P.O. Box 332, Stn. “B” Etobicoke, Ontario M9W 5L3 Subscription Rates: $15.00/Year Telephone: (905) 897-7221 Fax: (905) 277-3914 Internet E-Mail: might stop someone else from talking. According to Ms. O’Donnell, any expression that is likely to cause discrimination against vulnerable group in society shouldn’t be put in public in any form because it lowers the vulnerable group’s self esteem.

Although the Canadian Charter guarantees freedom of expression, Ms. O’Donnell feels there is a limit to what should be expressed. … ‘In order to be democratic, we must have full participation in debate. If vulnerable groups are allowed to suffer discrimination that would inhibit them from participating in debate, then democracy is not being upheld..'” (Alberni Valley Times, July 3, 1998) Let’s get this straight: in order for their to be full democratic debate, anyone critical of a minority — be it in native land claims or immigration questions — must shut up so that the minority won’t feel intimidated.

The result? The Majority is silenced. Some democratic debate! The interview continues: “Unlike the criminal system, the B.C. Human Rights Commission is not punitive but remedial.” Well, the $203,000 the North Shore News spent to get columnist Doug Collins exonerated last year was certainly punitive! “‘Also, unlike the laws surrounding the criminal code, we aren’t questioning the truth of the argument. … All that has to be done is to have portrayed an expression of hatred and that it be likely to cause hatred against the complainant.'”

This woman’s expression is as fuzzy as her ideas are totalitarian. So, of course, truth is no defence! Once again, there’s the clear indication of the sinister loss of freedom and sovereignty resulting from successive governments of New World Order fans signing us up to international agreements. “Although the freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Ms. O’Donnell feels with the signing of the 1994 International Covenant to Eliminate All Forms of Racism, Canada agreed to proactively stop racism in every sector of society, including press, research, art, fair comment.”

Communists Back Gagging Opponents

One of those attending a protest urging the Greater Victoria Public Library Board to shut down a pro-free speech meeting of the Canadian Free Speech League, June 19, was Luis Perona. He told an interviewer: ” My name is Luis Perona with the Chilean community. I’m here because of the free speech group coming here. We know their background to be Nazi advocates, to be holocaust deniers, to be anti-immigrant. We’re here to protest the fact the Library Board is letting them participate. here. How, particularly, I’m here to fight racism. I’m a person of colour who lives in Canada. I’m a Chilean who grew up under the fascist dictatorship of Pinochet. Also, I’m a member of the Communist Party of Canada. I feel that it is extremely dangerous that these individuals who have a background of anti-communism are allowed to do what they are doing.” Well, that seems to make good Marxist sense. Tolerance anyone? Writing in the Communist Party’s People’s Voice, David Lethbridge, found guilty recently for defamation of Eileen and Claus Pressler, outlined the communist rationale for wanting the CFSL meeting shut down.

This month, on 19 June, 7-9 p.m., and 20 June 4-6 p.m., the CFSL intend to meet in the Juan de Fuca branch of the Greater Victoria Public Library, in Colwood. This action is an open provocation: the 1998 Conference of Canadian Library Associations is simultaneously meeting in Victoria. Hands will be wrung within the library walls. Can they dare to be heroes again? Perhaps they will raise themselves to the level of sainthood by washing the fascists feet as they goose-step inside. Protests will, no doubt, again be mounted, but it will be a difficult struggle. There is a photograph, in the national archives, of the white-hooded Kanadian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan holding a rally in the Vancouver Public Library in 1935. It will be instructive to see whether the library system’s long tradition of hosting fascists has undergone any change. Is there a Communist position on free speech? Yes, and it is complex. Speech is an ideological product; it ultimately expresses a class position. It is not neutral. Speech is partisan. Speech, as a form of ideology, in its most general sense expresses the ideas of the dominant class.

Because that is so, speech is often employed as a tool of domination. Fascist speech expresses the ideology of the most reactionary sections of the dominant class in an almost pure mode of domination; violence lies always just beneath the surface of fascist discourse. Fascist ideology is anti-democratic and anti-working class. Fascist speech is a weapon in a struggle to destroy the progress of working people, the great majority of people. Fascist speech is intended to divide communities against themselves, to create disunity, to create racial and ethnic division and violence.

That is why our basic position can be summed up by that stirring phrase from the Spanish Civil War – No Pasaran, ‘They Shall Not Pass!’ In practice such a position translates into a refusal to permit any platform for racists and fascists, a refusal to grant racists and fascists any right to enter our communities, to organize within our communities, to recruit within our communities, or to speak from within our communities. This position, a partisan position, requires no apology on our part.” Well, that’s pretty clear: to the gulags with all opponents!

Qantas Calls for News Censorship

Airlines seldom hesitate to trample on the sensitivity of those who smoke by spying on them in washrooms or on the Majority by having announcements in a host of foreign languages. On one recent flight into Vancouver from Toronto, in addition of English and French, Air Canada had announcements in Japanese and Chinese. However, in their vomitous pursuit of “sensitivity”, to minority concerns, free speech flies out the window, at least with Qantas Airlines.”Australia’s Channel Nine television network has refused demands by the national line Qantas to censor stories about Pauline Hanson in its inflight news service.

