive them so I can set the record straight with the heirs of this mess.

I'm not defeated, or desperate yet. I'll admit I'm a bit bitter though.

Posted by: dp | 2008-06-14 2:55:48 PM


dp,
In the words of Spock

"May you live LONG and PROSPER"

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-14 3:01:40 PM


Marc,

If you think the Queen is bad, just think of what it would be like in Quebec if Diana were still married to Charles and he were in charge.

I can picture it now. Diana and Dodi running away for a weekend tryst at the QUEEN ELIZABETH HOTEL in Montreal. Bed-ins and singing singing (a la John and Yoko)

"All we are saying...is give adultery a chance!"

Sin city!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-14 4:34:23 PM


Great post, Peter. I've been to the site of the rebellion in Batoche SK. According to them, the battle was fought in 1885 and was the first time a machine gun was used in combat. (fired from a floating raft on the river). Gabriel Dumont was the real hero. I wonder what he would do if he was summoned to an HRC hearing? Hmmmm. Let me know if this is audible. I know you have shit in your ears.

Posted by: Dennis | 2008-06-15 7:17:57 PM


Dumont would have solved the HRC problem in short order.

I've met some of his descendents. Apparently he had quite a few. I once heard someone make the mistake of criticizing Riel in front of one of Dumont's (great)granddaughters. I made sure not to make the same blunder.

Posted by: dp | 2008-06-15 9:05:25 PM


Riel was a "let's negotiate" type. Dumont was a "Don't Tread On Me" type. Grant McEwan wrote about both of them in a book entitled "50 mighty men." Read it and you'll love Dumont. He had a "V" personality.

Posted by: Dennis | 2008-06-16 10:31:11 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.