What’s Good For The Goose Stepper

Will B’nai Brith offices be raided and computers seized?

Will their hard drives be forwarded on the CHRC and the complainant? Will their emails be hacked and portions posted on the net?

19 Replies to “What’s Good For The Goose Stepper”

I’m a bit confused by the FD post. Is B’nai Brith the complainant or the defendant?
Alan

After reading the “Eleven Hallmarks of Hate” I have come to the conclusion that they will be prosecuting anyone passing wind in someone elses general direction. I especially like the part where you can’t use “true stories” or references lest you be deemed a hate monger.
Fire them all and soon.

Uh, never mind. I finally figured it out.
Alan

The irony is I have heard so called progressives violate many of these “Eleven Hallmarks of Hate” in reference to Conservatives, Albertans and Americans.

Interestingly how the CHRC has created a set of rules which prevent any criticism of the CHRC. Almost every one of the “11 hallmarks of hate” truthfully describes the CHRC or its members. Of course truth is no defence so that loophole is closed. One can only hope for a Conservative majority so that CHRC’s can be history and any individuals involved with CHRC’s are relocated to the wilds of Baffin island.

So does that mean that B’nai Brith are now self-hating Jews?
I’m confused…

I think they were using examples of hate filled speech as an example.
The idea that the heathenritescommies are accumulating jurisprudence for their twisted cause shows how dangerous those fawkers are. If harper does little about them after the election then something will have to be done another way.

I wonder how they’d react to a Canadian speaking the truth from OUTSIDE Canada?

Before the CHRC is dissolved or Section 13 is changed – let’s see how this respondent (B’Nai Brith) is dealt with. If this doesn’t throw the proverbial monkey wrench into the machinery, I can’t imagine how much more it will take to force the federal gov’t to become engaged.
How ironical! One of the bigger instigators, perpetuators, and mouth pieces in favor of Section 13 has now been caught up in the web. Do they become just another respondent or are their special privileges/entitlements?

hahahahahaha
sweet just-a$$, those who throw the $h!te, have it blow back on them
next up, worman!!!!!!!

Great Canadian Firewall, Nightmare.
Boy, sure is a good thing the Liberals got that gun control in place before they went forward with all this fun speech control, eh?
People always used to think I was paranoid when I said that back in 1995. Funny, they don’t seem to think that so much anymore. Well, except for the True Believers. They won’t get the joke until they’re in a concentration camp someplace north of Timmins.

I am a little cofused also. I am on the internet,posting about hate.I hate smallminded large egoed people,like the ones that run the HRC. Does that mean that by hating anti-hate people that hate free speech,Iam guilty of a hate crime? Or am I guilty of a hate anti-hate hate crime? I hate that I wrote that.OMG,this is getting really confusing? What the hell,it’s all Kate’s fault anyways,go after her.

*
Want some whiskey in your water
Sugar in your tea
What’s all these crazy questions
They’re askin me
This is the craziest party
That could ever be
Don’t turn on the lights
Cause I don’t wanna see
chorus:
“Ezra told me not to come”
*

I think that with a few hours on the web almost anyone could find ebough evidence that the Liberals are guilty of hate crime towards the conservative party. I put forth for your perusal the answer to # 11, David Suzuki telling children that Harper will ruin the planet,he must be stopped. There are so many instances where the 11 hallmarks are met daily by the liberals as they describe the future if ‘Arper gets a majority that the HRC’s would be busy for years.But that is not a good thing.

“The irony is I have heard so called progressives violate many of these “Eleven Hallmarks of Hate” in reference to Conservatives, Albertans and Americans.”
That’s precisely it. You can’t read a column by a leftist in the Toronto Star that discusses capitalists, businessmen, etc. without hallmark no. 1 being broken:
1. The targeted group is portrayed as a powerful menace that is taking control of the major institutions in society and depriving others of their livelihoods, safety, freedom of speech and general well-being;
Maybe we could get a twit like Linda McQuaig up before the “human rights” commission …
It’s not irony though, it’s just old-fashioned hypocrisy, and of course the desire to kill the freedom of speech of dissenters to the socialist bilge that passes for mainstream thought in this country.

Also, while all this involves supposedly “absolute liability” offence, the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that absolute liabilty violates the Charter of Rights.
I suspect (and certainly hope) the “truth is no defense” nonsense would meet the same inglorious fate.

Don’t be so quick to assume that the Conservatives will eliminate the HRCs, if re-elected.
There’s no evidence (yet)that the Harper Gov’t. has that task in mind; investigating the system, yes.
The Provincial Law Societies support the HRCs, G*d only knows why. They violate every principle of Western jurisprudence.
Although Lawyers serving as MPs (and MLAs) comprise a far smaller group than their influence would suggest
http://www.slaw.ca/2008/09/05/public-policy-forum-has-data-on-mps/
other than bloggers, where’s the political outrage from the legal sector? Question #10 on that CPC ‘Critical Issues Survey” that went out was the only evidence I’ve seen that anybody’s actually listening, and that survey was a sop to CPC contributors, attached as an after thought to another appeal for cash. That likely only as a result of so many threats to send contributions to defense funds for conservative bloggers, rather than the CPC.
I’ll still vote for my Conservative candidate but I’m waiting for results before sending any more cash.

A Question for the Lawyers:
Can setting up a blog in New York State hosted by a US Internet Service Provider provide the means to block enforcement of libel judgements and CHRC decisions?
Reference:
Rachael’s law, the Libel Terrorism Reform Act, signed into law in New York State on May 1, puts a stop to “libel tourism” where authors can be sued in foreign courts where the standards for protecting freedom of speech fall short of the US First Amendment. Now US courts in New York can decline to foreclose the enforcement of foreign courts in such cases.
Also of note, Senator Lieberman (I-CT) and Senator Spector (R-PA) have introduced the “Free Speech Protection Act of 2008” to provide federal protection. It is expected to become law shortly. The Act would provide protection similar to Rachel’s law and allow for countersuits in US courts.

Short answer, Jim: no. You cause a post to published when you send it to the hosting website. If you make that transmission from inside Canada, then the CHRC has jurisdiction over you no matter where you transmit to.
You are subject to libel action in Canada if you damage someone’s reputation in Canada. It doesn’t matter where you are or where you post to. If the posting is available in Canada, and the person who complains is in Canada, he can sue you in Canada. If you live in Canada, then you have to answer to the court.

19 Replies to “What’s Good For The Goose Stepper”

Navigation