I'd go see what Kinsella has to say but his site is down, probably overwhelmed by visits, err, I mean hits.

So, When Warren said the right wing blogosphere was very quiet and libel notices could be heard hitting the rocks certain righties live under, well, I didn't hear anything. Did anyone else??

Excellent. So, the people-who-write, ie, express their thoughts via the media, are saying that that Section 13.1 of the HRAct, which refers to speech expressed 'via media' - want that section removed. Excellent.

Now, it's up to parliament to pass that Motion.

After all, who, now, is in favour of Section 13.1? Apart from Kinsella, the CJC and their opponents, one or two small Muslim associations, and Richard Warman?

Harper peeking out from under his desk:

"Stock, I thought we settled all this freedom of speech stuff when we said nothing about the Purple dinosaur stunt"

I like that better, WL. Editing the post title now...

My big question is will Harper act like a conservative and take action.

Don't forget the indomitable Carol Off; she's vice president of "Canadian Journalists for Free Expression.", you know, an organization which appears to believe we have perfected free expression here in Canada and should only concentrate our efforts on the freedoms of non-Canadians:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Off

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Journalists_for_Free_Expression

Ironic........

The very policies like HRC that the media supported and every other left wing thing they did is now coming to bite the media in the ass now.

Now they want a change.........

Shows how much of a bunch of dunces and hypocrites they really are.

Wasn't it groups like the NCC that rallied against HRC policies like this, then the media vilified the NCC???????????

Hmmmmmmmm............

I'm planning on approaching every candidate in my provincial riding (I'm in Calgary Egmont) either in person or via phone or letter and asking them all whether they support the repeal of s-s. 3(1) of the Alberta Human Rights Act.

My message is simply this: if only one of the candidates says "yes," that's the candidate that gets my vote. (If more than one says "yes," then I'll vote based on other perceived characteristics of the candidate.)

I've already voted with my wallet donating to Ezra's cause.

A Dinosaur Turns Purple: Former Columnist Believes Columnists Are Not Influential Enough To Marginalize Fringe Groups, Uses Free Speech To Insist Speech Not Remain Free.

Joan Bryden's column made me feel so discriminated against that I am considering making a complaint to the HRC for harassment as I'm sure she had a lot of hate in her mind for me and many other readers.

w00t. Now let's dismantle the health-care system so Sikhs and Muslims can ride their motorcycles without helmets and call it even.

Garth

I'm just south of you in Calgary Lougheed and running as an Independent. (Secular Centrist)

The PC incumbent here is apparently "to busy" to attend any such thing as an all-candidates forum nor are the PCs likely to get into talking publicly about the HRCs. Getting the word out is not easy but it is great to see some of the big voices now coming out on the right side.

So far - not looking like an AB election issue but I'm trying to make it one.

My web site is gkeithlaurie.com

G. Keith Laurie

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison
without formulating any charge known to the law, and
particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers,
is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation
of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

Winston Churchill

Oh look, mainstream (aka: liberal) journalists peeking over the battlements and discovering [the horror, the horror!] that Conservatives are, are, are [choke, gasp] -right- about something. On the side of personal freedom. Non-racist/bigot/homophobe even.

C'est impossible! How can this be?!!!

Dangerous precedent for the MSM, for sure. I mean, some bright spark somewhere may begin wondering if the Conservatives could be right about something else. Like guns, or welfare, or multiculturalism!

Aiiiieeee!

How is it that Harper is so concerned about freedom in Afghanistan and not in Canada?

We need a war in censorship. Actually I think we already have it. Thanks for Kate, Kathy, Steyn, and to a very large degree, Levant .... and a cast of thousands.

Good headline Kate. Harper's lack of leadership on this issue is very disappointing and it's good to see you call him on it. The whole notion that one's beliefs, whether based on religion or otherwise, are beyond disputation is incompatible with the rights we enjoy and take as a given in our democratic country.

Harper should have made this an election issue.

all politico's, mr. harper included become deaf, blind and dumb when confronted with anything that requires moral and intellectual honesty.

Keep in mind that this was a relatively minor issue nationally a few weeks ago. It has snoballed, largley due to Keith Martin ex Reform MP.

When it comes to a vote in the HOC Tories can vote unanimously to show their support

Had Harper come out and jumped on the bandwagon early, it would have been far too easy for the media to shift the focus of the story to the racist Conservatives supporting a motion by one of their old Reform buddies. Can you say hidden agenda? And r

I think Harper was wise to give this a wide berth. By not doing so the media was forced to deal with the issue itself (and we see the results) instead of being able to change the focus to an anti Conservative story.

I agree altogether with the main thrust of Licia Corbella's Calgary Herald article. However, she's incorrect in one respect.

She says, regarding freedom of expression—or lack thereof in Canada—“Our most fundamental (sic) freedom -- without which all other freedoms don't exist and democracy is impossible -- reduced to what?”

The most basic freedom in this country—denied to at least 100 000 human beings in this country per year—is the right to LIFE. (There are at least 100 000 abortions performed in Canada per year.)

I’m altogether in favour of reining in the HRCs, but freedom of expression is a right that can only be exercised if one is ALIVE. I think we need to remember this.

While I'm glad this is getting the 'media' attention it deserves, I have to ask 2 questions:
How do we know PMSH and the CPC are not working on this? He isn't exactly the grandstander type to run to the PPG and make dramtic 'look at me' hairy-fairy statements like his predecessors.
Why make this an election issue? Are we in the middle of an election?

Sorry...that's 3 questions.

I agree with bluetech.

Mr. Harper hasn't been screaming about the issue from the roof-tops. Does that mean he is afraid to voice an opinion on the issue? Or perhaps he is being prudent, much like the Kosovo matter of support?

Let the matter evolve, when it comes to a vote at Parliament everybody shows their true colours. Otherwise the media gets to paint the picture, and you know it will be bright red and dirty blue.

This issue isn't dying. It is just one of many important ones facing our government.

Patience truly is a virtue. It is far better to mull the matter over and come to the correct course of action. Remember, the initial reaction of Mr. Dion was to muse that he would ask Mr. Martin to withdraw the motion. There was limited media reaction to those comments. If Mr. Harper spoke so quickly and negatively there would have been a maelstorm in the media demanding apologies.

That is the world we conservatives live in.

So let's quit the whining that Mr. Harper is a coward, his actions have proven time and again that he isn't.

Thanks, for the perspective, lookout at 1:35 pm. I'm with you on this. And we shouldn't think that our willingness as a society to turn a blind eye to 100,000 such life extinguishments every year isn't related to the other vile crap that's killing us: censorship in the name of "human rights", multi-culti equivalency, political correctness, inadequate national defense, the destruction of the family; the dysfunction of health care and education systems, the explosion of gang cultures of violence and even ridiculous statements from arch-boneheads posing as archbishops. It all begins with our unwillingness to call things what they really are and to sanction them.

