Barrel Strength

Two interesting points came up in today’s edition of PrimeTime Politics on CPAC:

1. Pollster Nik Nanos reports that Canadians rate Stephen Harper as the most competent leader over Stéphane Dion by a factor of more than three to one.
2. In an interview with Environment Minister John Baird, Peter van Dusen notes that his previous guest, Elmer Fudd sound-alike John McCallum, warned that his party’s carbon tax proposal was not a tax on gasoline.

Now, let’s see: a leader who is not perceived by most voters as a competent manager entertains an election plank that would vastly increase oil and coal-based energy prices for Canadians, all while Ontario’s economy is reeling from high energy costs for its industries. So his greatest concern is that his minions do not suggest a hike in gas taxes is coming. Instead, he sticks with his master plan of swinging the death blow to the economy of the most vote-rich province in Canada.

Wow.

I took a course in communications law at the University of Ottawa last year. As is usual in such courses, we had to deliver a class on a topic of our choice. One young man in the class gave his lecture on “freedom of speech”, contrasting Canada and the United States. He dismissed it as “an American concept”, alien to the concept of controlled speech which we have in Canada. He cited leftist, feminist professors of law; he repeated their views in the communications law class. I questioned him. When it got down to it, he frankly admitted that he did not trust the people of Canada to defend the right values, he had more trust in the Supreme Court and the specialized institutions of human rights commissions and state-subsidized Court Challenges program than in the electoral process and in Parliament. I told him a brilliant future awaited him in the Liberal Party. I thought him a scoundrel, another fatuous leftist whose only virtue was fthe frankness with which he disdained elected governments. He considered himself a “progressive”.

So when Mark Steyn went on Steve Paikin’s show last night, I considered the nature of the three young Canadians who are arguing with him about their rights. They are all lawyers. They are all Muslims. They seemed, from how they argued and what they said, to have learned their law from the same sources as my classmate.

Steve Paikin had to maintain peace between Steyn and his young Muslim contenders, and at times the show descended into everyone shouting at once. What was clear to me, was that the kids - I am at the age I will call them that - were unpreprared to discuss the fundamentals. One of their arguments was that, since the Human Rights Commissions are not criminal in nature, Steyn mischaracterized them when he said he had been subject to “criminal” prosecution. As if going to jail, being forced to pay a fine, and enduring years of state subsidized prosecution is somehow made better because it is not “criminal”? Well, can we agree it is prosecution for heresy?

The basis of their objection to Steyn was that they had been offended, and wanted MacLean’s to give them a mutually agreeable amount and type of rejoinder. Steyn pointed out that they had had exposure in seven Canadian major newspapers to make their point.

Paikin finally asked the question of them: do you have a right not to be offended? And apparently all the young Muslim lawyers can think about is how offended they have a right to be. They have been educated in Supreme Court rulings that have sustained the Human Rights Commission’s prosecutions of neo-Nazis. For them, there is no cultural experience of the Human Rights Commissions and hate-speech prosecutions as an exceptional novelty. This is the Canada they grew up in. They have no recollection of the Canada that existed before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982. When Steyn talks of Trudeaupia, he is referring to a reality that I perceived last night in the attitudes of these young Muslim lawyers. I found it deeply disturbing that they were incapable of discussing the real issues - objective facts about demographics - which lead to the apprehensions we all have about the future of western societies.

Does it matter whether the take-over is peaceful or violent, in the great scheme of things? Would it be better if it were peaceful? Would it make a difference? From what perspective? From whose? The debate was not engaged.

I saw three young Canadian lawyers, accidentally Muslims, and essentially people whose sense of entitlement is so vast they would crush free speech in this country and not even know what they were doing. I have seen too many young lawyers, white, brown, you-name-it, who have no idea whatever of our pre-Trudeau British constitutional freedoms and responsibilities, and no concern that they are so ignorant. All they want is a Supreme Court and Liberal government appointing the judges. Then they and their kind can rule us forever without interference from Parliamentary institutions. Our law schools are failing us. The Sock Puppets are altogether typical of what modern Canadian legal education is producing. Thank God for Steyn for bringing them up short.

Because it would the equally tasteless gesture in response to the “get-well” brickbat tossed by the lovely and intelligent Elizabeth Thompson of the Montreal Gazette at the ailing Sandra Buckler, hospitalized for thyroid cancer surgery.

Kudos to Right From Alberta for catching this Great Canadian™ in flagrante redacto, sloppily covering her tracks.

Update:

And full laurels to Dr. Roy Eappen for taking the Gazette to task with both fervour and expert knowledge of the situation. Well done, Dr. Roy!

UPDATE: It’s back! Click and enjoy!

