Blue Like You

Today on Canada Day, the Toronto Sun features a debate between Lorrie Goldstein and Paul Berton titled Whoa Canada, which discusses possible reasons for a supposed lack of patriotism among some Canadian demographics.

However, a recent Harris-Decima poll found that a clear majority of Canadians are very proud of their country:

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey asking Canadians to rank their pride in Canada on a scale of one to 10 found 57 per cent gave it the highest mark.

Another 25 per cent gave it an eight or a nine, while just 3 per cent ranked their pride lower than a five.

Personally, I can’t think of a country I’d rather live in. However, there are concerns bubbling under the surface that require our attention. Jeffrey Simpson’s Globe editorial hones in on some issues that seem to be taboo in Canadian society today:

…Is it boredom, political correctness, entrenched self-interest, self-satisfaction or moral superiority that creates so many no-fly zones for debate in this curious country?

There is the sacred cow of supply management in agriculture about which no politician will utter the faintest moo of criticism. Immigration is doing more to change and challenge Canada than any other development, yet we can’t seem to debate it, even though the evidence is piling up that immigration isn’t working as well for the country as it once did. One province, Alberta, is becoming so much richer than the rest that it will strain all sorts of federal policies, but we can’t talk about it.

Nor can there be a debate about medicare. Canada’s system ranks somewhere in the middle of the health-care pack in international studies, yet Canadians cling to it fervently and believe it to be the best in the world.

We can’t use "productivity" without instilling fear and loathing in the public. Competition is a dirty sort of word. The native reserve system is taboo for debate….

One issue that he seems to have overlooked is the threat to our freedom of speech which is at the very heart of democracy. Rex Murphy considers the ongoing HRC fiasco the most under-reported story of the year.

It is indeed disturbing that this Conservative government has taken so long to acknowledge the problem, although some MPs seem to be opening their eyes lately. It is ironic though that it look a Liberal private member’s motion to focus Parliament’s attention on this travesty.

However, we now have Liberal Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty trying to subsidize and streamline the process to encourage even more complaints at taxpayer expense!

And where is the outrage, Canada?

Or are we already so browbeaten by the PC Police that we no longer have a voice?

Are we being forced to be tolerant? Have they really been successful in changing our thoughts, or are we just too afraid to open our mouths any more?

So on this Canada Day, please consider how much complacency and fear are threatening to destroy this beautiful country that we hold so dear.

* * * *

Update: For a more light-heartened look at Canada Day, check out ChuckerCanuk.

Live broadcasting of Canada Day events this afternoon from Parliament Hill.

Check out the Hill Cam!

1:30 pm - Blue Rodeo onstage.

* * * *

A Canada Day resolution: Don’t let your politicians do your thinking for you .

And how about that Morgentaler guy for Order of Canada, eh?

Lifesite:

…Strangely, both Morgentaler and last year the architect of homosexual ‘marriage’ in Canada were awarded the nation’s highest honor under the Conservative Government…

The above title was adapted from a line in Ezra Levant’s witty post about the debate he had with Susan Cole of NOW magazine. (…only Lesbians can make jokes about Lesbians).

The discussion on CHCH-TV focussed on the BC comedian who made some rude jokes about the lesbian hecklers in his audience. The BC Human Rights tribunal is now musing over whether or not he should go to trial.

Guy Earle explained what all the fuss is about on YouTube via another great post by Ezra. If you don’t mind the four-letter words, please check it out and let me know what you think.

Also, please read Karen Selick’s op-ed in today’s Post - What Ferengis can teach the Supreme Court.

Should HRC’s be telling us what’s funny now? Kinsella says even he may have trouble defending the Nanny State here.

* * * *

Update: Ezra’s on a roll tonight. Check this out!

Which of course, ties in with this. H/T Daimnation!

Saturday Update: Finally, some good news on ‘Human Rights’ - Post editorial.

Post - Hate speech complaint dismissed. Get this:

“…We are not surprised at the decision in light of the inappropriate political pressure that has been brought to bear on the commission and that has prompted the commission to set up an internal review of its procedures under [the hate speech section of the Human Right Act,]” he (Faisal Joseph) said…

Were you actually expressing your opinions to your MPs fellow Canadians? Naughty, naughty!

The resistance must continue - David Warren.

Many of my fellow Blogging Tories have done a great job covering yesterday’s events at the BC ‘Human Rights’ Tribunal, where an investigation is beginning into charges against Macleans for an article written by Mark Steyn, Why the future belongs to Islam.

