Stillman awakes.

Hue and Cry.

The Attorney General has submitted this defence of the CHRC to the constitutional challenge made by Marc Lemire. The government is defending this:

Hate messages

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The defence of the Canadian Human Rights act is a declaration of war on the citizenry and its right to free speech. The arguments in defence are riddled with factual errors, popular myths, and false conclusions. It is nothing short of a work of leftist propaganda. The authors in the office of the Attorney General are either propagandist closet crypto-fascists or simply retards who signed this document in their own drool. Either way they should be removed from the crown’s pay role immediately. Furthermore, their attack on freedom of speech certainly exposes the legal profession to “hatred or contempt” so perhaps they should be put before the CHRC for this spirited defence of soft fascism and leftist stupidity.

That people should be protected from hatred or contempt in any form is laughable. Perhaps they should go talk to someone about their self esteem issues instead of crying to the government. Let’s have a look at the problems with section 13.

A. It drives opinion underground where it can not be confronted and debated allowing it to take root. Nazism was pushed underground by the Weimar republic. It was hurt so badly it came to power. As did Communism in many countries.

B. There is no clause that makes an exception for truth. I may speak the truth, but still be guilty! Is this the USSR?

C. The speech is very loosely defined. This allows too much room to manoeuvre for the commissions. Hate speech is whatever they want it to be.

The case made by the Attorney General relies on the “reasonable limit” clause attached to free speech in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is one of the huge flaws of the Charter. The reasonable limit was not well defined and consequently it has come to invalidate the “free speech” supposedly protected by the charter. To a right-thinking democratic individual a reasonable limit would be something along the lines of:

A. “Shouting fire in a crowded theatre.”

B. Incitement to commit a criminal offence.

C. Libel

Certainly not something vaguely defined as exposing some poor sod to “hate or contempt.” What if the hatred or contempt is deserved like in the case of the NDP — or CBC sitcoms? In a free society people must be free to be offensive and offended.

Over the next few days I will need to properly digest the Attorney General’s document. However, this much is clear. It is 50 pages of leftist tripe and an all-out attack on our basic rights and as Mark Steyn says “800 years of Canadian legal inheritance.” This reasonable limit is already being used by some homosexuals to attack freedom of religion. It is being used to attack political comment in newspapers and magazines. It is being used to gag the people. This is being done in your name.

Write your MP.