senator-doug-finley

Senator Finley calls for an inquiry on the erosion of free speech in Canada

Today Senator Doug Finley rose in the Senate to give notice that he would “call the attention of the Senate to the issue of the erosion of Freedom of Speech in our country” and that this would be done through an inquiry.

Under the rules of the Senate, a minimum of two days must be given before a sponsoring senator can speak to an inquiry he or she would like to initiate. This means that Senator Finley is expected to speak to the issue next Tuesday at the earliest. Also, the sponsoring senator can provide a reply at the conclusion of the inquiry.

This move by Finley is likely in reaction to recent events by university officials and students at the University of Ottawa to intimidate US conservative commentator Ann Coulter from appearing on campus. Coulter’s scheduled speech was cancelled due to safety concerns this past Tuesday. The Senator will also rise during a time when federal and provincial human rights commissions have run amok, hearing complaints by politically offended groups and individuals.

The Ann Coulter cancellation at the University of Ottawa has further mainstreamed public opinion against censorship of speech drawing defense of the American firebrand by a broad cross-section of Canadian opinion-makers.

Finley’s call for a Senate inquiry will promote discussion of the values of free speech and will draw lawmakers to consider the broader view of how far this freedom has slipped away in Canada.

UDPATE: Hansard record of Finley’s notice.

Erosion of Freedom of Speech

Notice of Inquiry

Hon. Doug Finley: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence:

I will call the attention of the Senate to the issue of the erosion of freedom of speech in our country.

Comments

comments

  • Patsplace

    Silly little boys and girls being manipulated in a classic “Useful Idiot” fashion. Had the engagement not been canceled there is no doubt in my mind some of them would have been hurt, perhaps seriously. The bodyguards that she travels with take their job quite seriously.

  • wilson

    And…''The Public Service Alliance of Canada condemns the Harper government's decision to close Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) offices in Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax.''

    It's been a very good day.

  • Careen Longhurst

    It could not come soon enough!

  • http://www.stubblejumpingredneck.blogspot.com/ Louise

    And university campuses would be a very good place to start. That and the Human Wrongs Commissions.

  • Cytotoxic

    NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

  • Liz J

    This and the closing of some of the Jackboot offices is all very timely. We need to thank those who invited Ann Coulter , her treatment at a university in our Capital City, coupled with the riot act spelled out to her by Provost Houle, has exposed something very insidious, a gradual erosion of our basic rights and propagated in our halls of higher learning. Scary stuff.

    This fight is for all who honour those who fought and died for us through two World Wars.

  • robins111

    About F*&%ing time, how about this goes further and Cauterizes the various HRC's around Canada, starting with Lynch-em-up and Bab's?

  • Cat

    Excellent news! I seriously hope they delve into the Liberalizing of our post-secondary institutions and what passes for Political Science these days. My eldest was given a course in how to be NDP at his school….not to mention working INTO the curriculum the benefits of MMP voting which oddly enough showed up as an exam question. Good think the conservative students in class knew enough to feed that pap back to the prof. and get the hell a pass just to get out of that class!

  • Steve

    Doug Finley for world president!

  • kenn2

    Mr Taylor opined:
    This move by Finley is likely in reaction to recent events by university officials and students at the University of Ottawa to intimidate US conservative commentator Ann Coulter from appearing on campus. Coulter’s scheduled speech was cancelled due to safety concerns this past Tuesday. The Senator will also rise during a time when federal and provincial human rights commissions have run amok, hearing complaints by politically offended groups and individuals.

    The facts:
    - because of Ms Coulter's public put-down of Muslims (“…take a camel”) at a previous engagement, provost of U0fO Francois Houle sends private email to Ms Coulter, warning that in Canada, speech that incites hatred can be prosecuted. Was the email appropriate/ Debatable, of course. Was it a threat? Hardly. Is there ANYONE who would be threatened or intimidated by ANYTHING said by a university provost? Really?

    Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

    Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.

    I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.

    Wooooo. Threatening.

    - according to police and witnesses, there were about 2,000 people there in total, of which about 200 were protesters.

    - the decision to cancel was made by the Coulter team; she WAS NOT prevented from speaking

    It's ridiculous to suggest that 200 protesters (no weapons were present, no arrests were made) would constitute a threat, especially to someone who regularly performs for Tea-baggers.

    Unfortunately, this is about the best possible outcome for Ms Coulter, who's a professional attention-whore. She's Don Rickles, but without a shred of shame or humility. Anything that puts her name on the front page keeps her appearance rates up. Ditto for Mr Levant, who's apparently too hard-core even for the CPC.

    Even David Frum gets that the US right wing 'pundits' have gone too far.

