"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
*
Martin Luther King Jr. //
*
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
*
George Orwell //
Want to contact the Stubble Jumping Redneck? Shoot her an email @ oldweesie@sasktel.net
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
If They Were Proroguing Parliament...
...the left would howl and scream. This time, however, the senate is promising to sit longer, into July, but I'll bet you the left will still howl and scream.
"Conservatives in the Senate say they are willing to sit into July — past June 28 when the upper chamber is scheduled to start its break — to pass five government bills, and possibly two contentious bills from backbench Tory MPs.
It isn’t unusual for the Senate to sit longer than the House of Commons to clear the legislative backlog left when MPs take their breaks. This year, however, the Senate may sit into July to pass two private member’s bills: One about union finances (bill C-377) and the other about hate speech (bill C-304)."
Get 'er done folks. We've been waiting a long time for both, but especially for the hate speech amendment.
...of the progress of Bill C-304, the amendment to Canada's Human Rights Law which will remove the nefarious clause that suppresses free speech?
Brian Storseth, the MP who is spearheading this, has a running list of the major steps already taken along the way, as well as links to numerous articles about it. The last entry was two months ago. I have no idea where it is at the moment. Hopefully, it will soon be law.
UPDATE: I've now gone through the list of who voted for free speech. Here's what I found: With two exceptions, virtually every single one who voted for free speech was a member of the Conservative Party, but not every Conservative voted (their names do not appear on either the Yeas or Nays lists)
These are the Conservative MPs who did not vote:
Peter Kent (surprise!), but he is a high profile cabinet minister (Environment portfolio) who caused the opposition and CBC/Globe and Mail/Toronto Star supporters to go apoplectic when he announced Canada will be pulling out of the Koyoto Protocol, so I won't hold this against him, and besides, maybe he was busy working on environment issues, of which there are plenty, these days.
Cheryl Gallant; who is also a Conservative, but her name does not appear on the list. Maybe she has a good excuse, but I don't know much about her, although she has been in the news from time to time.
Ted Opitz; same as Gallant, he's a Conservative but I've never heard of him before. He may be a rookie, or at the least, a dull backbencher.
Deepak Obhrai;ditto.
Joe Oliver; he's a Conservative Cabinet Minister whose name has been in the news quite a bit lately, usually in connection with the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline.
Tilly O'Neil Gordon, another Conservative who has been in the House for a few years, but, again, I know nothing about her, other than that she is from the Maritimes.
The two MPs who are not members of the conservative Party but who also voted for free speech are Peter Goldring, who used to be a Conservative but now sits as an Independent and (drumroll please) A MEMBER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY!!!! Scott Simms. Congratulations to Mr. Simms for voting his conscience.
===========================
Yesterday, the Act to Amend the Human Rights Act (ie) to rid us of the pernicious jackboot on our free speech rights, passed second reading, 158 for to 131 against, (background information here, here, here, and here.)
I was interested to see who was against free speech and found this list of who voted for and against (scroll down near the bottom for tally of votes and voters on Bill C - 304 or Standing Order 93(1)).
As I expected, all members who voted against free speech were Dippers (94 nays), Liberals (32 nays), Bloc (4 nays) and the lone member for the Green Party, Elizabeth May (1 nay).
Interestingly, some members of those parties did not vote against the bill (perhaps they stayed home that day - old trick used by politicians who don't want to be accountable. Regrettably, the same can be said of the Conservatives. They have 165 members, but the total number voting for free speech was 158.)
The current standing of each of the political parties is shown here.
Note, the NDP hold 101 seats, meaning seven Dippers did not vote against free speech (and perhaps conveniently forgot to show up), Liberals hold 35 seats, which means 3 did not vote against free speech.
In any case, the Bill now goes to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights where the Conservatives have a majority. It is now only a matter of time. The whole process from beginning to end is extremely time consuming and, by tradition and protocol, passes through numerousstages:
"Heather articulates one of the greatest ideas of the Enlightenment and of Western civilization. The way to progress, succeed, and to solve problems is to speak honestly. That’s why freedom of speech is the very first principle in the U.S. Bill of Rights. But the dominant philosophy of the current age — Political Correctness — is based on exalting lies on behalf of allegedly good causes."
