(I’ve deleted the link to the Wente article – received it by email and didnt’ realize the link was subscriber only. Sorry.)
Watch out: Canada became the first non-European country Friday to sign up to combat “cyberhate,” the online dissemination of xenophobic propaganda. (Next step: To establish “Liberal” as an identifiable group, and the process will be complete.)
More quotes from the Ahenakew press conference;
“This, of course, was the direct result of the pressure put on the (Governor General’s) advisory committee by some of the Jewish community, including a letter-writing campaign and the lobbying by the Canadian Jewish Congress,” said Ahenakew, wearing his controversial Order of Canada pin.
“If I’m forced to choose between freedom of speech and the Order of Canada, I chose free speech … I’m telling you I will not throw this back at them. They will have to take it away.”
(Question: Why, during the entire coverage of this trial, has no one in the media mentioned the gallery of Ahenakew supporters who distinguished their presence by yelling epithets of “racist!” and other such comments at the judge? And why weren’t they charged with contempt? )
A note posted at Instapundit – The Little Green Footballs server crashed and burned. Charles isn’t sure when he’ll be back up, so that’s why his site has been offline.
I have a busy day today – so there may be nothing new for a time. Add your own links in the comments.
Kate…the next step will only be complete if we can finally indentify the Liberal party as a HATE group,then we can maybe move this country forward.See the lovely little move they are now trying with people who commit genocide
opppssss.That last should also have said at my house.darn moonbats are taking over my mind…lol
This sounds like the same strategy they used in the “Lepine” incident. The special interst group and gov twist the facts, get MSM involved, and create a state of fear to justify the objective. At some point this will backfire, which it is to some degree already, as they step on groups that will fire back.
I wonder what all those “peaceloving muslims” will think of this.
Muslim prayer to be key in terror trial
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/08/terror.arrests.ap/
“Lord let us be at their throats, and we ask you to give us refuge from their evil,” read the prayer on a slip of paper, prosecutors said in court documents filed late Wednesday.”
Lookie here y’all … these redskins have been accusing us white eyes of racism for so long that I may start to believe it. Remember the “Big Lie” … If you say something long enough and loud enough eventually it is taken as fact. This kind of shit must be dealt with before it becomes yet another Big Lie that mindless cattle in this country will glom onto and believe. When Indians play the race card they must be told where to put it and if they get mouthy … charge them. Political correnctness MUST end now.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=af014d27-8544-4c3c-a427-4f56b0c5ecbd&page=1
Hey Kate, just curious where you read/heard about Ahenakew supporters yelling ‘racist’ at his trail?
So Ahenakew gets convicted. Just gets charged a measly grand Cdn. $.
He immediately returns to his “drugged, drunken” state and continues to preach hatred of Jewish people all over again! Whites, too, while he was at it.
Everyone should be demanding he be charged and tried again for doing it again. And that he should be tossed into prison like the racist garbage he is!
I reject the insane doctrine of the left that if you are an Aboriginal, you can say whatever the damn hell you want about anyone at all and not be a racist… nor their contention that anyone who calls such a person a racist is somehow a racist because of calling a racist a racist.
Ahenakew has NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER. He can kiss my white, Judeo-Christian ass! The bloody racist!
Ah, I meant he got “fined” $1000, not “charged”. Perhaps the after-dinner cocktails are affecting my judgement? Well, at least I didn’t say something as disgustingly harmful as did Ahenakew.
Todd: Got my info from someone in the Federal court legal machinery.
It’s not uncommon for First Nations offenders to hurl epithets at judges while being sentenced, etc. often with impunity. Of course, when many of the criminal cases are being heard by Liberal patronage appointees who had no background at all in criminal law before being appointed to the bench, perhaps they just don’t know any better.
Freedom of Speech.
That is all that need be said.
By MARIANNE MEED WARD
Justice for Karla Homolka. What an oxymoron. Why should she, the definition of unrepentant evil, receive justice?
http://www.rapp.org/url/?W2WFEIQD
Did K not receive justice? Someone please read & report back? This commenter prefers not to read this.