Response I received from the PMO:

"On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail regarding the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Please be assured that your comments have been carefully reviewed. In view of his interest in this matter, I have taken the liberty of forwarding your e-mail to the Honourable Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, for his information and review. I am certain that he will wish to give your views every consideration.

Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister."

No response yet from my MP or MLA.

Here is the response from Ed Stelmach's Office:

"Thank you for your email concerning the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship
Commission.

The Commission is an independent agency of the government of Alberta
established by the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act.

As the matter you refer to is under consideration it would be inappropriate
to comment at this time.

Thank you again for your comments,

Alberta Progressive Conservative Campaign Headquarters"

Government is like spam in your email; nothing gets filtered or deleted, the items just keep piling up.

For Harper to have attempted to tackle this issue in the last election would have been as quagmired as John Tory tackling Faith Based Schooling.

Hopefully all levels of governments start to collapse under their own weight, they are involved in far too much already. As the economy grows, we now see that the government is involved in 40% of a GDP totally $1.5 trillion. That is more than 308 mediocre MPs plus MPPs should be allowed to be in charge of. We should be shrinking government, but we are doing the opposite.

The paradox is that we expect the government to be responsible for everything, including adding the new colossal job of shrinking itself. Maybe we are the ones to start pushing for what we think are the priorities and bombarding MPs to shrink their responsibilities, to outsource , to sell assets and Crown Corps.

The good news is that we seem to be arriving at a consensus on the HRCs , something most of the population wasn’t aware of even weeks ago.

I complained to my local Conservative MP and got a motherhood reply that was politically correct BS about being too busy in a minority government to address the HRC issue.

I was about to donate some money to the Conservatives , but not until they address the HRC abuses.

Good point nomdeblog;

' The paradox is that we expect the government to be responsible for everything, including adding the new colossal job of shrinking itself. Maybe we are the ones to start pushing for what we think are the priorities and bombarding MPs to shrink their responsibilities, to outsource , to sell assets and Crown Corps.

The good news is that we seem to be arriving at a consensus on the HRCs , something most of the population wasn’t aware of even weeks ago.'

Most people are not aware of where all the $$ we pay in taxes and the $$ from the sale of our resources go - to thugs like David Warman and people like that gal who 'sat with Ezra on the HRC 'sham trial' (shades of USSR)..'odor of Kanada whiner' trust funds...subsidizing Canada Steamship Lines....Unca Mo and his murder of science Global Warming science fairy tale spinners...unca Mo and the UN oil for $$ - our $$, Sadam's oil, no food for the people of Iran (was the CWB tied up with this scam? Is that why the Puffin's turn purple when the Conservatives make motions to crack open those books - I would imagine that the shredders are running overtime and 'some' politicians are going to be forced to say "Bush was Right" to the whole world PDQ)....

Ward, you are correct about the Prime Minister's reaction; if he would have reacted in favour of Ezra, the idiot msm types would have jumped on this like ravens on a wounded wolf. I like watching the msm idiots eating their own.

I feel so emasculated that I may need hormone shots.

Warren, Warman, they all sound the same.

Speaking of butts being handed to guys by girls does anyone know where Paul Wells is?

One wag wrote, "Which way are the people going? I must run to be in front of them for I am their leader."

A wise leader, as I believe PMSH to be, does not "lead" on every issue. He has to let the average person see the folly in a certain course of action and then act accordingly. If he were to try to take the impetus on every cause celebre he would soon find himself out of leadership.

Once the evils of the CHRCs come to be noted by the masses removing them will be done with the stroke of a pen. However acting before the evils become evident could easily result in PMSH no longer being PM and everyone knows it is much more difficult to influence Canadian society as leader of the opposition than PM.

i should know the answer to this but somebody help me here. why does the harper government just pass a order in council to have the offending section removed ?

However acting before the evils become evident could easily result in PMSH no longer being PM and everyone knows it is much more difficult to influence Canadian society as leader of the opposition than PM.

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with that. When the CPC was in opposition, they took tough stands on the issues and they pushed to get things done.

Ever since they won government, all they have been doing is whining about how everything is 'impossible in a minority government'. I honestly think they were more influential before they won.

I agree with ward. jeam, nomdeblog and others who reject it being an election issue and reject it being only put forward by Harper.

If Harper had done it, the MSM and Liberals would have been all over it as 'yet another Conservative destruction' of our Human Rights, just like their reducing funding to the SOWs, and the Court Challenges..and etc.

The FACT that so many, and I mean MANY, people totally and absolutely merge the real criminal code of 318, 319, against genocide and hate crime..and merge these two articles which are tried in REAL COURTS, with the amorphous, ambiguous speculative guesses of the Human Rights Act, Section 13.1..which is heard in the non-criminal HR Tribunals..is of great concern. The MSM merge the two; letters in favor of the HRAct Section 13.1 merge the two and argue that without that section - hate crimes will take place!

So, allowing blogs and then, a Liberal, and then, the MSM, to move into the issue, means that the counter-offensive against removing Section 13.1 can't be transformed and changed from success by aligning it with the Evil Conservatives.

And remember, it's up to us, who are conservatives, to do things. If we instead insist that it's up to the government, then we are Liberals in Disguise. Liberals/NDP are the ones who want Big Government That Makes All Decisions and Does Everything.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking you are a Conservative only because you want a different set of MPs in the House..yet you still want Big Govt to do everything. That means you are a Liberal.

A conservative wants smaller govt, more power to the people..and decisions are to be made by the people. Not by govt.

This HRAct is an excellent example of people-power. It began within the control of the people. Blogs. Blogs..and more blogs. It then spread to the area which is controlled less by people and more by authorities (editors, owners of papers, pundits). They started to write on it. Then, to other organizations..PEN and others. It will end up in the House - and it's will be passed. That's people power.

Harper doesn't need to say a thing. He's leaving it up to us. More power to the people!

We all know that even though we have our conservatives in goverment things will never change for there were to many years of liberal goverments with to much time to jam beurcrat jobs with all their buddies and friends.
It could take Harper 30years to straiten things out.
Many of us sit on our computers and bitch at how things are going in this country and probably could have made a bigger difference before this shit even hit the fan,
I know that you will all think this is stupid but if things keep going the way they are it will sooner or later lead this country into civil war I for one am feeling it

Search Harper at the Supreme Court for the right of third parties not to be limited in the amount that can be spent $$ during elections. Lost???

Joan Bryden: "I submit that the story simply related factually a development which caused a stir on Parliament Hill last Friday."

