A Smashing Success: Free Speech Wall Destroyed in Hours
- Details
- Created on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 16:30
- Hits: 1160
A student demonstration in Carleton University was a smashing success. Success, because it achieved its goal, and smashing in the way that it achieved it.
Members of the Carleton Students for Liberty erected a small sheet of plywood, papered with blank sheets, in a public space and invited people to write whatever they wanted on it. The purpose of the demonstration was to show whether free speech was still alive and well on the campus after several much-publicized incidents including the arrest of anti-abortion activists. Only a few hours after it was up, the "free speech wall", together with the notion of free speech on campus, was smashed by a student claiming to be in his 7th year of "human rights studies".
The perpetrator, Arun Smith, justified his violence on the basis that the free speech wall was "an act of violence" against the gay community. He did this despite the lack of anything anti-gay on the board. "Not every opinion is valid or deserving of expression," he told the media through Twitter.
Kill the human rights commissions (before they kill our freedoms)
- Details
- Created on Wednesday, 05 December 2012 22:17
- Hits: 1203
We can't add anything, really, to Mr. Jonas' assessment. Spot on!
George Jonas - National Post - Dec 5, 2012 - Canada’s commissars for “human rights” are making the front pages again, this time by offering to balance “conflicting human rights.” At least, that’s what they’re selling, and some headline writers are buying it.
The National Post headline that went with Sarah Boesveld’s report last Saturday, for instance, read: “Gender vs. religion: Woman refused haircut by Muslim barber highlights problem of colliding rights.”
No, it doesn’t, actually. What it highlights is the coercive state’s ongoing attempt to deny the human rights it constitutionally guarantees, if they conflict with human ambitions it promotes or protects: In this instance, some matriarchal quest to empower women to have their hair cut by men of their choice, whether they like it or not. Keep reading
Human right to the barber of your choice?
- Details
- Created on Monday, 19 November 2012 19:02
- Hits: 1259
The ridiculous nature of human rights in Canada is in full display this week as news spreads of the complaint from a woman who was denied a men's haircut at a barber shop that only cuts men's hair. As Ezra Levant explains:So a lesbian walks into a Muslim barbershop, and asks for a “businessmen’s haircut”. It sounds like the beginning of a joke, but it really happened, and now a government agency called the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario will hear her complaint. Faith McGregor is the lesbian who doesn’t like the girly cuts that they do at a salon. She wants the boy’s hairdo. Omar Mahrouk is the owner of the Terminal Barber Shop in Toronto. He follows Shariah law, so... they don’t believe in touching women other than their own wives.
Putting aside the frontal assault on a business man's right to choose his own clients on his own terms in a competitive market, and ignoring the disrespect shown to a religious tradition and besides the idiocy of the complaint, what really is at stake here are real human rights. As Rex Murphy concludes, "Should the dim day arrive, under some demented ethos, that picking your own barber is declared a human right, then it will be the effective end of true human rights — their having been remorselessly trivialized to the point of absolute nullity." Mr. Murphy is absolutely correct and his whole column is well worth the five minute read. It's time to do away with this ridiculous, tax-funded farce!
Judge: "The citizens of this province are entitled to certainty when it comes to exercise of their fundamental rights."
- Details
- Created on Tuesday, 30 October 2012 17:39
- Hits: 1311
The Alberta Court of Appeal decision in the case of Stephen Boissoin needs to be spread far and wide. All three judges on the court agreed that not only was the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal wrong to censor free speech, they put the onus directly on the Alberta government to clean up the mess of the Alberta Human Rights Code. Premier Redford had promised to introduce reforms and has not done anything yet. And given that most other provinces have codes that look much the same as Alberta's, the same message should needs to be sounded loud and clear across this nation.
Freedom fighter Ezra Levant discusses the recent decision here and includes some quotes from the judges. It is well worth reading and sharing that article. But even more important, now is the time for all of us to be in touch with our provincial leaders - MLAs, MPPs, and the appropriate ministers. We can explain to them that Brian Storseth's Bill C-304 made it through the House of Commons and now the provinces can take similar steps. The courts and the Charter are on our side. But they won't do anything unless they hear the public calling them to action. Be sure to make use of our sample letters and contact information and encourage others to do the same. Best of all, meet with your MLA or MPP over coffee and discuss this openly.
But some animals are more equal than others
- Details
- Created on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 00:45
- Hits: 1331
From the National Post: The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a complaint against a women’s studies professor who fought a Catholic volunteerism program at Brock University, saying [the professor's] anti-Catholic comments were offensive, but not akin to discrimination.
