Message to Canadian readers: Make intellectual freedom an election issue

Rob Breckenridge, host of The World Tonight, weeknights from 6:30 to 9 p.m. on AM770 CHQR, urges Canadians to make free speech an issue in the current Canadian election campaign (vote October 14):

Election gag laws are just one symptom of the malaise descending over Canadian society. When freedom of speech is ailing, democracy itself cannot be well.

Let's take advantage of the opportunity presented to us, and use this election campaign to find out how committed all of the parties are to the issue of freedom of expression, and what if anything needs to change.

It's not as though the politicians need to be dragged kicking and screaming into a debate over freedom of speech - it's right there beneath the surface:

The national critical issues survey sent out to Conservative candidates includes this question: "Do you agree that some of these 'human rights tribunals' have overstepped their bounds?" Sounds like the perfect question to ask during the leaders debate.

Earlier this year, a Liberal MP brought forward private member's motion M-446, which would eliminate Section 13(1) from the federal human rights legislation, thus removing the ability of human rights commissions to take on complaints regarding speech. How do the various parties feel about M-446? Or about Section 13 itself?

The opposition parties, meanwhile, have assailed the government over Bill C-10, which could deny film tax credits to Canadian-made movies deemed to be "too controversial" in content. While denying a tax credit is hardly tantamount to censorship, one could envision financial pressures exerting a chill of sorts on the Canadian film industry.

By all means, let's revisit that debate and gauge the parties' views on artistic expression. Whether it's "Young People F---ing" or the infamous Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons, artistic freedom and freedom of speech are one and the same.

For what it is worth, here are my views on the three key topics Rob raises:

- Election gag laws. They are supported by all parties because they benefit the professional politician over against the voter. Conservative Stephen Harper, Liberal Stephane Dion, socialist Jack Layton, that Green party gal - politicians from fruit right over to nuts - benefit from restricting the issues that people are allowed to bring up during a campaign.

Essentially, under an election gag law, all the politicians can agree to ignore an issue and then no one else can bring it up in advertising - no matter how important the electorate feels it is. So are you surprised that they all tend to support election gag laws? We should all join Rob in opposing them.

- the infamous Section 13 and the Canadian "human rights" commissions in general. I have written much on them, and have appended some links below. Essentially, when you ask your local politicians where they stand on Section 13 and the "human rights" commissions, you are asking them whether they still think liberal democracy is a worthwhile form of government.

Expect to hear massive hesitancy and qualification from some. Some politicians enjoy wielding unchecked power. And the pay isn't bad, either - they vote their pay themselves, of course.

- Bill C-10. Happily, I cannot yet be forced to see the awful "controversial Canadian films" that opponents of C-10 want to protect. However, until we shut down the "human rights" commissions, I agree with Stephen Harper that the government should distance itself as far as possible from anything that might "offend" anybody. Taxpayers cannot be on the hook for massive awards to people who are offended by garbage whose only connection to us is that fatuous civil servants agreed to front it.

However, if the commissions are shut down and no one can get awards simply for feeling offended, I won't get my shirt in a knot about the government throwing some cash at Moon Bat City's many film crews. It's a bit better for national stats than just putting them on welfare. We can pretend a little longer that we have a viable film industry that isn't merely Hollywood North.

E-mail Rob here if you want to comment on the article linked above.

Here's Suzanne Fortin on free speech:

We're at a crucial juncture in the history of Canada. We either protect free speech, or we go down the road of imposed ideological conformity.

This may sound a little alarmist to the average Canadian, who probably does not have a lot of time for these issues. I know this-- I'm a mom, and I know I can't follow all the issues, either.

The erosion of free speech is nothing less than the erosion to seek and expound Truth. How can I find Truth if I am not allowed to ask uncomfortable questions? How can I spread the Truth-- or even just test a working hypothesis-- if I cannot say what's on my mind?

Suzanne! Why don't you trust government-paid hacks to tell you what you may think? You must need therapy! You can be ordered into therapy, you know ....

(Note: Readers, if you are just itching to write and remind me that Rob and I were recently involved in a public squabble over his membership in the ridiculous Darwin cult, save your typing fingers. We both want to live in a country where his membership is okay, and it is okay for me to make fun of it. )

Recent posts on Canada's intellectual freedom crisis:

Liberal fascism: A survival manual for non-fascists in Canada (and probably in Europe)

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Political science profs nervous about coming here ...

Intellectual freedom: Survival is design not chance. O'Leary's plenary address to Write! Canada 2008, for which she received a standing ovation

Canadian election nears ... a chance to vote for freedom?

Intellectual Freedom in Canada: Oops ... a political party has actually noticed the problem? Not just collecting fat pay cheques?

The Mark Steyn show trial in Vancouver

Canadian radio bureau chief: Yes, the campaign to suppress free speech in Canada does affect the United States

Intellectual freedom: Is misunderstanding of Internet
part of Canada's "human rights" problem?

Write! Canada coverage highlights intellectual freedom risks, troubles of book industry

Open letter to comedian Guy Earle ... the latest to be charged by a Canadian "human rights"commission

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Friends fear the comics won't dare be funny in ways that matter

Intellectual freedom in Canada: ... Look out, PC bigots! The True North strong and free is shaking off your chains ...

Canadian comics rally for freedom: Let's
LAUGH Canada's "human rights" commissions out of existence!

I must reserve a ticket for the Canuck Comics' rally for freedom

Intellectual freedom in Canada: The first order of business is comedy!

Dutch cartoonist arrested for rude cartoons

No, not without a fight ...

Roundup, plus, Focus, guys, focus: To restore civil rights, get our laws changed, don't attack individuals

To find out why there is an intelligent design controversy, read:

Free speech and intellectual freedom - some thoughts

Recently, commenting on my "Message to Canadian readers: Make intellectual freedom an election issue", fellow freespeecher Rob Breakenridge wondered why I prefer to talk about the decline of "intellectual freedom" in Canada rather than "free speech." (I can't just now find the link, so this link takes you to his show, The World Tonight.)

I am glad he asked. It is for the same reason as I prefer to talk about civil rights rather than human rights.

First, our fearless leader, civil rights lawyer Ezra Levant, acknowledged at a recent luncheon at the Canadian Bar Association offices that some limits on speech can be justified in a free and democratic society. Few or none of the Freespeechers, as we call ourselves, dispute all limits in principle. So we risk misunderstanding if we simply say that we stand for "free speech.". Opponents of free speech/intellectual freedom can create the impression that we merely seek the right to "diss" people, greatly reducing our support.

Now, the best known, most widely reported cases - the ones that people know and care most about - were intellectual freedom cases. The article that got Mark Steyn and Maclean's Magazine charged ("The Future Belongs to Islam, October 20, 2006") was simply an effort to apply to the growing Muslim population in the Western world precisely the sort of reasoning that Phillip Longman has been applying to the growing conservative Christian population.

The argument is that some groups have significantly more children than others, and that children tend to adopt the viewpoint of their families. So vast cultural changes toward a more oppressive society can be predicted from demography.

In both cases, this is a contestable point - and it has been contested. But commentators' inability to discuss it without unleashing a kangaroo court hearing is not good news for intellectual freedom in Canada.