The factual development she refers to is the emergence in and around parliament hill of the tactic of speciously labeling opponents of Section 13 as nazis; Warren Kinsella, for one, had already been doing so for quite some time.

"Liberals, including Dr. Martin himself, were not pleased to find the MP's motion endorsed on the Stormfront website."

Surely it's not the "endorsement" that displeased Martin so much as the sudden appearance of a tactical mindset, slipped sideways into specious news stories, including Bryden's, that speciously annouanced that Martin was co-joined, positionally, with a white supremacist.

And does it even need to be pointed out no one "found" the "endorsement", but rather that it was thrust into national view by partisan tacticians?

"At least one rival party gleefully drew reporters' attention to the site..."

That, remarkably, delivered in the context of her defense of the journalistic legitimacy of her story.

"The factual relation of events does not attempt to judge whether Dr. Martin's motion is right or wrong."

Her disingenuousness is revolting. Imagine that a reporter wrote a story "relating" that NAMBLA endorses Stephane Dion's position on climate change, and that the reporter defended the story on the grounds that a) it reflected a "factual development" pertaining to Stephane Dion, and b) the story and others like it had created a "stir."
Would CP be okay with that?

"...and (this factual relation of events) certainly doesn't suggest that he or anyone who agrees with him is an extremist."

No, it merely makes the point that a mindfully-selected vile extremist agrees with Martin on a matter of Martin's own conscience, and opposes the Liberal position.

"The story gave Dr. Martin Considerable space in which to disavow Stormfront..."

And Martin should be in a position of having to disavow Stormfront in a CP piece that connects his opinions to those of Stormfront because....because....Well, it doesn't matter. He was just fortunate to have so much space to do so.

"The fact that he said he wouldn't be deterred by his party's position or unwelcome endorsements from 'crazy peripheral groups' like Stormfront speaks to the depth of his conviction."

Ahh. So the fact that her piece linking his position with that of Stormfront's didn't deter him from separating himself from Stormfront's position showed the depth of his convictions, which suggests that Bryden's piece was very fair indeed.

"This was not intended to be the definitive story investigating every angle of the controversy over the human rights act..."

She's correct on this one; her leap onto the fake-controversy bandwagon that was set in motion by strategists and spinmeisters left no reasonable person thinking for a moment that what she wrote was in any way definitive, investigative or relevant in the slightest way, or that it had any significance whatsoever to any real debate about the act.

"It was a news story about a specific development that day."

It was a particular news story about a smear tactic that took the form of that particular news story. The "specific development" she refers to was just another daily reiteration by journo-politico hack strategists that what constitutes "news" or "a development" are merely synonyms for whatever prurient delights these strategists wish to elevate into public view for partisan gain.

"I might note that Paul Fromm, whose endorsement of Martin's notion was featured on the Stormfront website..."

Again, Stormfront. Notice how Kinsella, Joan Bryden, etc have managed to elevate the renown of Paul Fromm to such an extent where he now gets national mention alongside a conscientious member of parliament?

Which party might stand to benefit from this elevation of a neo-nazi into a proxy seat in parliament?

"Paul Fromm....has caused other parties consternation in the past. Both the Progressive and Conservative and Reform parties were embarrassed to find themselves associated with (Fromm) and had to answer for it publicly...."

So, just to clarify: in defense of her piece, she points out that the same tactics used brazenly in her piece were used with even greater efficacy and scope during the true heyday of the powerful coalition between the Liberal government and Lib-proxy journalists. By referring concretely back to this time she demonstrates that her current use of the same tactic is just. Parties -- and by extension supporters of those parties -- whose political views are anathema to the political views of proxy politico-proxy journalists have to answer publicly to these politicojournalists.

"It would seem unfair to exempt the Liberals from similar scrutiny now that he is causing them some embarrassment..."

She already said that "Dion's office made it clear that neither (he) nor the party support Dr. Martin's motion." How on earth is her attempted smear of supporters of section 13 putting the Liberals under scrutiny?

Wow. Just...wow. Between the lines, in large crude print, is her working assumption that the rest of us are going to continue to stare in dumbed amazement at the loud, flapping-on-the-pole canard that "rival parties" and "reporters" are separate entities in Canada. He original piece and her form response are living object lessons on why the reportorial journalism of CP, CTV, CBC, etc is considered discreditable by a rapidly growing number of reasonable people.

"Journalism" like Bryden's, and CP's, is actually insulting, mostly because of their highly apparent belief, an obvious adjunct to the sense of entitlement of the old LPC, that no one will notice how they operate, and in effect, who they are.

"After you, Mrs. Ceaucescu."

ET: Amen.

O/T
john tory retains his leadership of the PC party in ontario.

Harper's apologists are in denail. Lacking confidence in the wisdom and common sense of the Canadian public Stephen Harper has chosen to lead from behind. The CAJ has more courage on this issue than SH. Pathetic.

And the guys under attack are two of the staunchest conservatives in Canada. One of the reasons I loathed Chretien was becasue of his cynicism. As a conservative I am very disappointed that SH has shown less testicular fortitude on this issue than Eddie Greenspon.

Stephen Harper has stood waiting with his finger in the air while two great Canadians have been allowed to twist in the wind.

Terry...from what I see and know about Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn they would be the last ones to whine because the PM didn't jump into their fight.
Libertarians don't need government intervention, and that is exactly how it would be perceived.
CAJ did not require courage to jump on this. Just what did they have to fear?Watch how the likes of Atwood and Ralston Saul use this; all of sudden they will be the 'heroes'.

Terry Gain: yeah, right, whatever..

bluetech

I'm not whining- just stating facts. You are making excuses. Being afraid to stand up to Muslims and for free speech and Levant and Steyn is quite pathetic. This is not SH's finest hour.

The label counts for less than the actions.

"Watch how the likes of Atwood and Ralston Saul use this; all of sudden they will be the 'heroes'.Posted by: bluetech at February 23, 2008 7:22 PM "

All of a sudden? Harper has had two months to grow one on this issue. Given that Harper opened the door for them one could hardly blame them.

This is what happens when you have a cynical Conservative government afraid to stand up for free speech.

I suspect Harper will answer the call when he is ready, if he dealt with this issue to soon, the Lib and NDP would turn on him like rabid dogs, having them bring up the issue allows him to deal with it without the backlash and the issue is also prevented from being a election issue.

It would have been a great election issue for the Conservatives if they had had the courage to show some leadership on the issue. If you are afraid to stand up for free speech, what do you stand for?

Canadians are politically correct/ multicultists as necessary but not by choice. The people of Ontario proved that in the 2007 election.

Mr. Harper is a mensch who we should appreciate, and it's reasonable to surmise that he's onside on this one.

