| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fourhorses
|
 Posted: 09/ 20/ 08 9:03 am Post subject: Was the Cdn Muslim community suckered by the CHRC? |
 |
|
Was the Canadian Muslim community suckered by the CHRC?
A strange question to ask, perhaps? Maybe not if one considers Item 37, a letter dated July 2006, from the Harvey Goldberg, CHRC Senior Policy Advisor, addressed to the Canadian Arab Federation. We learn from Goldberg’s correspondence that he was drumming up business for the CHRC.
That letter standing alone, may be easily dismissed as a courtesy follow up of the CHRC “pursuing their mandate”, as we have heard so often. However R17 Tab4, which is a CHRC internal memorandum, that didn’t get shredded or totally redacted, suggests something a little more in depth. This memorandum from Harvey Goldberg to Ian Fine. Page 1 notes that the Muslim community is concerned that their complaints of Islamophobia would be viewed by the CHRC as not meeting the “threshold of hate”
I note that paragraph #2 & 3 on page 2 have been fully erased from the evidence, as well as paragraph 5 on page 3. Paragraph 6, however, does return to the fact that the CHRC is willing to provide representatives for the CAF consulting organization with respect to filings of these hate crimes. Trolling for business is not a new phenomena with the CHRC. We have seen them conduct more clandestine operations, many times in the past.
This year the public was awakened to the section 13 hate complaints via the Steyn/MacLeans issue. Finally a Muslim complaint was filed on the basis of Islamophobia. I suspect the fish was bigger than the CHRC wanted to swallow.
In the Lemire Constitutional Challenge of section 13, we learned from the CHRC lawyer, Margot Blight, that exaggerated hyperbole is no excuse, that the truth is no defence and that that intent is no defence. We learned that there is no free pass for anyone. We learned that liability is absolute. We also learned about the Hallmarks of Hate. These eleven hallmarks were adopted by the CHRC from their expert witness, Dr, Karen Mock. Much was made about the credentials of Dr. Mock by the commission.
We heard from the Attorney General’s representative, Simon Fothergill, that Freedom of Speech is indeed an American concept and that America is out of step with the world and that our current social science thinking is current and updated and that the CHRC’s “Chilling Effect” of freedom of speech is OK.
We further learned that the investigative report conducted by Sandy Kovak of the CHRC stated the Steyn/MacLeans case met the Hallmarks of Hate. This would seem to be the defacto threshold level the commission uses. As such, it met the threshold that the Canadian Muslim community was concerned about. Additionally we learned that the investigator’s report recommended that the Steyn/MacLeans case be prosecuted via a Tribunal hearing. For the public who was following the Steyn/MalCleans saga, it is well known that prosecution did not follow. The claim was rejected at the Commissioners level in the CHRC.
Rejected or deemed too politically hot ? It met the Hallmarks. It met the threshold. The truth of the Steyn article is no defence. The intent of the Steyn article is no defence. There is absolute liability on MacLeans for producing the article. What was the reason ?
Did the Canadian Muslim community reach for too big of a fish on their first try? Were they expected to seek out basement Islamophobes pecking away on their parent’s computers and posting on obscure websites – seek those who could ill afford legal defence as has been the case with the overwhelming majority of section 13 cases so far ?
Why were they trolled for business? Was there an expectation that prosecution of a neo-nazi-like islamophobe who would be ill equipped to defend himself would lead credence to the CHRC mantra that this section 13 law protects all Canadians? With a 100% conviction rate, would that type of result been waved as a some sort of flag to fend off a constitutional challenge of the bias and abuse we have seen at the CHRC ? A proof, a case precedent, to illustrate that the law applies fairly to all Canadians?
Or was it because of who the Canadian Muslim community is? We were not told why a decision was made by the Commissioner to toss out the Muslim community’s complaint. Nor were we told how as to how this decision was arrived. We were told by the Attorney General that it depends on who says the truthful statement and that if one person says it, it is Ok, but if another says it, it is not OK. Are Steyn and MacLeans OK people ? Where is that list ? Who might have that list ?