"Heather" is an Egyptian woman, by the way. Good ideas do have a way of spreading far and wide.
Which reminds me, I wonder how Brian Storseth's proposed amendment of our Human Rights Act is doing.
"Canada's human rights commissions could soon be de-fanged.
New legislation would repeal Section 13, the hate speech portion of Human Rights Act.
"Our government believes Section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combating hate propaganda. We believe the Criminal Code is the best vehicle to prosecute these crimes," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told the House of Commons during question period."
[---]
""No more witch hunts by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, no more persecuting their political enemies", said Levant."
"After five years in power, the Conservative government finally has introduced a bill to repeal the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act."
[---]
"Finally, the Conservative government has taken the first baby step to repealing it.
Well, that’s not quite accurate. The Conservative government and the Justice Minister haven’t done a thing. But a backbench MP from the northern Alberta riding of Westlock-St. Paul has. Last Friday, Brian Storseth introduced a private member’s bill, Bill C-304, called “An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (Protecting Freedom).” Normally when a private member’s bill is introduced, it’s merely a symbolic act — pretend busy-work that’s little more than a press release, that has little chance of being passed, and often doesn’t even get a chance to be debated.
But Storseth’s C-304 isn’t at the end of a long line. It’s near the front — it’s 15th in line. So it’s quite likely that the bill will actually be debated, as soon as November, and voted on this year.
It should be a slam-dunk. Freedom of speech is so important to our society, it’s bigger than left wing versus right wing, or conservative versus liberal."
Wanna let your MP know how you expect him/her to vote? Type your postal code in here to get your MPs contact information. And while you're at it CC your congratulations to Brian Storseth.
"The survey of 1,500 Canadians, conducted over three days last week for the Montreal-based Association for Canadian Studies, showed 56 per cent of respondents see Western and Muslim societies locked in an unending ideological struggle, while about 33 per cent - just one-third of the population - held out hope that the conflict will eventually be overcome."
Except I'm more concerned with that part of the spectrum on the left which wants us all to practice dhiminitude. That'd be the same bunch that conducts and interprets these sorts of studies for us, cause we're too stupid or politically incorrect to see the error of our ways.
"Many Canadians have come to believe "nothing will work" to end that conflict, said Jedwab, adding that this grim state of mind will require more scrutiny to fully understand and more carefully crafted public policies to rebuild a sense of optimism about the future of global relations."
[---]
"The survey did offer one notable "ray of hope," Jedwab suggested, pointing to a result showing that a slight majority of Canadians (52 per cent) believe it would be wrong for airport security officials to do "extra checks" of "passengers who appear to be of Muslim background."
While 39 per cent of respondents were open to that kind of profiling, Jedwab interpreted the majority's rejection of the practice as a sign that most Canadians realize such infringements "would make the purportedly irreconcilable conflict even deeper if the enshrined principles of our rights charters are to be disregarded."
See what I mean?
Here's something we should try. Get rid of our kangaroo courts (the Human Rights Commissions) and ask us again just before the twentieth or twenty-fifth anniversary of 9/11. We might be less kow-towed by that time.
"Ontario is launching a one-year probe into the province’s human rights watchdog.
Toronto lawyer Andrew Pinto will examine changes made in 2008 to the Human Rights Code — including if the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is effectively doing its job.
Earlier this year, Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak reversed his stand on his promise to scrap the human rights tribunal. He now says that if he is elected in the Oct. 6 provincial election, he would “fix” the human rights system, which he once referred to as a “kangaroo court”."
Chickenshits, the whole lot of them.
It's interesting to see the breakdown of "agree" and "disagree" in the comments. I wonder if McGuinty and Hudak will read this and come to the right conclusion.
""We are moving Canada in a Conservative direction, and Canadians are moving in that direction with us," Harper told an audience that included more than two dozen Tory MPs. "Conservative values are Canadian values. Canadian values are Conservative values.""
