We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Canada is no longer a free country.

The ruling can be found here.

Via Ezra Levant. Mr Levant’s name, his own persecution, and that of Mark Steyn are both almost certainly familiar to Samizdata readers and probably familiar to an increasing number in the English speaking world. For that reason they may fare better in their own struggles with the witchfinders than those less widely liked.

43 comments to Canada is no longer a free country.

  • Ian B

    Sigh. Canada just became a not free country? Can anyone name a country in the western world which is free? They’re generally freer than other places in the world, and are becoming much less free as the progressive win takes stranglehold. But we kid ourselves if we believe that the old saying “it’s a free country…” was ever true.

    The libertarian task is not the restoration of old freedoms (although the few old freedoms lost need restoration). It is the creation of, for the first time in history, genuinely free nations. My gut feeling is that this is a hopeless task. The chance has been lost for this civilisation. We’re entering now a period of extreme tyranny which heralds our coming slide into the history books (or even, perhaps into the domain of future archaelogists).

    But anyway, the throwing of people into gaol for ridiculous non-crimes is nothing new, the suppression of speech and free action by rulers is nothing new, the show trial is nothing new. We’ve had a brief period of being “quite free” and it’s over, done, finished, cheerio, don’t slam your door on the way out, freedom. It would have been nice if we’d gone the whole hog with the freedom thing but frankly we never had the balls.

  • Yes, exactly. Levant and Steyn will get off because they’re famous and people like them. These “courts” will “find” that the complaints against them were overblown. And if this Red Deer case gets brought up in the media at all, ordinary Canadians will convince themselves that there is an important distinction between what Mark Steyn says by way of peppering his commentary and what the CCC says in its newsletters. And they will think that is sufficient to protect them from similar headaches. And it won’t be.

    But Canada hasn’t been a free country for a while now. The mayor of Toronto, for example, is currently going around using the national gun registry to identify people who have more guns than he’s comfortable with and ordering the police to harass them, even if he has no evidence that they’re involved in any crimes. Due process blah blah.

  • Ezra Levant rightly calls it Orwellian.

    From the linked .pdf…

    Discrimination Re: Publications, Notices
    3(1) – No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
    (a) Indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or
    (b) Is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt
    because of the race, religious beliefs, color, gender, physical disability, mental
    disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family
    status of that person or class of persons.
    (2) – Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.

    That’s Orwellian. It is Freedom=Slavery oxymoronic.

    And another thing. I just skimmed part of the ruling .pdf and it mentions a queer-bashing incident yet makes no attempt to even vaguely make a causal connection between what Rev Boisson wrote or said and some demented thug assaulting a homosexual. Apart from anything else, does anyone believe that thug was doing it in the name of Christ? Even in his own mind?

    I remember a commentator on Harry’s Place once had a tirade against libertarians. It wound up with something like “And that’s why I fucking hate libertarians”. Literally “hate speech” so where’s my cheque?

    This is raving. A few years ago the UK emergency services published a list of frivolous 999 calls including some daft bat reporting to the police “two squirrels fighting in the garden”. This Canadian ruling is the equivalent of the cops sending in a SWAT team to combat “squirrel violence”. It is that demented a use of state power.

    That garbage I quoted from the ruling is so vague as to enable them to do anything.

    What next? They do lads for saying “I like blondes” as “hate speech” against brunettes. That could really run because they could always put a racial spin on it.

    They’re gonna break Mark Steyn on the wheel. I’m glad my co-blogger, CountingCats, amongst so many others, has (oh, I hate the phrase) raised some awareness.

  • From the .pdf…

    Mr. Boissoin is to apologize for submitting the article and for his views on homosexuality

    [Emphasis mine]

    That’s thought crime.

  • Paul Marks

    There are many restrictions on freedom in many nations – both by vast taxation (taking, by the threat of violence, between a third and half of production in most Western countires) and by regulations – which strangle every aspect of life by their extent and their scope.

    HOWEVER, that does not mean that the decline of free speech is not important.

    It is a vital freedom – for if the government can punish opinions how can there be reform?

