George Jonas, National Post
June 20, 2008
Few institutions conjure up George Orwell’s dystopia of 1984 as readily as the Canadian Human Rights Commission. A premature baby, born seven years ahead of Orwell’s schedule, the CHRC has been as smugly doubleplusgood as the satirist’s Ministry of Love, though not remotely as powerful or quite as evil.
Give it time, I say.
Worried that time isn’t on its side, the CHRC launched an independent review of some of its policies this week, coupled with an in-house review of some of its practices. “Independent of what?” you may ask. Rest assured, not of the Zeitgeist that created the 1977 Human Rights Act and its notorious Section 13-1. The likelihood of an organization like the CHRC instituting a probe for any purpose other than self-justification is remote.
To borrow Orwell’s language, anyone retained by Canada’s thinkpol should be a goodthinker, fluent in newspeak. He ought to bring to his task a bellyfeel about crimethinkers and the correct way of dealing with them. He should have a capacity for doublethink and recognize the importance of keeping anything malreported out of the public discourse, especially away from such prolefeed as the Internet.
Is Waterloo University’s Richard Moon, the law professor retained by CHRC to head the review, such a person? I’ve no idea. I expect Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch, Q.C. and her advisors think he is, otherwise they wouldn’t have retained him. The human rights industry is fighting for its life. Not a charity under the best of circumstances, when the Ministry of Love is in survival mode, you don’t want to meet it in a dark alley.
…
“Freedom of expression is the foundation of a free, open and inclusive society. It must be preserved,” Ms. Lynch intoned on Tuesday, then two paragraphs later said: “What is not permissible, however, is to use free speech as a cover for hatred.”
FAQ: Is speech free in Canada? Yes. All speech is free in Canada, except hate speech. What’s hate speech? Why, it’s speech we hate.
Orwell describes the doublethinker as holding “…simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy….” Substitute Human Rights Commission for Party, 2008 for 1984, add a soupçon of Ken Kesey to Orwell, let Big Brother have a sex-change operation and presto, you have duckspeaking Big Nurse, a.k.a. Ms. Lynch, believing that liberty must be curtailed in order to preserve it.
Source | See Also: Human rights body to consider Internet speech regulation | Anti-terror cops probed Ottawa punk band for Cartoon, Political Speech | The Ontario Human Rights Commission: Hey, we want to be in the censorship business, too!
Stumble It!
Has there been a change in policy where the message no matter the messenger may be published, or was allowing this article through just a mistake?
While I'm very happy to see this article by the National Post displayed in here on the front page, I find it interesting that my attempts to post articles written by the National Post on the criminal antics of the CHRC up front were refused by the owner of this place. In fact I was told that all articles written by "very conservative quarters" were unlikely to be accepted.
Has there been a change in policy where the message no matter the messenger may be published, or was allowing this article through just a mistake?
It's no mistake. It does meet our requirements, as it does not contain references to certain individuals that some other articles on the CHRC or by the National Post do.
I can't say about articles you've submitted, as I don't recall. But I don't recall bypassing any articles submitted at all in the last couple months. Everything that has been submitted got published, AFAIK.
Oh yeah, I forgot about those "certain individuals". Can you give us a refresher as to who they are, or would that get you into trouble?
With Susan's permission, I'll be happy to post her replies to my queries concerning the refusal to submit two articles concerning the criminal activities of the CHRC. The reasons given had to do with the fact that the articles were written by "very conservative quarters" and not because of the mention of "certain individuals".
As a reminder to those who have not been informed of what the CHRC has been up to due to the widespread censoring of the matter (presumably by ultra-anti-conservative's). Some top level goons working for the CHRC were caught illegally hacking into an innocent womans Internet service so they could anonymously (so they thought) post illegal hate messages as a means to frame a "certain individual" who I dare not mention because I'm supposedly not allowed to.
Ah fuk it, central to the illegal activities of the CHRC is M{bleep}c Lre. What the fuk is all this sht about?????
Here's another article, written I suppose by another unmentionable, so there's no point trying to post it, but I'll try posting a link anyway.
RCMP launches investigation into CHRC tactics
These stories have nothing to do with the unmentionables, and if the anti-conservatives, or whatever you prefer to call them (I have some good names), who seem to control most of the press in this sorry country of ours remain unwilling to expose the matter, then I see no problem at all with posting articles written by the unmentionables.
When the government commits serious crimes to falsely entrap the "crooks" we're all in trouble and the story must get out through whatever means necessary.
I can't say about articles you've submitted, as I don't recall.
You don't recall because when I submitted the two articles for consideration, you were taking an "unscheduled vacation" at the time due to a disagreement you had with the boss that came about over you allowing an article written by M L to be posted on the front page. The article in fact was the first to alert us (Vive's readership) to the accusations that the CHRC was entrapping innocent people using various illegal means.
You did us a service, but got punished for it. That's they way I saw it. Not long after, long time poster Diogenes got banned, he was the one who submitted the article in question. He did us a service too, yet he also got punished for it.