[---]
""Canadians have found through a costly 40-year experiment with liberalism that big government is not an instant answer to everything.""
We gotta do more than just maintain the status quo. There's a lot of rollback to do, and I don't see you doing any.
Maybe this speech you gave is just a softening up in preparation signal, but if it's true that liberalism is done for and conservatism in on a roll, do you really have to soften us up? If anything, I think you have to calm us down and help us be patient.
I think you're wrong about the Conservative Party "leading" the people. I think the people are ahead of you. We're like the Tea Partiers and the Conservatives are like the Republicans. You keep harping about the recession not being over yet, but there's lots of things you can do that have nothing to do with the economy, other than shrinking the civil service payroll and thereby the Federal budget. Those are the kind of signals we need. Start with the Human Rights Act and the CBC. Now that will send a bolt of lightning across the country. Although you have mentioned some good things in your speech, the long-gun registry, for example, isn't much of a hot button issue in the cities, or with non-gun owners.
Although I don't think conservatives are inclined to behave this way, but going too softly and waiting too long, might just keep too many of us away from the polls four years from now. Do you really want to risk that?
No, a couple of bold steps right away will light a fire under the Conservative movement. So do it!
It might be time for me to write another letter.
(Oh. And did you notice the article says the Liberal Party held their own meeting earlier in the day at the Calgary Zoo. He, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he. Good choice of venue.)
"A Quebec municipality engaged in a crusade to defend the right to pray in public is collecting donations from across the country.
Saguenay Mayor Jean Tremblay said Thursday his city has already raised $15,000 as part of a high-profile campaign to fund his legal battle against citizens who want him to stop reading a prayer at the opening of city council meetings.
Tremblay announced Wednesday he is appealing a Quebec human rights tribunal decision that ordered him to put an end to this practice and remove all religious symbols, such as the crucifix, from the council meeting room.
The devout Catholic mayor will take his battle to Quebec's highest court and called on residents of this small town, located about 200 kilometres north of Quebec City, and faithful from across the province to support him."
[---]
"The human rights tribunal decision handed down last week ruled the prayer goes against people's freedom of conscience and ordered the municipality to pay a $30,000 penalty to the plaintiff.
Tremblay is making a vibrant plea in favour of Quebec's religious tradition. He said Quebecers have become too "meek" in the name of accommodating religious minorities.
"Quebecers don't care about their traditions and their values anymore. We need to wake up and to stand up for what we believe in," Tremblay said.
"Yes, we have to be tolerant with others, but we need to start with ourselves. Why would we respect other religions but disrespect that of a majority?" he added.
Tremblay's message struck a chord with many Quebecers in a province where 80 per cent consider themselves Roman Catholics — even though the level of church attendance there is one of the lowest in the country.
"We are getting hundreds and hundreds of calls from across Quebec and also from the rest of Canada," Tremblay said.
"This is an issue of national importance. If we bend to this, what is going to be next? We'll have to change school names or street names bearing a religious connotation?""
Yup. It's not really about Christianity. It's about the hypocrisy of the human rights industry.
According to Statistics Canada, Saguenay's population as of the 2006 census, was 151,643. Of those, 146,600 were of Francophone origin. I think it's safe to assume that group is Roman Catholic by heritage, if not in day to day practice. That's 91% of the population. Why the hell shouldn't they repeat the Lord's Prayer before their council meetings?
The rest of the population, BTW, is largely English, but also includes persons of various Asian ethnic roots that, by their region of origin, would likely include Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims. Their numbers total 345. souls, or .2% of the total population of the municipality. Yet according to the Quebec human rights tribunal:
"the prayer goes against people's freedom of conscience and ordered the municipality to pay a $30,000 penalty to the plaintiff."
There is no mention in the article of who the plaintiff is. Curious, no? Is he a died in the wool Francophone atheist? An equally died in the wool traditional Anglophone atheist? I doubt it. Perhaps a Hindu? A Sikh? A Muslim? I know what my hunch is.