    “Not all opinion – only bad opinions”.

    And the powers that be are fit and proper people to decide what is a bad opinion?

    Most importantly this case shows how hollow the various modern “Charters of Rights”.

    Things like the International Declaration of this and the European Charter of that are full of high sounding words.

    But the drafting (when one looks carefully) does not protect freedom.

    Nor was it intended to – for example the two main British representatives on the drafting international declaration were Harold Laski and E.H. Carr. Both fanatical collectivists and admirers of Stalin.

    Something can talk about “freedom” “liberty” “human rights” (and so on) endlessly – whilst being no real protection for basic freedom at all.

    The United States Constitution (including the first ten amendments – the Bill of Rights) actually does offer some protection for basic freedom. Judges have to be deeply dishonest to twist things like the First Amendment (or the Second Amendment – on which the First, in the end, depends) in an anti freedom direction.

    Of course judges can be and are dishonest at times – but the point is that without a clear document like the United States Constitution, judges DO NOT EVEN HAVE TO BE DISHONEST.

    Dealing with modern declarations (and so on) the wording is such that even an honest judge can find against freedom – again and again.

    And even if famous people do not go to prison – it will have a “chilling effect” on everyone else.

  • Gabriel

    The libertarian task is not the restoration of old freedoms (although the few old freedoms lost need restoration). It is the creation of, for the first time in history, genuinely free nations. My gut feeling is that this is a hopeless task.

    Well, if it’s hopeless, what’s the bloody point in it? Our task, properly understood, was and still is to pursue the intimations of our society that already tend in the direction of Freedom, to protect what protects it, to attack what threatens it and to remove what impedes it.

    We are not Turks or Russians and we have no need to abstractly define a free society, severed from our own society, and try to realise it – a hopeless task indeed. What we are lucky enough to be able to do, though we are less lucky than our fathers in this respect, is to work with a freedom we know the characteristics of because we have enjoyed and enjoy it.

    Frankly, people like you with your ‘genuinely free nations’ and other theoretical claptrap don’t serve any purpose whatsoever in the good fight and, in most cases, aid the bad one. What is necessary is to correct the ignorance of the English libertarian tradition, not teach a bunch of silly piffle about transcendent rights or whatever it is you believe in.

    Anyway, this Canada situation is unambiguously deplorable.

  • RRS

    More later. Providence (not the Province) permitting.

    A quick scan of the 80ppp (typical cover) reveals a critical issue; that is, the finding that by becoming a “funder,” by reason of paying taxes, of the actions of the provincial authority one “acceeds” to the actions of that authority.

    Thus, presumably paying taxes removes the right of citizens to criticize the actions of those purporting to act under the authority of the Province.

    Now, that’s the precise issue seen from a quick scan; though subject to expansion upon further analysis.

    On a larger scale, going to the origins of those “authority” actions criticized, we are looking at the issue chrystalized by Isaiah Berlin as “Freedom From in conflict with Freedom To

    Most of us commenting here probably consider that Freedom To is a “Natural Right,” whilst Freedom From is a legislative construct generated for purposes of social engineering – much as was forecast by Raymon Aron.

  • Ian B

    Well, thanks for the slap, Gabriel. It certainly put me in my place, I can tell you.

    I believe at a gut level that the situation is hopeless because the rot has gone too far. Our society has been hollowed out from the inside and the only thing left now is the rotten wood, to use a bad metaphor. I think there are strong analogies with the dying of other civilisations. So I’m very pessimistic. I would like to believe that we can rebuild and build anew, but I doubt it.

    But as to me and my ridiculous idea of genuinely free nations and theoretical claptrap and these transcendent rights I apparently believe in, let me explain if you’ll offer me your forebearance briefly.