Kate wrote, and I copy-and-pasted:
“many of the criminal cases are being heard by Liberal patronage appointees who had no background at all in criminal law”
This reminded me: the justices of the Supreme court are either patronage or crony appointees, right? Some of us have realized that the SCOC has sometimes ignored the Charter as it is written and chose to simply claim that the Charter granted certain rights or protections to groups who were not mentioned in any way, shape or form. As well as the rulings that permitted the state to discriminate against groups who are explicitly granted guaranteed protection in the ever-worshipped True D’oh! document?
Therefore, because of these facts, isn’t it reasonable to question the qualification and impartiality of those Santa Claus impersonators who sit on the highest bench in the land?
A lefty once responded angrily to my statement that perhaps we can’t always trust the SCOC: “Why shouldn’t we trust the Supreme Court?” He is a big-L Liberal. Cannot tell you who. It’d be economic suicide, for damn sure!
I couldn’t help but shut my mouth to prevent economic retaliation under the circumstances. I cannot explain why. But perhaps we could start a discussion as to why the SCOC may require some reform wrt how the justices are placed in such seriously important positions. After all, some of their rulings have undoubtedly raised our eyebrows. Example: WTF is this gobbledygook about “reading into the Charter”? How can something become a Charter right if it 100% clearly is NOT in the Charter? Where, if so, in the Charter or the original BNA Act of 1867 does it say this is permitted? Can anyone in a position to answer advise? Any constitutional experts out there?
Congratulations, you’ve discovered the activist judiciary. Of course an activist judge is not a rogue judge, that is, one who having sworn to render judgment according to law proceeds to ignore the law. An activist judge is an activist like any other, that is, someone who works for a political party to advance the party’s interest, who happens to have been made a judge. Check out The Gulag Archipelago, vol. 1, the four chapters beginning with “In the Engine Room”, for a comprehensive discussion of how an activist judiciary operates.
You’re right, of course, you can’t read things into the Charter. And those decisions which purport to do so are not law. But so what? The party will enforce them just as if they were.
A judge who reads provisions into the Charter or any other statute has broken his oath of office and is subject to removal from the bench. But someone has to do it. And the party that appointed him and is getting what it wants from him isn’t going to do it.
By far the gravest challenge this country will face will occur after most of you think the battle is won. If the Liberals actually lose control of parliament, they will not relinquish control. They will simply govern from the bench. I say this because they already did it once. Under Trudeau the courts consistently held that they could not restrain the government in any way, even when the government’s actions were illegal and unconstitutional on the face of it. That’s what they said in the famous patriation case. Under Mulroney, they immediately claimed the unlimited right to substitute their judgment for that of the government regardless of the wording of the constitution or the state of the law. Under Chretien they went right back to abject deference, as you’ll recall they upheld Chretien in illegally preventing Conrad Black from accepting a peerage to which he was in every way legally entitled.
The immediate result of Conservative victory in the next election will be treason on the part of the judiciary. Somebody better be planning now on how to deal with it.
Thank you so much, EBT. This is very helpful. It furthers my understanding and is yet another thing that assures me that I’m not crazy just because it seemed I was the only one in Canada who could see the indisputable corruption of the judiciary. I will remember your recommendation to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book. I probably spelled his last name wrong, though.
I submit here: there is a triangle of corrupt, absolute power in Canada: the government, the MSM, and the courts. They’re the key components of the sinister, malevolent Vast, Left-Wing Conspiracy I have mentioned before. Would you agree?
Well, it’s called “the Liberal Party”. As in the Soviet Union, there are separate structures – courts, media, govermnemt – but they are all under the control of the party, and thus ultimately under the control of whoever controls the party. When the party is well-led, that’s one man – Comrade Stalin or Pierre Trudeau. When the party is led by a pederastic jellyfish, control is fragmented and diffuse through various competing and conflicting groups to the extent they can either control or ignore the leader. That’s Canada today.
This isn’t new, either. By my reckoning, this is MacKenzie King’s system, and he has to be regarded as the father of the country, since just about nothing of the Canada he inherited survived his reign. He was most strongly influenced by Mussolini’s corporatist Italy rather than Stalin.
And Canada is as much a classic fascist state as it is old-line Marxist. I think of it as a dialectic synthesis of the competing Marxist thesis and fascist antithesis. But that’s just me.
What to do about it? I wish I knew. We’re a long way from even acknowledging the situation, much less dealing with it.