Direct link to video on Youtube

Alas! The IP Lawyers probably saw that the long excerpt from a German version of Hitler’s last days in the bunker offended “fair use”. That is the most charitable interpretation I can give. The subtitles in English had nothing to do with the bunker, of course. They were a completely accurate rendition of the facts in the Warman-Jadewarr-Barabara Hall-CHRC imbroglios. Anyone with the source of this parodic film, please let me know ehere it can be found. It is too precious to be lost.

Can it be that the absence from Canada of Stephen Harper has led the government into a public opinion debacle akin to the collapse of a Third World regime when the caudillo lingers too long at some international summit?

We have the response to Elections Canada’s singularly peculiar and aggressive tactics on the “in-and-out” tempest handled by walking forty-watt bulbs in the personae of Ryan Sparrow and Pierre Poilievre, one orchestrating a media clusterfuck unparalleled in memory and the other having his arse handed to him by a normally sympathetic radio host.

I know Stephen Harper to be both shrewd and profound. But we are at a point where the conventions of tribal loyalty and gut instinct must be balanced against the looming reality of a fruitless battlefield. Harper must get full rein on the situation: a clear defensible line of argument must be set down and heads must roll — period. Nothing less will regain the confidence of the Canadian electorate.

Get it done, Prime Minister!

Notes for a eulogy, Monday April 21st, 2008, Smiths Falls, Ontario

Doug never needed one of these [a script] because Doug was always himself. He never pretended to be anything he wasn’t, and you always knew where you stood with him. In a very real sense, what he said was what he thought. What you saw was what you got. I’ll tell you what I saw 36 years when I arrived in Germany to work with Doug at the Forces radio station in Lahr. I saw a hippie. He had a full beard, hair down to his shoulders, and a leather cowboy hat. He even had a Volkswagen van. It was a pleasant surprise to learn that Doug the hippie was also Doug, the very serious professional broadcaster. He taught all of us a lot.

Doug was the best coach the Ottawa Senators never had. He would have made a great general manager too. When the phone rang after a particularly rough period of hockey, I always knew it was Douglas, but I never knew what he was going to say. It was always interesting and insightful. He knew the game of hockey. We weren’t happy about this season at all.

Doug was always after me to take up golf, and I always resisted. He was very patient with me, and he probably thought that if he waited long enough, it would happen. Well, at least one of us waited a little too long. I think it was me. I know I would have enjoyed it. I know I would have had lots and lots of free advice.

The only time he ever got a little boring was when I wanted to talk about my children because that was when he wanted to talk about his children. Karina and Harry, I know a lot more about you two than you think I do. He thought the world of you two. He loved you for your struggles and for your successes. We can all be happy that he saw both of you doing so well.

Things were going great for Doug lately and they were only going to get better. His enthusiasm for political causes and his broadcasting skill were starting to come together on the Internet. The interviews he did on his Web site, The Right Side, were beginning to attract a lot of attention. He was making a big contribution to a growing community. When I looked at some comments about him last week, I wasn’t surprised to see how sad and unhappy people were but I was surprised to see just how many there were and how much they counted on him to point the way. Doug came right out and said what a lot people think. He was a great source of information and inspiration to a lot of people. Just the archive of interviews he left us will be important in the years ahead.

Doug was a great friend to me. You never had to be on your guard with him. You could be yourself. He made people feel comfortable because he was sensitive and gentle and kind. Janice, nobody knows that better than you. I know that he looked to you for so much and he always got more. The two of you were complete and you will never be apart.

I think it was William Shirer in ‘Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ who talked with a German who compared Adolf Hitler to the stock figure of the Heiratsschwindler, a confidence man who cheats widows and spinsters out of their little means with the promise of marriage. Like the marriage swindler, Hitler achieved his end by promising what he never intended and taking what could never be recovered. To me, the Heiratsschwindler is the human rights commissioner who swears to the truth of a glowing future against a guaranteed investment today. All will be well if you but surrender the right to think and speak and read and write. Within the marriage swindle, the crisis comes when the victim must assign all her assets to the custody of the mustachioed villain. At the first sign of resistance, the Heiratsschwindler gathers himself into a ball of principled and outraged fury to explode upon his victim. “How can you dare to doubt my integrity and my intentions? I give you the promise of love and assured financial security, based on the soundness of the investment scheme for which I need all your savings, more or less immediately and without conditions and certainly without troublesome questions which visibly upset me and delay our bliss.” Trust, indeed love, is the basis of the swindle but the closer is emotional blackmail of the basest kind. If you are not already acquainted with the sinister plans of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, I would urge you to study them without delay. This is the confidence trickster writ large.

The lamps are going out all over the world:

Direct link to video on Google Video

Barrelstrength announces the creation of a movement to assist the smaller defendants in the Warman case. We are calling it Tankards for Truth.

 The idea is that people across Canada will hold events in their favourite drinking spot to raise money.

