Justin Trudeau is holding the pen and wants to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech. This must remain the domain of society, not the state.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission was created in 1977 to enforce the Canadian Human Rights Act — which it does most notably through the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. It operates thanks to $32 million per year in federal funding.
In recent years the commission has leaned hard into the doctrine of “anti-racism” — an ideology holding that mere legal equality is not sufficient, as any outcome that disproportionately affects one group over another must inherently be a product of “systemic racism.”
According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission “Systemic racism is a persistent problem in Canada. No organization and no government is immune,” reads an anti-racism declaration by the commission.
On an “anti-racism timeline,” the agency adds that its “Human Rights Officers” have been empowered to suss out the “subtle scent” of racism, and that they have specifically been ordered to prioritize cases relating to “race, colour or national or ethnic origin.”
Freedom of expression for Trudeau means being able to wear pink or Disney socks to meetings with world leaders, to show his contempt for others and unshakable narcism.
I've never understood how anyone could draft or support this kind of legislation. I realize that many people are not committed to the principle of free speech, but can they not even imagine the possibility that their draconian laws might be used against them by another government? Or by their own when the ever-shifting definition of "acceptable speech" changes once again? This is so dangerous in so many ways.
On a happier note, congratulations on your new book, Andrew!
Were he alive today, Christopher Hitchens would be reminding us that ample warning was provided by he and others. His prescient speech at U of T, in 2006, predicted the danger inherent in the degradation of free speech in Canada. Principles are important. In failing to ensure that even the most odious voices among us were protected, the long march to C-63 became inevitable. While he was a thoroughly repugnant character, the silencing of Ernst Zundel laid much of the legal and legislative foundation for today's chilling reality. It is bitterly ironic that the prosecution of a neo-nazi ultimately aided in the creep of authoritarianism.
Very well written. I have shared it extensively. I enjoy your substack and your True North work. This is a serious article and I don't wish to take away from that but I want to tell you that I appreciate your sense of humor. Truly, I am just a retired 62 yr old gal, who can be doing dishes and listening to one of your shows and I will be shouting with laughter, here, all by myself. Keep up the tremendous work that you do...in all you do.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission was created in 1977 to enforce the Canadian Human Rights Act — which it does most notably through the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. It operates thanks to $32 million per year in federal funding.
In recent years the commission has leaned hard into the doctrine of “anti-racism” — an ideology holding that mere legal equality is not sufficient, as any outcome that disproportionately affects one group over another must inherently be a product of “systemic racism.”
According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission “Systemic racism is a persistent problem in Canada. No organization and no government is immune,” reads an anti-racism declaration by the commission.
On an “anti-racism timeline,” the agency adds that its “Human Rights Officers” have been empowered to suss out the “subtle scent” of racism, and that they have specifically been ordered to prioritize cases relating to “race, colour or national or ethnic origin.”
So, really, what could go wrong? (sarcasm)
Freedom of expression for Trudeau means being able to wear pink or Disney socks to meetings with world leaders, to show his contempt for others and unshakable narcism.
I've never understood how anyone could draft or support this kind of legislation. I realize that many people are not committed to the principle of free speech, but can they not even imagine the possibility that their draconian laws might be used against them by another government? Or by their own when the ever-shifting definition of "acceptable speech" changes once again? This is so dangerous in so many ways.
On a happier note, congratulations on your new book, Andrew!
Were he alive today, Christopher Hitchens would be reminding us that ample warning was provided by he and others. His prescient speech at U of T, in 2006, predicted the danger inherent in the degradation of free speech in Canada. Principles are important. In failing to ensure that even the most odious voices among us were protected, the long march to C-63 became inevitable. While he was a thoroughly repugnant character, the silencing of Ernst Zundel laid much of the legal and legislative foundation for today's chilling reality. It is bitterly ironic that the prosecution of a neo-nazi ultimately aided in the creep of authoritarianism.
Very well written. I have shared it extensively. I enjoy your substack and your True North work. This is a serious article and I don't wish to take away from that but I want to tell you that I appreciate your sense of humor. Truly, I am just a retired 62 yr old gal, who can be doing dishes and listening to one of your shows and I will be shouting with laughter, here, all by myself. Keep up the tremendous work that you do...in all you do.