Time Immortal

David Warren points out something that has perhaps been missed in all the current debate over the human rights commissions and, in particular, the case against Maclean’s. Although in the end, the BCHRT was the only human rights enforcement body that went ahead and pursued the issue (the CHRC and OHRC dismissed the case), the case could potentially have been prosecuted in all three venues.

Now, perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than I could weigh in on this matter more clearly…but would a case of such a multiple prosecution not be a violation of the concept of “double jeopardy”, something which Canadian citizens are ostensibly protected against in the Charter?

I have mentioned only the current cases in which periodical publications have been prosecuted, in the strange new world of “Kafkanada” — where you can be tried for the same imaginary “hate crimes” in any or all federal and provincial jurisdictions, simultaneously or sequentially. A single complaint by any reader anywhere is enough to launch a secret inquiry. The target has no right to confront his accuser, and will not at first even be told who he or she is.

Truth is no defence, the absence of harm is no defence, there are no rules of evidence — due process is entirely subverted. The inquisitors of these kangaroo courts may ultimately reach any “judgement” they please, after months or years of playing cat-and-mouse with their selected victim.

Is this what Canada has become?

It would seem that Canadian anti-Scientologists want in on the action at the CHRC…

…apparently, on the grounds that there is something about the actions of “the people inside the org” which rouses the suspicions of the group’s organizers.

Probably nothing to it, but it’s good for a laugh.

…you know, for the hopefully small number of people left in Canada who can’t understand what a grave threat to our freedoms and rights the human rights commissions are.

Isn’t it obvious that in the case of Adolf Hitler, “hateful words” led to “unspeakable crimes”? This argument is offered routinely: if only there’d been “reasonable limits on the expression of hatred” 70 years ago, the Holocaust might have been prevented.

There’s just one teensy-weensy problem with it: pre-Nazi Germany had such “reasonable limits.” Indeed, the Weimar Republic was a veritable proto-Trudeaupia. As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, put it:

“Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.”

…

The problem the Jews found themselves up against in Germany and elsewhere was not the lack of hate-speech laws but the lack of protection of the common or garden laws — against vandalism and property appropriation and suchlike. One notes, by the way, that property rights are absent from Canada’s modish Charter of Rights. The reductio ad Hitlerum is the laziest form of argument, so it’s no surprise to find the defenders of the ever-more-intrusive “human rights” enforcers taking refuge in it. But it stands history on its head. Most of us have a vague understanding that Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag in February 1933 as a pretext to “seize” dictatorial powers. But, in fact, he didn’t “seize” anything because he didn’t need to. He merely invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Republic’s constitution, allowing the state, in the interests of the greater good, to set ? what’s the phrase? — “reasonable limits” on freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom from unlawful search and seizure and surveillance of postal and electronic communications. The Nazis didn’t invent a dictatorship out of whole cloth. They merely took advantage of the illiberal provisions of a supposedly liberal constitution.

Oh, and by the way, almost all those powers the Nazis “seized” the morning after the Reichstag fire, the “human rights” commissions already have. In the name of cracking down on “hate,” Canada’s “human rights” apparatchiks can enter your premises without a warrant and remove any relevant “document or thing” (as the relevant Ontario legislation puts it) for as long as they want it. And without anybody burning the House of Commons or even the Senate.

…

Happily, beginning on July 1, under Ontario’s “human rights” reforms, Commissar Hall will have far greater powers to initiate prosecutions against all and sundry. Under the new proposals, ” ‘hate incident’ means any act or omission, whether criminal or not, that expresses bias, prejudice, bigotry or contempt toward a vulnerable or disadvantaged community or its members.” “Act or omission”? Of course. The act of not acting in an insufficiently non-hateful way can itself be hateful. Whether or not the incident is a non-incident is incidental. I quote from “Concepts Of Race And Racism And Implications For OHRC Policy” as published on the OHRC website:

“The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power over those considered ‘other.’ “

Got that? Your denial of racism merely confirms your racism — because simply by being a “White hegemon” (like Barbara Hall or Jennifer Lynch) you wield racist power. The author, Frances Henry, cites the thinking of “modern neo-Marxist theorists” as if these are serious views that persons of influence in Canada’s “human rights” establishment ought to be taking into account, rather than just the latest variant of an ideology that’s led to the deaths of millions in Russia, China and everywhere else it’s been put into practice. Yet, underneath the blather about “omissions” and “denial” of racism is the bleak acknowledgement that, alas, Canadians just aren’t hateful enough to justify the cozy sinecure of taxpayer-funded hate police. “I would say that for a province as large and as diverse as Ontario, to have 2,500 formal complaints a year, that that’s a very low level,” Commissar Hall said. C’mon, you Ontario deadbeats, can’t you hate a little more?

Some feel that free speech in Canada is dead already, and perhaps it is. Perhaps, in due time, this and every other blog that articulates a dissenting opinion against the received wisdom of our progressive “betters” will be shut down for the greater good of society. Perhaps, in due time, people like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant will not be allowed to publish articles within, if not from within, the Great White North that articulate the same sort of dissenting opinions.

Then, too, perhaps in due time Sharia will become the law of the land. Once one’s freedoms have died, does it really matter whom one’s restrictions and privileges are bestowed by? Is there that much difference between a human rights commissar who can fine you into homelessness and bankruptcy for saying something anti-Islamic, and a pseudo-caliph or imam who can exhort “the faithful” to burn your house to the ground for doing same?