Look at it this way: Your dad might have been head of the household when you were growing up, but that didn't mean that it was his job to come down to the schoolyard to punch the lights out the guy picking on you. That would have been your job.

Stephen Harper's job is to win the next election so that the ilk of those who devised Section 13 don't get their hands on the rudder again. It's not his job to issue edicts on hot-button issues to satisfy everyone who's hot under the collar.

Alan Borovoy said "The removal of this section is necessary, but it may not be sufficient. I think there's no substitute -- as with so many other things -- for a lot of vigilance at the citizen level."

Even more recently, ET said: "And remember, it's up to us, who are conservatives, to do things. If we instead insist that it's up to the government, then we are Liberals in disguise."

For those who might disagree, and who are reflexively angry at Mr. Harper, stop to consider ET's remark in the context of, say, the YouTube video Kate posted under "Stop Being Alarmist."

Terry ,initially I didn't say you were whining, I said Levant and Steyn weren't whining.
Now I'd say you are whining.

EDB ...right on.

Harper had an opportunity to show leadership on an issue of vital concern to freedom loving Canadians. He chose to remain silent and let leftists lead the way. All the excuses for doing so is nothing but spin.

"Terry ,initially I didn't say you were whining, I said Levant and Steyn weren't whining.
Now I'd say you are whining". posted by: bluetech at February 23, 2008 8:53 PM

You'd be wrong. Again.

I was raised to believe if you were Conservative you had "Principles", sadly the current Conservative Party has thrown out "Principles" in favour of pandering and appeasing Immigrants and Minority groups in Quebec and Ontario. I will not make excuses for Harper, he's made it clear with his silence and his lack of Principles regarding Freedom of Expression that he's just another Liberal Light or Diet Con PM.

I was fed up with the Liberal's ideology of " I'm Intitled to be PM and we are Natural Born Leaders" snicker, but I'm also fed up with Harper and his mewling dictator style of leadership. I don't care who becomes the next PM, I shant vote Conservative until I see or reconize a real one. I'll vote for the Pot Party or Green, that way my vote won't count. Harper and the Cons are a pityful bunch, no spine no Moxie and no Principles in my opinion. If something as vital as "Freedom of Expression" or lack their of via Section 13 is not worthy of the Conservatives attention why would I vote for yet another Leftard Party?

So Harperites, this Con sees the light and it's shadow is leaning left and cowardly. Anything to get elected, I don't think so, if he's this Dictorial as a majority god help Canada if he wins a majority.

If the Conservative Party want to change my mind, strike down Section 13 of the Inhuman Rights Act. I'd rather vote for stoners than another leftard party, even if it's sugar free.

I'm with everyone who feels, basically: why should Prime Minister Harper do/say anything about the HRCs? He doesn't need to.

Things are unfolding just about the way they should--if you're someone who cares about freedom of expression--without PMSH having had to say a word.

If he talks about HRCs and Canada's need to rid itself of same, he'd become the story. The MSM, no doubt, would find a way to twist/quote out of context anything he says.

So, PM Harper is being wise in his cautiousness. Why open his mouth when he can stay ahead by being silent?

bath

So you're with the wise cowards. No wonder you are afraid to use your real name. Except it's not wise to be a coward. Some things are more important than being elected. Standing up for free speech is one of them.

"Things are unfolding just about the way they should--if you're someone who cares about freedom of expression"

No thanks to Harper.

Terry Gain,

I'm no coward and I don't vote for cowards.

'Ever heard: Discretion is the better part of valour?

'Ever heard of the doctrine of reserve?

'Ever heard of being wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove?

I don't imagine it's easy being a Conservative Prime Minister in Canada when your Opposition isn't only elected MPs across the aisle but the unelected lib-left-lying MSM.

What's that saying, about walking a mile in someone's moccasins?

You might try it...

"Things are unfolding just about the way they should--if you're someone who cares about freedom of expression"

You get the award for naivite. Yes, things are unfolding just the way they should because Ezra spent hundreds of hours and and thousands of dollars defending freedom of speech while Stephen Harper cowered under his desk. And then leftist journalists stepped forward to defend freedom of speech. And the smug anonymous 30 something, too smart by half, commenters here think this is a great victory for the Conservative party and freedom of speech. Wow protecting freedom of speech while risking nothing! Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

This is not a victory for conservatives. I's a loss. I have worked for The Conservative Party -whether called Reform or Alliance- or otherwise for the last 25 years, but I will not work for Chretien lite.

Stephen Harper. Too effing cowardly to support Mark Steyn amd Ezra Levant. Pathetic.

now now twerry...gwive it a rwest...hwarper's first nwame isn't fwidel as you well know......these things take time in a democracy....and we do have a majority in the offing to gain as you well know...so what's your hurry ?...after all it was your llliberal overlords created this monster didn't they ?...i didn't smell you pissing your pants for change to the HRC back then..

Well Terry I can see why you USED to work for the party. When did they cut you loose?

I agree with batb. My focus is on the result, the removal of Section 13.1 from the HRAct.

I'm not interested in Harper standing up and shouting about it - because I think that would result in that Section 13.1 being KEPT in the HRAct. Why? Because the knee-jerk opposition, which is 65% of the House, would rise up as one and OPPOSE it. Just because that's what they do.

They'd bring out every weeping and utterly stupid story they could - including Kinsella's type of illogical linking such a request to White Supremacists. Including others who insist that if we don't keep it, then next week, we'll have a genocide here in Canada. Including others who will show that keeping it shows that we are 'different from Americans who have free speech and we are Canadians who are different'..

All of the above have been arguments used to keep Section 13.1. If Harper and the CPC made the request in the House- the MSM and the 65% of the Opposition would ENSURE that it's retained.

I'm interesting in getting rid of it. You, Terry Gain, have a different agenda. You want Harper to say it. That would ensure that it would be retained. That's politics.

If you want something done, then, as did Odysseus, the 'man of many wiles', you sometimes don't go about it directly, but by stealth.

Remember how he tricked the Cyclops monster, when he told him his name was 'NoBody'...'Everyone calls me NoBody'...and so, Odysseus began to attack the Cyclops, and some heard the howling and came to help. But, the answer was 'NoBody. NoBody tricked me. Nobody ruined me"...and so, they went away ..and Odysseus achieved his goal..

"I don't imagine it's easy being a Conservative Prime Minister in Canada when your Opposition isn't only elected MPs across the aisle but the unelected lib-left-lying MSM."

Harper, and you, misjudged public sentiment. He wasn't being asked to stand up for the unborn. He was being asked to stand with Steyn and Levant and for freedom of speech. Even the leftist G&M an CAJ were willing to stand up for freedom of speech.

I support Harper but he blew it on this issue.

