Saturday, March 02, 2013

Rex on Free Speech

I, like my friend Karen Selick am very disappointed by our supremes. Rex is also bewildered by this latest "judgement". "The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits." Our supremes have forgotten about the natural limits like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Welcome to Canada, land of never-speaking-ill-of-a-marginalized-group free-ish speech. You can say what you like in Canada — to yourself, in a low voice. According to our Supreme Court, free speech is secondary to the right not to feel offended. I join with Andrew Coyne (see his column from Thursday) in expressing bewilderment at one particular statement from this week’s decision in the case of Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott — the one where the Justices write: “truth may be used for widely disparate ends.” What an eerie caution. The court wants to make sure that disreputable forms of truth can’t serve to get Canadians off the hook for hate speech. After all, truth is such a wily, insidious, sly concept. Allowing Canadians to use it any way they please … why, that way lies anarchy and uncomfortable dinner tables.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

While I agree with sentiments expressed by Coyne, murphy etc.the real problem exists within Trudeaus imposed Charter of "group rights". That diseased document will, and has brought about tyranny in this once free country. When Trudeau imposed his warped Charter he stated that it was an "experiment", well I would suggest that "experiment' has run it's totalitarian course, and now it's time to realize the dangers contained within that diseased document and get rid of it asap! Canada is a country, not a cult imposed by that colossal A-Hole Trudeau! get rid of the Trudeau Charter!

Anonymous said...

Actually Canada never had constitutionally entrenched individual rights, before the Charter, they flowed from Common Law while you had Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights which parliament could easily override. As for group rights vs. individual rights, I am no fan of group rights over individual rights but I also realize Canada is a far more collectivist country than the US. Much of our history has been based on the ideals of peace, order, and good government as opposed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The good news is here there is nothing stopping parliament from legalizing hate speech. All the ruling said was it is not constitutionally protected.

Anonymous said...

Wrong... The Magna Carta from which the British North America Act ( Canada's real Constitution) guarantees the right of the individual from the over arching powers of the State. The only people who blindly follow the historical revisionism that states Canadians had no rights until trudeau imposed them are those that would in someway benefit from this distortion of Canadian tradition and historical fact. The Trudeau Charter fundamentaly over rides the rights of the individual contained within the BNA act and the Magna Carta in order to transform Canada into a country of tribes complete with a Government imposed hierarchy of which tribes (groups) will be more equal than all the rest. The Trudeau Charter is a diseased document conjured by a diseased mind.

Anonymous said...

The Magna Carta is based on common law and is not formally codified. In addition Canada is not Britain although its laws are rooted in British tradition outside Quebec while Napoleonic code in Quebec. I don't like Canada's collectivist ideology, but I also understand the fact is Canada has always been about common good trumping individual interest. This didn't start under Trudeau, it goes back to when the Loyalists fled the Thirteen Colonies to Upper and Lower Canada in the 1770s. In fact from Macdonald right through Trudeau, Canada rejected American Republican ideals and likewise anyone who tried to introduce them was soundly defeated at the polls.

Anonymous said...

Freedom of the individual from the arbitrary powers of the State is not a "Republican' notion and it is this very theory that is at the basis of the Magna Carta. British North America (Canada) was a part of the British Empire, just as the "thirteen colonies" America were also a part of the British Empire. The "thirteen colonies" broke away from their British heritage in what was essentially a tax revolt. Canada became equals within the British Empire through the Statute of Westminster, but revolution of the Canadian traditions and British history didn't take place until the 1960's. Comparing Sir John A MacDonald with a radical bigot like Pierre Trudeau is an insult and disengenuous. The Trudeau Charter is a marvelous distortion of historical record and tradition and in fact brings the Canadian style of governance more in line with that of the USA. Under the BNA Act Parliament is supreme, every citizen is considered equal and is represented through the House of Commons. Under the imposed distortions of the Trudeau Charter, the court is supreme in "interpreting" who is equal and whom is more equal than the rest. Under the Trudeau Charter, Canada went from a country of equals under the law, to a nation of tribes where some tribes are more equal than others. The idea of dividing Canadians into "groups" or tribes with different and unequal rights interpreted by an unaccountable judge would have been rejected by every PM from John A MacDonald right up to Diefenbaker, to believe otherwise is to be deliberately obtuse and conveniently ignorant. The only people who will defend the imposition of the Trudeau Charter of "group rights" are lawyers and those tribalists that would benefit from it's imposition.

Anonymous said...

Trudeau, graduate of the Fabian LSE (Oh, dear) and notorious for refusing to
join the men of his generation to fight the AXIS in the Second World War ('so
there's a war on, tough (Memoirs, 1993'), was worshipped by his followers
as a man with the gift of intellect who would lead Canadians into the paradise
of a 'just society' (read, a society defined and limited
by the State, i.e., the patrons and matrons of the courts as the 'voice' of the
State. The roots of Trudeau's angst are to be found culturally in his Jesuitical education
(at one time the most demanding) and in his embrace of the socialist idea that turns
the 'Social Contract' of Jean-Jacques Rousseau on its head. The major shift
in emphasis from this charter is the identity of 'group rights', i.e., rights for
those groups favoured by the State. The French 'group' is especially given
the right of bilingualism in the whole country and this has been incorporated
into the Federal Public Service where the 'French Group' are given preference
over individuals who aren't French or not bilingual. Competence is largely
irrelevant or at least just an afterthought. All sorts of groups have benefitted
from the Charter, Gay groups, Feminist Groups and on and on; not Gay
individuals or Feminist individuals but as 'members' of a group who the
Supreme Courts have identified as 'vidtims.'.

The bottom line in the midst of all the challenges and interpreations of the Charter
is that the relationship between the 'governed' and "governor' changed Canada
from possessing almost the entire inheritance of liberty and rights that is the
British Constitution and stretching back to the 9th century and developed
more fully each and every century thereafter. The document is remarkably
similar to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , again
built upon socialist theory.

The LIberals promote the goofy idea that the date of patriation of the British North America
Act is 'Year Zero' in Canadian history. Why? Because they want people to
believe that Canada was not a country before Pierre Trudeau liberated
the people from 'British slavery' and gave them their rights and freedoms.
There are even some young lawyers today who grew up and were taught to believe
this rubbish.

I Support Lord Black