May 21, 2016

WATCH: Free speech advocates draw Mohammad at Parliament Hill

Victor LaszloRebel Commentator
 

On May 20, the sixth anniversary of artist Molly Norris's first "everybody Draw Mohammad day", Ottawa blogger "Xanthippa" organized her second annual demonstration for freedom of speech on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. 

Rebel Readers may remember when the founder of this site, Ezra Levant, was made to face a Star Chamber in Canada (laughably named the "Canadian Human Rights Commission") for republishing the Danish cartoons of Islam's prophet Mohammad.

Below was his opening statement to that commission.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-05-22 08:40:58 -0400
Al,
If you want to split hairs there is, as you pointed out, one recourse – the Notwithstanding Clause. But as mentioned by Dan it is not used. Why should it be a consideration? A futile effort in mental gymnastics in my opinion since the government refuses to use it. I cannot recall an instance where it has been used to override the Supreme Court’s ruling decision. There have been several instances over the decades that it should have been theoretically used but was not. A paper written by Richard McAdam, Dalhousie University Department of Political Science, an M.A. Candidate, puts forward the premise that it is not invoked by the government because it would be perceived as a violation of the principle of the Charter of Rights thus would result in a backlash in political standing in the eyes of the voters. I tend to agree with this stance, however I disagree with his stance on how the general population perceives the Charter of Rights. In my opinion most people know little except for what they see/hear/read (news/papers/TV/online) unless they have an interest in the topic or perhaps for academic reasons. He lends too much credence to the idea that the general population is well versed. But that leads back to the original question, discounting the clause, who does one appeal to when citizens disagree with the Supreme Court’s rulings? There is no true answer except for anarchy or rebellion. We see this happening over in Europe, the governments have turned a deaf ear to the populace and continue with what they perceive should be done and the result one sees reported is the formation of groups of people that simply had enough and have in essence become vigilantes.

If one wants to read the paper:
http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/fedgov/article/viewFile/4393/4408
commented 2016-05-22 00:50:51 -0400
The Notwithstanding Clause is never used:

“…The notwithstanding clause has been used infrequently and, at times, controversially. It has not been used by the federal government and only four examples exist at the provincial and territorial levels:

1) Quebec’s was the only provincial government to oppose the Charter, but it was the first to invoke the clause. In 1982 its government passed legislation that invoked the clause in every new statute, but the practice lapsed when a new government was elected in 1985.
2) Quebec also relied on the clause in 1988 when the Supreme Court of Canada’s Ford9 and Devine10 decisions prevented its residents from using French-only signage. In 1982 the Yukon used the clause in its Land Planning and Development Act, but the Act was ultimately not proclaimed into law.
3) Saskatchewan added the clause to protect back-to-work legislation in 1986, but it was removed when the Supreme Court ruled that the statute did not violate the Charter.
4) Alberta’s government added the clause to its Marriage Act in 2000, exclusively limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, but it was invalid because marriage is exclusively federal jurisdiction.11

Examples of its use have illustrated that while its practical impact has been limited, its political importance is significant. It has become a symbol of political balance in Canada…."
http://ualawccsprod.srv.ualberta.ca/ccs/index.php/i-o/755-notwithstanding-clause