Similarly, the "Mohammed" cartoons published by Ezra Levant originated as a response to fears in Denmark for the safety of anyone who published an illustration of Mohammed, however lovingly or respectfully intended. Bans on illustration are not likely to be very popular in a freedom-loving country. Certainly, they should not simply creep up on us without discussion (as in "shariah creep") because publishers are afraid of "human rights "charges. So the publication of the cartoons was, again, an effort to spark a discussion of ideas.

I found most of the cartoons lame, but that may itself be partly the result of fear - in the same way that I was disappointed that the comedian friends of comic Guy Earle (charged) were not more politically edgy with their comedy. Intellectual freedom requires the freedom to play with ideas.

By now it should be clear why I also prefer to talk about "civil rights" rather than "human rights." Civil rights have a long and mostly fruitful history in the Western world, going back to Roman times. They are the rights of a citizen dealing with the government. By contrast, "human rights" is an elastic category that got started much more recently and has come to mean pretty much whatever whining pressure groups want it to mean. Liberal democracy cannot long survive assaults like that.

It's not to be expected that everyone will understand these things, as I gather Pete Pacheco is discovering too, but we really must try.

By the way, here's a National Citizen's Coalition message about shutting down the HRCs. $68 million operation. Our prime minister Stephen Harper, up for re-election (or not), used to work for them.

Mark Steyn's "Lights Out on Liberty" speech

Here's Mark Steyn's recent speech at Hillsdale College , "Lights Out on Liberty", which attempts to sketch out one aspect of the assault on intellectual freedom in the West. He does an excellent job, as readers will see from the excerpt given below.

I do take issue with one aspect of Mark's speech (tailored, after all, for a specific audience). Mark focuses on Muslim-directed assaults on traditional liberties (including free speech and intellectual freedom). But long before any Muslims started to make use of the kangaroo courts and political correctness bureaucracies in Canada, traditional secular groups and some Christian-based religious groups had been using them, often with joyous abandon. Indeed, George Orwell's prescient Nineteen Eighty Four predicts a closed society based on socialism, not Islam - which pretty much tells you who had the upper hand in Canada over the last five decades and put the current system in place.

It is hardly fair to suddenly get one's shirt in a knot because some Muslims decided to come along for the ride, when there was plenty of room on the Anti-Freedom Bus.

Further, the vast majority of Muslims in Canada do not support the politicized Islam nonsense. And they are more at risk from Islamists than most people are - for the same reasons as, years ago, a Christian in Ireland was more at risk from Catholic or Protestant fanatics than a Muslim would have been*. Fanatics destroy their own first.

And when the question comes down to who values intellectual freedom, the divide will go through the human heart, not merely through sociological groups.

Anyway, here's Mark:

Much of the West is far too comfortable with state regulation of speech and expression, which puts freedom itself at risk. Let me cite some examples: The response of the European Union Commissioner for Justice, Freedom, and Security to the crisis over the Danish cartoons that sparked Muslim violence was to propose that newspapers exercise “prudence” on certain controversial subjects involving religions beginning with the letter “I.” At the end of her life, the Italian writer Oriana Fallaci—after writing of the contradiction between Islam and the Western tradition of liberty—was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland, and most other European jurisdictions by groups who believed her opinions were not merely offensive, but criminal. In France, author Michel Houellebecq was sued by Muslim and other “anti-racist groups” who believed the opinions of a fictional character in one of his novels were likewise criminal.

In Canada, the official complaint about my own so-called “flagrant Islamophobia”—filed by the Canadian Islamic Congress—attributes to me the following “assertions”:

"America will be an Islamic Republic by 2040. There will be a break for Muslim prayers during the Super Bowl. There will be a religious police enforcing Islamic norms. The USS Ronald Reagan will be renamed after Osama bin Laden. Females will not be allowed to be cheerleaders. Popular American radio and TV hosts will be replaced by Imams."

In fact, I didn’t “assert” any of these things. They are plot twists I cited in my review of Robert Ferrigno’s novel, Prayers for the Assassin. It’s customary in reviewing novels to cite aspects of the plot. For example, a review of Moby Dick will usually mention the whale. These days, apparently, the Canadian Islamic Congress and the government’s human rights investigators (who have taken up the case) believe that describing the plot of a novel should be illegal.

See also: "What happens when intellectual freedom dies? "

*Here is a revision of an old joke:

Masked man jumps out from a Belfast alley, menacing a passerby with a gun, and asks, "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?"

The passerby replies, "I'm ... er ... a Muslim."

The masked man barks, "So? Are you a Catholic or a Protestant Muslim?"

Trust me, the fastest way to wreck a religion is to make it into a political party. People no longer focus on the virtues of the founder but on the vices of the vice-chairman - who turns out to be the chairman of vice, and so forth.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Political science profs nervous about coming here ...

Kevin Libin reported yesterday in Canada's National Post (August 23, 2008) that

A group of U. S. professors launched a campaign this week protesting plans by a prominent political science organization to hold its annual conference in Toronto next year, claiming that Canada's restrictions on certain forms of speech puts controversial academics at risk of being prosecuted.

Bradley Watson, professor of American and Western political thought at Pennsylvania's St. Vincent College, said he will present a petition calling for the American Political Science Association (APSA) to re-evaluate its selection of Toronto for its 2009 conference at this year's annual meeting, taking place over the Labour Day weekend in Boston.

His protest has garnered support from dozens of professors across the United States, including prominent scholars such as Princeton University legal philosopher Robert P. George and Harvard University's Harvey Mansfield.

"Our belief is that the APSA should choose its sites carefully, with particular regard for questions of freedom of speech and conscience," Mr. Watson told the National Post by e-mail. "We therefore believe Canada to be a problematic destination."

Go here for the rest.

I am told that journalists who broke the silence here, like David Warren, helped the profs make up their minds. And the profs are very right to be concerned.

As I have pointed out here, the "Human Rights" Commissions make themselves judges of a clergyman's advice to the faithful and a late-nite comic's jokes. They would not hesitate to go after a visiting prof. And all that is required is for someone, somewhere in Canada to feel offended and decide to lay a complaint.

What prof, I ask you, who has ever been of any consequence has not offended someone somewhere? And if you are a prof, is this how you want to be remembered?: "She was a sweet, quiet little lady who presented the party line impeccably and was very careful to stay out of trouble"? Or "I can't imagine him doubting that the current authorities are always right"?

Kathy "Five Feet of Fury" Shaidle comments,

Toronto taxpayers especially may want to make a VERY big stink about this -- after all, those precious tourist dollars are now at risk.

I'd also invite you to join me in thanking Dr. Watson for his inspirational stand in favour of free speech."

You can find his e-mail address here.

A quick primer if you are a prof (or anyone) who is new to the issues and struggling to make up your mind:

1. Liberal fascism is nanny state fascism. Expect to see failed nannies, not failed generals harassing, bossing, and bullying, exhausting people's life savings and wrecking their health.