Wanna drop them a note and lend your moral support? Here's where you can do it: Ville de Saguenay, Cabinet du maire (mayor's office).
"At that time, Mr. Mulroney and his policies were not universally popular.
“I think the important thing I have learned – it is important that as prime minister, for your policies, you think not in terms of easy headlines in 10 days but a better Canada in 10 years. That should be the test,” he says."
My advice is to go after our public broadcaster. This would probably have ripples far beyond North America, like, say, Britain, for example:
And then do the Section 13 thing and anything else that is guaranteed to put the Liberals and the Dippers in a very tight spot. Just see what sort of arguments they'll put up to have the thought police protected or to avoid being seen as thought police advocates. I would also suggest that funding for post-secondary institutions should be targeted to those programs that produce graduates able to find jobs in industry or research and development in science and technology.
"Imagine if a leader within the tea party movement were able to persuade its members to establish a third political party. Imagine he succeeded—overwhelmingly—and that as their leader he stood a real chance of winning the presidency. Then imagine that in anticipation of his electoral victory, the Democrats and Republicans quickly modified an existing antidiscrimination law so that he could be convicted for statements he made on the campaign trail.
All of this seems impossible in a 21st-century liberal democracy. But it is exactly what is happening in Holland to Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.
[---]
"But since splitting from the Liberal Party six years ago, his star has only risen. In the national elections held in November 2006, his party won nine seats in parliament. When the Dutch government fell again this year, June elections saw his party take 24 seats in the 150-seat body.
This has spooked Dutch parliamentarians, particularly those wedded to multiculturalism. That's why, in the fall of 2009, they modified Article 137C and 137D of the Penal Code to make it possible for far-left organizations to take Mr. Wilders to court on grounds of "inciting hatred" against Muslims."
[---]
"Historically, the Netherlands has insisted on the idea of "consensus." Though on paper this means compromise, in practice it has meant conformity of thought and a refusal to rock the boat on controversial issues."
[---]
"The bill used to prosecute Mr. Wilders is the national version of what OIC diplomats peddle at the U.N. and EU."
Wow! This is dirtier than I thought, and that says a lot. Read the whole thing and note the parallels with our Human Rights Commissions. Scary, scary, scary.
"Alberta's lone NDP Member of Parliament is speaking out against Canada's Prime Minister over the election-style remarks he made while speaking to supporters in Edmonton.
When Stephen Harper addressed hundreds of people on Friday night at a local hotel, he argued the country will see a coalition government if the Conservatives aren't elected as the majority in the next election.
He also took direct aim at Linda Duncan's seat in Edmonton-Strathcona, saying his party is determined to win back the riding."
[---]
""The next election is going to be a choice…When the next election does come the entire future of this country is at stake… Let's be blunt: A far left coalition's only priority seems to be shutting down Alberta energy industry and putting thousands of Albertans out of work.""
[---]
"While both the Harper government and opposition leaders say no election is on the horizon, those who heard about the Prime Minister's comments have their doubts.
"The whole tone of his speech was campaign style," said local John Hunka.
"The way he was talking [Friday] night, it's gonna happen."
But as I said before, I'm predicting spring. It might be a bit too late now for a fall election and besides, they have to get their act together and implement some of those long-overdue policy initiatives and election promises and things Canadians have been clamouring for, whether promised in the last election, or not, such as killing section 13 --- NOW --- if they want us to give them a majority. If, on the other hand, they do call an election now for sometime in late November, they may just be history. They've pissed off too much of their base.
Next up? Victims of Canada's Human Rights Commissions, perhaps? Honour your words, Stephen;
“Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society … It is, in fact, totalitarian.”
A stubble jumper is a prairie farmer. I'm from Saskatchewan and my dad was a farmer, so the name is apt. "Redneck" needs no explanation. It's anyone who disagrees with a lunatic leftie. My blog is mostly about the Middle East but other issues also catch my eye and get me going. I monitor comments to keep out trolls and lunatic lefties. Anyone who is zealously anti-American and anti-democracy in the Middle East is NOT welcome.
