timeimmortal

Or, at least, what a roller-coaster ride is my approval of Canada’s sitting government under Stephen Harper. Earlier this week, I was very pleased to see Harper proclaiming a commitment to strenghten Canada’s presence in our northern waters, and to enforce our territorial claims in that area.

But now, with the possibility of an election being called looming, his government is distancing itself from an important piece of legislation that pertains to the unborn.

Amid rumours of an October federal election, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson Aug. 25 distanced the government from Edmonton Sherwood Park MP Ken Epp’s Unborn Victims of Crime Bill.

“We’ve heard criticisms from across the country including representatives from the medical community that Mr. Epp’s bill as presently drafted could be interpreted as instilling fetal rights,” Nicholson said.

“Let me be clear. Our government will not reopen the debate on abortion.”

But one pro-life leader said Nicholson, a Catholic, moved beyond the Conservative Party’s previous refusal to take a stand one way or another on abortion.

“He definitely entered the abortion debate - on the side of the pro-abortion camp,” said Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) president Jim Hughes. “(Epp’s) private members’ bill had a real chance of being passed and the Conservatives are denying the humanity of the child in the womb.”

Gah.

Angelweb posted a copy of a letter received from Rob Nicholson, the Canadian Minister of Justice, over at FreeMarkSteyn.com. The text of the letter is, frankly, damn promising.

Dear [name removed] :

The office of the Prime Minister has forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence concerning the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). I regret the delay in responding.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom enshrined in the Canadian , which, in a free and democratic society, may be limited only when such an action is justified.

The Government of Canada is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights. To that end, the Government has introduced in Parliament Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which calls for the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) to apply equally to all Canadians. Bill C-21 would repeal section 67 of the CHRA, which currently shields some actions of the federal government or First Nations entities from the application of the CHRA. The repeal of Section 67 would extend the rights of First Nations people, primarily those living on reserve, to file complaints with the CHRC.

Canada’s record on human rights is second to none; it is a record of which all Canadians can be proud.

As you may be aware, the CHRC, which administers the CHRA, operates at arm’s length from the Government of Canada and reports to Parliament independently.

However, I would like to inform you that my caucus colleague Mr. Rick Dykstra has tabled a motion that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examine and make recommendations with respect to the CHRC, including its mandate, operations, and interpretation and application of provisions relating to Section 13 of the CHRA, which addresses hate messages. I look forward to that review.

Please be assured that your concerns have been given proper consideration. I appreciate having had your comments brought to my attention.

Yours truly,

The Honourable Rob Nicholson

This is, as I said, damn promising — it re-affirms that the Canadian government is coming on-side against the HRCs and their flagrant abuse of (and transgressions against) a fundamental human right that is a cornerstone of every free society: freedom of expression.

Also, I think it’s time to put out a new banner:

(I direct the Reader to the media page)

About bloody time!

The Conservative government has introduced a motion to Parliament’s Justice Committee proposing an investigation into the abusive, corrupt practises of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The motion specifically refers to public “concerns” about the CHRC’s “investigative techniques” and their “interpretation and application” of the Section 13 thought crimes provision.

The resolution, which you can read here in both official languages, was put forward by Rick Dykstra (pictured at left), the Conservative MP from St. Catherines, Ontario, with the knowledge and approval of the Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson. Here is an e-mail from Nicholson, sent to a voter just today, in which you can read his change of approach. An excerpt from Nicholson’s letter:

I would like to inform you that my caucus colleague Mr. Rick Dykstra has tabled a motion that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examine and make recommendations with respect to the CHRC, including its mandate, operations, and interpretation and application of provisions relating to section 13 of the CHRA, which addresses hate messages. I look forward to that review.

Smashing news. A little late to the party, but smashing news all the same. This is a much-needed, very welcome reversal on the part of the government.

So that would be the Privacy Commissioner, the RCMP, and now the government of Canada who will be launching investigations into the human rights commissions.

There’s hope.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

That’s Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin’s description for the Canadian government’s lame-duck attempt to justify the legality and necessity of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That’s the same section of the act which, through the human rights commissions, is used as an instrument of Censorship and a weapon against the fundamental human right to freedom of expression in Canada.

Deborah Gyapong has the details:

“Well, there were a lot of things in the Justice Department’s missive which I find absolutely shocking,” said Martin. “Not only that but about blithely talking about restrictions on freedom of expression. That has absolutely nothing to do with hate crimes, nothing to do with hate crimes and nothing to do with hate speech whatsoever. So the Justice Department’s missive really was a trampling of basic human rights, human rights that are enshrined in our Charter and I was very disturbed by their intervention. So I’m hoping that our Justice Committee actually reviews the Commission and hopefully they’ll be able to — that we’ll be able to bring in members from the Justice Department to be able to account for their statements.”

…

“I think Mr. Harper has told Mr. Nicholson, our Justice Minister, to put a muzzle on their MPs. But the Conservative MPs, as many members in my caucus, have expressed deep concerns about where the Canada Human Rights Commission has gone. They have expressed a great deal of support for my motion to remove Section 13-1 from the Act. And I think that’s a fair thing to do would be to have this out and open. Have a public hearing through the Justice Committee and televise it so that Canadians coast to coast can hear those who believe that the status quo is acceptable and those of us who believe that the Human Rights Act has to be amended to ensure that we have freedom of speech because in my view freedom of speech is being trampled in Canada right now.“

I don’t think it can be stressed enough what an important ally in the fight for freedom of expression in Canada Dr. Martin really is. Do be sure to send him a note of thanks, O Reader.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

I’m a day or two behind in writing about Rob Nicholson — the Minister of Justice in Stephen Harper’s Conservative government — and the legal brief his office released in favour of keeping Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act intact. Ezra Levant has a pretty handy fisking of the document itself, which is rife with all manner of historical errors and poor logic.

My favourite example:

…history teems with examples of times when lies, distortions and propaganda empowered groups like the Nazis to repress speech…

Read that again. The government is arguing that we should limit speech because we’ve seen how the Nazis could limit speech. Huh?

Setting that aside for a moment, though, what has emerged as the big controversy concerning the brief is that it draws heavily upon the scholarship of one man:

So who is this nut the government keeps quoting?

His name is Alexander Tsesis, a professor at a middling U.S. law school. Tsesis has two political clients: the Canadian Justice Department, and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachussets, tied with [Barack Hussein Obama] as the most left-wing senator in America. Tsesis is a left wing kook — but the Canadian government hangs on his every word.

On that basis alone, it’s not much of a surprise that the government, acting on Tsesis’ scholarship, has come out in favour of Censorship. Most left-wing types seem to be in favour of censoring those with whom they disagree, as I am sure that Tsiesis certainly is, without ever realizing it that once those powers have been granted to government agencies, they cannot reliably be expected to remain…shall we say…pointed in the same direction. The laws that today are being used against the likes of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant may tomorrow be used against the likes of David Suzuki.
Read the rest of this entry »