2. Currently in Canada, media and artsies have been too nervous to say much. So it is best to rely on blogs like Ezra Levant (charged), Free Mark Steyn, Deborah Gyapong, and Kathy "Five Feet of Fury" Shaidle for information (as well as those to whom they link). And of course, to Kevin Libin and Jonathan Kay (charged) of the Post, Calgary radio host Rob Breakenridge, and the CBC's Rex Murphy. (Many able free speech warriors have doubtless slipped my mind, and I will try to remember them next time.) This will link you to the many posts here at the Post-Darwinist on intellectual freedom in Canada.

3. Why don't Canada's artsies speak up? Many are supported by and co-dependent with liberal fascist government. They are interested in keeping and extending their grants and they display little interest in the problems of writers and artists who make a living by their work, not arts welfare. Their idea of risky speech appears to mostly be creative obscenity, and they are irrelevant to a battle for intellectual freedom.

4. Why can't we all be instant experts on this issue? As a Canadian, I am very grateful to those Americans who have spoken up, assome of Prof. Watson's colleagues are doing. However, if your knowledge of Canada is limited to three hours of Canadian Studies in Grade Seven twenty-eight years ago, be cautious about jumping to conclusions. Liberal fascism got started here not with Confederation in 1867 but with "Trudeaumania" in 1967. Pierre Trudeau was a charismatic elitist who started the ball rolling fast toward the nanny state that justifiably concerns the political science profs today. After Trudeau's death, his biographer revealed that he had been a Catholic fascist in his youth in Quebec - something that had been kept well hidden from his adoring public in his lifetime.

5. Don't think it isn't happening in the States. It is happening, but mainly on university campuses where your future leaders are formed - and where their political allegiances develop. The most important way you can help us is by fighting fascism (including its leftist varieties) where you are.

Intellectual freedom in Canada: We may be making progress!

Professor Ed Morgan, who supported "human rights" commissions in the past, admits that he made a mistake, thinking that the slaughter in Rwanda in the early 1990s showed that "human rights" commissions were needed in Canada, to control thought, speech, and action to prevent violence. In Live and learn: Confessions of a Jewish Professor (Canadian Jewish News (23 October 2008), he writes,

I took seriously the admonition we often hear that the Holocaust began not with deeds but with words. ... It turns out, if we read our history correctly, that the Holocaust began not only with words, but with book burning. Once we go down the road of censorship for the sake of promoting tolerance, we may soon be standing at the heights of intolerance.

What many pundits and learned professors overlooked is a fundamental similarity between, say, the religious police of Saudi Arabia and "human rights" commissions - they attract people with a severe itch to control their neighbours' lives. As a result, the envelope gets pushed regularly - and finally torn to pieces. Famously, the Canadian human rights commissions decided to go after clergy, media figures, a comedian, and now even a Member of Parliament.

None of that was envisioned in their original mandate. But then, I don't suppose that the Saudi religious police mandate included stopping schoolgirls from fleeing a burning building without full religious dress either - however, they did so in 2002, and 15 died as a result. That is why, in my view, it is better not to have a "Committee of Public Righteousness," whether its intentions are secular ("human rights" commissions) or religious ("religious police"). The kind of people who would not themselves join such an organization are rarely able to control it. Certainly, they have not succeeded in Canada.

Hopeful straws in the wind ...

In other news, journalists and broadcasters are speaking up with increasing confidence. Now that three separate prosecutions of Maclean's Magazine and Mark Steyn have failed, journalists are less wary about bringing financial ruin or lifetime publication bans on their medium by talking about what we know is going badly wrong.

For example,

In the Calgary Herald, an editorial writer argues that the HRCs still pose a threat to free expression in Canada. (Of course they still pose a threat! Lost in the hoopla over an acquittal is the grim fact that a civil servant could start t he horror all over again tomorrow by agreeing to hear another "complaint.")

Betty Ann Adam of the Canwest News Service reports on the prosecution of a Canadian Member of Parliament because an old householder brochure is believed by someone to have promoted racist ideas. So much for immunity of members of Parliament!

The Canadian Association of Journalists has demanded an end to the HRC tribunals' interference in a free press. Some might wonder why they didn't speak out more loudly a long time ago. But in a climate of accelerating fear, the Association must ask, how can we best serve our members?

The best way, it appears, is now to join the growing chorus demanding that the "human rights" commissioners - in advance of just being fired outright, en masse - stay away from media, which they should never have tried interfering with.

In Halifax, Paul Schneidereit of The ChronicleHerald points out that two local universities will host debates this week on the limits of free expression in Canada. That's good, because university campuses have increasingly become one of the least free areas of society across North America, due to speech codes, et cetera. Nothing like teaching the most intelligent young people that "Totalitarianism is fun and good for you!"

In The Edmonton Journal, Alexandra Zabjek explains Alan Borovoy's views on human rights commissions and free speech. Borovoy is the head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Well, honestly, I was quite unimpressed when I heard Borovoy and some others on this subject at a recent meeting in Toronto.

The well-meaning Borovoy created a monster. Most people who create monsters are well-meaning, but that doesn't mean that their creations are not monsters. As I have said earlier, shoot Borovoy's monster now.

Warren Kinsella - a former Liberal party adviser - has filed yet another lawsuit against free-speech activist Ezra Levant in Calgary. So far as I can see, lawsuits against free-speechers are increasingly a weapon of choice for the defenders of the "human rights" commissions. Levant discusses the details here.

Does any of this mean victory for intellectual freedom? Not at all, but it does mean that more people are realizing what loss of intellectual freedom will mean to them personally - and more and more light is being shed on anti-freedom activities in Canada. Stay tuned.

Hat tip to Franklin Carter of the Freedom of Expression Committee of the Book and Periodical Council of Canada.

Intellectual freedom in Canada: News roundup

Follow these links to stories below:

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Think together, stink together ... or sink together? Zerb vs. Blazing? All I know is, I don 't want anyone censoring either paper, in the interests of "human rights", "multiculturalism," "diversity," "fairness," or "localism." I prefer to read and decide for myself.

Intellectual freedom in Canada: McMaster University sues American journalist for reporting links to al Qaeda - meanwhile, McMaster jihadi is sentenced to 12 years

Intellectual freedom in Canada: It's what they don't want you to read that you had better read (Freedom to Read Week coming up)

Further quick notes

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

Intellectual freedom in Canada: At Erosion of Freedom hearings, senator grants immortality to freedom blogger Kathy Shaidle

Blogger Kathy “Five Feet of Fury” Shaidle has been immortalized in Hansard, the proceedings of the Senate of Canada, by Senator Eaton, who said (April 13, 2010),

It’s Canada’s “human rights commissions”, which would have struck George Orwell as being perfectly named.

These commissions were started with the best of intentions – to help the poor and the weak from being bullied out of a job or an apartment. But they have become censors, policing not death threats or incitement to violence, or any other real crime, but rather the fake crime of hurt feelings.

They have become what author Kathy Shaidle calls a “ Tyranny of Nice ”.

Eaton also poignantly remembers great moments in Canadian history, when freedom of speech was protected, for example,

In 1935, exactly a century after Howe’s acquittal, across the country in Alberta, William Aberhart became premier, and like the political elites of Howe’s Halifax, he found Alberta’s newspapers to be troublesome and offensive.

