Friday, March 26, 2010

Ann Comes to Ottawa...Almost

It became a non event, and a banner day for Canada.

Ann Coulter and outspoken media personality from south of the Border was due to make a speech at the University of Ottawa at their invitation. It prompted the Provost for the University to write a letter to Miss Coulter and warn her that we don't have a 1st amendment in Canada and that there are limits on what one can say......He even informed her that he would prefer criminal charges if she "crossed line". Yes our infamous hate speech law.

Canadian Human Rights Act

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.


(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.


(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.

R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 13; 2001, c. 41, s. 88.

Now this begs the Question how did Francois Houle ever become the provost of a university? An even better question has M. Houle ever read the Canadian Human Rights Act? No where in the Act is a criminal offence mentioned for "Hate Speech" which by the way the infamous sec 13 supra. Does it refer to an individual making a speech.
A man of such high learning ought to know better or at least did his home work

NOW Magazine editor Susan G. Cole appeared on FOXNews talk show Bill O'Reilly to discuss Ann Coulter's Canadian appearances. Vid link

It appears neither the news paper editor nor the August Provost had heard of either the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor The Canadian Bill of Rights.

From the elder Bill of Rights

Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

(c) freedom of religion;

(d) freedom of speech;

(e) freedom of assembly and association; and

(f) freedom of the press.

From the Charter


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.

Hmmmmm....I think Now Magazine should be censored since its editor doesn't know her rights so how would she know that it is unlawful?

Provost Houle??? I think maybe a grade 10 civics class is in order, the whole course with all the assignments anything less than a A+ at the end maybe he should resign as Provost obviously that job is to difficult for him at his mental capacity....

As for Ann Coulter you rock. You once said on a talk show that liberals were just mean and bullies....right again Ann. However I must correct you on one point Those that left America after the revolution were not the worst of America, they were like you conservative who believed that the war of independence was high treason against their King. Right or wrong he was the King.....

In closing, if Ann thought that we were morons? Surely now M. Bum Houler and Mm. Queen Cole have removed all doubt. A Real Banner Day For Canada...thanx,,,morons

Just a reminder to one and all Sat Mar. 27 is earth hour be sure to turn all your lights and electrical appliances on and the whole time think about how good it is to be part of the first world

Friday, March 12, 2010

Legal System 1 Rights 0

Lets be perfectly clear. We do not have a justice system, we have a legal system. That said, under such a system truth, rights, the long established common law mean nothing. The only ones safe from such a system are the common criminals themselves. Which is apparent with our current catch and release method of dealing with violent people. A ten year sentence for manslaughter can be served in less than 3 years with double and triple credit for time served awaiting trial and sentence.

This February past seen another shining example of how the cards are stacked in the favour of the powers that be and the common man it left with nothing. According to 3 of the wise of the Ontario Court of Appeal your rights mean nothing and the rights of the Parliament of Canada are supreme. They agree that we have the right to defend ourselves no question, however Parliament has the right to say with what.

If you are a peaceful Law abiding citizen you cannot simply arm yourself with a firearm and defend yourself, your family, or your property, noooooo. The firearms act specifically has made the regulation that self protection (which is a right) is not sufficient reason to be given a firearms acquisition licence nor a authorization to convey (ATC). So the only reasons that are acceptable are two hobbies (which are not rights).

I know that there are people going to read this and think so what! I don't have firearms and never will, people don't need guns. That's fine and they are free to think so. Like abortion if you don't agree with them don't get one. However I must point out that peaceful law abiding people are never the problem when it comes to firearms. It is the unlawfully obtained ones in the hands of criminals that is the problem. However the firearms act does nothing about these folk. Again the common criminal is safe from the law. If some street punk is willing to shoot someone do you really think they care if they get another 5 year sentence running concurrently with the sentence for their main offence is bothered?

If life were solely based on need our homes would be awfully empty. So I will be quite rude and dismiss that reasoning now. Why do you have a fire extinguisher then, plan on having a fire? Oh right just in much for the "need" argument.

Bruce Montague from Rigby Ontario took on the firearms act and thus far he has discovered that the powers that be don't care. That the justices are little more than rubber stamps for the legislation that our Parliaments proclaim to have the force of law.

Needless to say I will be there this struggle isn't over yet. It is one that will be never over. Though my cynical side says forget it the game is rigged and we little people haven't a chance playing this game. It will be waiting for the other shoe to drop, while my idealist side still is holding out hope that this draconian piece of legislation will fall. That would go a long way in restoring some faith in that we just might still have a bit of a Justice system left.