    Firstly, I’m not pushing for some idealistic utopian actualisation of aerie faerie theories. That’s why, for instance, I balk at the minarchist/anarchist dreams of free market law and whatnot, and at the idea of abolition of government (nobody ever explains what will maintain the government-free state when some upstart with a gang declares himself King Of Putney). Rather my view is that various freedoms have existed at various times, but nobody has ever put them together. For instance the theatre is currently uncensored, but in times gone by every play had to be passed and censored by the Lord Chamberlain. In the past homosexuality was illegal; now criticising it robustly is. Dope was once legal, but now is illegal, but gay hobbit porn was once illegal and is now legal. Beer licensing laws come and go. Habeas corpus was once an involiable principle which has now been discarded. At various times and places, prostitution has been entirely, partially or not at all legal, and once it was legal to say “nig nog” and now it isn’t. I used to be able to smoke in the pub, now I can’t. I once couldn’t be held for 28 days, or 42 days, without charge.

    All I propose is that since all these freedoms have variously existed, it’s not unreasonable to want them all at the same time. It’s not so moonbattish to note that a freedom that once existed in one place might be applied for all places and times.

    So that’s the “free nation” I want. One in which I can watch an uncensored theatre play, have a ciggie in the theatre bar, purchase a lady of the evening, have a beer on the tube home and not be required to swipe all that on my carbon ration card. One in which I can call someone a poof and not have council inspectors riffling through my rubbish, and not be required to show my internal passport to every policeman who doesn’t like my face. One in which I can say I think Islam is an evil death cult and I can dance to the jukebox in the boozer without a licence. One in which I am not assailed by progressive demands to stop enjoying myself, and watched night and day by a state security apparatus.

    Too much to ask, or aerie faerie nonsense?

  • Ian,
    You are right. Freedoms come and go. They’re like fashions. Seriously. Gay “Rights” is currently fashionable and calling someone a “chutney ferret” isn’t. I think you’re desire for all freedoms to co-exist in a single time and place is about as realistic as for all forms of dress to be simultaneously fashionable.

  • Ian B

    Then libertarianism is indeed a waste of time, Nick.

  • Herbert Thornton

    The very first section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads -

    . 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

    Doesn’t that sound marvellous? You can rely on the quality of what we sell, eh? Guaranteed. Still, as with any sales talk, it’s wise to look for the small print.

    For a start, no guarantee can be absolute, can it? You have to be reasonable. And indeed the Charter says so. It’s quite honest about it. Any limits have to be reasonable.

    And where do you find those limits? Ah, they have to be in the law – “prescribed by law”, as the Charter puts it.

    And my goodness, not only that, but these limits must be such as can be “demonstrably justified”. Nothing underhand about that is there? You gotta be able to demonstrate it. Don’t all these nice things make you feel secure?

    And to put icing on the cake, this demonstrable justification has to be the sort of justification that you find in a “free and democratic society”. Which is what we are, aren’t we?

    Now, can we all dance around singing “we’re free, we’re free”? Well, not quite.

    Move on to section 2 -

    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

    a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    d) freedom of association.

    You would expect that if for example, a Christian Pastor believed that some kinds of behaviour were sinful, then section 2 (a) would allow him to believe that. He has freedom of conscience and religion doesn’t he?

    You’d expect him to be free to state his beliefs openly, from his pulpit, or in his Parish magazine. Or in any magazine, for that matter, or on the radio or via the Internet.

    Oops, big mistake. You see you’ve mis-read section 1, and you’ve ignored the fact that Alberta has a law that prescribes something different. In a free and democratic society he is not allowed to state his beliefs like that. He’s not even allowed to hold those beliefs.. He must renounce them, publicly.

    How do we know this? Because Lori Andreachuk from the Alberta Human Rights Commission says so.

    You see, the expression “a free and democratic society” doesn’t mean what we thought it meant. It really means “a politically correct society” . And what does that mean? It means whatever any Judge thinks it ought to mean, and whatever any Human Rights official, such as Lori Andreachuk thinks it ought to mean.

    So don’t go looking for gift-wrapped freedoms of the sort you thought you could get from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms store. The shelves are empty.

  • Ian B

    Herbert, just for comparison the European Convention on Human Rights is equally qualified into uselessness-

    Article 10

    Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

    Hmm, sounds pretty good so far…

    This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

    Oh, not quite so good. Still, plenty of freedom left in other media…

    The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

    Well, so much for that then. You’re free to say, well, anything that isn’t barred or banned under that huge list of exceptions thar. Sigh.