    Do I think she should be banned from speaking in Canada? Nope. Mainly cos in her case I know it's simply entertainment, not to be taken seriously. If she was “intimidated” by a warning from a provost and 200 protesters, then she hasn't figured out free speech yet.

    We do have free speech in Canada. Free doesn't mean irresponsible.

  • kenn2

    If HRC offices are being closed, then who will hear poor Ms Coulter's cry for justice?

    …riot act. HI-larious. Keep'em coming.

  • Mary T

    Fraum has been fired.
    The letter to Ann was sent before she even arrived in Canada. It had nothing to do with what went on in London. And really what would an 8 yr old girl, on 9/11 know about who flew those planes into the towers and killed thousands of innocents. And why isn't it mentioned that said girl is a member of a few hate groups. Who sent her the question on her blackberry.
    Houle should be dismissed from his postition. And, I hope Ann does file a complaint with the HRC, naming him, the student's union, and individuals and sues them all for a few millions of dollars.
    For too long these professional protesters have gotten away with their thuggery. Sue them into poverty.

  • kenn2

    You have proof of all of that, or is it merely rhetorical foam cos you're barking spitting mad?

    If the American right embraces Ann Coulter & Glenn Beck, and shuns people like David Frum, then the either the Rapture is nigh (start packing, kids) or the US right wing is about to implode.

  • Mary T

    The firing of Fraum is in several papers, and there are several mentions of the letter sent to Ann before she arrived in Canada. The muslim girl was outed on a few blogs.

  • tedbetts

    You think increasing the CHRC funding and increasing the number of employees is a very good day?

    Interesting.

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    “Frum”

  • tedbetts

    So, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives…

    - won't change a word of the Canadian Human Rights Code

    - actually praise the work of the Canadian Human Rights Commission

    - increase funding to the CHRC in an self-declared “austerity” budget

    - increase the number of employees at the CHRC in a time of ballooning deficits

    - Harper bans his caucus from attending Ann Coulter's speech (according to Coulter)

    - Harper routinely punishes any civil servant for providing their expert opinion if it doesn't help his electoral chances (eg. firing a scientist who wrote a book on his own time on environmental change)

    - Harper uses a SLAPP defamation case to silence/chill the opposition parties when they start asking questions about the “financial considerations” his party offered Cadman for his vote

    - Harper refuses to do anything about the election gag laws and third party election spending laws he railed against before becoming PM

    … but the Conservatives are defenders of free speech because one senator wants to hold an “inquiry” into free speech.

    Taylor says Finley is doing this as a result of the Ann Coulter debacle.

    I think it probably far more likely that it is cover for their inaction and anti-free speech actions.

  • Mary T

    I knew it was wrong, but what the heck. He went from being employed to unemployed Frum.
    Wonder what his father-in-law thinks.

  • tedbetts

    Kenn2:

    Frum was indeed fired, Kenn.

    The really funny and very telling part? Commenters here cheering Finley for wanting an “inquiry” into free speech, attacking U of O and the CHRCs for their attacks on free speech, and at the same time cheering Frum getting fired… for saying stuff they don't like!

    Scratch a conservative, find a censor… be it contrarian opinions, erotica, pro-Palestinian speakers (eg. Galloway), wardrobe malfunctions, political opponents, contraception, planned parenthood, etc.

  • Mary T

    notice the date of this story
    Adam McDowell, National Post with files from Canwest News Service Published: Monday, March 22, 2010

    Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=
    The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

    If you read that, and others that are around, you will learn the letter was sent before she arrived in Canada.

  • kenn2

    Sorry – I did know about Frum's ouster from AEI. I should have said so.

  • kenn2

    Frum was fired from a conservative “think tank” AEI . So… what's your point? Have his conservative gongs and stripes been ripped from his shirt? Is everything he's ever said now crap?

  • kenn2

    The letter to Ann was sent before she even arrived in Canada. It had nothing to do with what went on in London.

    You are correct. I thought the email was sent after the UWO apprearance. My mistake, sorry.

  • PeterLT

    I beg to differ. Free speech is either free or it is not, period. There is no gray area. The “responsibility” is not on the speaker's part, it is on the listener's. In an educated and civil society such as the one Canadians think we belong, ALL points of view should be encouraged and debated, not just the ones acceptable to the politically correct left wing intelligentsia. Whether the letter was a well worded attempt to educate or a veiled threat is immaterial, it should not have been sent in the first place. Any attempt to stifle, or as in your case trivialize, the infringement on a person's right to speak is an affront to us all and is the first step in creating a police state. If you don't like or agree with what a speaker has to say, then don't listen or take an opposing viewpoint and speak up. I promise we free Canadians won't trample or shout you down.

  • kenn2

    Free speech is either free or it is not, period. There is no gray area.

    We both know that from an absolutist standpoint, this isn't true either here or in the U.S. Try yelling “Jihad!” or making a bomb joke in an airport. You can't yell “Fire!” in a crowded movie theatre.