As Kate said, Harper can now come out from under his desk. And the rest of you might stop chanelling Jason Cherniak, if you wish to stop sounding ridiculous.

"I'm interesting in getting rid of it. You, Terry Gain, have a different agenda. You want Harper to say it. That would ensure that it would be retained. That's politics." ET

Wrong again ET. Just as you were wrong in April 2007 when you argued that the U.S. should concede Iraq to al Qaeda. And please don't pretend to understand my agenda.

Harper had a chance to show real leadership on a vital issue. He didn't. He chose to play it safe and underestimated the Canadian public just as you underestimated the American military and Iraqis.

"now now twerry. " Twerp Begely

Work on your typing, asshole.

OMG, Stelmach is pile of steaming dog shit.

How is it that Harper is so concerned about freedom in Afghanistan and not in Canada?

Cause Dubya never told him to be concerned about "freedom" in Canada.

Sentient means you are alive. It does not mean you are thinking.

Bush, and even Clinton and Obama, would have defended freedom of speech.

I am with Terry and Kate on this one. The lack of conviction and leadership is unacceptable. If the Conservatives want my vote, they had better get off the fence on this vital issue. I know the loss of one vote means nothing, however I know that I am not alone feeling betrayed.

First the promise to dismantle the gun registry (another vital issue) fell by the wayside along with the great light bulb ban decision and now this. Enough is enough.

And all of you want Mr. Harper to do what exactly?
How come none of you were screaming when the other egregious trangressions of the HRC took place?
How come its wasnt an issue when the Liberals were in charge?
The kind of hyperbole displayed on this thread is weird.
How many of you are supporting in any way at all the poor people of Caledonia, who are in a lot more trouble than Steyn or Levant.
What is it with you people who want to slag Mr. Harper for not doing exactly as you wish and RIGHT NOW?
None of you know what is going on in the Government.
Each Province has an HRC.
Is the Federal government in charge of each of them?
The Conservative Party has spent many years in the wilderness. You people keep it up and we will spend many more.

Terry, give it a rest. This isn't a wartime issue like, say, what we're doing in Afghanistan. He's been pretty busy on that one, right? I'm sure when Stephen has more, he'll by glad to impress small-c conservatives.

Well, no, given true conservatives get about the same voter support as the NDP. It's nowhere near enough for power, and such an approach would allow the Grits to tax, spend and cronyize unchecked, forever; not good for Canada.

That's where we were heading until Martin destroyed the Liberals. First he committed the most disloyal act of all, he ousted a sitting, and popular PM. Then, inexplicably, he moved the Liberal brand away from liberalism, towards democratic socialism. Martin vacated the political centre and gave Harper political, and electoral, cover for a pragmatic approach, which he communicated consistently while Martin choked. Even with Adscam, I don't think the Conservatives could have pulled it off otherwise.

Now we have all three tenets of our Constitution - peace, order, AND good government, IMHO. Terry Gain, would you rather go back to plan Liberal?

So, what should Harper do? I think ET has the best solution - let it happen by other means, don't try to hurry it up. My favourite is simply help Keith Martin do it; heck, let's get him back in the party.

Most of us who vote Conservatives are not conservatives. There is a difference. Harper wasn't hiding under his desk. He was hard at work at it. I think he's done a good job and that's what people want.

That's what will come through in an election and that's why the Liberals don't want one. That's no longer a secret. The MSM can't stop him (they're trying but they won't succeed); but there is always a chance for a big screw up, shall we say, a Tory moment, where we can beat ourselves.

Socialists aren't liberals in a hurry any more than liberals are conservatives in a hurry.

Terry, give it a rest. This isn't a wartime issue like, say, what we're doing in Afghanistan. He's been pretty busy on that one, right? I'm sure when Stephen has more, he'll by glad to impress small-c conservatives.

Well, no, given true conservatives get about the same voter support as the NDP. It's nowhere near enough for power, and such an approach would allow the Grits to tax, spend and cronyize unchecked, forever; not good for Canada.

That's where we were heading until Martin destroyed the Liberals. First he committed the most disloyal act of all, he ousted a sitting, and popular PM. Then, inexplicably, he moved the Liberal brand away from liberalism, towards democratic socialism. Martin vacated the political centre and gave Harper political, and electoral, cover for a pragmatic approach, which he communicated consistently while Martin choked. Even with Adscam, I don't think the Conservatives could have pulled it off otherwise.

Now we have all three tenets of our Constitution - peace, order, AND good government, IMHO. Terry Gain, would you rather go back to plan Liberal?

So, what should Harper do? I think ET has the best solution - let it happen by other means, don't try to hurry it up. My favourite is simply help Keith Martin do it; heck, let's get him back in the party.

Most of us who vote Conservatives are not conservatives. There is a difference. Harper wasn't hiding under his desk. He was hard at work at it. I think he's done a good job and that's what people want.

That's what will come through in an election and that's why the Liberals don't want one. That's no longer a secret. The MSM can't stop him (they're trying but they won't succeed); but there is always a chance for a big screw up, shall we say, a Tory moment, where we can beat ourselves.

Socialists aren't liberals in a hurry any more than liberals are conservatives in a hurry.

Sentient means you are alive. It does not mean you are thinking.

And most conservatives are brain dead, so what's your point?

The CHRC is Harper's baby. The Conservative government has made significant appointments to it, and they are currently working on expanding its reach instead of on cutting it back.

I have no patience for the 'minority government' excuse. This commission is answerable to the Conservative government, and they refuse to do anything to rein them in.

Free Dominion was never attacked while the Liberals were in power, but we had a CHRC complaint against us last summer, and we are currently fighting a defamation suit by a federal employee who used to work for the CHRC. It's rather ironic.

It's hard for me to muster up a lot of sympathy for Stephen Harper when his lackeys are busy roughing us up.

"The Conservative Party has spent many years in the wilderness. You people keep it up and we will spend many more."

Defending free speech will not keep the CPC in the wilderness. Refusing to defend it may prevent it from being re-elected.

"Terry, give it a rest."

I did not read your post beyond these words. If you wish to engage me, speak like an adult.

Ugh, a lot of people are simply too naive for words.

We see it every single time that the MINORITY Conservative government doesn't follow lock-step with the supporter's issue du jour. Every single time, the supporters wail and demand that the government do exactly what we say or else, that's it, we won't prop them up any more.

It's ridiculous, and a large reason why Canada is doomed to 20 years of Liberals for every 4 of the Conservatives. We eat our own readily and hungrily on minor issues and without regard as to what will replace it.

But, heck, I just might be too smart by half. I'm only in my early 30's, so by Terry Gain's standards I'm not worth listening to.

Of course, listening to Terry would result in a disastrous election loss. It's too easy to paint a Kinsellian masterpiece with a pliant media.