The Attorney General went on and stated that unless someone can prove that decision was political, it wasn’t political. He went on to inform us that the investigator’s report on the Steyn/MacLeans case, read to the hearing, was poor quality evidence. He further informed us that it depends upon whether articles posted are speaking on behalf of Canadians or speaking on behalf of conservative organizations.
And we wonder why the Canadian Muslim community says there is an anti-Islamic bias in this country. Have we just treated the Canadian Muslim community as less than equal?
Fair question. Paul Fromm, on behalf of the Canadian Association for Free Expression noted in his submission to the Tribunal, that overwhelmingly, the respondents in section 13 cases were economically disadvantaged, lower educated and marginal white, right wing Christians. The statistics would seem to flush out this position as a truth. We have a selected group that fit that Attorney General definition of “conservative organization” who are unequally persecuted. It seems we now have a second group, the Canadian Muslim community, who is also treated as less than equal.
Club membership is growing.
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
 |
 calmageJoined: 04 Nov 2004 Total posts: 242 Location: Okanagan Valley Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 09/ 20/ 08 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is 70-80% acceptance in the west and in Britain of marginal groups and their beliefs.
There was no need to go where we've gone in this mess.
The CHRC was simply determined to ferret out all instances of human fallibility and wrong think in an effort to create some sort of moonbat utopia the likes of which they're not even sure of as far as fair thinking goes... otherwise they wouldn't have opened this particular kettle of fish to stink the place up.
It was a witch hunt, plain and simple.
_________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. Abe Lincoln
The search for truth
www.clarity.forumotion.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fabulous Fred
Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 09/ 20/ 08 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
The more that comes to light the more it appears to damning of the Canadian jewish establishment. It appears that the entire hrc section 13 atrocity is a construct of of the CJC and/or b'nai brith and that it has been fostered and fueled by their efforts primarily.
I have always been very pro-jewish in my world outlook..... this is all very disillusioning.... have I been a fool all along?
_________________
Truth Is Treason In The Empire Of Lies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fourhorses
|
| Posted: 09/ 20/ 08 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
F Fred
I think there is value in reading Ezra Levant's series of posts on the BB, CJC and SWC. EdS of Free Dominion, an individual who has indetified himself as an Orthodox Jew has has commented similarily, many times on this area.
What both seem to be saying is that the BB, CJC and SWC do not represent the views and norms of the Jews in the Canadian population. In essence, it seems to be a small ultra left wing faction who are leveraging a political agenda under a disguise of protecting against racism and antisemitism.
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fourhorses
|
| Posted: 09/ 20/ 08 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
and to further stir the pot, Mohamed Elmasry steps into the fray ...
check out todays article in the Post;
Dismissal of Maclean's case wrong: Elmasry
Joseph Brean, National Post
Published: Saturday, September 20, 2008
CHRC Submission; Comments rare departure from Muslim leader's silence on issue
Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, writes that "the state should act to empower those who are disadvantaged by hate speech, and that may mean lowering the voices of some in order ...
Hate speech creates a "silencing dynamic" that excludes disadvantaged groups from civil participation, according to Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress.
In a submission to Richard Moon, a University of Windsor law professor hired by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to review its online hate speech mandate, Prof. Elmasry writes that "the state should act to empower those who are disadvantaged by hate speech, and that may mean lowering the voices of some in order that others may be heard."
He called for mandatory press councils, and an end to "media monopoly," and said the CHRC was wrong to dismiss his recent complaint of Islamophobia in Maclean's magazine, which "aired its opinions to more than two million readers, but CHRC did not hold a hearing for Canadian Muslims and experts to voice their views."
His comments are a rare departure from the public silence the controversial Muslim leader has taken on an issue in which he is deeply invested.
Since initiating hate speech complaints last year against Maclean's in Ontario, British Columbia and federally, Prof. Elmasry has delegated spokesmanship to lawyer Faisal Joseph and a group of young articling lawyers. Only British Columbia heard the case, but has yet to rule.
The lawyers also prepared a brief for Prof. Moon, in response to questions he provided: what would be lost if the hate speech provision of the Human Rights Act, Section 13, were repealed; how might it be improved; should it require an intent to spread hate; and what other complaint mechanisms for hate speech might be enhanced.