Myself, I remain somewhat hopeful that freedom will prevail, and I am not alone in thinking so. But at the same time, I think pretty much everyone on the “freespeecher” side of the debate can recognize that there’s still a tough slog ahead.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Canada’s road to polygamous immigration:

Well, we’ve been here once before. For the last couple of years, polygamy has been taking the first tentative steps toward normalization in Canada.

In May 2006 a Government funded study recommended that polygamy be legalized and [suggested that] criminalizing polygamy (?) could lead to damage to the women and children in such relationships. Also in May of 2006 it was discovered that the former governing Liberal Party “recognized polygamous relationships for limited purposes to enforce the financial obligations of husbands”…

Of course, how we in Canada can continue to object to polygamy — when we have already shot ourselves in the foot several times over (i.e. if the gender of the participants in a marriage doesn’t matter, why does the quantity of participants matter? Also, if we tolerate swingers, why not extend the same openness to multiple marriages?) — is something of a mystery, and I imagine that before too long we’ll see the legal proscriptions against it struck down by a Canadian court.

Chances are the plaintiff in the relevant case will be a Muslim, methinks.

It’s just getting better all the time:

It seems that the reforms to the will actually make the OHRC even worse than it already is — maximum awardable damages are being increased (or the limitations are being removed entirely), and the new “direct access model” for the tribunal will actually speed up the time it takes for the show trials to begin.

Like a raging, staggering drunk, the HRCs are simply spiralling out of control. No grip on reality. Incoherent. Completely lost.

What a bloody scam. It reminds me of that Ron White joke about the reforms to death penalty law in Texas: “Other states are getting rid of the death penalty; mah states puttin’ in an express lane!”

The error that dare not speak its name

Michael Coren takes home the “Best Title of an Arbitrary Long Period of Time” aware for his play on the colloquial phrase for lesbianism as he puts down his vote for what Canada’s biggest mistake was: allowing gay marriage.

What makes the national mistake of legalizing same-sex marriage unique in Canadian history is that to even discuss the issue is considered by many, particularly our elites, to be at the very least in extraordinarily bad taste. Although this is a valid and vital debate about social policy, anyone critiquing the status quo is likely to be marginalized as hateful, extreme or simply mad. Social conservatives aren’t just wrong, they’re evil.

The discussion, we are told, is over. Which is what triumphalist bullies have said for centuries after they win a battle. In this case, the intention is to marginalize anyone who dares to still speak out. In other words, to silence them.

…

Indeed, the deconstruction of marriage began not with the gay community asking for the right to marry but with the heterosexual world rejecting it. The term “common-law marriage” said it all. Marriage is many things, but it is never common. Yet with this semantic and legal revolution, desire and convenience replaced commitment and dedication. The qualifications, so to speak, were lowered.

And one does indeed have to qualify for marriage; just as one has, for example, to qualify for a pension or a military medal. People who have not reached the age of retirement don’t qualify for a pension, people who don’t serve in the Armed Forces don’t qualify for a military medal. It’s not a question of equality but requirement. A human right is intrinsic, a social institution is not.

The four great and historic qualifications for marriage always have been number, gender, age and blood. Two people, male and female, over a certain age and not closely related. Mainstream and responsible societies have sometimes changed the age of maturity, but incest has always been condemned and, by its nature, died out because of retardation.

As for polygamy, it’s making something of a comeback…

And in other parts of the world, incest is slowly becoming “normalized.” sex, sex, sex…it’s like all our post-Christian society cares to worry its head about is sex. And yet, strangely, the birthrate in most Western nations is staggeringly low.

History of Airplanes

Interesting initiative to provide “historical sketches of every aircraft ever built.” Might as well try to end on a lighter note, O Reader!

BCF writes in a whimsical comment on this article.

Closeted Sharianiks? Hardly I suspect we’ll see the OHRC sponsoring “Sharia Pride Day” this summer.

You know, since a certain former HRC investigator is rumoured to also be a member of EGALE, I wonder if this couldn’t be taken as the redefinition of “backdoor sharia“…

…but I digress. It is an interesting thing to see Islamist elements creeping into a government agency that one would expect would bend over backwards (urgh!) to “protect” “homosexual rights”, given the penchant of Islamists for calling for (or carrying out) the death of homosexuals world-wide. Stranger bedfellows (ack!), I have not seen.

Also, is it even possible to comment on the issue from this angle (crap!) without inadvertently uttering multiple double entendres?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

The Muslim Canadian Congress, though pleased that the decided not to pursue the complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine, is nevertheless concerned that members of the OHRC may in fact be closet supporters of sharia law.

In a statement, the Vice President of the MCC, Salma Siddiqui said, the OHRC decision had the finger prints of its pro-Islamist commissioners who have close association with the Canadian Islamic Congress. It is not just the commissioners, but we have reason to believe that there are staff on the OHRC that support Sharia law and endorse the CIC’s positions.

Had the OHRC restricted itself to the legality of the issue, the MCC would have no problem with its decision. But in editorializing and coming out to bat for Canada’s Islamists, the OHRC is sending a very dangerous message to moderate Muslims who reject Sharia and do not take inspiration from overseas Islamic countries or groups.

…

The OHRC decision must be cause for celebration in Osama Bin Laden’s cave and among the soldiers of the world Jihadi movement that love to spread the falsehood that Canada is at war with Islam and that Muslims in Canada live under a cloud of Racism and persecution. Nothing can be further from the truth.

That’s a serious allegation, although in a sense it is not that surprising. Modern liberals and progressives, with their inherent fear of seeming judgemental or condemnatory, have provided a curious weakness in the structure of Canadian law that Islamists of a very intolerant bent are only too quick to exploit.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!