Aberhart’s election came in the face of nearly universal opposition by the newspapers of the day. By 1937, he was so frustrated that he introduced the Accurate News and Information Act, that required every newspaper in the province to run a rebuttal or a “correction or amplification” when ordered to do so by the government.

Alberta’s Lieutenant Governor refused to proclaim the law until the Supreme Court could assess its constitutionality; he was punished by being stripped of his official residence, car and staff. Even without that law, Aberhart prosecuted his war against the press. The Alberta Legislature ordered that a reporter for the Edmonton Journal, Don Brown, be jailed for misquoting a government back-bencher. Luckily, national ridicule caused the government to back down before they could arrest him.

In the spring of 1938, the Supreme Court ruled that Alberta’s Press Act was illegal, and that it violated Canada’s unwritten bill of rights – the same code of freedom that had protected Joseph Howe. And for its efforts in fighting against Aberhart’s censorship, the Edmonton Journal was awarded a special Pulitzer Prize, the first time the citation was awarded outside of the United States.

But, sometimes I wonder if Canada’s media has changed, somehow. Too many seem to want to suck up to government (if Liberal) or the Opposition (if Liberal), perhaps on the theory that falling circulation numbers will somehow be replaced with government grants. Yes, the government would own the newspaper - but in truth it already did.

Better still, Kathy Shaidle, the girl immortalized in the Senate hearings on the decline in freedom of speech, also turns out to be a member of a proposed “victim group,” the shicksa.

Seriously, however, there is a long and uphill road ahead. Successfully fighting off challenges and getting commended in the Senate are wonderful news. But they mean little in the long run.

The increasingly oppressive anti-free speech laws remain in place, defended by iron rice bowls. Meanwhile, many people must now settle into reduced lifestyle expectations. So there will be relentless pressure to expand the “victim” racket. And how many politicians can resist the votes? The only hope is for self-identified non-victims to simply oppose it all, hammer and tongs, and make our votes count too.

If we want to be free, let’s make the fact that we do not want money from government a strength, not a weakness.

See also: Intellectual freedom in Canada: In Toronto, Nazis are considered victims of “hate crimes” - no, really!

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Friends fear the comics won't dare be funny in ways that matter

Friends have warned me not to expect too much from Canada's comics' rally for freedom next Saturday night (in connection with late nite comic Guy Earle being charged by the BC Human Rights Tribunal because persons who heckled him claim to be "offended" by his response):

Key update:

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Charged comedian Guy Earle defends comics - but CHRC is watching him ...

One said, "Late nite comedy is nothing but oral sex jokes!

What? In a country with our politicians and bureaucrats?

If my friend turns out to be right, I am going to conclude that the comics in question get money from the government in return for not sending up anything that matters.

Another friend said, "It'll just be a bunch of Chimpy McBushitler jokes, one after another."

Again, if so, too bad. Chimpy McBushitler is NOT responsible for the decline in freedom of expression in Canada. He would be as likely as anyone to tell our nanny monsters to go do something interesting with themselves and not come back to tell the rest of us the details*.

If we can fix our local problems, we can say what we like about Chimpy. Otherwise, well, can we all spell L-A-M-E together?

Most worrying was the person who stated flatly, "They will not have the nerve to actually provoke the Commissions. Most are washed up lefties with a chip on their shoulder who take themselves way too seriously to be really funny."

Ah but friend, consider: Once the government is turning on the screws, comics have a good reason to take themselves seriously. Some of the world's best jokes originate in opposition to oppressive regimes. And the regime never has any comparable jokes to respond with either.

So I am hopeful and encourage all who can make it to pack the place:

COMICS FOR FREEDOM RALLY to be held at The Comedy Bar (945B Bloor West) on Saturday, July 19 in Toronto. Canadian Comic, Guy Earle, is holding a benefit show, celebrating 40 years of stand-up comedy, to raise money for his impending Human Rights Tribunal. Guy is being taken before the Human Rights Tribunal based on his comebacks to a heckler during a Vancouver comedy night back in May 2007.

The show is UNIQUE in its format. 40 comics will hit the stage for one minute of raw, uncensored social commentary. Stand-up is the embodiment of FREE SPEECH and this show personifies our right to speak while we still can. The show, on July 19th, starts at 9pm and tickets will be available before the show and at the door for 20$. Comics are invited to register for the show at www.guyearle.ca. Supporters for the cause are invited to come to the show or donate at the same homepage. Come one, Come all, but REMEMBER there WILL BE offensive language!

Policies I hope will be in place:

1. Talent scouts get priority seating. Forty comics. One show. Hey ...

2. Self-identified government sneaks and snitches get in free but their names and locations will be announced periodically.

3. Persons who suffer from chronic offendedness syndrome will be given special forms to complete, which will be mailed to the grievance agency of their choice, courtesy of the house - unless the washroom runs out of sanitary paper, in which case, ...

(*If the nanny monsters can't get anything else right, they won't get that right either, will they? And we can be absolutely sure, if they are involved, it won't be very funny either.)

Update:

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Charged comedian Guy Earle kindly writes to say,

In response to this post, hoping that the comedians at the laugh-in against the "human rights" commissions have the courage to be funny,

I defend my comedy from the stage. If people think I'm unfunny, shouldn't they see me perform before they pass judgement

I have been part of and seen HUNDREDS of amazing shows form coast to coast where REAL social commentary is being traded like precious stones. I haven't seen more ignorant hatred and unqualified statements than the ones that come from my detractors! they don't even know me or have seen me!

Losers, the whole whack of 'em

They don't know the first thing about comedy and should go f themselves!

But that's just me

Guy, for once it isn't just you. Lots of people are sick of the nanny monsters. Canadians are converging on that!

And in a followup note, Guy adds:

You gotta love people who criticize something they know nothing about. I think that has got to be my favorite ignorant thing.

I ain't no Carrottop. I do my blogging from the stage in real life.

In 3-D reality I express my opinions and I fight for a country that allows me to do it. I invite naysayers and skeptics but please be informed in your slander.

Come to my show, let me prove to you how unfunny I am. And while you are counting your bullets, waiting for me to get on the stage and be lame, take a look around the crowd and the performers... see a love of freedom that can only be felt in a Comedy Club (which doesn't exist in anywhere but the free world), feel proud that we can all be together despite our diversity and differences of opinions... If you feel it for one heartbeat, I have done my job.

Guy, in my view, you are doing a great job, making comedy relevant to our real problems in Canada. I look forward to your show.
All I ask of all the comics is, be both funny and relevant. Guy obviously is - otherwise he would not have been charged - now let's see what the rest of them do ...

By the way, I myself will sooner go to jail than become a snack for the nanny monsters. I am not asking you or anybody to do something I wouldn't do myself.

(Note: The image is from Dave Thomas's Instant Cast.)

See also: Let's LAUGH Canada's "human rights" commissions out of existence!

Open letter to comedian Guy Earle ... the latest to be charged by a Canadian "human rights"commission

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Mark Steyn, MacLean's acquitted

From Mark's blog:

Steyn Today
Friday, 10 October 2008
CANADA vs FREE SPEECHFREE AT LAST! (pending appeal)Their Marsupial Majesties at the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal have dismissed El-Mo's complaint against Maclean's and voted unanimously to acquit the hatemongers:

[(full monster ruling here)]

The panel has concluded that the complaints are not justified because the complainants have not established that the Article is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt on the basis of their religion. Therefore, pursuant to s. 37(1) the complaints are dismissed.