LIZA ROSIE;
Same idea, different sites…
commented 2016-05-21 23:36:58 -0400
liza ..i think if harper had a do over he would probably make some harder decisions as he must realize by now the supreme court went out of it’s way to dismantle every conservative thing harper was doing like releasing the murdering terrorist, telling muslims they didn’t have to show your face to become a citizen,that is a slap to the face of all true Canadians,and the sentencing guidelines harper brought in for repeat offenders. i believe most reasonable thinking people had no problems what harper was trying to do. mclachlin is a disgrace to the supreme court and all of Canada, in hindsight harper should of killed the cbc and defied the courts because i believe most of us were in support of his new laws, harper must be tearing his hair out as he watches turdo dismantle all he tried to do and turdo turning canada into a country with no free speech under his dictatorship, if turdo gets rid of FPTP for elections we are doomed
commented 2016-05-21 23:16:38 -0400
I just looked up usage of the notwithstanding clause and it said this,
“The Notwithstanding clause has been used very rarely and has only been invoked by provincial governments (as of May 2007, the federal government has never made a Notwithstanding declaration). The following briefly discusses key usages of the clause in Canada’s history.”
Not that the Federal gov. can’t but it doesn’t look like they do, ever.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/notwithstanding-clause-section-33-charter
right at the bottom of the page.
commented 2016-05-21 23:01:16 -0400
I wish Harper had used it a few times. The left would have had a field day if he had. Thanks for pointing that out Al. It sounds like a sure fire safety valve , if only it was used.
commented 2016-05-21 22:31:06 -0400
Hyacinth, You’re wrong. We have the notwithstanding clause to keep parliament supreme over the courts. The courts are unelected and unaccountable. What we don’t have is a government with the backbone to invoke it. The Liberals won’t because the Supreme Court is doing their bidding. They can point at the SC and say, “well the SC has ruled so there is nothing we can do”. The Conservatives won’t use it because they are afraid that the SJWs will call them bad names. What I wouldn’t give for a political party with a spine.
commented 2016-05-21 22:16:42 -0400
The Supreme Court interprets the laws made by the Executive and Legislative branch of Government. That’s why the appointment of Supreme Court Judges is so important. The Governor General does the appointments on the advice of the PM. The Governor General is appointed by the Queen, under the advice of the PM. Our current is David Johnston who was appointed under Harper in 2010. All but two of the existing S.C. judges (who are appointed for life) was appointed under Harper, the other two were appointed by Chretien and Martin. Chretien’s ,Beverly McLachlin was the judge who put Khadr on our streets, I believe. Sad but true.
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/Compilations/SupremeCourt.aspx?Current=True&Menu=SupremeCourt
commented 2016-05-21 22:04:04 -0400
HYACINTH:
I think I get what you’re saying, and as much as I’d like to say we could change that tomorrow (snapping my fingers), you stack up a pretty good case against the reasonable and correct…that’s a pretty scary place we call home.
Well, I guess it’ll have to be revolution then…
commented 2016-05-21 17:27:58 -0400
I happen to agree with you Lawrence, but as I mentioned there is nothing that can be done within the legal system, who does one appeal to if the Supreme court gets the final say but citizens disagree with its rulings? The deck was stacked by Pierre Trudeau, what we witness now is the end result of his machinations. There are many links and pdfs online that outline what his alleged intent was with his charter of rights and his multicultural act. There is also many links and pdfs that outline the dire consequences because his policies could and have been misconstrued/twisted to suit many different scenarios. I can’t remember the Judge’s name off the top of my head, but in the ON judiciary pages online there is a paper of his where he outlines one of the largest problems in criminal law, as he saw it, in regards to the Charter of Rights – it was about giving more rights to the perps while removing rights from the victims, a situation he felt should be addressed. Was it? Obviously not or Khadr would still be behind bars. We have a corrupted system in place courtesy of Pierre Trudeau. Pierre believed that Canada did not have its own culture ergo new foreign cultures had full right under his new policies to usurp that of existing Canadian traditions and culture. The answer to correct all of this? Well it definitely was not electing the son of the man that started the mess, he WILL take advantage of it and make it far worse.
commented 2016-05-21 17:17:08 -0400
While the Supreme Court is stacked with lefties it should also be noted that they are now going beyond their mandate of referring the laws they strike down to parliament for revision and instead are in fact rewriting the law themselves.
commented 2016-05-21 16:47:44 -0400
hyacinth…the supreme court in Canada is the biggest problem in Canada they don’t rule on morality and justice for Canada ,their rulings favor criminals , special interest groups [against the wishes of the majority ] , immigrants and terrorists as we seen with khadr the murdering terrorist who e may the wino is in love with and supports
commented 2016-05-21 15:36:46 -0400
DAN MANCUSO;
Are yes, I forgot Justins Dad, very good with his finger but I am not so sure about his other part. Not when I look at Justin.
commented 2016-05-21 15:32:57 -0400
“Canadians lost all of our unalienable rights and protections under British Common Law when Pierre Trudeau patriated our Constitution from Britain and imposed the unmandated, so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms on us.”