    Free speech, like freedom itself, has never been absolute; everyone is free to exercise their rights to the extent that they don't impinge on the rights of others. Canadians (both the country and individuals) have earned their good international reputation in part due to their responsible exercise of their rights and their respect for the rights of others. People who don't have regard for the rights of others are running counter to Canadian values, and should expect our disapproval. (Geez, now I sound like a blogging Tory…)

    The “responsibility” is not on the speaker's part, it is on the listener's.

    This is wrong on every level. Everyone is responsible for their actions. That's a necessary part of freedom.

    I think you and I agree that ALL points of view should be encouraged and debated. I might even agree with you that Houde's email was PC-tainted, and that there was a vigourous protest at UofO… but those too are also examples of free expression. Houde as provost has the right to act as he sees fit for the benefit of UofO, and protesters have the right to express opposition to a viewpoint.

    Why didn't Coulter present her talk? Why didn't she simply reschedule? It's because being able to pretend she's a victim serves her interests far better than if the talk had gone ahead with little fuss. No-one's happier about the UofO cancellation than Ms Coulter herself.

    If you're genuinely concerned about free speech or creating a police state, you might inquire why Harper's cabinet are muzzled, or why any public servant who publicly disagrees with Harper generally gets the sack.

  • batb

    I'd love to know what role Allan Rock, former Liberal Cabinet Minister and now the President of the U of Zer0, played in this whole Houle/Coulter fiasco. He issued a statement of real weasel words about the shutdown of Ann Coulter's talk in which he declares that ” … Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted …” http://www.media.uottawa.ca/mediaroom/news-deta

    Yeah, right, Al. I'm not convinced after the U of O student shenanigans on your campus the other night: setting off fire alarms, knocking over tables, blocking entries, shouting down those with whom they disagree, rather than allowing a debate.

    Meanwhile, U of O Vice-President Academic and Provost M. Houle signs himself as “recteur des études.” I've wondered at a few other blogs whether that's a typo which should read instead “rectum des études”?

  • east of eden

    Ditto. After reading Levant's book, I was furious that our tax dollars support these kangaroo courts. Are we not involved in peacekeeping missions to eradicate this sort of thing? The HRCs are the secular equivalent of religious police.

  • east of eden

    I doubt if she intended to file a complaint. I do believe, however, that she was mocking our politically overly-correct way of dealing with free speech. I have no great love for the USA and I'm not a fan of Coulter but…she made a point. And, the U of O really is bush league.

  • kenn2

    I'd like to share the results of a small experiment I tried, which bears on the subject of free speech.

    About 18 hours ago, I replied to batb's comment with a short sentence that was pointlessly abusive and contained the f-word. It of course immediately got caught by the profanity filter and was sent to Stephen for moderation. And it hasn't appeared on this site. I have to assume that Stephen didn't approve it.

    If I was all up in arms about the absolute right to free speech, and about how Canada is rotten with political correctness, then I should be slamming Stephen for censorship and demanding that he post my comment in all it's foulness. But I'm not. I agree with Stephen's moderation choices, and you do too, and you would all be demanding that I be censored or banned for such a comment.

    Stephen gets it (whether he admits so or not). WE ARE FREE to express ourselves here, yet we collectively observe certain unwritten rules about what can/cannot be said, and these are gently reinforced by moderation, to keep us on-topic and within a reasonable level of civility.

    This same situation applies in Canada. WE ARE FREE to express ourselves, but there is a tacitly agreed-upon level of discourse in the media and in the public sphere. Extreme abuses of free speech are potentially subject to hate laws, the charter, and/or human rights commission.

    Nonetheless we do have free speech here, and it's only the few who have deliberately tried to push the boundaries that have run afoul of hate laws or the HRC.

    FINALLY… at worst, Ms Coulter was 'inconvenienced' for one night, her rights to free speech (and ours to listen) have not been harmed, she could have gone onstage that night, she could have rescheduled, with a better-sized venue. Her decision to not go on has given her more exposure, not less… free speech is quite alive and well in Canada.

  • batb

    Do you condone hooliganism, kenn2, (aka Houleganism), because that was the problem at Ann Coulter's talk at UZero.

    I'm not saying that the dissenting students didn't have a right to express their opinions. The issue is the way in which they expressed them (to make your point) — and the fact that by their intimidating rowdiness, they made sure than Ann Coulter would not be able to express hers. The police made it clear that they could not guarantee either Ann Coulter's or anyone else's security or safety — a disgrace in itself, but that's another issue — which made it prudent for the talk to be shut down.

