Very good news. I'm a little peeved at the motion to further promote private health care delivery failing, but that victory will come in time.

Its nice to see that even Rob Nicholson saw the folly in prolonging the rot at the CHRC.

I wonder how the Lying Jackal is doing in his tireless efforts to expose toilet paper nazis in Scarborough washrooms.

"Flush twice, its a long way to Daisy."

Excellent. Now we just have to hope that they'll be able to actually *do* something about Section 13.

I should think Bob Nicholson's phone has been burning white hot for months over this thing. Good to see him doing the right and obvious thing. Finally.

Gun registry dismantlement anyone? Start making them phones hot my friends.

On the Michael Coren Show on CTS this week.

TUESDAY, Nov 18 - Human Rights Panels. Canadian Jewish Congress chair Bernie Farber, author Waren Kinsella, blogger Mike Brock and lawyer Noa Mendensohn Aviv.

This could be good?

The Phantom: "Gun registry dismantlement anyone? "
Couldn't agree more, but I see this as a tough one. La Belle Province will trounce them as they did over the "arts" funding cuts. And unfortunately for us Libertarians, the other side will vigorously trash that Right to Life and Security as soon as they get the chance.
Watch Obama and George Soros go to it down South. It ain't going to be pretty.

Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which is basically Section 13 with teeth, remains in effect and, along with various other policies and legislation such as libel law, remains a greater threat to freedom of expression than Section 13 ever was.

Good News. Way to go Tories. Now we must keep on PMSH to ensure there is follow through -- that the government actually strips CHRC of its section 13 powers. Let the CHRC revert to what it was originally intended to be, that is a body to adjudicate issues of discrimination in employment and housing. We don't need no stinkin' thought police in Canada.

At least with the criminal code anti-hate provisions anyone charged is subject to a fair judicial process where rules of evidence apply. That is not the case with CHRC kangeroo courts.

This decision is already being spun on qr77 in Calgary, as the conservatives have voted to start dismantling the human rights commission. Maybe it's just their condesenting tone but My former favorite radio station makes condissenting
me grind my teeth these day's.

Disregard that last "condissenting" punched the post button to quick.

The difference, Roger Copy, is that at least in a court of law, you have a chance at a fair trial. Not so in the Human Rights Marsupial Hall of Justice.

Did Yukon Gold just admit he supports section 319 of the criminal code of Canada, a law that criminalizes "hate"? I think he did. Watch this one, he may be a HRC plant.

Did Yukon Gold just admit he supports section 319 of the criminal code of Canada, a law that criminalizes "hate"? I think he did. Watch this one, he may be a HRC plant.

roger copy, I'm not an HRC plant and I disagree with your identification of Section 318-319 of the criminal code as equivalent to Section 13 of the HRAct.

Section 13 refers to speech that 'might' offend someone of an identifiable group. The perception of being 'hated' or 'viewed with contempt' are entirely subjective; there is no need for any proof; there is no need even, for anyone to come forth and assert that they felt they were viewed in such a 'hateful' manner. This section 13 is without any foundation in reality; the accused has no defense, either in factuality or by virtue of truth, or by virtue of fair analytic criticism.

Section 318 is totally different. It refers only to speech that incites hatred leading to a breach of the peace; that is, I can't stand in a pulpit and exhort my followers to go out and 'Kill all the X people'.

I can, however, stand in that same pulpit and examine why X-people themselves promote violence in their texts, (truth is a defense, critical debate is a defense). I can write about this same issue.

That is, the difference between Section 318 and Section 13 is one of facticity, of reality, of truth, of an openness to debate and commentary.
Section 13 is not interested in any of these areas; it focuses only on the presumed and assumed hurt feelings of some as yet unknown and undeclared 'victim'. As such, it has no just reason to be listed among our legal or social obligations to each other.

Wuberman, you have also noticed the, Lets Start a Fight, instead of just report the news, direction that QR77 has now taken. This approach to news has caused the other news agencies to lose millions, why would they go this route. I just want the news, I don't want some limp wristed millie like Wayne Nelson hyping some four year old boy pulling a cats tail to be newsworthy while Bronconnier pissing away millions on cute girlyman bridges is ignored.

Wow, I've been accused of a lot of things; being too good looking, too smart, too good at my job, etc, but this is the first time I've ever been called a plant.