We'll post the full ruling as soon as we can (the piece of wet string holding together New Hampshire's Third World Internet service fell down down during the night so we have a few technical problems). I'll be discussing the verdict later today after 6.30pm Mountain Time with Rob Breakenridge on 770 CHQR Calgary.

Here's the National Post story.

This is good news, but it is NOT a solution. Canadian journalists and publishers must not be dragged through kangaroo courts - in which civil liberties mean nothing - just because someone is offended by something they wrote.

Essentially all that happened was that they woke up and blinked when they realized that they were no longer trampling mere "little people." They may need to back off for a bit, plan their attack strategy better. That is as much of a victory for civil rights as Canada can manage at this time.

The view from O'Leary:

For what it is worth, Mark Steyn said little more or different re Islamic extremists than Phillip Longman has said about Christian fundamentalists and Mormons. (They have more kids, so their influence will grow ... ) See also Shoot Borovoy's Monster Now.

Will it? That is a contestable - and contested - argument, to be sure. For one thing, it has always been true that religious people had more kids. If that changed the political landscape, North America would long ago have evolved into a theocracy, but it hasn't.

The useful discussion would be why it hasn't, not wasting a lot of time, money and grief on tribunals and commissions trying to police thought.

Here's Deborah Gyapong of the Parliamentary Press Gallery

The good news is that more Canadians are waking up.

Here's way more Steyn Maclean's trial feedback than your betters want you to know, courtesy FreeMarkSteyn.

Update EST 3:09 PM: Here's the press release from the publishers of The Tyranny of Nice:

MARK STEYN NOT GUILTY OF "FLAGRANT ISLAMOPHOBIA," SAYS TRIBUNAL AUTHORS OF NEW BOOK ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS CALL VERDICT THE EXCEPTION WITHIN A SYSTEM STACKED AGAINST THE ACCUSED

TORONTO (October 10, 2008) -- Today, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal handed down a not-guilty verdict in the case of Maclean's magazine and its columnist Mark Steyn. The case, prompted by charges of "flagrant Islamophobia" made against Steyn and Maclean's by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), focused critical attention on Canada's controversial Human Rights Commissions.

Today, the Tribunal ruled that Mark Steyn and Maclean's did not violate the human rights of the complainants merely by reporting facts and accurately quoting sources.

The Steyn trial, along with other lesser known but equally troubling cases, are chronicled in the new book The Tyranny of Nice: How Canada crushes freedom in the name of human rights, written by Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere. Authors Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere commented today on the verdict in the Steyn & Maclean's case:

"Unfortunately, this decision is only a partial victory for Mark Steyn, Maclean's magazine and every other writer and publisher in Canada. This Kafkaesque trial cost taxpayers dearly, while many Canadians struggle to make ends meet.

"More importantly, it cost Canada its international reputation as a free, just and tolerant country. While Steyn and Maclean's won, most defendants are found guilty; the HRCs boast of a nearly 100% rate of conviction. We can only hope that this case and all the others chronicled in our book will help make the continued existence of Canada's out of control, draconian Human Rights Commissions an issue in the coming federal election.

"If elected Prime Minister, what will Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton or Elizabeth May do to rein in the powers of human rights commissions and protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press?"

CONTACT:

Kathy Shaidle (co-author): kshaidle@rogers.com

Pete Vere (co-author): petevere@msn.com

Further comments:

Pundita says: When the Maclean's hearing began in B.C. I observed something to the effect that what happened in the hearing room would help decide the course of Western civilization. The remark must have seemed laughable to people who were unfamiliar with the issues. If they've read The Tyranny of Nice I doubt they're laughing now: [...]"

Also: Want Nice? Move to Canada and give up on human dignity, okay? Free speech and intellectual freedom: Some thoughts Oops, a political party has actually noticed the problem. Political science profs nervous about coming here.

Note also further reports from Further reports from Reuters, the CBC, The National Post, The Vancouver Sun and CTV, plus comment from Andrew Coyne, Mark Hemingway, Michelle Malkin, The Weekly Standard, the Canadian Arab Federation, Hot Air, Jay Currie, Stage Left, Deborah Gyapong, The Western Standard, the Hyacinth Girl, Scaramouche, and Kathy Shaidle & Pete Vere, with more at Free Mark Steyn! And there's never been a better day to pick up a copy of The Tyranny Of Nice.

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Go to jail to protect your sources? Maybe you will have to.

Journalists have no constitutional right to protect confidential sources at all costs, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last Friday.

The court ruled 8-1 against the National Post and reporter Andrew McIntosh who sought to quash a search warrant issued in the Shawinigate affair almost a decade ago.

The news is not all bad. Here’s Canadian Journalists for Free Expression on the case:

The court case involved the National Post and former Post reporter Andrew McIntosh and revolved around a search warrant issued almost ten years ago to McIntosh demanding that he turn over to the police an envelope he received from a confidential source. McIntosh refused, believing that he would not be able to protect the confidentiality of his source in doing so, and so the case went to court. The document contained in the envelope is now believed to have been a forgery and is considered to be of some significance as it appeared to implicate former Prime Minister Jean Chretien in a financial conflict of interest.

The first ruling was a victory for the Post and McIntosh, but was later reversed by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court's decision today gave some new protection to the journalists/source relationship, but still maintains that the onus remains on the media to prove that the injury would be greater than the benefit involved in disclosure. CJFE along with 10 other free expression and media organizations had intervened in the case, and we had hoped that this onus would be reversed.

"Although not a win for the National Post on the facts of the case, this decision is the strongest statement yet by our courts as to the basis on which the law protects journalists' confidential sources," said Phil Tunley, lawyer and member of CJFE's board. "It establishes the analytical balance that must now be applied by all our courts in any legal proceedings to set that protection aside."

However, the Canadian Association of Journalists is profoundly disappointed:

The Supreme Court ruled this morning that former National Post reporter Andrew McIntosh must give police documents leaked to him while he was investigating the Shawinigate affair. RCMP intend to conduct forensic tests on the documents and the envelope they came in to determine who McIntosh's source is and whether the source leaked forged documents intended to discredit former Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

"This is a significant blow to every journalist's ability to protect whistleblowers who come forward with information that's in the public interest," said CAJ President Mary Agnes Welch. "We fear this will have a profound chilling effect."

The CAJ was part of a coalition of media organizations including the Canadian Newspaper Association, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, Ad IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association and many others that had intervenor status in the case.

One benefit is clarification of what the Supreme Court thinks the law should say. A great difficulty in Canada and a number of other countries has been lack of clarity. Every judge her own Solomon is not the solution either. One problem for media is that, like serious Christians and Jews, they are a minority, and often one that is disliked, so even if this ruling silences whistle-blowers, no outrage will follow. Too many people will just decide to keep their mouths shut about whatever happened.