  • mike

    “The libertarian task is not the restoration of old freedoms (although the few old freedoms lost need restoration). It is the creation of, for the first time in history, genuinely free nations.”

    “Our task, properly understood, was and still is to pursue the intimations of our society that already tend in the direction of Freedom, to protect what protects it, to attack what threatens it and to remove what impedes it.”

    A quibble of no significance. The important question is over method.

    If you are dissatisfied with blogging, voting in elections and moaning about court cases, then you can try civil disobedience with Thoreau, Ghandi and King as your historical precedents.

    That is an answer to the question of method that is rarely mentioned. Of course, none of us have the stones for it.

  • marc in calgary

    I believe Mr. Levant, and Mr. Steyn, will be found guilty.
    They need to be.
    and the human rights tribunals in Canada, really don’t know any better, they’re not real judges, in real courts, with real rules. They are Roos.
    They need to lose this, So that when they appeal, it will be taken to a real court, not a kangaroo court, where real rules of law will apply. With real judges, and real lawyers, and …. dare I say it, “real justice”.

    Hopefully, along the way, they lose at the appellate courts in order to continue onwards to the Supreme Court of Canada
    And if they lose there, then the real end of our freedoms has arrived.

  • Sleepy time up north

    No single group is entirely responsible for the loss of free speech in the West, but one group has done more than any other, both directly and indirectly. That group is not Muslims, who are merely exploiting the laws introduced by an earlier group of immigrants. And it has its sights on even more authoritarian laws. See if you can guess who they are before you visit the link below. If you can’t, you really need to wake up.

    “The report proposes that it be made an offence to download material from the internet that could incite racial or religious hatred.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article630722.ece

  • Sam Duncan

    for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals

    Forget the others, that pretty much covers any eventuality right there. It’s worse than your characterisation, Ian: we’re free to say anything unless our governments decide we aren’t.

    Compare and contrast:

    Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

    Those dumb Americans. They’re so unsophisticated.

  • Kevin B

    In the search for individual liberty, this whole Rights business is at best a distraction and more usually a restriction. Your only protection is law.

    If you read the ‘small print’ on the examples of the various charters, bills and declarations given above, you will notice that most of the caveats provide extra powers for the state without having to go to the trouble of passing any laws. Simply invoking security, public safety, prevention of disorder and the like, the state can take away your ‘rights’ at will.

    By adding the ‘rights of others’ to the mix, and setting up tribunals, commissions and all the other pseudo-legal bodies that infest our society they can also take away your freedom. They also set the stage for any pressure group or lobby to take away your freedom without recourse to law.

    And the best thing about all this for the politicians is that their hands are clean. It’s nothing to do with them, it’s this deus ex machina called ‘Human Rights’ and everyone’s in favour of those, aren’t they?

    I’ll grant that the US Bill of rights is, on the face of it, better with it’s ‘Congress shall make no law’ business. But Congress has made laws, from ‘shouting fire in a crowded theatre’ to McCain / Feingold and so has every pol from the local Mayor to the POTUS. And the small print is in a million judgements from the county judge to SCOTUS.

    We don’t have rights, inalienable or not, from God or not. All we have are laws and it’s up to us what laws we let the pols get away with.

  • Ian:

    Then libertarianism is indeed a waste of time

    Why? We humans know well we can never be perfect, and yet we are constantly trying to improve ourselves and our existence, both as individuals and as societies. Striving towards more freedom is one hell of a way to improve both. That “pursuit of happiness” thing, rather than just “happiness” was not put there accidentally.

    Oh yes, Sleepy, I guessed it: it’s the Jooos. So, what do we do about it now? And about the gays, too?

  • Otto

    Ian, I am not nearly so pessimistic as you. Looked at from one angle the progressives are engaged in a sort of challenge trial to see whether their ideas actually work on a live civilization. Now I have confidence that they will not work, and, furthermore, will in due course (say a couple of decades more) lead to the rejection of those same ideas.

