“Freedom of Speech Has Its Red Lines”

The Islamization of Canada proceeds apace. It seems to have accelerated since the election of Justin “Baby Doc” Trudeau, and the country is rapidly catching up with illiberal dhimmi states like Britain, Sweden, and Germany.

In the following video a newsbeing talks to a city councilor in Toronto the need to crack down on “hate” rallies. Watch the reporterette not even bother to conceal an amused sneer when she speaks the phrase “freedom of speech”.

Also notice that the “hate” mentioned by both people does not refer to the behavior of the masked antifas who beat up their political enemies on the street. That word is reserved for the opinions of those who oppose mass immigration and sharia — the “far right” protesters.

Civil liberties in Canada do not enjoy any constitutional protection. They can be enhanced or rescinded at the whim of the national legislature, and thus depend on the shifting winds of political fashion.

It makes me glad I live in the USA. Newsbabes can sneer all they want at “free speech” here, but our right to it is written there in the Constitution in plain English. And so it will remain — until the antifas get their way, that is, and overthrow our oppressive racist capitalist patriarchal “regime” and replace it with their communist utopia.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

22 thoughts on ““Freedom of Speech Has Its Red Lines”

  1. Civil liberties are theoretically protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    But in reality, only some of these rights are *really* protected by the politicised court system. Others are totally ignored. As demonstrated above.

    • If I understand it correctly, that charter can be amended by the legislature. If so, that makes it no different from any other statute passed by parliament. It’s just been given the fancy name.

      But I may be wrong about that. I’m not very knowledgeable about Canadian law.

      • The Federal Charter is part of the (federal) Constitution and thus a special law that requires approval from both the federal and 2/3 of provinces containing at least 50% of the population. In practice, this isn’t very different from the U.S. amendment formula.

        There are parts of the Constitution subject to different amendment formulas, but they’re not relevant here.

        THIS BEING SAID, almost all articles of the Charter are subject to the “notwithstanding” clause whereby a legislature (provincial or federal) can pass legislation that explicitly disregards the Charter. This has a 5 year sunset clause, and so needs to be “re-passed” every 5 years. It is considered politically unpalatable to do this, in most cases.

        You may have been referring to the (older) federal “Bill of Rights”, which is just simple legislation (and of no effect on the provinces), or to the Quebec provincial Charter of Rights, which is just simple legislation that can be amended.

        THE REAL THREAT, however, isn’t amendment or the notwithstanding clause, but the courts willing to find (under various built-in excuses to the Charter) that whatever violation of rights is acceptable in the circumstances. Invariably, the politically correct violations are found to be okay, and only the non-PC ones are retained for serious examination. Also, keep in mind that Charter protections only apply to government action, and that court orders due to actions between private parties aren’t covered – a huge speech-quashing loophole, in reality.

        In setting up the Charter, the government of the (IMHO communist-influenced) father of the current PM deliberately set up a regime which would transfer a LOT of essentially legislative authority from the legislatures to the courts, as a way of pushing his agenda from beyond the grave of the electoral cycle. He was quite successful in this, and we’re still living with it today. Thus, in a sense, the Charter may be more of a problem than a solution, sorely needed as protections actually are in this society.

        • Thanks for explaining it — that makes it much clearer.

          The bar for provincial ratification is a little lower — the USA requires three-fourths of the states. And population is not part of the calculation.

        • Excellent well explained. Add to that the John Robson complaint of a ‘constitution’ which is incomprehensible and therefore not at all a declaration of rights to the citizens, but a tool for elites to interpret as needs be, and as you point out, the grotesque amount of selective enforcement which is rapidly making Canada an authoritarian state.

          Diefenbaker in the 70s wrote this, of which I took a few photos from a former appointee of his, as I find this to be a far superior document to the constitution, whatever it actually does say.

          This has shades of Jefferson.


      • The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be amended by the federal government if seven out of the ten provinces agree (and if the populations of those provinces represent 50% or more of the total Canadian population). According to a government website, this is “very difficult” and has been done only twice since it came into effect in 1982. This site also tells us that rights can be limited by other considerations – e.g., freedom of expression can be limited in cases of hate speech or pornography. Here is the crux: who defines hate speech?