Board games, movies, sports events, bicycle rallies, 100 meter marathons for out-of-shape bloggers - it does not matter. Help organize a fundraiser in your community.

No money should go to Tankards for Truth. All money you collect should be sent to the defendants.

Our goal is to raise money for Catherine MacMillan of Small Dead Animals, Mark and Constance Fournier of Free Dominion, Ezra Levant, and Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury. We assume that the Aspers and the National Post can take care of themselves.

We know that each of these bloggers has a donations button on their pages. We  intend to supplement their fund raising with fundraising on their behalf.

We will communicate with the defendants to tell them of our support and coordinate our efforts with theirs, as appropriate.

We will set up a website, www.tankardsfortruth.ca, which will be up shortly. A MySpace page will be created. We will allow postings of events and cooperate with other activists to help defray the costs of supporting freedom of speech.

We welcome all communication from supporters of the bloggers who have been made the subject of Richarrd Warman’s libel suit. 

Let every person concerned with freedom of speech in this country know of this movement. Organize your own Tankards for Truth event.

Let us know how you feel. Write to tankardsfortruth@gmail.com or Dalwhinnie@barrelstrength.com. Get out there and drink, run, play, bicycle, perform for freedom of speech! get every friend you know to your local event. Send the defendants money!

We will have more details as we develop our plans.

How far has the regime of fear penetrated? Very far indeed. Take this example. How difficult has it become to have a rational discussion about government policy touching on visible minorities the civil service?

According to my informants, it has become impossible.

The federal public service has a plan to hire a lot of visible minorities to the federal public service, about one in five according to an announcement in 2000.

Read the rest…

From time to time the Internet directs me to interesting people with whom I am not on all fours, but who seem to be in the domain of the real. Terry Glavin seems to be one of them, at least on the subject of leftist anti-semitism. Andrew Potter is another. Both seem to be judging the effectiveness of left-wing causes by real-world criteria.

Read the rest…

  G.R.A.S.P.

The Supreme Council

23-B Plurekh 4389

Commendation to Agent 117

From Department of Subversion, Supreme Council, Galactic Racially Aryan Supremacy Party

By the authority vested in us by the Executive Committee, know ye the following:

You are commended for the brilliant subversion you have achieved of the confidence and thought control techniques of the Dominators.

Read the rest…

These are excerpts from the Canadian Human Rights Commission Annual Report of 2007

Warman v. Wilkinson 2007 CHRT 27

In a decision rendered on July 10, 2007, the Tribunal upheld the complaint filed by Mr. Warman against Mr. Wilkinson but dismissed the complaint against the Canadian Nazi Party. The Tribunal found that Mr. Wilkinson communicated messages through a website that were likely to expose individuals to hatred and/or contempt on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, or disability. Read the rest…

Jennifer Lynch, QC, Chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, writes as follows in the 2007 Annual Report of the Commission.

“In addition to its role in processing complaints, the Commission has represented the public interest by intervening in hate case hearings before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT). To date, the Tribunal has issued more than 15 decisions in complaints against Canadians connected to hate websites or materials. In all instances the Tribunal has ruled against the respondents and ordered them to close down their websites and pay damages - sending a powerful message of social solidarity to all those targeted by hatred and contempt.

“As effective as section 13 has been, the Commission recognizes that complaints are only one tool of many that must be used to combat hatred in Canadian society. The Commission is continuing to work with civil society organizations and governments towards developing a comprehensive strategy to combat hatred in all its aspects.”

All of which demonstrates that, once the law has created a category of crime, and set up an agency to deal with it, it must seek a broader mandate, because the crime problem is so much vaster than was previously imagined. Parkinson’s Laws are universal. Work expands to fill the time allowed it.

Notes from the HRC Tribunal Hearing of Warman vs. Lemire

Background

The hearing in Ottawa on Tuesday was the last in a five week-long process concerning a prosecution of Marc Lemire under section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, titled Richard Warman, complainant, and CHRC versus Lemire, respondent. Most of the hearings had occurred in 2007.

The Human Rights Commission had previously sought to exclude its staff from being questioned about their investigative techniques, or to be identified at all, on the grounds that they would be subject to real and substantial risk. The presiding judge of the Human Rights Tribunal, Athanasios Hadjis, had previously ruled that these employees might be questioned, but without third parties present. The respondent Marc Lemire had also gone to the Federal Court to compel the production of evidence, which the Human Rights Commission subsequently allowed him to have. The fact that the Commission was seeking in court to prevent the disclosure of information that it had already given to Marc Lemire weighed heavily in Judge Hadjis’ revoking his own decision.

Judge Hadjis changed his mind, rescinded his previous order, and allowed questioning to go ahead. This resulted in the proceedings of Tuesday March 26^th in Ottawa.

Read the rest…