    Ah, what will happen then? I don’t know, but by waging the war of ideas articulately, we can make the odds better that what comes next is better rather than worse.

  • Rich

    There is some reason for hope in America.

    A Clinton-Bush-Ombma one-two-three punch may well bankrupt our government. What are they going to do if they can’t pay their thugs?

    Now i’m not saying that collapse is a totally good thing … we’re talking about the sort of absolute chaos where ‘civil blood makes civil hands unclean’. But I am happy to know that if the wankers who are running things don’t change their ways, we’ll eventually get a chance to start over with a clean slate.

  • Alex Bensky

    No surprise that someone, in this case Sleepy Time, would decide that the real culprit is…guess who? That’s right, Jews. The fact that, say, no one has actually been hauled in front of a tribunal by Jews is, I guess, just proof of their cleverness.

    Meanwhile in the real world, Sam Duncan, you bet…not that academics aren’t doing their best to make thought crime an offense along with segments of the American Muslim population, but at least “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech…” does give us a fighting chance, unsophisticated cowboy-type rhetoric that it is.

    Reminds me of Tom Wolfe’s remark that fascism is always about to descend on the US–but somehow lands on Europe.

  • Hopefully, along the way, they lose at the appellate courts in order to continue onwards to the Supreme Court of Canada
    And if they lose there, then the real end of our freedoms has arrived.

    The real end of your freedoms has already come and gone. C-250 passed and is law. Zundel, previously vindicated by the Supreme Court of Canada, was fed to the wolves.

    Under C-250, Steyn will get off. But this man Boissoin will not. No appeal could help him because hate speech is illegal in Canada. Expressing his opinion is actually against the law, and there’s nothing in the Charter that renders C-250 unconstitutional. Canada: time for a reboot.

  • RebeccaH

    I NEVER though I would say this, but it’s time for a right-wing revolution in the western world. France aside, they are relatively bloodless, but world-affecting nonetheless.

  • Eric S.

    Thinking about the section quoted by Nick M.,

    Discrimination Re: Publications, Notices
    3(1) – No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
    (a) Indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or
    (b) Is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt
    because of the race, religious beliefs, color, gender, physical disability, mental
    disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family
    status of that person or class of persons.
    (2) – Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.

    Wouldn’t the public posting of that ruling be reasonably expected to “expose” the good Reverend (and likely all Christians) to “hatred or contempt because of” his “religious beliefs” ??
    I suggest that someone file charges against the Alberta human rights commission!

  • Jason

    Ian, I am not nearly so pessimistic as you. Looked at from one angle the progressives are engaged in a sort of challenge trial to see whether their ideas actually work on a live civilization. Now I have confidence that they will not work, and, furthermore, will in due course (say a couple of decades more) lead to the rejection of those same ideas.

    I would hazard to say you are optimistic about the time frame of the failure of progressivism. Things, have to get really bad before society is willing to give up on whatever ideology has it in its thrall, and even then those ideologies never really die. See communism or socialism, both of which should be dead and buried and yet linger on.

  • Canadian Law Sucks

    Canada ceased to be a free country as soon as its government passed the 1993 law making it illegal to own, privately, a text that advocates sex between adults and minors (under 14 at that time). In 2005 they expanded that to ban the reading of any sexually oriented description of sex with minors. In 2008 Canada’s age of consent was raised to 16, so a bunch more texts suddenly became illegal. By 2008 the Canadian government decided that all owners of “child pornography” (including these sorts of texts, not just images) would have to serve time in jail, so getting caught with a text the government doesn’t like is an automatic jail sentence. The law is triggered even if the “children” described in the text are entirely fictional. This is as bad a thought crime law as the hate speech law that prevents people from expressing their personal opinions about topics like Islam and homosexuality. I will never travel to Canada again so long as it has these sorts of laws on its books.