A number of media weighed in, of course: CBC News, CTV News, Kirk Makin of The Globe and Mail, Shannon Kari of the National Post (also timeline of the Shawinigate affair), Canadian Press,
Tonda MacCharles of the Toronto Star, Janice Tibbetts of the CanWest News Service

Thanks to Franklin Carter at the Book and Periodical Council's Freedom of Expression Committee.

For more intellectual freedom in Canada news, jump to Intellectual freedom in Canada: Everybody saw Mohammed, it seems

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Freedom does not evolve. It revolts!

Do you read this blog only for news on the intelligent design controversy?

Then please bear with my "intellectual freedom in Canada" posts. We are fighting a pitched battle here for intellectual freedom, and so far we are winning.

Freedom does not evolve. It revolts!

So, if regular programming is interrupted by "news from Canada", -as it often has been - scroll a bit. You will find the usual intelligent design controversy news to which this blog was originally dedicated - and to which it will constantly return.

I love my country, and - like many bloggers - I am determined to defeat the grievance hustlers who are deforming it.

Recently, I wrote about the possible attack on Toronto Life magazine for describing the death of sixteen-year-old Aqsa Parvez as an alleged "honour killing." Her father and brother have been charged with murder.

Now, historic Maclean's Magazine (December 1, 2008), a veteran of the free speech wars, has weighed in:

Reaction to the use of the term "honour killing" has been fierce. Feminist and Islamic groups even organized a press conference to denounce the magazine. Their argument is that Aqsa's death should be seen as an example of domestic violence rather than connected in any way to the specific cultural aspects of her home life.

[ ... ]

The Oxford English Dictionary just added honour killing to its word collection last year. And its definition - "the killing of a (usually female) relative perceived to have brought dishonour upon the family, associated especially with certain cultures in which familial honour is of paramount importance" - appears to fit the alleged circumstances of Aqsa's murder. Like date rape, honour killing adds to our understanding of a situation where the generic term "domestic violence" does not.

Yes, exactly. Phrases like "mob hit," "assassination," "date rape," and "honour killing" put us in the picture. Good for Maclean's for joining the resistance to the speech police, before things get any worse.

Also: Here's Jonathan Kay on Steve Janke, an apparent victim of a SLAPP suit (= a strategic lawsuit against public participation).

We really need a way of stopping people from using lawsuits as a way of preventing new media from disseminating news. One critical weakness of new media is that we are small, low-budget operations - and it's probably better that we stay that way. But SLAPP makes that difficult.

And Ezra Levant on "The Jewish Exemption" notes that he continues to publish, as a Jew, material that got a Christian a lifetime communication ban in Canada's province of Alberta.

In the entire history of section 13, stretching back to 1977, not one single Jew, Muslim or gay has been taken before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by the CHRC.

Not one.

Gentle reader, do you really think that not one single Jew has uttered hate speech in 31 years? I'll answer that for you: I published hate speech on my own web -- I published Rev. Boissoin's comments. I know that's hate speech, because both the Alberta HRC and the CHRC said so.

Do you really think that not a single Muslim radical, or Sikh radical, or Tamil radical, has uttered hate speech in 31 years?

Don't be ridiculous. But Lynch's McCarthyist inquisition has never gone after those. 100% of the CHRC's targets have been white, Christian or conservative.

And, of course, the conviction rate before the tribunal has been 100%.

This is not the rule of law. This is not a real court. The CHRC are not lawful prosecutors. They are rogues -- corrupt rogues, ...

Ezra, it's even worse. Look back at this: Apparently Muslim girls rank right down there with white, male Christians as people who simply don't count. Their deaths are not important; people split hairs about the terms we are permitted to use to describe their deaths.

Isn't that just what Muslim girls who live with violent, oppressive, and possessive male relatives need? - a fuss over terminology!

No, Aqsa deserved better from us, but the best we can do now is: NEVER AGAIN.

For lots more free speech and "No more fascism!" stories, go to Free Mark Steyn. And thanks to all generous PayPal donors.

Canadian intellectual freedom news roundup: (If you don't think that intellectual freedom in Canada matters, why are you even reading The Post-Darwini

Surprisingly, intellectual freedom in Canada is still percolating.

The book that Pete Vere of Soo Today and Kathy "Five Feet of Fury" Shaidle are writing on the collapse of civil rights in Canada is soon to appear. Its title is The Tyranny of Nice, which means it will rip off the veils created by legacy Canadian media, including Christian media.

I will provide information on how to buy it as soon as I have same.

Meanwhile, here is a link to Vere's interview on Joe Banister's "We the People" radio show (August 16, 2008) . The idea, "We the People" sounds so American. Perhaps Americans do not live only to support the government and its current advisors and pets, as we do.

But here in Canada our government is not the only problem. Canadian Christians are a big part of the problem.

I have written a summary of the situation here in the September/October edition of SEVEN Magazine. For example,

One outcome of the commissions targeting media has been limited information from traditional sources about their activities. Critical information is now disseminated through the blogosphere and on YouTube. Most of the “Freespeechers,” who lead the fight for restoring traditional law to media, are blogger journalists. Ezra Levant videotaped his interrogation and posted it on YouTube. Hundreds of thousands of people have already watched it. The commissions have responded by dropping some of the most egregious charges.

[ ... ]

Most seasoned observers do not consider these developments simply positive. The commissions are free to resume their activities against anonymous citizens once the furor around high-profile accuseds dies. The single biggest challenge is one that astonishes American observers—the apparent indifference of most Canadian Christians to the individuals who are targeted, even though so many of them are Christians.

Yes, it's true! Fatuous hollering for Jesus is apparently all that is required of a Christian in Canada nowadays. Not justice, not mercy, not social responsibility. Just fatuous hollering for Jesus somewhere.

Unbelievably, the Canadian Church Press has been conflicted about whether to speak out about the attacks on Christian media and Christian or Jewish journalists.

And they celebrated their 50th anniversary in 2007. I would rather there not be a 100th, if they continue as they are.

I have been an associate member for many years but there is only so much cowardice I can deal with.

Catholic Insight has been charged again, as has civil rights lawyer Ezra Levant (for operating a blog about the collapse of civil rights).

Remember, Canada no longer has a normal Western world system of justice. So anyone, anywhere can decide that their rights have been violated. And for all practical purposes, defendants can be charged again and again indefinitely for the same offense. Even if the defendant who allegedly violated someone's rights manages to get cleared, with loss of life savings, the nightmare can start all over tomorrow.

Meanwhile, various state functionaries live very well indeed. And those who would get on in the world will doubtless join their numbers speedily.

Also, Deborah Gyapong has posted on the current "human rights" demand that Ontario doctors forego all conscience rights in dealing with their patients. First doctors and then everyone else, of course.


Here's The Ottawa Citizen's David Warren on this topic:

But a much more significant advance has now been proposed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, to bring the tyranny of “political correction” to bear on its own membership. As usual, the process was being advanced in the dark, away from the possibility of public discussion -- and was only pried open in the course of the last week when a large number of physicians, surgeons, and even politicians found out about it.

