The Human Rights racket has hardly skipped a beat, despite the humiliation suffered at the hands of the Levant and Steyn fiascos. This beauty comes to us courtesy the Saskatchewan HRC.

The essence of the discrimination ruling appears to have occurred at two points near the end of a heated exchange. During that afternoon of June 8, 2006, Pontes was angry that Tataquason had been there for more than an hour, drinking coffee and talking to his wife while she worked. Tataquason testified that Pontes told him; “Can’t you see she’s working? Get out, this isn’t the friendship centre!”
At other points in his testimony, Tataquason instead used the words “friendship inn.” Saskatoon’s Indian and Metis Friendship Centre is ethnically based while the Friendship Inn is not. The distinction was not noted in the ruling by tribunal member Donald Worme.
The other remark came as Tataquason was being escorted out. Tataquason told Pontes he’d “contact the chiefs and complain about the way Mr. Pontes treated First Nations people.”
Pontes told Tataquason to “go ahead and call his chief.”
Tataquason said he was “deeply hurt” by the remarks. It caused him to “trigger” memories of residential schools he has tried to bury since childhood. Tataquason testified that he “spiraled into depression,” leaving him unable to work. The remark is also responsible for his return to drug use, his marriage breakup, his homelessness and his committing petty crimes, Tataquason testified.
His then-common law wife, Roseann Durocher, testified it also caused her to return to substance abuse. She testified she “wholly believes” Pontes evicted Tataquason because of his race.

But there’s more – the tribunal member who handed down the ruling is Donald Worme.

Don’s legal practice has been focused primarily on those issues that impact Aboriginal people individually as well as on issues affecting First Nations governments and entities. He has been active in promoting and protecting both the collective rights of Treaty First Nation people, and defending and advocating the individual legal rights of Aboriginal people in numerous legal and public forums. Social justice issues, primarily restorative justice, for First Nations people and communities remains an important focus on Don’s legal practice.

Pontes has been ordered to pay $7,000 – and he says he ain’t going to.
I agree – “Congratulate John Pontes on being one of the last men with a functioning set of balls in all of Canada:”
The Cataquiddick case looks stronger by the day.

*

(via)
(Why yes, it might be a hoax. Who cares? Every time you commit the middle name of The One to animation, a lefty gets his aneurysm!)

“It’s payback time for those who ever thought it should have begun.”

The Left knows how to pluck out the thorns in its side. The Sison saga provides a glimpse into how the hard left enforces consensus and how it defends those who impose consensus. Geert Wilders basic problem is that he is spitting in the face of the professed consensus of “progressives”. And like all other “deniers”, Wilders will pay.
You don’t need to agree with Wilders or like him to ask yourself: ‘if they can do this to Wilders, can they do this to me? Am I safe?’
Maybe we were never safe; and maybe the best thing about the Wilders case is how it destroys the complacent assumption that fairness is automatic. The struggle to keep justice untainted by politics is never-ending.

Ezra, on Holland’s national suicide note
You can follow the Wilders persecution at the International Free Press Society.

According to Barrelstrength;

At the request of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice has created a departmental committee to examine section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This is the section which bans hate messages distributed by the Internet. Members include lawyers from various branches of the department of Justice, including constitutional, human rights, criminal and Industry Canada branches.

(Note – still awaiting an official source for this. Will keep you posted.)

… the CJC did not expose the “hatred and violence”.

For one thing, Bernie, Warren & Co didn’t bother going to the Hamas rallies. Kathy Shaidle did, and Girl on the Right did, and Point de Bascule did, and Kate McMillan and others spread the news about what they saw. Bernie Farber said nothing. Even the great Nazi Hunting Toilet Warrior lui-meme was silent.
What’s interesting about that group is how many of them – Kate, Kathy, Ezra – are being harrassed by Richard Warman, the guy Bernie Farber thinks is the greatest Nazi hunter of all time. The cardboard hero gets garlanded by the CJC, the real friends of Canadian Jews get sued.

Speaking of guitar heroes…
Once upon a time, I owned a Strat. One of the few tunes I could carry off convincingly was “Submission”, (which means I wasn’t very good).
I remember the moment I realized I was too old for punk. It happened on a dance floor, in Edmonton, as I took a long, hard look at the kids around me.
I was 23.

The story of Jim Chatney begins…

… with an act of defiance. He was a farmer from Alberta who was tired of being forced to sell his wheat and barley to a government monopoly and he was determined to show his fellow farmers and the world how unjust this really is in a so-called free society.
13 years ago, in the spring of 1996, Jim joined a small group of farmers at the Alberta/Montana border. Some had tandems, some had semi’s, some were in pickup trucks. Jim had the family van and in the back of it he had something truly dangerous, a weapon of mass anarchy and destruction, … a bag of Wheat.
He took that bag of wheat across to the US and he donated it to a 4-h club. That was Jim’s act of defiance, that was his act of civil disobedience, and that is what ultimately got him put in a Canadian jail. What others had just talked about doing, Jim and his friends actually did.

Read the whole thing.

Canadian Journalism Project – Cast your vote for Canadian Newsperson of the Year

Via Jay Currie;

Ken Whyte backed up Mark and told the socks to stuff it. Go vote for him. […] And lest people think I am trying to freep the poll, I found out about it via the Tyee weekly newsletter which is promoting David [Beers].