  • KPD

    Excellent thread. Now let’s clear a few things up…

    Canada,

    Head of State – Queen of Canada – Unelected Foreigner
    Head of Government – Gov Gen – Unelected Foreigner
    Chief Executive - Prime Minister – Unelected – Appointed by the Queen
    Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces – Queen of Canada – Unelected Foreigner
    Federal Senate – Senator – Unelected – Appointed by the Queen
    House – MP – Directly and democratically elected
    Head of State Provincial – Lieutenant Governor – Appointed by the Queen
    Chief Executive Provincial – Premier – Appointed by the Queen
    Provincial Senate – Senator – Appointed by the Queen
    Provincial House – MPP – Directly and democratically elected
    Inalienable Rights of Citizenry – Non-existent – Only the Queen fully and Titled nobles enjoy most of these rights. Canadians are not citizens but merely subjects or commoners and any and all rights are bequeathed by the Queen downwards at her pleasure, and are property of the Queen. This includes your Charter.
    Private Property (Real Property) – Only Titled nobles may actually hold allodial title, and commoners are deeded real estate, not actual title to land. All land belongs to the Queen.

    Power Flow God – Queen (Sovereign) – Government – People

    USA

    Head of State – President – Directly Elected
    Head of Government – President – Directly Elected
    Chief Executive – President – Directly Elected
    Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces – President – Directly Elected
    Federal Senate – Senator – Directly Elected
    House – Congressman – Directly Elected
    Head of State ( State) – Governor – Directly Elected
    Chief Executive (State) – Governor – Directly Elected
    State Senate – Senator – Directly Elected
    State House – Directly Elected
    Inalienable Rights of Citizenry – Yes – Codified in the Constitution
    Private Property (Real Property) – Yes –US citizens are sovereign and indeed enjoy inalienable rights to own title to land.

    Power Flow God – Citizen (Sovereign) – Town – County – State – Federal Government

  • If the shoe fits, wear it.

    “… all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”The Declaration of Independence

    “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” — George Washington

    “Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”Lord Justice Sedley

    “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” — Aldous Huxley

    “Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils.”General John Stark

  • KPD: You need to read your Constitution. The President of the United States is not directly elected, but rather elected by the Electoral College, who answer directly to their States. And, in the event that the Vice President becomes the President, then the President will have been appointed by the Senate, having first appointed him Vice President.

  • Canada is under the humiliation spotlight right now and deservedly so. But something unfolding(Link) in Europe may soon cast it back across the Atlantic.

    I’ll be most interested to see how accurately your press covers this, if they cover it at all!

  • mike

    “We don’t have rights, inalienable or not, from God or not. All we have are laws and it’s up to us what laws we let the pols get away with.”

    Correct, but you miss the significant point. Political rights (e.g. private property) are not a distraction – they are the necessary principles on which social life should be organised. It is better that political rights emerge as an expression of natural rights, rather than democratic consensus. Civil disobedience is one way to achieve this.

  • Xiaoding

    Canada has always been a dictatorship; the only difference is now you can see it in internet time.

    Canadians are their own worst enemy…one can think of many approaches to this probem; boycott, removal of most favored nation status, protest at international conferences, etc., but No! That would not be Canadian! We are talking about people so stupid, they don’t even have comments on their websites!

  • Paul Marks

    I notice that in the above comments the only text cited which gives a clear defence of free speech in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

    I do not deny that there may be another constitutional text of some other country that is clear and does not have weasel words like “reasonable” in it. However, I think it is important that the First Amendment was the only really pro freedom of speech constitutional text cited by anyone.

    It adds weight to my belief that if the United States falls there is no “plan B” for the West.

    The West stands or falls with the United States – it is a simple (and as brutal) as that.

    In reply to Rich’s point:

    Sadly “new starts” tend to look like Somali. Certainly tyranny eventually falls into chaos (although it can take a very long time) – but civil society may not return from the chaos.

    Civilization is built up gradually over centuries of effort – and may be destroyed by a few unwise judgement. For human instincts and NOT pro civilization – in fact human instincts are savage and cruel.

    The building up of civilized traditions out of humans who evolved in hunter-gatherer packs is a remarkable thing – F.A. Hayek was right about how remarkable the process was.