Qantas confirmed it had sought the ban because of fears that stories about Ms Hanson and her One Nation party may offend some passengers. The request came after a Qantas manager, en route from Indonesia, said news items about One Nation were offensive to Indonesians on the flight, reports said. Channel Nine refused to implement the ban because it would make covering federal politics or the upcoming elections impossible. Head of Public Affairs for Qantas Bernard Shirley wrote a second letter to Channel Nine to “clarify” the airline’s position. ‘We specifically do not want you to include reports which contain material offensive to any particular ethnic group. You will appreciate that in providing services to people from throughout the world, we try to ensure that we do not offend them through insensitivities in our inflight video programmes.’ Ms Hanson yesterday described the demand by Qantas as “un-Australian”. (South China Morning Post, June 25 1998)

McLellan Has Hate on The Brain

Reform MP Gurmant Grewal was seeking reforms in the Young Offenders’ Act, when he questioned Justice Minister Anne McLellan after five youths, identified as skinheads, were arrested in the slaying of Sikh caretaker. Note the exchange and McLellan’s obsession with “hate”.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.)” Mr. Speaker, five young men, including a young offender, have been arrested in my riding for the senseless murder of a temple caretaker. Why will the justice minister not introduce changes to the Young Offenders Act in a timely fashion? That time is now. The clock is ticking and time is running out for her number one priority.” Hon. Anne McLellan :” Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to a very tragic situation in the province of British Columbia. What I do want to reassure everyone in this House about is that the existing provisions in relation to hate in the Criminal Code apply regardless of whether that hate is propagated via the Internet or any other means of communication. Therefore as far as I can tell at this point there is no problem with the application of our hate laws to this situation.” (Hansard , April 22, 1998)

Homosexuals Use Rights Commission to Try to Force Fredericton Mayor To Proclaim Gay Pride Week

In Absurdistan, the thought police don’t just want to prevent you from saying politically incorrect ideas, they want to force you to emote politically correct speech. “Fredericton Mayor Brad Woodside says that on the scales of justice, his right to silence outweighs the demands of gays and lesbians seeking a Gay Pride proclamation. In an unusual argument for a politician, Woodside’s lawyer told a human rights inquiry Friday the mayor has a constitutional right to say and do nothing, especially on issues that go against his personal beliefs. ‘It’s a travesty to order somebody to make a statement they do not believe,’ lawyer Bruce Noble told the inquiry. ‘Any instruction ordering the mayor to make a specific statement is an attempt to restrict his freedom of expression.’ Noble said that freedom is guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it takes precedence over the New Brunswick Human Rights Act which says people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. Woodside has refused for almost 10 years to proclaim a Gay Pride Week or weekend, despite repeated requests from the city’s gay community He said he doesn’t want to be perceived as endorsing an alternative lifestyle which he believes is disapproved of by most Fredericton citizens. Two members of the city’s gay community, Allison Brewer and Kim Hill, filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

The subsequent two-day human rights inquiry ended Friday and a decision is expected by the end of summer on whether Woodside will be forced, against his will, to make the proclamation and possibly pay a fine. Representatives of the gay community said Woodside has denied them a service he offers other groups and individuals. … The hearing room was packed for both days of the inquiry. Members of the gay community sat alongside leaders of Christian groups who vehemently oppose gay rights. ‘We have the right to refuse to bless a lifestyle which is contrary to our moral and Christian values,”‘ said Mary Thurrott of the Christian Action Federation, which was given limited intervener status at the inquiry. Woodside, who attended the hearing but didn’t testify, appeared resigned to the possibility of losing the case. Two other mayors in the Ontario cities of Hamilton and London took similar stands and ultimately lost before human rights inquiries. In both cases, the mayors, or the cities, had to make Gay Pride proclamations and pay fines – $5,000 in the Hamilton case and $10,000 in London. Woodside said he’d go to jail before he’d pay a fine over gay rights. … “If there’s a $10,000 fine, obviously if I don’t get some assistance, I won’t be able to pay it. The mayor’s salary doesn’t give us the latitude to be running around paying $10,000 fines. “If the general population decides, ‘That’s your business, you look after it,’ then I’m not sure what would happen. I’ve never in my life spent a day in jail and I really don’t want to, but I’m not going to go out and borrow money to pay for this..'” (The Halifax Herald, July 11, 1998) Interestingly, the mayors of Fredericton and London seem to reflect the will of the Majority and keep getting re-elected.

Minorities Rule!: Draconian Fines Sneaked into Federal Human Rights Legislation

Late in June, Parliament passed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, billed as an extension of protections for the handicapped, but disguising heavy fines for those convicted of speech crimes, under Section 13.1 — using telephone messages that are likely to cause hatred or contempt of the usual privileged minorities. This is the section under which the Canadian Human Rights Commission is seeking to grab control over the Internet in the ongoing Zundelsite case. The alleged “victims” of these messages — so “victimized” that they keep calling back for more — could also be compensated for their wounded feelings. An October 9, 1997 news release from Justice Minister Anne McLellan’s office explains: “Victims of telephone hate lines would now be eligible under the CHRA for compensation from the offender, and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal could impose financial penalties on the operators of such lines.”

The release goes on to explicitly demonstrate that dissident thought and speech are the targets. “Studies have shown that the incidence of hate crime is rising around the world. Today’s technology allows hotlines carrying hate messages to be created with relative ease. The government has committed itself to ensuring that such crimes will not be tolerated in Canada, and it believes that stronger measures are needed to deter organizations and individuals from establishing such lines.

By allowing victims to apply for compensation and subjecting offenders to immediate financial penalty, the law would impose stiffer measures on purveyors of hate while recognizing the needs of victims.” The release concluded with a delightful Orwellian touch: “It will not infringe on the general right of all Canadian to freedom of expression.” No, in Cuba del Norte, you’re free to express politically correct thoughts. Needless to say, in its submission to the Senate considering this legislation as Bill S-5, the Canadian Jewish Congress, Canada’s premier censorship advocates applauded the legislation allowing a human rights tribunal to “impose penalties of up to $10,000 on violators.” (Canadian Jewish Congress Press Release, March 31, 1998)