Prof. Elmasry compared hate speech laws with speed limits as examples of "worthwhile" exercises of state power.
"The old idea that the state is an enemy of freedom should not be replaced with the idea that it can be a friend of freedom by not dealing with hate speech regulation," Prof. Elmasry writes.
"The current mantra that 'the remedy for hate speech is more and better speech' is in fact both false and misleading. The reality is that those who are expected to respond with 'more and better speech' cannot do so in today's public forum. Or if they do speak out, their words are often dismissed as lacking credibility."
The CIC legal brief argues that removal of Section 13 "would remove the only practical avenue available for addressing hateful and racist speech in the media."
It also blames "political pressure" for the CHRC's decision not to refer the federal Maclean's complaint to a tribunal, and cites this as a reason for the CHRC to emulate Ontario's newly revamped human rights legal system, in which access to a tribunal is much more direct.
The CIC dismisses the suggestion of an intent requirement for hate speech law, and says the complaint process does not put undue burden on respondents.
Complaints of hate speech, it argues, "by their very nature feature underprivileged complainants who in most cases have experienced an infringement of their human rights, pitted against well-re-sourced entities."
jbrean@nationalpost.com
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maikeru
Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Total posts: 4374 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 09/ 20/ 08 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fabulous Fred wrote: | | The more that comes to light the more it appears to damning of the Canadian jewish establishment. ... ...I have always been very pro-jewish in my world outlook..... this is all very disillusioning.... have I been a fool all along? |
Only to the degree that you believe that being Jewish precludes individual thought.
While it's true that the most 'cliquish' of peoples on earth, bagels, are bound to think alike in community gatherings - particularly on horrors of the Shoah - the Jewish community is not of one mind.
Ezra Levant and Laura Rosen Cohen are the more symbolic of the Jewish people whom Canadians have come to admire.
Laura essentially told Bernie Farber to take a hike so Jewish moms could focus on their own concerns.
Ezra crushed Ian Fine like a bug in front of media colleagues - not a very christian thing to do.
_________________
“There were not six million Jews murdered; there was one murder, six million times.” — Holocaust survivor Abel Herzberg
"Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like." - Chesterton - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fourhorses
|
| Posted: 09/ 21/ 08 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Blazing Cat Fur adds:
One of the major faults of the CHRC and its provincial counterparts has been their susceptibilty to undue influence by agenda driven NGO's like the CJC, B'Nai Brith & the CIC. NGO's whose agendas are anti-democratic and run counter to fundamental Canadian values such as the right of Free Speech.
There is a good argument to be made that the NGO's are now competing for favour with the HRC's hoping to ensure that their individual world view takes precedence over their opponents. Both B'nai Brith and the Canadian Islamic Congress have made official submissions to Richard Moon who is conducting what is expected to be a sham CHRC authorized review of thought crime law Section 13 (1).
B'nai Briths calls for reform of the HRC's are also contained in their election issues talking points brief.
Source:
Blazing Cat Fur
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fourhorses
|
| Posted: 09/ 21/ 08 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Investigator's Report
| Quote: |
35. Based on the excerpts cited by the complainant, it appears that the article may bear some of the characteristics identified by the Tribunal in Kouba as being 'hallmarks' of material that is likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt. Muslims appear to be portrayed, for example, as a 'powerful menace' (in this case, a demographic menace), and us being dangerous or violent by nature.
------------------------------
Alternatively,
It is recommended, pursuant to paragraph 44(3)(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to request that the Chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal institute an inquiry into the complaint if the Commission is of the view that:
* the material does appear to meet some of the hallmarks of hate and is of such a nature that it may likely expose persons of the Muslim faith to hatred and contempt;
* a decision by the Tribunal addressing the fact situation in this case may be in the public interest as it raises new considerations regarding the relationship between section 13 and the right of freedom of the press, an aspect of the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression.