Dan, while that comment is true one cannot change what has been put into policy years ago, especially the rulings by the Supreme court. Who would the appeal be put to if the Supreme court has the final say? It is simply barking at the moon. Best to concentrate on what can be changed.
commented 2016-05-21 15:22:12 -0400
Dan,
Regarding your #5 point:
" 5/ …. homosexual marriage sanctioned by the state!"
You’re barking at the moon for no reason. See below:

- In 1977, Quebec became the first province in Canada to include “sexual orientation” in its human rights legislation. Today, all provinces and territories in Canada prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
- In 1992, the federal government lifted its ban on homosexuals in the military, allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly and live with their partners on military bases.
- 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that gay and lesbian couples should enjoy the same rights and benefits as common-law couples with regard to pensions, income taxes, and other such matters. The federal government recognized such rights in 2000.
- In July 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world, after the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain, to legalize same-sex marriages nationwide.

- – -
The Charter and Equality:
Judicial rulings on same-sex marriage have focused on equality rights under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 15 states:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that discrimination based on sexuality is analogous to discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, or colour, and, as such, is prohibited under Section 15 of Canada’s Charter.
commented 2016-05-21 14:53:00 -0400
KEITH BARNES;
I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying about Justin, I merely feel the need to correct where you are assigning blame.
Canadians lost all of our unalienable rights and protections under British Common Law when Pierre Trudeau patriated our Constitution from Britain and imposed the unmandated, so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms on us. Democracy is basically mob rule, so a tool such as the Charter to capture a bare majority – like the useful idiot, low information voter dupe that ‘elected’ the Three Amigos – Justin, Wynne and Notley – has been proven very effective – men in girls bathrooms constituting proof enough…
Justin is merely a pretty puppet sent to finish the job Pierre started – the complete destruction of the sovereign nation of Canada for their One Worlder masters!

ELTON BRAUN commented 1 hour ago
“All potential immigrants to Canada should be required to draw a picture of Muhammad.”
Upon reflection of what I initially took as humour, your Moslem vetting idea actually sounds quite effective in practice. Of course I don’t know how taqiyya would apply here. Solutions are what we need, not a lot of angry, but righteous squawking from the sidelines.
commented 2016-05-21 14:26:07 -0400
Boy, the body language/facial expressions of that government drone was very telling…

A message to the next leader of the CPC.
If you want my support and a vote from this fiscal and social conservative, I demand:
1/ CBC – gone!
2/ So-called Human Rights Tribunals – gone!
3/ Islamic terrorists – gone!
4/ The war against socialists and socialism – I want to see the plan!
5/ Open debate and voting on abortion on demand and homosexual marriage sanctioned by the state!
And you’re going to need to prove that somehow, before you get my vote…
No more f**kin’ around with my country!
commented 2016-05-21 13:54:24 -0400
Elton Braun, what a brilliant idea. That would certainly take care of the vetting job nicely!
commented 2016-05-21 13:26:56 -0400
All potential immigrants to Canada should be required to draw a picture of Muhammad.
commented 2016-05-21 13:26:54 -0400
All potential immigrants to Canada should be required to draw a picture of Muhammad.
commented 2016-05-21 13:10:43 -0400
gee, I thought that meant they were drawing Trudeau.
commented 2016-05-21 12:39:13 -0400
We have to exercise our right or we lose our right. And we are.

Just re-watched Ezra’s entire interview by the HRC on youtube. It is pure art. So impressive Ezra.
commented 2016-05-21 12:24:39 -0400
Canada is a Democracy, freedom of speech is part of that Democracy. That is until a ‘Justin Trudeau’ reared it’s ugly head.

Now, with the ‘New Justin Order,’ free speech has become illegal and we are being forced to give way to a Gang of imbeciles, aka Liberal misfits and their Muslim Voters.

Good for You Ms Noris, you have the fortitude to stand up for what is right.

As for Justin Trudeau, it is about time he learned the facts of life and realized, some of us are not fooled any of the time.

I would suggest that Justin takes a course on Growing Up.