    And the foundations of civilization are easy to destry and VERY hard to rebuild – Edmund Burke was right about that.

    Free market people like to claim that we work “with the grain of human nature” – but sadly this is not true. It is the left who work with the grain of human nature (the ignoble savage).

    The reason that socialism does not work is nothing to do with “human nature” – it is because it CAN NOT work (due to economic law), Ludwig Von Mises stuff.

  • mikes

    The Pilgrims fled England under similar circumstances.

  • Tatterdemalian

    If the Libertarians want to have any hope of effecting change in the world, they need to deal with how the world works, not how the Founders wished it to work, nor how The Constitution says it should work.

    The real tragedy is that the Libertarian Party wil never grow out of its eighteenth century dream world, and so stands no chance of saving the US from its twenty-first century assailants. They will go down in history as the people who gave up the opportunity to save the US, in exchange for the opportunity to go around saying, “I told you so.”

  • OCBill

    Being ordered to apologize? Follow Paul Newman’s example from “The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean”:

    I called you ‘whores’. Now, I could have called you ‘strumpets’ or ‘low-down gutter sluts’. But I didn’t. I called you ‘whores’, and for that I apologize.

  • If the Libertarians want to have any hope of effecting change in the world, they need to deal with how the world works, not how the Founders wished it to work, nor how The Constitution says it should work.

    Not every libertarian is a parchment/D.W.M worshiper so I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at.

  • When the so-called “Right” supposedly “triumphed” with the Elections of Thatcher and Reagan, and then followed up with the 1994 U.S. Congressional victories, these events were treated as if at least some of the leftist tide had been turned back. Not. At. All.

    All that happened is that rampant leftism was slowed a bit, but continued moving forward. It never seemed to occur to conservatives and their allies in their triumphalism that the left controls most of the policy organs of society AND most of the media, and lives to organize.

  • “I suggest that someone file charges against the Alberta human rights commission!”

    Eric S., that is supposedly under way (see the comments on Ezra Levant’s blog), and for precisely the reason you state. I just hope that the guy who said he was going to do it follows through.

  • Tatterdemalian wrote:

    If the Libertarians want to have any hope of effecting change in the world, they need to deal with how the world works, not how the Founders wished it to work, nor how The Constitution says it should work.

    Throughout their respective histories, the Jewish, Christian, and American societies have not centered on “how the world works” (nor, in the latest, on “how the Founders wished it to work”) but rather on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” (see Declaration of Independence). Have these societies not effected change in the world?

  • Eric S.

    Eric S., that is supposedly under way (see the comments on Ezra Levant’s blog), and for precisely the reason you state. I just hope that the guy who said he was going to do it follows through.

    Not precisely the same, Ed. Over there, the potential complaint is based on the incredibly laughable, mind-numbingly bizarre “logic” that somehow it is the GLBT community that’s harmed. My suggestion was to base the complaint on the fact that the so-called “human rights” ruling obviously exposes Christians to hatred that is officially sanctioned by the Government. The substance of the ruling is, plainly, anti-Christian hate speech.

  • nick g.

    KPD-
    I see, you blame the Jews. (Just joking!) But you were joking as well when you said that private property is protected by the constitution. The Kelso Case is still being disputed, but it seems like it can’t be a right, or the county would never have tried it! (For those who came in late, a local county ‘resumed’ the Kelso property so it could sell it to a developer, and they could then be taxed for moremoney than the Kelsos could have provided; all in the name of the public interest!)

  • Don't kill me pigs!

    Red Deer is not free you have no rights you can be arrested for anything whether you did it or not you can spend 9 months in remand (actually a jail) they just call it something different so you don’t get sent to jail without trial. First few days you will get no food to loosen your tongue.you may even get denied your medication. This is most likely if you piss off the new masters of the red deer rcmp … walmart . Sad to sat that the rcmp, the uncorruptable bastions of the Klondike have now fell in to pit with the rest of the pigs. I found this out first hand. add this to all the beatings peple get from cops in red deer and muggings from cops, it is one real hell hole.