152 Carlton Street
PO Box 92545
Is it any wonder there is a 100%
Paid lobbyists are required to report who they have lobbied, along with a variety of other information, such as government grants received, what was lobbied for, etc. A search of the new Lobbyists Registration System has yielded some very surprising results.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal describes itself as “much like a court.” The Tribunal’s website goes on to state: “the Tribunal's role in all situations is comparable to that of a judge, deciding the case fairly and impartially by weighing all the evidence introduced by all parties and deciding if discrimination under the Act has occurred.”
So, if the Tribunal is “much like a court” and it’s role is that of a “judge” -- why are paid lobbyists trying to persuade and influence the Tribunal? Could this explain the 100% conviction rate the Tribunal has for Section 13, the notorious internet censorship provision?
It would be totally inappropriate for a large company like the Royal Bank of Canada to pay lobbyists to influence judges on cases, where the Royal Bank’s interests are in issue, and it is equally totally unacceptable for Jewish organizations to hire and pay lobbyists to influence Tribunal members to rule in their favor.
Canadian Jewish Groups that have reported to the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada that they have Lobbied the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT)
In his popular blog,
not the only Jew who didn't get the groupthink memo from our so-called
"representatives". It seems that Jonathan
Ross and Karen
Selick of the National Post (not to mention the Asper family), Edward
Greenspon of the Globe and
the aforementioned individuals has come out against section 13. But that's
the problem: they're individuals. The Official Jews, the Professional
Jews, the Jews Who Are Jews for a Living, say that we're all just one
big blob of "Jews" who think as we're told to think by
Canadian media on the Canadian "Human Rights" Censorship
the last few years, in a series of cases, human rights commissions have
stretched the meaning of their codes to invariably rule against the right
to free expression and in favour of those who claim their feelings have
been hurt. Slowly, precedents have built up that are intimidating people
into keeping silent. Now, media organizations routinely censor themselves
for fear of being dragged in front of a tribunal, even going so far as to
get people to sign forms where they promise not to offend anyone.
| Censure the censors |
power-grabbing human rights commissioners evidently have scant regard for
the freedoms they suppress or for the original understanding of the codes
they are supposed to uphold.
| Freedom of the press attacked
more than twenty years, in this column and elsewhere, I have been writing
against the human rights commissions, which have quasi-legal powers that
should be offensive to the citizens of any free country. They are kangaroo
courts, in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn. They
reach judgments on the basis of no fixed law.
| Suing for silence |
even in this craven environment,
days in Canada, if you're feeling down and blue, and you think somebody hates you, you
bring your case to a Human Rights Tribunal. … you will have the
satisfaction of making your enemy squirm, in a kangaroo court where he is
stripped of the right to due process, in which there are no fixed rules of
evidence, in which the ridiculously biased “judges” make up the law as
they go along, and impose penalties restricted only by their grimly
limited imaginations -- such as ruinous fines, and lifetime "cease
and desist" orders, such that, if you ever open your mouth again on a
given topic, you stand to go to prison.
| The new totalitarians |
rights commissions are obsolete bodies whose moment has passed. That they
can be exploited by a narrow lobby seeking to impose its doctrine upon
is a serious problem.
| Shut down the human rights
liberticidal monster should have been strangled at birth -- but better
late than never. By now Human Rights Commissions are populated with
officials who speak disparagingly of "fundamentalist liberals"
and describe free speech as an "American idea" with no weight in
this country. They're dragging magazine and writer into their rank
dragon's den for allegedly suggesting that Islamic culture is incompatible
| Turning out the lights on liberalism
in the late 1970s,
STOP THE CENSORS - REPEAL SECTION 13!
Challenge of Section 13
Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge
Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law
and protect Freedom of Speech in