Yeah yeah, I know Diogenes got banned because he did other stuff too ... uh, wait a minute I smell something bad, be right back ... nope it's not on my end, but I can still smell it.
Oh yeah, I forgot about those "certain individuals". Can you give us a refresher as to who they are, or would that get you into trouble?
That is the catch-22. I can't tell you the policy, without breaking the policy. Luckily, Susan did so, and I can link to it:
editorial-discussions-f113/yes-i-deleted-the-marc-lemire-article-t62561.html
"There is a small handful of people who are well-known names in the white supremacist movement and who have made their views clearly known for years. These include {list of names}. I think it's pretty simple and easy to say that writings by any of these guys shouldn't appear here because of their long history with hate groups. "
She enumerated it in her post "2008 Mar 25 Tue 7:04 pm". It not only applies to those individuals, but any associated with that movement.
So, those are names to avoid, as authors. There are others, but I don't immediately recognise the names, so when an article such as this one is posted I have to Google all proper names to be sure.
With Susan's permission, I'll be happy to post her replies to my queries concerning the refusal to submit two articles concerning the criminal activities of the CHRC. The reasons given had to do with the fact that the articles were written by "very conservative quarters" and not because of the mention of "certain individuals".
I think that the policy, being spelt out does alleviate that now. If it's not written by someone associated with a hate group, it should be OK. Like this article, written by a National Post staffer.
As a reminder to those who have not been informed of what the CHRC has been up to due to the widespread censoring of the matter (presumably by ultra-anti-conservative's). Some top level goons working for the CHRC were caught illegally hacking into an innocent womans Internet service so they could anonymously (so they thought) post illegal hate messages as a means to frame a "certain individual" who I dare not mention because I'm supposedly not allowed to.
Well, we can mention M{bleep} L{bleep}, as the policy is not to post articles by them - but why give them the legitimacy?
Ah fuk it, central to the illegal activities of the CHRC is M{bleep}c Lre. What the fuk is all this sht about?????
Stephen Camp and Richard Wharman seem to be posting hate on the internet more than M.L., but because they post it to 'entrap' people under the guise of the HRC's their names are not verboten. (Not to say M.L.is a nice guy or his views are to be considered, but two wrongs . . and all that.)
I have always thought that the activities of these two should be heard far and wide. They end up being the haters they claim to be trying to stop, and encouraging the hate. Especially when they entrap people and bring them before these 'tribunals' from which the accused are assumed guilty - and suffer financial hardship regardless of the outcome (tribunals are not covered under the charter right to a lawyer, and Legal Aid won't provide you with one).
Here's another article, written I suppose by another unmentionable, so there's no point trying to post it, but I'll try posting a link anyway.
RCMP launches investigation into CHRC tactics
Interesting. I thought of a reply to this, but ended up on a completely different track. Ezra Levant may be far Right, but he's outside the policy set. Or, is he?
He's been accused of hate crimes. He's been before the tribunal. Even if the Imam dropped the charges of hate, is he still guilty of that hate? After all, he hasn't been found innocent. But then again, is it right to accuse a Jew of anti-semetism and anti-muslim hate crimes?
These stories have nothing to do with the unmentionables, and if the anti-conservatives, or whatever you prefer to call them (I have some good names), who seem to control most of the press in this sorry country of ours remain unwilling to expose the matter, then I see no problem at all with posting articles written by the unmentionables.
I know, and I empathise. I too thought that stories that involved other aspects of certain individuals, without mentioning their personal views, would be acceptable (before I knew their views). But the policy has been set that Vive will not legitimize their existence by wasting bandwidth on publishing their names at all.
I'm all for exposing the HRC's for their gestapo tactics and other motivations such as the dreaded 'political correctness' that kills Christmas, which is why this article was apres pos.
When the government commits serious crimes to falsely entrap the "crooks" we're all in trouble and the story must get out through whatever means necessary.
Preaching to the choir. Not enough people understand the slippery slope has been crested, and we're tumbling downhill uncontrolled.
You don't recall because when I submitted the two articles for consideration, you were taking an "unscheduled vacation" at the time due to a disagreement you had with the boss that came about over you allowing an article written by M L to be posted on the front page. The article in fact was the first to alert us (Vive's readership) to the accusations that the CHRC was entrapping innocent people using various illegal means.
You did us a service, but got punished for it. That's they way I saw it. Not long after, long time poster Diogenes got banned, he was the one who submitted the article in question. He did us a service too, yet he also got punished for it.
Ahh, now I underconstumble. Now that we have a firm policy on this, I think we can bring the subject of the HRC's out in the open. Just tread carefully, and don't mention those that shall not be named nor quote articles written by them and we'll all be good.
Yeah yeah, I know Diogenes got banned because he did other stuff too ... uh, wait a minute I smell something bad, be right back ... nope it's not on my end, but I can still smell it.
I'm still sad about Dio. All that he tried to show us about logic, the Law, the legal status of 'person' vs 'citizen', injustice etc. is all wasted because his last act will only be thought of as 'hate' instead of 'lack of skill with copy & paste'.