Where Stormfront leads, others are sure to follow!
Canadian Association of Journalists is calling on federal and provincial governments to amend human rights legislation to stop a pattern of disturbing attacks on freedom of speech. Two recent cases spotlight the dangers of allowing state-backed agencies to censor speech based on subjective perceptions of offensiveness – MacLean’s magazine, which is facing complaints in two provinces and nationally for an article by syndicated columnist Mark Steyn, and Ezra Levant, the former publisher of the Western Standard who is now before the Alberta Human Rights
Commission for his decision to publish the Danish cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
“Human rights commissions were never intended to act as a form of thought police,” said CAJ President Mary Agnes Welch. “But now they’re being used to chill freedom of expression on matters that are well beyond accepted Criminal Code restrictions on free speech.”
The CAJ supports Liberal MP Keith Martin’s private members motion to have section 13(1) of federal human rights legislation, the clause dealing with published material, repealed. Similar provincial legislation should also be amended as required.
So, what’s the count up to now?
Over on my side, we have not only David Irving but Keith Martin, Liberal Member of Parliament; The Globe & Mail, Canada’s establishment newspaper; two-time Canadian columnist of the year Margaret Wente; the CBC’s Rex Murphy; Toronto Star columnist Kelly Toughill; leftie colossus Noam Chomsky; and PEN Canada, an organization headed by former viceregal consort John Ralston Saul and run by the cream of the CanCon literati – Margaret Atwood, Rohinton Mistry, David Cronenberg, Louise Dennys, etc.
You can email Joan Bryden here to ask if she’s feeling stupid yet.
Related items:
BCF – A culture of corruption in the CHRC?
Calgary Herald – It’s time our most basic right became an election issue.
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.