“These are not normal civil servants.”
1. John Chamberlin
2. Natalie Dagenais
3. Philippe Dufresne
4. Kathleen Fawcett
5. Harvey Goldberg
6. Fiona Keith
7. Sandy Kozak
8. Catherine Labelle
9. Vera Pantalone
10. Marie-Anne St-Amour
11. Dean Steacy
12. Richard Tardif
13. Marie Wankam
And Jennifer Lynch.

A hearing into the case of Rudolph, a reindeer.
h/t

Convert to Islam, receive your “Get Out Of Thought Gulag Free” card;

“Translation: when a radical Muslim says gays should be killed, Buddhists should be killed, women may be treated like slaves, etc., those victims are not legally considered to be “identifiable groups” — they have no human rights.”

Background – “Why I filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against a Montreal Salafi imam…”

CHRC delegate – “You must try the champagne glazed strawberries. They’re exquisite.”
CHRC stakeholder – “Only abject subservience to Israel can explain the World Trade Center attack.”
*

The Strange Case of Deborah Cansick and the vanishing Freedom of Information Act.

Via Deborah Gyapong;

“The first recommendation is that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) be repealed so that the CHRC and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal would no longer deal with hate speech, in particular hate speech on the Internet.”

Full report here – commissioned by the CHRC itself.
Update: Unconfirmed sources report that an advisor to the Michael Ignatieff Liberal leadership campaign will be issuing a statement discounting the Moon Report as the work of a “Nazi sympathizer”… developing…
More at the National Post, plus reaction from Kathy Shaidle, and Mark Steyn, with lots of chatter erupting across the ranks of the Blogging Tories.
UPDATE: The CHRC is in full damage control mode – “Lynch is already trying to throw Moon under the bus.”

In her press release announcing his report, which you can see here, you’ll notice something is missing: Moon’s recommendation to repeal section 13. He uses the phrase repeal again and again in his report – but you won’t find it in Lynch’s revisionist press release. It’s like the chapter in George Orwell’s 1984, where Winston is busy cutting out embarrassing items from old newspapers, and replacing them with the new, politically correct truth. That’s what Lynch is doing already.

The CHRC’s letter came up with a pretend excuse. I was let me go because, they said, I had the “goal of furthering a public debate”.
Of course, that’s exactly the goal Rev. Boissoin had. And Lynch convicted him.

We will now be known as the blogs of peace.

Because “left-wing sniveling thought-nazis” doesn’t leave enough room on the button for a smiley face.
h/t Robert B.

The vote was virtually unanimous, complete with standing ovation.

iii) The Conservative Party supports legislation to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Most importantly, the resolution was supported by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.
Thanks to everyone out there who took the time to contact your local newspapers, delegates, and MP’s. It’s not the end of the battle by a long shot, but it’s a very positive step forward.
(Previous).

Modify HRC Jurisdiction
PROPOSED BY VICTORIA AND KELOWNA – LAKE COUNTRY
iii) The Conservative Party supports legislation to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Passed “overwhelmingly”
Previous.
From Gord Tulk who’s on the scene at the convention, “kady omalley’s posts over at macleans are full of errors. The vote on fiscal imbalance did not see one hundred people rush into the room. All policy sessions finished early many of the resolutions passing like sh?t through a goose. Only ten resolutions from each of four catagories make it to the plenary. If more than ten were passed the delegates vote by paper ballot which ten get to the floor. Debates were vigourous but not heated – we are all consevatives here. It’s like SDA comments in real life. Having a blast. “
Speaking of Macleans, comment of the day here – “It’s like Kady’s sitting in South Korea trying to figure out what’s happening in the North by looking over with a pair of binoculars.”

In the past few hours, a joint effort by a number of bloggers has resulted in a flyer that Conservative delegates will be receiving in time for this weekend’s policy convention in Montreal (correction – Winnipeg!).
(You can view and download a copy of the flyer here.)

“We strongly support those members of the Conservative Party of Canada who seek to repeal Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a direct attack on the freedom of expression guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of these sections allow the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to prosecute anyone alleged to have said or written something “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” whether there is a living, breathing victim or not. Vague concepts such as speech or writing “liable to cause hatred or contempt” are the basis of expensive state-funded prosecution of individuals. The statute provides no objective legal test for “hate” or any objective means of determining what constitutes “contempt”. As a result, the CHRC is used by various groups and individuals, as a risk-free taxpayer funded method to silence their critics and those they disagree with. CHRC investigators have testified that that “freedom of speech is an American concept” and therefore not valid in Canada . Such statements are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but are standard operating procedure at the CHRC. Commissioners of the Canadian s Human Rights Tribunal, who are not judges and are often not even lawyers, have held that “truth” is not a defence against prosecution under Section 13. Intent or fair comment are also not defenses. In fact, there is not a single listed defence under Section 13! Because of the lack of any defenses, the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate since 1978. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal routinely ignores the principles of fundamental justice, such as the rules of evidence, and these kangaroo courts, even allow hearsay evidence. The CHRA provides for each Tribunal to make up the rules as they go. Every journalist, writer, Internet webmaster, publisher and private citizen in Canada can be the subject of a Human Rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth. Given the ambiguity of Section 13, it is virtually impossible for any individual to determine if they might be in violation of Section 13. Arbitrary censorship and punishment are wrong, and cannot be justified in a free society.”

While the hour is late, consider contacting your local Conservative MP to let them know you too, support the resolution which reads as follows:

Modify HRC Jurisdiction
PROPOSED BY VICTORIA AND KELOWNA – LAKE COUNTRY
iii) The Conservative Party supports legislation to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.