Did you know that 'he' will not repeat that infamous line no matter
who asks?
So, Kevin, I undertake to write more than 1 line and, you do what you
do so well; simply give up a smart-ass reply. It's little wonder that
SPers are not well received either in Salt Lake or, anywhere else!
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 24, 2006 08:15
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Are you talking to me, Gary North?
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a
civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a
moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some
attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by
the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on
that which opposes the foregoing.
Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine
'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do
believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon
which you focus (signage wise and all).
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
The Canadian Guanatamo
Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance!
Are you hating an identifiable group?
And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as
an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; )
Do you have the telE for the Tribunal?
Justice in Canaduh
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/
passed his second year of incarceration without charge
Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to
know all the evidence against him.
Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related
Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute
sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which
the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect
that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth
or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is
understood by the recipient."
Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think
Gary North would be proud of you folks.
He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you
folks have actually suceeded!
Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the
University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian
theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would
describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness].
Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."
Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors
who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in,
for your thoughts!
You Can't Say That"
Canadian thought police on the march.
By David E. Bernstein
I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the
road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are
eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book,
an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of expression
is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women
and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's
happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next."
The decline of freedom of expression in Canada began with
seemingly minor and
understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian
supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a
public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and
anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite
repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted
of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable
group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail.
Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable"
restriction on expression, and it therefore passed constitutional
muster.
Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are
unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on
sexual content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing"
depiction of sexual activity - including material that the First
Amendment would protect in the United States - was deprived of
constitutional protection to protect women from discrimination.
Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of expression
often feel uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust
denial or to propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly,
the inevitable result of allowing these initial speech restrictions
has been the gradual but significant growth of censorship and
suppression of civil liberties across Canada.
In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with
the Canadian government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is
otherwise politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme
court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister
convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate
court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite
hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the
effects of his actions. This decision led Robert Martin, a professor
of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, to
comment that he increasingly thinks "Canada now is a totalitarian
theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would
describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness].
Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."
Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to
advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex. For
example, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the
Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of
three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement,
placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns
homosexual acts.
In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner Scott
Brockie refused on religious grounds to print letterhead for a
gay-activist group, the local human-rights commission ordered him to
pay the group $5,000, print the requested material, and apologize to
the group's leaders. Brockie, who always accepted print jobs from
individual gay customers, and even did pro-bono work for a local AIDS
group, is fighting the decision on religious-freedom grounds.
Any gains the gay-rights movement has received from the
crackdown on speech in Canada have been pyrrhic because as part of
the Canadian government's suppression of obscene material, Canadian
customs frequently target books with homosexual content. Police raids
searching for obscene materials have disproportionately targeted gay
organizations and bookstores.
Moreover, left-wing academics are beginning to learn
firsthand what it's like to have their own censorship vehicles used
against them. For example, University of British Columbia Prof.
Sunera Thobani, a native of Tanzania, faced a hate-crimes
investigation after she launched into a vicious diatribe against
American foreign policy. Thobani, a Marxist feminist and
multiculturalism activist, had remarked that Americans are
"bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood." The Canadian
hate-crimes law was created to protect minority groups from hate
speech. But in this case, it was invoked to protect Americans.
A great deal more censorship in Canada seems inevitable. For
example, British Columbia's extremely broad hate-speech law prohibits
the publication of any statement that "indicates" discrimination or
that is "likely" to expose a person or group or class of persons to
hatred or contempt. The Canadian thought police are on the march.
Hopefully, it is not too late to stop them.
- David E. Bernstein is a professor of law at George Mason
University and the author of You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat
to Civil Liberties from Anti-Discrimination Laws