As I’ve written before, the “human rights” revolution that has been sweeping through Canada’s law schools and legal establishment, depends on an Orwellian inversion of the term, “human rights.” For human rights were traditionally conceived as the individual’s legal and moral resort against the arbitrary power of unaccountable organizations. In the new, inverted definition, “human rights” become a device by which unaccountable organizations may crush that individual. “Human rights” have been ideologized, and collectivized. They now belong to groups, exclusively, and include principally the right not to be “offended” by the existence of an individual with a mind of his own.

The part that bothers me the most is the silence/whinging of most Christian leaders.

Honestly, they weren't always like this. (But - equally honestly - they have been like this for a long time.)

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Libel chill: “Will you have ice in that think?”

Franklin Carter, at the Book and Periodical Council's Freedom of Expression Committee, writes me news re public and private censorship of books and periodicals. Today’s topic is libel chill.

Franklin notes that

The threat of legal action from mining giant Barrick Gold has forced Vancouver-based Talonbooks to postpone publication of a book about the Canadian mining industry.

Publisher Karl Siegler calls it a clear case of "libel chill" by one of Canada's largest mining companies.

CBC News reports, “[Publisher] Siegler described Imperial Canada as an examination of the political, legal and banking environment that has led 70 per cent of the world's mining companies to register in Canada.

... The letter gave Talonbooks seven days to hand over the manuscript of the book, which was in the process of being translated from French to English.

"We ignored it initially," Siegler said in an interview Wednesday with CBC Radio's Q cultural affairs show.

"As far as we were concerned, they had no right to demand or see copies of manuscripts that were in development prior to their public release. Anyone working on a book has a right to privacy and should not be subject to this kind of supervision."

But after receiving a legal letter, the translators immediately stopped work on the book. Siegler consulted a lawyer, who told him if he proceeded with the book, he could face years in court fighting an opponent with very deep pockets.

"Everyone involved stood to lose millions of dollars," Siegler said. "In the publisher's case, we stood to lose not just the company but all of the titles we have in print, roughly 500 titles dating back to the 1960s, many of which are Canadian classics."

In Quill & Quire, Stuart Woods updates: “Talonbooks president Kevin Williams has told Q&Q that the company is receiving pro bono legal representation from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and hopes to resume work on the manuscript for Imperial Canada soon.”

The safest conclusion to draw, in my view, is that those who engage in libel chill have a bad case. I wouldn’t normally pay much attention to Imperial Canada, but now I really must have one.

Just think! If everyone did as I plan to do, libel chill would become a much costlier strategy. Anticipated sales would both stiffen the publisher’s backbone and give the chiller pause.

Thanks to Franklin Carter at the Book and Periodical Council's Freedom of Expression Committee.

Next: Intellectual freedom in Canada: “No Bad Bunnies for YOU, kid! Just “How Good Little Girls Learn to Say Correct Things”

Write! Canada coverage highlights intellectual freedom risks, troubles of book industry

Publicity from Write! Canada 2008, which ended two Saturdays ago, is humming along, and I see where Lloyd Mackey kindly quoted me at some length at Christianity.com, on the "human rights commissions" (= the Nanny Monster), and on the publishing climate in Canada in general,

Noting that Canada's 26-year-old Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees "freedom of thought, conscience and belief," O'Leary suggested that concept is "slowly being eroded by the 'human rights' system -- which I call the 'human' face of fascism."

While "those who seek to undermine intellectual freedom in Canada aim very frequently (but not only) at Christians," she maintained the aim of such people is to consolidate "their own power over society."

Tackling some of the recent practical challenges to Christian book writing and publishing, O'Leary pointed out that the market "is increasingly restricted to people who approach a publisher with a guaranteed existing audience . . . Securing an audience in advance has become a key task for the writer."

Her comments reflected an underlying current of concern at the conference, attended by some 200 writers, journalists and authors from across Canada.

The concern was predicated by the shutdown of the Canadian arm of the Christian Booksellers' Association one year ago, as well as the closure of close to 20 bookstores nationwide in the Blessings and Christian Publications chains earlier this year.

Here's the whole talk. Whatever else we do, let's maintain the current of concern (and ramp it up plenty). But we must not, under any circumstances, turn it into a "culture of concern," thus merely adding to the number of professional busybodies undermining the timbers of our society.

You know, people who can't write who presume to judge writers, people who can't publish or sell books and magazines, who would lord it over publishers and booksellers, all in the guise of "human rights."

As I have written elsewhere, Canada is rotten with this kind of Commission creep. But it is very encouraging to see how many good citizens, coming from a variety of perspectives, are starting to get the big picture and speak out.

The book cover above is of Hot Apple Cider, introduced at the conference - an anthology of some of the best Canadian Christian writing in recent years. It would make a great gift, especially for someone new to Canada or just visiting. Plus, you are helping the Resistance fight the Nanny Monster. Christian writers don't get money from the government for shutting up.

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Cautious, bullet-headed progress = steady gains

I've been way late blogging on intellectual freedom issues in Canada, due to the illness of a family member - and not for lack of interest.

An American friend wrote to wonder what was happening here in Canada, due to this distressing incident, where The Netherlands had decided to prosecute Geert Wilders over his film Fitna. (Here's the Globe and Mail on the story.) Interestingly, a Muslim for whom I have a great deal of respect says that - while he thinks Fitna hate literature - he doesn't think it should be banned.

No, of course not. Atheists calling for a ban on religious books are nothing new and not even important - unless angry believers make them so.

No doubt they wish that their books sold as well as books that offer hope, but they never have and never will.

Look, that's just the way life is. Something about the difference between hope and despair, if you like.

Wake me up when any large group of people think that the works of, say, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins are of more significance than the Bible or the Koran.

Oh wait, don't bother. Get your sleep, fella, and get to work on time.

So I replied to my American friend:

Canada is a bit more robust than you might suppose.

Ninety-nine percent of the Conservative Party – at the last convention – voted to wipe the floor with the infamous Section 13 (used to suppress dissent), prior to throwing it out.

Also, the Islamists did not win a single anti-intellectual freedom case last year, and Ken “I’d rather go bankrupt” Whyte was named newsperson of the year for successfully resisting their demands.

He accepted the award on behalf of the free speech blogosphere, dedicating to:

... that particular part of the blogosphere that got engaged in these human rights complaints. I can’t name them all but individuals like Ezra Levant, Jay Currie, Kathy Shaidle, among others, discovered and disseminated a lot of alarming information about the operations of human rights commissions and the decisions of their tribunals. The debate got pretty messy on both sides as it went along, but these people prodded the newspapers and the public to question the advisability of allowing unaccountable, politicized, and rather slipshod commissions to interfere with one of our most precious liberties. Along with Mark Steyn, who wrote a lot about the case, they did a great service to Canadian journalism in 2008. I’m deeply grateful for their support—it was shaping up as a lonely fight until the bloggers got involved. They’re the ones who really deserve this award so I consider myself to be accepting it on their behalf.

Rightly so.

My sense is, here in Canada, more people all the time are getting pulled into the battle. I've learned, for example, that the government is now examining infamous Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. Civil rights lawyer Ezra Levant discusses the pros and cons of such an examination - as opposed to just firing all government-funded weasels now - here.

But here is what I think is the most important news (or non-news, if you like): The opposition Liberals are NOT trying to curry favour by claiming they’ll suppress more people, because they know that that is not popular around here.