In addition, Maclean’s Andrew Coyne has been live-blogging and Ezra Levant has been providing extensive commentary.

In reading today’s Post article by Brian Hutchinson (Court of last resort) , I was struck by the surreal Orwellian aspect of the whole situation:

…That’s the bizarre part, or one slice of it. None of the main players starring in this quasi-judicial drama actually live or work in B. C. Not Mr. Steyn, not the editors responsible for Maclean’s, and not Mohamed Elmasry, a Muslim who launched a complaint to the B. C. Human Rights Tribunal on behalf of all Muslims in this province.

Neither Mr. Steyn, nor his editors, nor Mr. Elmasry were in sight when the tribunal panel began the week-long hearing yesterday. Mr. Steyn will not testify, say lawyers for Maclean’s. Nor will Mr. Elmasry, the aggrieved. So why bring the complaint forward here? Because Mr. Elmasry can. This thanks to provincial human rights legislation of a breadth and elasticity not known in other parts of Canada.

Mr. Elmasry, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, and a highly controversial figure himself — especially among Jewish groups — claims the Steyn excerpt denigrated and vilified Canadian Muslims and promoted hatred of an identifiable group.

He is not obliged to demonstrate what harm occurred to whom, or to what degree. Maclean’s magazine and Mr. Steyn could still be found to have violated B. C.’s Human Rights Code. No proof of damage is required.
Meanwhile, if found to have violated the code, Maclean’s faces sanctions, including payment to the complainant “an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them.”

The magazine could also be ordered to stop publishing certain ideas and points of view. Lawyer Faisal Joseph, representing the complainant, asked the Tribunal yesterday to use its “discretion” and order Maclean’s to publish a suitable response in its pages. That, or publish the panel’s ultimate findings. Such are the frightening aspect of this case.

“Strict rules of evidence do not apply” in cases before the Tribunal , noted its chairwoman, Heather MacNaughton…

Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin was the first federal politician to begin questioning this process, and others are slowing starting to follow.

We all need to work together to address this outrageous assault on our own Human Rights - that is to be able to express ourselves freely, and have a fair system in place if harm can be demonstrated to have occurred, rather than being prosecuted for some kind of contagious Thought Crime, which appears to be within the purview of the HRC as it stands now.

This is the tipping point. All Canadian citizens need to get involved before it’s too late.

* * * *

Update: Day Two of the Human Rights Farce (H/T to Gay & Right for that one!). Andrew and Ezra are doing some fine live-blogging.

More at Jack’s Newswatch.

I agree with Ezra . Time for the Harper Government to stand up for freedom of speech - especially now the RCMP is involved.

Bloggers and MSM pundits across the political spectrum will be watching this one.

* * * *

Update : Ezra Levant on MDL .

Wednesday Update : Ezra discusses how he believes the CHRC will spin the story - CTV’s Mike Duffy Live .

Great column here by Professor Mark Mercer - Bad Times for Free Speech. I am inclined to agree with him. Let’s get rid of Section 13 .  However, that doesn’t mean we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Why is it only the good ones seem to leave the LPC?

Please stay Dr. Martin ! The future of free speech in Canada depends on you. You are making a difference.

Just ignore all the Kindergarten antics and keep your eye on the ball.

Ezra Levant has highlighted Mark Steyn’s appearance on today’s MDL.

If you care at all about the future of free speech in Canada, this is a must-watch.

Saturday Update : SDA - Lucy, look what you started!

Christian Horizons has come under a great deal of unwanted publicity lately due to a decision by the OHRC that ruled that the Christian organization must pay lesbian Connie Heinz $23,000, plus interest. I discussed this story a few days ago , and I’m still not sure where exactly I stand on it.

However, today the Record had an interesting editorial that alluded to the ramifications of this type of ruling - and the dangerous precedent that it might be setting:

What last week’s ruling really shows is how the delicate balance between personal and religious rights in Canada is in continual need of adjustment. The ultimate outcome of the ruling against Christian Horizons could be a series of uncomfortable questions about other religious groups that perform services for the general public. Will someone, for instance, in the wake of this ruling question the right of Catholic hospitals in Ontario to refuse to perform abortions? Would the tribunal hear such a case?