        This video is startling in that it reveals the weak and sloppy thinking of elected officials, as well as those in the media who purport to report the news. I tried to get an update on Councillor Pasternak’s attempt to get “hate” rallies banned in Toronto but could find no information. However, he needs to define his term “hate-sponsored rallies” – just exactly who will determine what is hate, and what is not?

        It’s chilling to hear him say that “sensible, reasonable people” will agree with the banning. He must include himself under this definition, but he’s far from showing these qualities if he thinks that a rally to protest Sharia law in Canada, for example, is hateful.

        Also the reporter glibly tells us that these rallies, which she labels as “far-right and anti-immigrant” turn to violence, with the accompanying videos of recent rallies in Peterborough and Quebec. The implication is of course that the organizers are violent people. I don’t know many details of the Quebec one, but in Peterborough it was the counter-protesters who turned violent, to a shocking degree – even marching through the streets in search of their target, the organizer (who didn’t show), vigilante-style. I recognize the film clip – but the reporter would have us believe it is the “far-right” who were responsible.

        We must open our eyes and stay alert to navigate the minefield created by biased journalism and fuzzy-thinking officials.

        I haven’t yet listened to Bill Warner’s comments on this, but will take a look now at the video over at Vlad’s.

  2. Im no so much amused by the sneer of the reportess, as by the reply of that poor guy: ‘laws, police, more police, more laws…’ They really do live in Ivory tower, don’t they?

  3. Attempting to ‘stomp out hate speech’ is just another cowardly means with which to limit those intrusive questions or assertions, that the respondents to such questions or assertions, have no honest or logical answer to, and that have a tendency to undermine their obvious, to the astute observer, pretentious stance.

  4. I think if one was to be a participant in the annual Santa Claus parade on November 19 of this year in Toronto, and wear a shirt with the caption: LET’S PUT CHRIST BACK INTO CHRISTMAS, he would probably be charged with hate speech and spend some time cooling his heels in the ‘cooler’; so to speak. After watching this short video I’ve decided to err on the side of caution and not attend at all. I would like to wish all who read this ‘A Blessed and Joyous Christmas’!

  5. After reading the above, I’ve decided not to participate in this year’s Santa Claus parade in Toronto on November 19. I had planned to wear a t-shirt under my coat that reads “Let’s Put CHRIST Back Into CHRISTMAS”. I’ve consulted many people about this idea and they have all said that it’s too dangerous or that I will be arrested. I’ve decided to be a live coward instead of a dead hero. It does not come easily though!! An after thought, if I don’t take off the coat is there any harm done?

    • You’d probably get away with this one THIS year.

      Getting arrested for that is probably 5-10 years away.
      But it will come.

    • Freedom of speech has become a use it or lose it proposition. A kind of tragedy of the commons of the intellectual space. If enough people use the space we have left, we can preserve it. So yeah. Wear the T shirt. Make sure people see it.

      Putting the Christ back into Christmas MUST not be allowed to become a controversial statement.

  6. I find it a bit odd that you would opine on Canadian law and then admit you don’t know much about it. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada apes the American Constitutional Amendments by laying down a written constitutional framework for protecting “freedom of expression”, as it is called in Canada. Please note the word “Amendments”. They came about because the governments of the day saw fit to amend the Constitution of the United States. How would this be any different from a Canadian Parliament and Senate agreeing to amend the Canadian constitutional statute?

    • I comment on it because I have been told things by various Canadians at various times, but I’m not sure I have recalled all of them correctly.

      The amendment process for the U.S. Constitution is quite different from the ordinary legislative process, requiring a supermajority in Congress and ratification by the states. Does Canada have something similar? Do the provinces all have to ratify changes to the Charter of Rights? If memory serves me, they do not.

      But please correct me if I’m wrong; that’s what I rely on our Canadian readers for.

      • As explained above. A big difference is that a supermajority isn’t required at the federal level. For the provinces, it’s 2/3 instead of 3/4. But it’s the same general basic idea.

        It looks great on paper.

        But wait until you see what the courts do, or more accurately, DON’T DO with it.

  7. This is what happens when you have a country run by dimwits. It is obvious that the people driving Canada’s islamization are of low intelligence.

  8. ” And so it will remain — until the antifas get their way, that is, and overthrow our oppressive racist capitalist patriarchal “regime” and replace it with their communist utopia.”

    There will be a bloodbath if they get even close to that, and then their attempts will end.

Comments are closed.