There is a lot of rot in our system, to be sure, but “death to you and yours” marches through the streets of Toronto are unattractive to just about everybody. It's too bad about the Middle East, but this isn't the Middle East. (In fact, we are currently overwhelmed by enormous piles of very unMiddle Eastern dirty snow, here to stay for months .... )

That said ... our legendary low crime rate is a key sales feature for our city - really good for business - and most of us aim to keep it that way. And we will too.

By the way, my friend Kathy Shaidle is speaking in London, Ontario, January 29, 2009, with the excellent columnist and political scientist Salim Mansur:

Westmount Public Library, 3200 Wonderland Road South Thursday, January 29th, 7:00 to 9:00 pm (doors open at 6:30)
$10.00, $5.00 for students and seniors

Hey, if you are in the area, please go and wish them well.

Still, just when things seem to be going so well in Canada, a truly weird thing happened in the United States. Just inaugurated president Obama singled out a commentator, Rush Limbaugh, for criticism.

As I pointed out to friends:

Obama is commander-in-chief of the biggest army on Earth.

Of what army is Rush Limbaugh commander?

Yeah, crickets chirp. Just like I thought.

I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh, but I perhaps I should start now.

Rot.

I have never wanted to bother with Rush Limbaugh - believing, (rightly or wrongly), that I have better uses for my time.

But if the President of the United States has raised the stakes ...

It's totally inappropriate for someone in O's position to even NOTICE people like Limbaugh - assuming Limbaugh is not planning sedition - and in that case, should the President happen to hear of it, surely he would send it down to a much LOWER office to deal with.

Any police officer can deal with sedition (with appropriate counsel from the police lawyers, of course ... ).

So what gives here? Now?

Maybe the Canadian "human rights" crowd can all get jobs in the States now, after we evict them all here?

Anyway, are you a journalist? A hack? Make your living via your word processor? Then here is an organization you should join soon - the International Free Press Society:

Look, bunnies. There is no point in a press if it is not a free press. It is just more public relations for the powers that be.

And lastly, before signing off, I must sadly report the death of British writer John Mortimer, creator of the wonderful comic character, Rumpole of the Bailey.

Mortimer was a longtime advocate of freedom of expression.

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Honouring our heroes

Most of the dead tree (and dying generally) media in Canada ignored the civil rights story of the year - of course.

Mark Steyn, Ken Whyte, and Ezra Levant fought back against the Establishment's "daft tyranny of zero expectations" - and WON.

Free speech - 1
Tyrants - 0

The "human rights" commissions backed down.

That should encourage those who are wondering whether intellectual freedom is worth fighting for. Indeed, it is!

Ezra Levant is also The Interim’s Person of the Year. Here is Mark Steyn’s comment,

Ezra has been the indisputable man in the battle against the “human rights” racket. I’ve been happy to coast along, but he’s doing the heavy lifting. I’m Dean Martin to his Jerry Lewis: he’s doing all the work and I feed him the occasional line.

Shortly after this thing started, I had lunch with a journalistic bigshot in Montreal who advised me to play it cool – don’t respond to interview requests, don’t take a stand, let these suits work their way through as if it’s some legalistic technicality in which you have no particular investment. And at a fancy Quebecois restaurant, that seemed like good advice. Then Ezra posted his interrogation video and I understood that my friend’s advice was all wrong and that Ezra’s strategy was right. Go nuclear. “Denormalize” them. Expose them for what they are – hacks at best and, at worst, deeply corrupt thugs. Ezra is like one of those shower settings where the merest nudge of the dial whacks it straight from nothing to a scalding torrent – which in a moribund public discourse such as Canada’s is what it takes.

Denormalize them? Find out more on how to do that here.

Not a Canadian? Don't be deterred. The Canadian method might work in YOUR country too! It is a peaceful method. It is/should be legal.

All you need do is ask your relatives, friends and neighbours, should a government agency have all these powers, listed, against a citizen? If not, should we try to help or rescue people ensnared by the system? Look at this specific case ...

We have nothing to lose but the creeping Nanny State, and nothing could be better lost.

If all your relatives, friends, and neighbours think that something like Section 13 is NOT okay - come to Canada!

Contrary to most of the Western world, we are in good economic shape!

Are you sane? Literate? Fit to work? Don't have a grievance you feel you must act out violently? Far too proud to live at public expense?

Come north, come north, we want to hear from you! Hey, what's not to love about a country like this? See how big we are. Consider the opportunities!

We have everything here except year round warm weather. Okay, we have lots of cold/really cold/cold weather ALERT! weather.

Today in Toronto, I fell into several snow drifts. But falling into a snow drift is way different from falling into a pile of rocks. It feels fuzzy for a moment, and then you just get up. It's okay, really.

And, back to civil rights issues - a battle we are winning - in my view, Ezra's opening statement, beginning, My name is Ezra Levant reads like a Magna Carta for Canada- a way out of the fog of our growing Nanny State tyranny.

Steyn continues,

One thing that was confirmed to me this last year is that the incessant media self-congratulation about journalistic “courage” is in inverse proportion to any mustering of the real thing. It took Ezra going nuclear, going bananas, going medieval on Jennifer Lynch’s totalitarian ass to rouse the great dopey herd of conventional wisdom even to take notice of this issue sufficiently to move the debate one smidgeonette in the direction of sanity. I forget who it was who said that Canadians weren’t going to put up with some blowhard going crazy over “their” beloved “human rights” commissions, but they got it exactly wrong. Let’s take it as read that Ezra is everything his detractors say he is – a blowhard, loudmouth, self-promoter, a “controversy entrepreneur,” etc. If he weren’t a blowhard, loudmouth, whatever, he wouldn’t have been so spectacularly successful in his “denormalization” of Canada’s “human rights” commissions.

Media in Canada who are not foursquare in Ezra's camp on this matter are merely helping us understand why they are on the way out.

Indeed, I have broken all ties with one prominent writers’ organization because of its cowardly refusal to join the battle - because its real agenda seems to be of alms from the government. The group is a cultural icon, but its culture is welfare.

Look, if you can't make a living as a writer without alms from government, you can't make a living as a writer. Your local coffee shop is probably hiring. Don't pretend to be a writer and thus spoil things for the rest of us, who really need intellectual freedom, not a government cheque.

While we are here, if some Islamist group tries to get Toronto Life magazine and writer Mary Rogan charged with a "human rights" offence, for the use of the term “honour killing” in Rogan's article on the alleged murder of local teen Aqsa Parvez, I wonder how many alleged feminists and human rights activists will line up to denouce the mag instead of defending it. To say nothing of Official Canadian Writers weaseling out.

While you are here anyway: Aqsa was buried, originally, in an unmarked grave but good citizens have raised money for a proper headstone commemorating her short life.

I am both glad and ashamed to say that, by the time I was able to offer meager funds, the required sum had already been raised. I pray there will be no difficulty in simply allowing Aqsa's resting place to be commemorated in the usual way. In the Catholic tradition, proper burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy, regardless of the presumed state of belief or lack thereof of the deceased person. It is what we do as a civilized people.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: