Like the Norwegian Blue parrot, Section 13 is just resting. Like the Black Knight, its repeal by Parliament is just a flesh wound. Though it has been hoisted on the cross, its supporters may still, like Brian, always look on the bright side of life. Section 13 might be doomed, but it is good law. So sayeth the courts.
Be very, very afraid.
In a classically liberal culture, where persons are respected and therefore protected from their governments, where citizen-sovereigns do not alienate their rights to believe, reason and communicate with their fellows to their government-manager-servants, Sec 13 would never have been written. Sec 13 and this appeals court ruling represent a triumph of those who would elevate the group over the individual.
How can one’s group be more important, more valuable than oneself? From whence does that additional value arise?
Sorry day.
unbelievable that this still has legs – this monstrosity is still bumping around beating on a drum.
Makes my stomach churn ….
Perhaps the courts would be more comfortable simply outlining what is permitted to be said, rather than what is not permitted to be said. And, individuals, could in all cases of not knowing what is permitted today, simply turn to the courts to ask if what they are about to say is offensive or sufficiently watered down so as to pass their muster.
Like, thousands of cases, creating a backlog of 100 years. It’d be interesting to see how this would pan out in a school classroom, with all the students raising their hands in order to ask the teacher if what they’re about to say will possibly be construed as to be offensive or not, and what the consequences of stating the sometimes obvious may be. Until everything stopped. After all, the teachers want control don’t they? Simply give it to them, long and hard.
Is it legally permissible to be a Nazi in Canada? (note that I am not advocating for Nazis).
Is it legally permissible to say that someone may be a Nazi, if a blog for example, is hosted outside of Canada, even though it’s widely available to be viewed within Canada? … For now.
If the Nazis are gay, is the permission declined? Or accepted as being true? What exactly is the hierarchy of accepted truth?
If the Nazis typically wear headscarves that look a bit like maybe barbed wire cross hatched, like the palestinians do, is it permitted?
Is it a hate crime to not capitalize the first letter in palestinian? It’s ridicule possibly, or maybe just correct english, but is it a crime when not capitalized because I dislike them? Is it a further crime because I’m ridiculing their lack of a Capitol? How so? / Why not?
Are fat people exempt? are skinny people that are not skinny by choice, exempt?
Is it permissible to laugh out loud at a fat woman sweating as she crosses the street on a hot sunny day? If I compliment her on her outstanding glistening, is that offensive if she’s just shy of having a stoke?
Can I make fun of ex Supreme Court of Canada justice Berta Wilson for being a hideous sow?
Group think was the hallmark of the Soviet system.
marc “Can I make fun of ex Supreme Court of Canada justice Berta Wilson for being a hideous sow?”
No you cannot because she was born a hideous sow. She did not choose to be a hideous sow.
But does she “self-identify” as a hideous sow? That’s the test, not reality.
Once you have to watch what you say for fear of punishment, what makes us any different than the old Soviet Union, Cuba, Mao’s China, Nazi Germany or any of the countries that feared its citizens ? Once you’ve lost freedom of speech, you’ve lost your freedom…..period.
I chose her as an example of a hideous cow, because she’s / it’s dead and I’m quite certain the state can’t prosecute on behalf of a dead sow.
note: great videos you make M.Matt
Now we know who rules us, those who we are not allowed to ridicule.
Mr. Brean’s article also states:
“Its [CHRAct Sec 13.1] absence means the only legal recourse to hate propaganda in Canada is criminal charges, which are rarely pursued because they require the political approval of provincial attorneys general, who are notoriously reluctant to give consent — a trend illustrated last week by the refusal of Ontario’s Attorney General to prosecute a man who told a pro-Palestinian rally in Toronto that Jews must be expelled from Jerusalem or killed.”
Mr. Brean overlooks that Provincial ‘Human Rights’ hate-speech Tribunals remain available to those so inclined, and, more glaringly, fails to mention that the BC Attorney General has ‘politically approved’ criminal ‘hate-speech’ charges by bloggers ‘Brian_Esker’ and ‘Padraigh is a clown’ against serial worderer Arthur Topham.
The elites detest ordinary people yapping about their rights.
Don’t these ordinary lower class fools realize that they have
nothing worth saying about freedom that our betters haven’t
already decided for us?
Just look st what they did to freedominion
Free Dominion will return once some legal issues are resolved. This is my belief anyway, at the moment there are some issues that need to be clarified and others that may be appealed. Meanwhile, Section 13 is like some rogue virus that we thought had been expunged from our computers but here it still is, spamming us with unwanted material and slowing down the internet. At least we are protected from the slight risk that Germany might win World War II. At the same time, persons trying to win World War III are saying, thankya very much, suckahs.
The “Franken-speech” law is resurrected for one final haunting, but I don’t think it’s Halloween yet.
Why you weenies only ‘approved speech’ as determined by your betters is really FREE.
POPPYCOCK and BALDERDASH from start to finish…they are afraid of a FREE citizenry!
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Has one Liberal Leftist EVER been charged for the daily vitriol including direct calls for murder on the internet ever been charged by the CHRC under this law?
Didn’t think so.
The article points out that the judgment against Lemire “in effect [] prohibits him from violating a law that does not exist anymore, at least as of June”, and that “being ordered, on pain of criminal contempt charges, not to violate a law that does not exist is a strange fate”. Indeed. Once the law is gone, it can’t possibly be violated, so an injunction becomes null and void.
If we had a proper constitution and charter of rights, there would be no more than ONE piece of legislation against “hate speech”, if there were any at all. Anything else is double jeopardy, which should be contrary to fundamental legal rights. This includes federal vs. provincial division of powers.
The Supreme Court should have made this ruling in Whatcott at the very least. Instead, it concocts preposterous notions of what Charter rights mean as in the untenable Insite decision of 2011, as it flushes our genuine rights down the toilet. The Charter of Rights should be redesigned from scratch. I’ve given my own suggestions in this space more than once already.
When leftists who promote hatred against businessmen and the productive in general are held to the same standards as alleged “racists”, then maybe we can conclude the “hate speech” laws aren’t a transparent attempt to silence non-leftists.