CHRC Investigator’s Report
March 25, 2008
Investigator: Sandy Kozak |
source
Ezra Levant
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
free me
Joined: 17 Sep 2008 Total posts: 83 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 09/ 22/ 08 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose all this could be seen from the point of view that this was a PR job, making the Muslim community aware of what was available to them.
I say -
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck & quacks like a duck - then it must be a duck.
Free Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EdS
Joined: 06 Jan 2001 Total posts: 16585 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Age: 15 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 09/ 22/ 08 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fourhorses wrote: | F Fred
I think there is value in reading Ezra Levant's series of posts on the BB, CJC and SWC. EdS of Free Dominion, an individual who has indetified himself as an Orthodox Jew has has commented similarily, many times on this area.
What both seem to be saying is that the BB, CJC and SWC do not represent the views and norms of the Jews in the Canadian population. In essence, it seems to be a small ultra left wing faction who are leveraging a political agenda under a disguise of protecting against racism and antisemitism. |
Effectively, the CJC, B'nai Brith and SWC are activist organizations. Who in the Jewish community are activists? The liberals and the left-leaning. The other aspect that is pertinent is that these Jewish "activists" are in their late 50's and older - precisely the generation who were brought up on horror stories of the Holocaust, and who lived through the blooming of the neo-nazi movement during the sixties. These "activists" have a long institutional memory. They are trading on old, discredited fears. This is typical of Jewish liberals who forget nothing and learn even less.
The younger generation of Jewish "activists" have a different agenda - attacking Islamo-fascism. Unfortunately, the older generation is entrenched in these institutions, and are greatly respected and venerated in the Jewish community. When the majority of Jewish Canadians are somewhat liberal, and the hierarchy of these institutions are liberal, then these individuals are respected. Until the new generation takes over, this situation will perpetuate itself.
_________________
"There are some opinions so stupid, only liberals could hold them"
-- after George Orwell
General Militia of Flight 93 reporting for duty!
"Let's Roll!"
"Groyser Chochem" of the Shadowy GroupTM
 Am Ysroel Chai |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
free me
Joined: 17 Sep 2008 Total posts: 83 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 09/ 22/ 08 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EdS wrote:
| Quote: | | The younger generation of Jewish "activists" have a different agenda - attacking Islamo-fascism. Unfortunately, the older generation is entrenched in these institutions, and are greatly respected and venerated in the Jewish community. When the majority of Jewish Canadians are somewhat liberal, and the hierarchy of these institutions are liberal, then these individuals are respected. Until the new generation takes over, this situation will perpetuate itself. |
Good point!
Free Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fourhorses
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fourhorses
|
| Posted: 09/ 23/ 08 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mohamed Elmasry decrying censorship on YouTube?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
This can't be our Elmo can it? The famed Elmo of story and song who wishes to exert his Islamist worldview on the rest of us?
...although the Mohamed Elmasry who authored this piece seems peeved that YouTube has shut down efforts to display video of US soldiers being killed, bomb making instructionals etc... claiming YouTube "gave in" to US politician Senator Joseph Lieberman
so maybe could be I dunno....
I mean it seems to have all the "Hallmarks of Elmo".
There is also this piece from 2004 by Elmo - Don't Censor Al Jazeera
"Canadians must question the CRTC's decision to sacrifice Canadian rights of free speech to silence an Arabic-language news network whose only sin, ironically, is that it believes in the Western notion of freedom of speech."
Posted by Blazing cat Fur
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fourhorses
|
| Posted: 09/ 24/ 08 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mohamed Elmasry wants you to shut up
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=104692
... as the worm turns ....
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fourhorses
|
| Posted: 10/ 01/ 08 5:07 pm Post subject: CHRC: Guille Guilty - B’nai Brith and political Islam |
|
|
CHRC: Guille Guilty - B’nai Brith and political Islam
Part III
This is an interesting turn of events. Melissa Guille was/is the webmaster for the Canadian Heritage Alliance, a political group based in London, Ontario. Guille was prosecuted persecuted for her beliefs in standing up and firm for Canada. One of the claims in the complaint against her was that her website contained messages that would expose Muslims, amongst others, to contempt, in violation of section 13. Reading the CHRT ruling, we find, not surprisingly at all, that Guille was guilty as she was the webmaster where these postings occurred. We also found out that Guille was guilty by association – association with people unsavoury according to the CHRC and also according to Pierre Deschamps of the CHRT.
