Audio here.
He talks to Rob Breakenridge about his pro-free speech, private members bill (M-446) to remove 13(1) from the Canada Human Rights Act (that notorious “likely” clause which essentially enshrines “future crime” into Canadian law.)
Audio here.
He talks to Rob Breakenridge about his pro-free speech, private members bill (M-446) to remove 13(1) from the Canada Human Rights Act (that notorious “likely” clause which essentially enshrines “future crime” into Canadian law.)
The pertinent section of 13.1 is that it is ‘discriminatory practice’ to communicate:
“any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”.
Think about that sentence.
1) It is NOT focused on any actual acts of hatred or contempt. None. Its focus is solely on the speech or writing (any matter).
2) The focus on the speech/writing then moves into speculated results. Not actual results. Speculated results. (likely to expose).
3)What are the speculated, likely, possible results of this ‘any matter’? Hatred or contempt.
4)Hatred or contempt are subjective emotions. How do I know that someone hates me or views me with contempt? Just because I say they do?
Remember, this Section doesn’t require ANY ACTS of hatred/contempt to have taken place. None.
The focus is not on any actual actions. The focus is on the speech/article…that might…cause such results in the future. Not HAS Caused. Might cause.
Did you know that if I spank my child, he might grow up to beat his wife? Did you know that if I don’t spank my child, he might grow up to steal from a bank? Did you know that if I….
5) What if they do actually view me with hatred or contempt. Can it be proven that this is because of ‘any matter’, ie that speech/article? Or is it because of me, personally, because I’m a loud-mouthed, objectionable sod?
6)Is it possible to accurately link two actions together? Can you accurately link a publication with a result? I know you can accurately link flipping a light switch with the light going on, but, human beings aren’t machines.
There are many other influences. What affects one person won’t affect another person. One person can think; another person won’t think…
7) Who decides whether that ‘matter’, that speech, has an effect of ‘likely to expose to hatred or contempt’? Since NO ACTIONS of hatred or contempt are involved in this Section, who decides what the future will be?
A bureaucrat on the Human Rights Commission. That’s who.
Not reality. The Human Rights Commission is not interested in reality.
Its focus is on fiction. They are the Authors of the Future. They write it out for us; they tell us what will happen. And, they impose fines and penalties on us for this as-yet-not-happened future that they have authored.
Here. In Canada. I am not making this up.
There is no individual or organisation in this country that exposes more people to hate and hurt than the HRTs and our own governments. Just how long do they think people, who just want to live their lives free of Big Brother, will accept the ‘more equal status’ of those so favoured by our tax money stealing groups like SOW and the HRTs? It is they that foment hate becuse of the abuse of the ROC to these taxpayer funded excuses for humanity.
We now know that a Sikh wanting to wear a turban while riding his morotcycle trumps a Justice of the Peace who refuses to perform gay ‘marriage’because of his religious convictions. We now know that the Lord’s Prayer is ‘offensive’ to some so it must be banned in the Ontario Legislature. Just two recent examples of the many, many cases that tell us that only white Canadians have no rights. Does anyone not think this will cause ‘hate’?
Well in Canada it is legal to engage in prostitution; you just can’t talk about it. How do lawyers put it? Communication for the purpose of? How did Jesus put it “Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. About right for Canada’s speach laws. Kinda makes me jealous of the Americans
“Contempt”: “the feeling that a person, act,or thing is mean,low, or worthless;scorn”.
So it’s illegal to have a certain emotion? That opens the door for action against almost any criticism, of anything or anybody, and as this section is now in the sights of every activist group in the Country, expect a lot more misuse of it. This section has to be expunged, and we must convey our feelings about it to our MP’s(done it).
“Scorn”, or “contempt” is one of the things that kept society civilized, fear of the scorn of your fellow citizens. I have nothing BUT contempt for certain things and certain individuals, if I express it, am I liable to prosecution?
I have utter contempt for; pedophiles, murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and will name one in each category, if it will help bring about an CHRC action. Should we feel anything less than contempt for John Robin Sharpe, or Clifford Olsen, or Willy Picton?
Does our glorious Charter not extend its protection to them? Bring on the kangaroo Court, because I have nothing but contempt for those three individuals, and I just may feel hatred for them,too, another crime.
dmorris–those you name are contemptible pieces of ectoplasm BUT it is the ‘law’ and it is our governments who retain that law that protect them. It is ok if they rape our children, murder us or our children, or anyone else, they are protected. The sad part is that the more this evil is protected the more the evil act will become the norm. I remember an NDP MP rising in the House to state that created pictures of child porn are ‘freedom of expression’. Make no mistake–by protecting this evil from being treated in the manner it should be, our governments are defending this evil.
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” From the Canadian Bill of Rights, July 1, 1960.
My, how things change!