Lorne Gunter also has a few thoughts on this situation. What he finds most disturbing is that Christian Horizons must, among other things, now undergo Human rights training, which Gunter equates to thought-control:

…Worse yet, all CH managers and employees must undergo a "human rights training program," which, of course, is a euphemism for government-approved, state indoctrination aimed at re-educating unacceptable beliefs out of employees’ heads…

Christian Horizons is still pondering the ruling and may appeal. Otherwise, they may be forced to either comply with the ruling, or simply stop delivering the services to the general public and help only Evangelical Christians, which would allow them to stay in touch with their own religious beliefs.

The Ontario opposition parties are pushing to defund CH , even though their services cost the government less than what could be provided otherwise.

A difficult situation. I’m sure we’ll see other similar cases in the future.

* * * *

Update : Here’s another example showing how Canadian Human Rights Commissions are looking out for you - Alleged hijacking of website by rights officials ‘disturbing’.

Interesting case here where a gay bar tried to ban a woman and was charged by the Quebec Human Rights Commission . H/T Ezra Levant

Works both ways, I guess.

Wednesday Update : Evangelical and Catholic Groups Call for Curbs on Human Rights Commission after Anti-Christian Ruling - Lifesite .

Check out the rhetoric that the Sun’s Michael Den Tandt uses to describe the Prime Minister of Canada:

The crows are coming home to roost for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and a mangy bunch of birds they are. Will this provoke an election? Not likely. Not yet.

Harper must wake up some mornings and wonder where it all went wrong. Not long ago he was the Iceman, firmly in control of every teensy strand of his government, and seemingly managing it all with aplomb.

With Harper at the helm there were no mistakes. You didn’t get charm, but you did get efficiency, intelligence and a ruthless instinct for political combat that made him more winner than loser.

Most Canadians were buying that package, when compared with the alternatives. We weren’t warming to the man — the piranha smile and assassin’s eyes make that difficult – but we were getting used to him. Harper and Stephane Dion, mano a mano? Dion was sure to emerge with two black eyes and his glasses fastened together with Scotch tape…

Assassin’s eyes?

Why is it that bloggers need to be so careful, but MSM can say anything they want?

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has ruled that Christian Horizons has violated the rights of a previous employee who had revealed that she was gay - Christians Horizons Rebuked (Record):

…The tribunal has ordered Kitchener-based Christian Horizons to compensate Connie Heintz, 39, and to end a prohibitive code-of-conduct contract for its 2,500 employees.

The contract, which all staff must sign, forbids workers from cheating on their spouses, having pre-marital sex or homosexual relationships, using pornography and “endorsing” alcohol or tobacco, among other things…

So Christian Horizons must now pay Heintz $23,000, plus interest.

That includes $5,000 for “the wilful and reckless infliction of mental anguish.”

The charitable organization must also undergo “basic human-rights training for all employees and adopt an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy.”

Personally, I’m on the fence on this one. If this was a case of a Catholic parish hiring a staff member who turned out to be gay, would they have the right to ask that person to resign?

Would they be forced to hire an openly gay person even if it conflicts with the church dogma?

It certainly indicative of the ongoing dichotomy between freedom of religion vs. the state.

Is there a code of Blogging ethics and liability somewhere? From the Star Phoenix:

…Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals is one of several named as defendants in a statement of claim filed by Richard Warman with the Ontario Superior Court on April 7. Others include Ezra Levant, The National Post and one of its journalists, Jonathon Kay.

In the statement of claim, Warman alleges he was defamed on a blog known as freedominion.ca. He alleges those comments were linked to or commented upon on other blogs, including McMillan’s and The National Post’s.

Those who picked up on the original comments did not take steps to determine whether they were true, Warman alleges.

Warman also states it is not enough for a site to remove comments and postings that are questionable, as The National Post did. The newspaper pulled the piece written for its blog that Warman found defamatory.

In its place, the newspaper posted a retraction and apology. However, Warman alleges the article was linked to and copied by others online by that point and The National Post and Kay should be considered responsible for those republications. Editors for The National Post had no comment about the statement of claim…

Two questions here. First of all, does this mean all bloggers can get into trouble if they link to stories on other blogs that turn out not to be true?

Secondly, in the case of the National Post, they are being sued in spite of a retraction and apology, supposedly because the story was picked up all over the internet. Personally, I just don’t see how a story can be contained in this day and age.

And should it be?

In any case, some of my readers have questioned my apparently heavy-handed comment moderation policy lately.

The reason should now be crystal clear.