Gee Terry, if that's the way you work for the CPC's, may you SHOULD sit this one out and leave it to the whippersnappers.

Since conservatives are a minority in this country, we can have impact greater than our numbers only by remaining temperate and courteous to each other. The idea is to promote a few ideas on which there's conservative consensus, stay cool and gain converts from the mushy middle.

For example, we're all agreed that freedom of speech has been encroached upon in Canada and the Human Rights Commissions need to be reined in, preferably disbanded.

I think we're also agreed that the media are liberal lackeys looking to trip up Stephen Harper and the Conservatives in any way possible.

The sword of a federal election is hanging over us all. Dion could trigger it any time. He was only talked out of it by Rae this time.

Given this situation, timing is everything. I think both sides in the debate above are right. If Harper had jumped in at the beginning, the media and opposition would have reflexly risen to the defense of the Human Rights Commissions, pretending on the basis of their (unjustified) name alone that they were standing up for Human Rights. However, with noticeable intellectual left wing support against Section 13-1, the time is approaching where continued Conservative silence looks unprincipled and weak.

I personally returned a request for financial support to the Conservatives with the statement that I will no longer send them money unless they straighten out the kangaroo commissions, starting with Section 13-1.

I am suspicious about whether socialist Quebec, the tail that wags the dog on so many issues, is again in play here. Is that just paranoia or does Harper have reason to think the free speech issue would lose votes in Quebec? Dion's first instinct was to shut up Keith Martin...

Free speech is not an 'issue du jour', it is a basic human right.

There are lots of issues that I wish the CPC would deal with, but I realize they can't do the full wish list at this point so I'm willing to wait.

However, any party that isn't willing to call off their own hounds when it comes to the issue of free speech, doesn't deserve to have a majority.

Yukon Gold

Afraid of Kinsella! Afraid to defend free speech! Too smart by half? Not smart enough cubed!

Don't be pendantic, Connie. You and I both know that this issue only came to light in the past month or so.

The Canadian public needs to get behind this first, and I'm not talking just bloggers. Let Warnout and his media monkeys know that Harper can't be taken down on this, and they'll step in line.

Having Harper jump in front of this one at this juncture has more chance of ending poorly than otherwise.

Terry Gain

Maybe! You should have! Learned Something about Media! In all those elections you've fought!

Yukon Gold

Maybe you should have learned in your tender years that nobody loves a coward. The Liberal leader is a wimp that even they regret electing. Harper will wipe the floor with Dion regardless of what the MSM does.

Wisdom doesn't always come with age so only time will tell whether you get it.

"Don't be pendantic, Connie. You and I both know that this issue only came to light in the past month or so." Yukon Gold

Standing up for free speech is not pedantic, except to those illiterate about the development of human rights.

It ought to be considered normal, however it seems that there are many who are so cowed by political correctness that they are prepared to stand by and remain silent while this 900 year old Anglo-Saxon tradition is under attack by newcomers to this country.

And these sideliners call themselves conservatives!

The CHRC is Harper's baby. The Conservative government has made significant appointments to it, and they are currently working on expanding its reach instead of on cutting it back.

I have no patience for the 'minority government' excuse. This commission is answerable to the Conservative government, and they refuse to do anything to rein them in.

Free Dominion was never attacked while the Liberals were in power, but we had a CHRC complaint against us last summer, and we are currently fighting a defamation suit by a federal employee who used to work for the CHRC. It's rather ironic.

It's hard for me to muster up a lot of sympathy for Stephen Harper when his lackeys are busy roughing us up.

It's more than ironic-- it's shameful. You'd expect better of what ought to be your side.

lee, the feds can eliminate all hrc's not just the chrc. terry is right. take a bloody stand. principles that are set aside for political reasons aren't worth having.

There's no stopping the movement to end political correctness now.

The era of political correctness is coming to an end. This is a new beginning.

Mr. Harper, tear down political correctness!

And, Mr. Stockwell Day: Remember when you said "The era of political correctness is over"?

Now you're in government. Albeit not as Prime Minister as hoped, you do have influence...

Let's get 'er done, eh?

This issue did not just come to light in the past month. Free Dominion was served with a CHRC complaint last summer and many people contacted their Members of Parliament at that time. It was in the mainstream media as well as being all over the blogosphere.

When Levant and Steyn started fighting this, they were not starting from square one with the CPC because we had already done the educational groundwork. The Conservatives have not been not holding back because they didn't know the issue, it has been a show of simple cowardice.

I understand that they want their majority, but I am not going to sit here and defend them while their goons are still attacking us.

So if this is removed will Richard Warman have to give back the new car people bought him for thinking they had charter rights?

Will Scott Brockie be paid back for thinking he had freedom of association?

Will Hugh Owens for foolishly thinking he had free speech?

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s office disavowed the motion and suggested Martin will be asked to withdraw it.

”This is not the position of the Liberal Party of Canada or the Liberal caucus or Mr. Dion,” said spokeswoman Leslie Swartman.

Yahoo, the liberal party standing up AGAINST their charter of rights. Thank you for the "cherry picking" Mr Dion!

'Good debate.

Time will tell. We have no idea what other pins Prime Minister Harper is having to juggle and keep in the air at this point. Because he is a Master Strategist and has managed to keep this minority government not only alive but effective, I'm willing to trust in his judgment on this one.

I can understand the frustration of Connie at Free Dominion, and the argument that PMSH should speak out at this point, but I sense that there is a good reason why he hasn't and isn't.

PM Harper has a much bigger picture than any of us of what's really going on here, and is fully aware of the snakes in the grass--some of which we may be totally unaware.

I'm usually for full disclosure and full steam ahead, but in this case, I'm willing to see PMSH and the CPC hold their fire, waiting for a more opportune time to get out the big guns.

Ensuring free speech by neutering the HRC has to be done...but..this looks like it is being set up as a trap by progressives. It would end up being a John Tory/ Faith based school style fiasco. The CPC needs to avoid this obvious minefield. Conservative/Libertarian individuals and organizations are doing well gaining support for free speech and free press on their own. The CPC should continue to let this momentum build before acting.

Those "principled" individuals who are calling on PMSH to abolish the CHRC immediately I would add a word of caution. Let's follow the falling pins shall we? PMSH acts too soon in eliminating the CHRC. WK and Wormwood and other like minded individuals along with every media hack that thinks liberal, launch a media blitz that sways the Canadian people into thinking the CHRC is doing worth while work. PMSH is removed as PM and PM Dion (gag) reconstitutes the CHRC.

I want the CHRC gone, gone for good. Therefore I am willing to wait until the evils of the CHRC become so evident that to not remove them would be political suicide.