We can also read in the ruling that Guille was guilty of having strong beliefs in Canada, The Tribunal made sure that Guille’s nationalism was read into the record – a warning to any other Canadian nationalists out there.
| Quote: |
Ms. Guille, the evidence shows, has strong views about her European heritage and is prepared to fight for its preservation. Ms. Guille testified that when she refers to the notion of culture, she refers to the European culture and when referring to the European culture, she is referring to her family heritage. For her, those who fall under the umbrella of European heritage are people from different parts of Europe and include people who have grown up in Europe or whose ancestors are from Europe.
[54] Ms. Guille indicated in her testimony that for her, the European culture is different from the muslim faith, that, for her, Europe is a geographic region built up of different races such as Italians. Asked if in her definition of the European culture, she included people from Africa, Ms. Guille stated that it did not include Carribean immigrants to England and added that the latter did not consider themselves as Europeans because they wanted to hold on to their own cultural heritage.
[55] In her testimony, Ms. Guille described herself as a nationalist who expressed her concerns about how Canada was evolving, about immigration and freedom of speech. She stated that she saw Canadians being oppressed whereas minorities had the right to free speech, that they benefited of more leniency, that Canadians were not allowed to speak out against anything that was going on. She also stated that she was proud of her country; she expressed the belief that every culture has its own rights, including the right to be free and equal within their own culture. Ms. Guille further stated that she had concerns about the high costs related to the integration of immigrants, that the money was not being used for education and the health care system.
[56] Ms. Guille stated in her testimony that she opposes gay marriage and that she should be allowed to be for or against gay marriages. She testified that when she went to a gay marriage protest, there were people from other religious groups present. She expressed the belief that everyone has a right to free speech, that she believed that there should be unequivocal free speech aside from death threats and criminal acts.
|
Well, tough luck, Melissa! Vile contemptuous statements about Muslims being different than European culture landed you at the Star Chamber. Proud of her country – tough luck again. Right of free speech to discuss these matters – think again, honey.
But now we have the voice of Frank Dimaant of B’nai Brith. On Dimant’s blog, “Frankly Speaking” , a press release from August 29, 2008 is rather revealing. The title of Dimant’s press release post is “ Canadian institutions vulnerable to threat of political Islam, “ The post goes on to inform the public that B'nai Brith has warned the CHRC of the threat of political Islam. Dimant is rather interesting here:
| Quote: |
[i]
In the brief, the Jewish human rights organization raises as a matter of priority its concerns that human rights commissions are unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with ideological complaints driven by political Islam.
“We have arrived at an important crossroads in the functioning of human rights commissions and their mandate to combat hatred,” said Frank Dimant, Executive Vice President of B’nai Brith Canada. “B’nai Brith Canada is uniquely placed to offer insights into the strengths and failures of the commission system, as an organization that is both the target of a complaint in Manitoba and as a human rights organization that has consistently valued human rights commissions for their important historical role in fighting hatred.
“It is high time that the human rights community, at home and abroad, recognize the dangers posed by political Islam.”
|
Let us repeat that last sentence:
“It is high time that the human rights community, at home and abroad, recognize the dangers posed by political Islam.”
At this point I would draw both the reader and Dimant’s attention to the Hallmarks of Hate. This falls clearly within the Hallmarks of Hate. It also falls clearly within the most recent definition of the
href=http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=105026> Hallmarks of Hate that have emerged from the jurisprudence of the pace setting CHRC/ CHRT tag team. Dimant should know better. The Hallmarks of Hate were concocted by Dr. Karen Mock, an individual whoo had a long history with B’nai Brith and a person the government claimed was a top expert in this field. Dimant should also have known as his B’nai Brith acted as intervener inthe Warman v Lemire case, to ensure that this kind of internet talk was prosecuted. Moreover, Dimant’s associate, Harry Abrams, in conjunction with B’nai Brith, filed a similar type complaint against Arthur Topham and his website called the Radical Press. The complaint ? – It seems the Radical Press wanted to warn Canadians about the dangers of political Zionism.