I never mentioned 318; ET is being deliberately deceitful to an alarming degree. Wow, it is rare one encounters such as dishonest debater, even on the internet.

And truth is not a defense in section 319 cases, this has been elaborated to death in free speech circles which you are not a member of. I suggest you read up on free speech issues - a lot.

In any case, I will not be lectured by a mediocre lib-left careerist Canadian academic on what is and isn't an attack on free speech, thank you very much. You are a leftist, and it is no wonder you are running interference here for the human rights industry.

Yukon Gold; yeh, but haven't the ladies been calling you an animal for years...:)

That's a good start. The government should get rid of the gun registry and the Wheat Board at the same time. Then they can get on with fixing the countries real problems while the opposition and media (same thing really)have a collective hissy fit.

You're sooooooooooooo smrt!! Ya get rid of the human rights tribunal then you nazis could say whatever racist,homophobic,sexist comments you'd like. I know only you guys really know the truth.

ok4ua....careful,the tribunals are not dead yet,you just qualified for a closer look.

Hey Ok4ua

No....

The resolution is to get rid of section 13 of the HRC's, NOT the HRC's themselves.

dummy up will ya...and stop drinking that leftard kool-aid or at least loosen a few screws on that tin foil hat your're wearing, it must be a little tight.

ok4ua - getting rid of Section 13 of the HRAct does indeed mean that we have freedom of speech.

Some people, such as you, may define what someone says in a discussion as racist, homophobic, sexist, while other people wouldn't even apply those descriptions to the discussion. So, you see, you have to be very careful about your view that if YOU describe something as 'racist, homophobic, sexist'...then..YOUR view is correct.

Second - so what? Why do you feel that everyone must think in one way? If someone, for example, doesn't agree with same sex marriage, does this mean that they are 'homophobic'? And by the way, what a silly term; it means 'an irrational fear of homosexuals'. What if the individual doesn't agree with SSM because of religious beliefs? That doesn't mean an 'irrational fear'!

The importance of freedom of speech is that it allows for debate and discussion. And, the importance of 'being human' is that we allow others to have different opinions than ourselves. You don't seem to accept this. Why not?

But, section 318 in the Criminal Code, not the Human Rights Act Section 13, does state that speech that incites violent actions against someone, can be prosecuted.

So, what's your beef?

ET, I'm amazed that you missed that. "Homophobia", if you really parse it out, simply means "an irrational fear of like things." If there really were a clinically-defined disorder characterized by an "irrational and excessive fear of homosexuals", it most likely would be named "sodophobia."

Remember, "homophobia" is not a real illness. It is simply a slur made up by homosexual activists, to be used for shutting down debate from opponents by characterizing them as something akin to "racists."

"Islamophobia", incidentally is cut from the same cloth. No doubt the Islamists saw how well "homophobia" worked for the gay crowd.

Any time some person uses the word "homophobia" against you in a debate, throw it back at them. It's a slur, pure and simple, and by using it, your opponent has descended into an ad hominem argument.

gordonkneehill - yes, I agree with your parsing of 'homo-phobia' but I was using it in the sense in which it is commonly used, of 'homosexual-phobia', rather than its correct parsing.

I'm not aware that any 'phobia' is a real illness, even if one can genuinely define some mental states as an illness (as in schizophrenia).

I agree with you about the ignorant (and arrogant) use of other terms such as Islamophobia..

It's infuriating how people try to shut up debate by insisting that questions about a subject (eg SSM, Islamic fascism) are not about the subject but emerge from some psychological aberration of the questioner.

Religion is BS. There is no god, there is no devil just good and evil. Getting rid of a section of the human rights code esp if you kooks on here say so can't be good.

ok4ua:

So, if there's no God or devil - why do you say 'good' or 'evil'? There's no such thing.

We are, as you suggest, merely organic matter subject to no influence. Who can say what is good and what is evil? Why do we need such concepts? Is it not each to his/her own?

And thus it ends.

This government doesn't have the stones to follow through with the HRCs, and won't. It's going to be "financial crisis" until the next election.

I'll be delighted to eat my words if I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong.

There's now been a nice public show that Cons can point to any time they're criticized, and they'll say "We just have to deal with this financial crisis first" and that, dear friends, is the end of it.

Somebody's going to have to win with the Supremes before this is finished.