Although the complainant was treated differently due to his religious beliefs, the tribunal wrote: “I cannot see how the respondent’s comments about him were vexatious, or known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome, no matter how personally offensive and hurtful he found them to be. Accordingly, the respondent’s comments did not amount to substantive discrimination.”
In an interesting and yet predictable twist, we see that some complainants are less protected by the human rights codes than others. George Orwell predicted this type of behaviour already back in 1945.
Alberta court of appeal dismisses appeal against Boisson
- Details
- Created on Thursday, 18 October 2012 21:31
- Hits: 1518
The Calgary Sun reports that, after a legal fight lasting nearly 11 years over a letter to the editor, Prof. Darren Lund is disappointed Alberta’s Court of Appeal dismissed his case, allowing “free reign to hate mongers”. Rev. Stephen Boisson is the minister who, after writing and publishing this letter in his local paper was fined and ordered to never speak or write about homosexuality again, in public or private by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. That ruling was over-turned by a real court in 2009. (Ezra Levant's comments at the time can be read here)
The Court of Appeal decision, released October 16, saw Lund’s appeal dismissed. “It’s a very disappointing decision, a terrible day for the protection of basic rights in this province,” Lund said following this latest ruling.
Actually, the professor is wrong. It's an appropriate decision, a great day for the protection of basic rights in the province of Alberta and for the basic (let's call it "fundamental") right or freedom of expression. Last time we checked, the right to not be offended wasn't in that "fundamental rights" list. In fact, if we want to enjoy a functioning and active democracy, we must vigourously defend freedom of expression, enjoy it, but also deal with the baggage that comes with it; putting up with opinions that we don't agree with or even find offensive.
The old adage rings true: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Horray for free speech in Alberta!
For the sake of clarity: Funding the CHRC has Increased Under the Conservative Government
- Details
- Created on Thursday, 27 September 2012 21:44
- Hits: 1259
Somehow a rumour has circulated that the federal government has cut funding to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Director of Communications is happy to set the record straight:
At no time has this government “slashed” funding for the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Quite the contrary, in 2008 the CHRC received an additional $5.7 million over five years to cover activities in support of the inclusion of First Nations under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The cited 2010 closure of some regional offices was a managerial decision aimed at streamlining and strengthening programs while maintaining service levels. It had nothing to do with cuts, because there were no cuts.
This information was made public at the time, and is still available on our website. While we have never said otherwise, we are grateful for the opportunity to state the facts again.
David Gollob, Director, Communications Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Taxpayers unite! Remind your elected representatives of the abuse of freedom that our tax dollars are supporting.
Oh the Irony: A Human Rights Complaint about the Human Rights Commission
- Details
- Created on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 18:20
- Hits: 1510
CBC has reported a story of a woman who went to the Quebec Human Rights Commission to file a complaint regarding a convenience store she could not access on her motorized scooter only to ende up filing a second complaint against the HRC itself because of the small elevator she had to ride to get there. "In our mind, the Human Rights Commission is supposed to be the agency that will protect our rights, so it's hard to say this is not accessible and this is wrong. It's really discrimination," she said.
The story is a great illustration of what happens when society becomes fixated on individual rights, at the expense of collective responsibility.
Why Do We Still Have Hate Speech Laws?
- Details
- Created on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 15:12
- Hits: 1565
While not specifically dealing with the Human Rights Commissions, Tribunals and Codes, Andrew Coyne tackles the idea of hate speech laws and why they don't work in a functioning democracy. He makes a number of good points which our provinces should take to heart in evaluating their own human rights codes.
Andrew Coyne National Post July 9, 2012 - Hardly was there time to celebrate the demise of Section 13, the infamous provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibiting "communication of hate messages," before we were reminded this was not the only unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech on the books.
Section 319.2 of the Criminal Code, for example, forbidding the "willful" promotion of hatred "against any identifiable group," is currently getting a workout in a Regina courtroom in the case of Terry Tremaine, a sometime math lecturer and avowed neo-Nazi. While Tremaine will have available to him the sorts of due process rights denied to those hauled before the human rights tribunals — the defence of truth among them — the end result is much the same: the suppression of speech society finds objectionable, for the sole reason that it is objectionable. Keep Reading...
Disarming the CHRC: Canadians owe Conservative MP debt of gratitude
- Details
- Created on Monday, 18 June 2012 21:24
- Hits: 1582
SUFF Note: You can send Mr. Storseth a thank-you note at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Lorne Gunter, Toronto Sun June 9 2012: Canadians with strong opinions owe Brian Storseth a debt of gratitude.
Storseth is the Conservative MP for Westlock-St. Paul. Last Wednesday, the House of Commons passed his private member’s bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the provision that had permitted the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) to investigate complaints regarding “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet.”