Imagine, so-called Conservatives scapping over this:

"Terry, give it a rest. This isn't a wartime issue like, say, what we're doing in Afghanistan."

Wrong, this is WAR. War demands a LEADER, especially an articulate one. SH is supposed to be and has proven to be, ably articulate. More so than I am. However, I was accused of being a "Liberal" the other day on this thread and I resent that label, more than my accuser ever will understand.

This freedom of speech issue DEMANDS LEADERSHIP, something that the Cons have attempted to define their enemy, the Liberal leader, of sadly lacking any qualitites of. Get this through your thick skulls, minority lovers, without leadership on Conservative issues this current minority government will never get a majority that I will ever vote for. End of story! John Tory is finding out what lack of leadership is all about in Ontario right about now, by attempting to "fool" the electorate in Toronto that his party is the one to lead, by offering Liberal-lite! It will not work. If this Conservative party wishes to define it's future around the "center" of Canada and Liberal-lite, by abandonning it's consrvative principles elsewhere, then they will never win a majority. Not a conservative one. They will have become the new-Liberals. The Liberals know that, so should all of you posting "patience" to the masses. Bull crap!

Frankly, this country is at a cross-roads, between a descent to ruin under the liberal-socialist model (under either of these two political parties) or a new country will be born. I have no patience for kissing up to the center. I'm from that cess pool, so I know what kind of politics they want. I want no part of it. I'll vote Republic of Canada first before I'll ever vote for the "patience" kind of Canada being promoted on this thread. Call me a Liberal (spit!), piss off! Any party who lets the other party define them, will never win and this so-called conservative party is liberal-lite, soon to be LIBERAL. Nothing will ever change.

I can just see the headlines if Prime Minister Stephen Harper signals an end to HRCs:

STEPHEN HARPER AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS

CANADIANS’ HUMAN RIGHTS THREATENED BY STEPHEN HARPER AND THE CPC

HARPER GOVERNMENT KILLS HUMAN RIGHTS

Why not let the lib-lefties, who were responsible for these Human Rights Commissions in the first place, do some of the heavy lifting to rid Canada of these kangaroo courts.

jt: Politics is the art of the possible not the folly of attempting the impossible.

Batb: If that is so then why hasn't the Conservstive "leadership" trumpeted that Mr Dion & his party are AGAINST FREE SPEECH? Dion has already defined his party's position on this issue. His party's caucus is split on the issue, press the advantage. The battle lines ARE drawn. An articulate leader could easily win this issue in the public domain. prevaricating shows indecisiveness. Why worry what WK or any other Liberal thinks about this issue. He has been severely discredited by SDA, already. Press the attack on free speech, define the issue and get on with it. The country will be better off for it.

Terry Gain, I've suspected that you are not a small-c conservative, but a leftie provocateur, a phony, trying to egg Harper into a losing battle that can be won and fought by other means.

Now I'm sure. I think you're full of sh*t. If you are what you say you are, then go start some far right angry party; IOW, f**k off. Idiotic positions like yours are no longer welcome in our party.

Shamrock: You are the Liberal here, by using Liberal tactics to smear your opponents, rather than debate, similar to WK defining defenders of free speech as Nazis. Go do what you said we should do with ourselves! Millions died in the last war defending freedom and freedom of speech. This is a defining issue. What you propose on this issue is to "cut and run", a lefty trait. You won't fight by portraying Liberals as against free speech. You won't fight by presenting Liberal government as the government against individualism, self responsibility, small government and against free speech - speech free from government interference with MY liberty. You are the enemy of Conservatism. You've only displayed Liberal tendancies on this issue. Keith Martin has more credibility than you on this issue. I sent my suppor to him, what have you done but counsel "patience" do't provoke the Liberals. By doing so you are letting Liberals define you. Advantage, Liberals.

Jt, so what. I am a Libertarian, get it. I also have some conservative tendencies. I know that you cannot make changes by giving the Grits unchecked power to corrupt this country and, yes, move it further to the left.

You and Terry Gain are what I characterize as the angry right, who don't care about democracy, except for policies and decisions they believe in.

My Progressive Conservative credentials are out there for those who know me. For you, who doesn't, f**k off. I'm not going to let little minds like yours destroy what we have begun (all who voted for Harper, not just narrow minded little c's like you).

BTW, I don't think you have a clue what a conservative is. I have a politics degree, so I actually studied this stuff. If you did, you need to re-read your textbooks. Try and find the chapter where it says we must allow fiends like Chretien and Trudeau to destroy this country, so we can emulate your idelogical pureness. I'm not buying it, I think you are full of it.

Like I said earlier, I think you are all trying to set people up. Are you sure your name isn't Warman?

The sum total of people who think like you (ban abortion and hate homosexuals) could fit in a phone booth, so, like I said, form your own angry hard right party. Just leave ours alone.

I think this issue has similarity to opening day of goose hunting. Progressives put out a few decoys, get in their blind, make a few comforting goose calls and then just as the geese feel safe and fly in - BANG. Next phrases like "sitting ducks" and "goose is cooked" come to mind.

Still doing the Liberal-slag, I see. I live in Harper's riding. I vote Conservative, or at least I thought I did, until these clowns took a hard left turn. You've got a "politics degree", who cares. Only a pompous blowhard would use their credentials as talking points in an argument.

This "conservative" government are "Liberals in grey suits", as opposed to the real McCoy in blue suits. They are the party of BIG GOVERNMENT and they spend the same way. No change from Libs. They might just as well as cross the friggin' floor and form their "majority", sport. Save me the expense of an election. You haven't proposed anything to entice me to vote for Liberal-lite, oh Obiwan-Libertarian. I want a government that runs the country like it knew what it was doing and out of my face. This bunch are ditching their principles, to get elected, something that Liberals will be free to point out to them in the next election. Sort of like they were Liberals, anyway. The issue is free speech. By your argument, for what it is worth, by not speking out, Harper is letting the boogey-man Liberals define his party's position. As voter, what am i to think? Free speech if necessary, but not necessarily free speech? We won't take a stand on the issue, because the Conservatives have bought into the Liberal modus operendi of Big Government. ergo, they are Liberals. and don't give me that crap that if we don't vote these guys in, we'll suffer at the hands of the Liberal-Dipper-Bloc-Greeen commie klatsch. We are anyway, with or without the Cons and to prove that it works, they have gone "over" to the dark side.

Of course you're right jt/Warman, credentials, logic and valid arguments are what blowhards do. You actually just called the Harper administration hard left? Who's the blowhard here?

Did that make you mad? Like I said go form you own angry party, get a membership drive going. When you reach half a dozen, let us know. Or you could just go away. In the meantime,I suggest you take the time to learn the difference between the CPC and conservatism.