Dimant and B’nai Brith knew, or should have known that:
1. the truth is no defense
2. intent is no defense
3. there is absolute liability for these kinds of postings
4. there is no free pass for anyone
I know that now and so does Canada. Margot Blight, counsel for the CHRC said so at the Lemire Constitutional Challenge hearings. The Attorney General’s office sent Simon Fothergill to intervene on behalf of the CHRC and assist Bligh in helping Canadians understand this.
Frank, Frank, Frank.
Let’s be frank ! You have done exactly the same thing as Melissa Guille has done. Warn Canada about a danger she perceives. You have done exactly the same thing that the Arthur Topham has done – warn Canada about his perceived danger.
But, to add fuel to this fire, David Matas, B’nai Brith Canada’s Senior Legal Counsel and a world-renowned human rights lawyer who is the author of the brief, stated:
| Quote: |
“On the international scene, we have witnessed again and again the hijacking of United Nations institutions by groups such as the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) that embody the principles of political Islam. This group has used its regional voting power to advance a radical agenda that undermines fundamental rights and freedoms and democratic values.
“Here in Canada, our institutions are vulnerable as well. We must not allow our human rights commissions to become staging grounds for abusive complaints based on an extremist ideology that threatens the very integrity of the human rights system as a whole.”
|
David !
Muslims have extremist ideology ? Have you been listening to radicals like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn – two known Thought Criminals ? Perhaps you read Melissa Guille’s Canadian Heritage Alliance website and this impaired your judgement ?
What will Elmasry say ? Whaat will the Canadian Muslim population think ? Will they think they have been suckered again ? . Will they think that only B’nai Brith can speak like this while the rest of the population is prosecuted? They can point to cases like Ezra Levant and claim Levant was prosecuted. They can point to cases like Steyn/MacLeans and say that that case was prosecuted. They can also point to Steyn/Macleans and claim that that prosecution was dropped under political pressure. Simon Fothergill said “ prove it was political “ . Conversely, prove it wasn’t politically impeded.
The Canadian Muslim population can also point out the case above – Melissa Guille. Some of the postings were directed against Jews. That was prosecuted, or shall we clarify and say that Guille was persecuted …
What will the CHRC say ?
There appears to be a case pending against B’nai Brith and Nizkor by some unnamed complainant for vile postings on a website. Will this posting at Frankly Speaking make a double header?
How about the recent postings of the LPC candidate, Leslie Hughes – those were quite anti-Jewish. Will those be prosecuted? How about those from the Green Party website calling the Canadian Jewish people “ partly delusional ” . Two political parties expounding vile sentiments against the Jewish people of Canada. Two political parties posting vile and contemptuous comments on a website. The Canadian Heritage Alliance was a political party – and Melissa Guille was part of that party.
Two more examples of absolute liability.
Two more examples of intent is no excuse.
Two more examples of the truth is no defense.
Two more examples of no free pass for anyone.
Two more examples of Free Speech is an American concept.
Add your indiscretion about political Islam and the warning you are sending to Canadians and we have:
Three more examples of absolute liability.
Three more examples of intent is no excuse.
Three more examples of the truth is no defense.
Three more examples of no free pass for anyone.
Three more examples of Free Speech is an American concept.
Three more examples of the violation of the Hallmarks of Hate – that emerging jurisprudence in Canada.
Or will any / all of you receive a “Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free” card from the CHRC and the Attorney General’s office under the Fothergill Clause” of
It depends on who says it. It depends whether you represent mainstream political Canada or some conservative organization.
I guess Guille, Levant, Lemire, Steyn/MacLeans et al., didn’t fall under the Fothergill Clause.
Does the LPC ?
Does the Green Party?
Do you ?
Are there different laws for different people in this country ?
Part I
CHRC: Warman v Guille - guilty
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=104984
Part II
CHRC: Guille Expanding, Formalizing the Hallmarks of Hate
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=105026
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
|
|
| Was the Cdn Muslim community suckered by the CHRC? |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