Go on Kinsella's site, your comments will be welcome there. I will object, however, when morons like you try to co-opt what we have worked our a***s off trying to achieve. I will fight any conception that narrow minded ideologues like you in any way represent the CPC.

Heh. Hit a sore spot, eh Liberal/pseudo-consrvative/WK/Warman look alike? it's rather humourous how you so-called defenders of conservatism are so quick to slag your detractors as "Warman" or Liberals, a common trait of Liberals. And yes I read WK's blog to see what precious gems of knowledege he will use against "your" party. I pointed out above that WK has been greatly discredited and why you would confuse me with one of his supporters, is frankly beyond my comprehension. I think that you are the Liberal provocateur here, sport, just like Nomdeblog and ET.

Oh, by the way Shamrock, WK dosen't allow comments, another Liberal trait. You should know that, you're a pseudo-Liberal/Conservative Big Government supporter. Sort of follows along his ideas of "free speech". It's not free on his weblog, or only under government supervision anywhere else but his weblog. Similar to the Liberal leader's position on the CHRC free speech issue that "your" party won't take a stand on. You guys will do anything, like Liberals to get elected. I vote for party's who have a well thought out, principled platform. What are the New Conservative party's platform? Get into office anyway we can? get a pension? Spend lots of money to buy my vote, what? define yourselves, free speech and the future of the HRC's is at stake, oh so principled obiwan-libertarian/Warman-troll.

Is it a bad thing that I don't have a basis for objectively commenting on Warren Kinsella's site? You see, I went there around a year ago, once I think. Since then I haven't spent any time with it. After all, other people quote the funny bits. So... I don't feel qualified to comment on him.

However, I do go to see Mark Steyn, and from this link I see the interesting lines:

"...in the last six years, Richard Warman has been the plaintiff on every single case. That in itself makes the case for abolishing it: It is poorly drafted and corruptly administered. There is no other section of Canadian law that exists purely for the benefit of one single citizen."

I found that particularly interesting, making a pretty strong point.

"Terry Gain, I've suspected that you are not a small-c conservative, but a leftie provocateur, a phony, trying to egg Harper into a losing battle that can be won and fought by other means.

Now I'm sure. I think you're full of sh*t. If you are what you say you are, then go start some far right angry party; IOW, f**k off. Idiotic positions like yours are no longer welcome in our party.

Posted by: Shamrock at February 24, 2008 11:50 AM "

Shamrock

I see you can't argue an issue without resorting to baseless ad hominen attacks. Please explain why taking the position that free speech is a vital human right is somehow idiotic. I have not called for the abolition of HRC's but the removal of Section 13. Study your target before you shoot or you'll look intemperate, foolish and immature. And stupid.

Yes, jt and gain - I get your point - you just hate getting labelled while you're labelling people. Just what is your "target" anyway?

I don't owe you any explanation - I don't think you have a clue. Oops, was that ad hominem. Oh, let rephrase - I think you're being hypocritical.

Anonymous aka Shamrock

I see you can't back up your intemperate claims. This is hardly surprising. Someone who thinks he can win an argument by suggesting that the other person leave the party isn't exactly swift. BTW, who put you in charge of memberships?

Terry Gain. You are very boring; and irrelevant.

Terry Gain. You are very boring; and irrelevant.

If so why are you spending so much time responding to what I say. You are particularly stunned as well as rude and immature.

I thought we settled this last week: Harper has cut you guys loose on this one. Remember? Expendable vote bank? Try to keep up.

Why just get rid of only Section 13(1)? What is Harper and the PC party afraid of, by taking a stand for free speech and either revamping or limiting the HRC's, or eliminating them altogether with their pack of over-paid hacks? As Ezra points out in:

http://ezralevant.com/2008/02/whos-afraid-of-richard-warman.html

The Liberals, WK among them, as well as RW are NOT a force to be reckoned with on this in the blogosphere, or even now in the public domain, so what's the problem? Ezra did their dirty work for them and these clowns can't even generate a public "thank you". The lack of leadership from this party on this issue says volumes about where they really stand. No where. You want me to vote for them, too? Again? They won't even "Stand up for free speech", to coin a phrase.

I'm with Kate and others on this one Shamrock, as well as on another thread where our shameless media continue to spout the bunk that Globull Warming/Climate Change continues to be "settled". That's the other issue that the Cons are out to lunch on, as well. Countless, faceless debunkers of the fraud that AGW is will never get a voice with the Cons, 'cause they are already "settled" on the science, too. Just like Liberals, to get elected. I'm led to believe from posts here that "things will change with a majority". Bunk. They should just all cross the floor to the liberal side for their "majority" and don't waste the public's time or money with an election.

From his website, here are the words of Ezra Levant,a man who is not afraid to fight for freedom of speech in Canada.

"Over the past month, the public’s reaction to seeing their government interrogate a journalist has snowballed into a national discussion about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the separation of mosque and state. What started out as an issue reserved to the blogosphere and talk radio has jumped into the mainstream media, and even into Parliament. To my delight, the Canadian public – across the political spectrum – has been overwhelmingly supportive of free speech and critical of these Orwellian commissions, and groups like the Canadian Association of Journalists and PEN Canada have recently weighed in, too, and very vigorously.

We’re winning in the court of public opinion – and I say “we”, because it was the blogosphere that moved this story from the “undernews” to where it is today."

Winning in the court of public opinion indeed. Perhaps someday Stephen Harper might find the courage to follow CAJ and PEN.

Here's some more of what he thinks and says, especially aimed at this thread, where the Cons have said nary a peep:

"...It has been difficult to get the minority Conservative government in Ottawa to rein in the human rights commissions, despite near-universal public support, and even some encouraging bi-partisan comments. That’s because they perceive the risk of amending the act to be greater than the reward – they’re worried about being labeled as hostile to human rights in a looming election – as if free speech and due process weren’t human rights. But there is another political risk – the risk of inaction. Much of the dirty business that has been exposed by Marc Lemire’s lawsuit against the human rights commission happened on the Liberal government’s watch. But if planting anonymous messages and other bad behavior by commission staff is continuing under the Conservative government – and I see no reason to believe it’s stopped – despite the calls for change, that’s a risk to the Conservatives, too. It's a possible scandal."

to read more: http://ezralevant.com/2008/02/ive-been-threatened-with-anoth.html

Whimpy- thanks for pointing out my neglect - my apologies to anyone named David Warman, I ment Richard Warman. I know who David Warren is and I certainly did not make that typo through confusion with one of the best writers in Canada.

Terry Gain and Rose - freedom of speech is useless without the RIGHT to own and control property. Why would you even consider one without the other? And this right would, of course, enable all private and public busness to decide what legal activities would be allowed on his/her property - that would nullify all the smoking tobacco bans in this country! What would you think of that?