    Let me repeat, the anti-Coulter rabble set off fire alarms, knocked over tables, blocked entries, and shouted down those with whom they disagreed. They created a security risk for Ann Coulter, for the students who wanted to hear what she had to say, and, ironically, for the students who obviously didn't want to hear what she had to say and who chanted their displeasure, assuring, thereby, that no debate could take place.

    To your view that “at worst, Ms Coulter was 'inconvenienced' for one night, her rights to free speech (and ours to listen) have not been harmed, she could have gone onstage that night, she could have rescheduled, with a better-sized venue. Her decision to not go on has given her more exposure, not less… free speech is quite alive and well in Canada,”

    EXCUSE ME?

    Not only was she “inconvenienced” so were the people who PAID to see her and hear what she had to say. What about their rights?

    Why would she go onstage when her person had been threatened? There were Facebook threats of things being thrown at her and her security guard, rightly, made the decision that it would be unwise, and dangerous, for her to go on with the speech. (Isn't it a sad commentary on leftards that “right wing” speakers on university campuses are always accompanied by their own security?)

    She could have re-scheduled???? When and who would pay? Her weekend was booked in California and Las Vegas. Where? Why should SHE have to find a larger venue? She wouldn't have needed one for the paying audience if the leftist rabble hadn't shown up to derail her speech.

    It's entirely the dissenting students' fault that Ann Coulter was given more exposure and I'm ROFLMAO!!!! As to your comment that “free speech is quite alive and well in Canada,” piffle and hogwash.

    Even the Canadian Association of University Teachers, who undoubtedly are not fans of Coulter, said this week in a letter to Mr. Houle said that he owed an apology to Ms. Coulter and, even more importantly, he owed “the University of Ottawa community an assurance that the administration of the university strongly supports freedom of expression, academic freedom and views the role of the university as fostering and defending these values.”

    batb (been around the block)

    Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.h… “We feel you [Houle] ” officials with the
    The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

  • kenn2

    Do you condone hooliganism, kenn2, (aka Houleganism), because that was the problem at Ann Coulter's talk at UZero.

    Were all 200 protesters 'hooligans'? If there were any hooligans, why were there no arrests?

    Hmmm. That reminds me that Ann's a favourite of the US Tea Party – y'know the ones who have all the noisy protests and issue death threats to Democrats. She knows a hooligan; she helps feed'em.

    I'm not saying that the dissenting students didn't have a right to express their opinions. The issue is the way in which they expressed them (to make your point) — and the fact that by their intimidating rowdiness, they made sure than Ann Coulter would not be able to express hers. The police made it clear that they could not guarantee either Ann Coulter's or anyone else's security or safety — a disgrace in itself, but that's another issue — which made it prudent for the talk to be shut down.

    Let me repeat, the anti-Coulter rabble set off fire alarms, knocked over tables, blocked entries, and shouted down those with whom they disagreed. They created a security risk for Ann Coulter, for the students who wanted to hear what she had to say, and, ironically, for the students who obviously didn't want to hear what she had to say and who chanted their displeasure, assuring, thereby, that no debate could take place.

    Easy on the plurals – one fire alarm, one table, one entrance…

    Uh, first, have you EVER heard that the police or security guards would guarantee any celeb's security/safety? I don't think the RCMP would guarantee Stephen Harper's safety. But at least they take the job seriously. The organizers of the UofO appearance should have laid on enough security to handle the expected protesters. (and a bigger venue, given the interest in attendance). It doesn't take an army to manage 200 protesters.

    Let me repeat. Security was the organizer's problem and they didn't manage it properly.

    Not only was she “inconvenienced” so were the people who PAID to see her and hear what she had to say. What about their rights?

    Again, organizer's problem. They have the responsibility for ensuring the event they organized goes ahead as planned. They have to either reschedule or issue refunds.

    Why would she go onstage when her person had been threatened? There were Facebook threats of things being thrown at her and her security guard, rightly, made the decision that it would be unwise, and dangerous, for her to go on with the speech.

    AGAIN – organizer's problem for not enough security!. Ms Coulter's no stranger to animosity and protests, though she's usually the one egging people on… She's seen a protest or two. She knows the game.

    (Isn't it a sad commentary on leftards that “right wing” speakers on university campuses are always accompanied by their own security?)

    Ignoring for the moment that the above is gross hyperbole… why would a rightard whose income is based entirely on enraging certain groups NOT take precautions?

    She could have re-scheduled???? When and who would pay?

    Uh… the organizers? They screwed up?

    Her weekend was booked in California and Las Vegas.

    Oh noes. We're talking free speech, not a mani-pedi appointment. Her message isn't so vital to the Ottawa unwashed that it doesn't merit another try?

    Where? Why should SHE have to find a larger venue? She wouldn't have needed one for the paying audience if the leftist rabble hadn't shown up to derail her speech.

    Ah. Any protesters are rabble? Or just lefty UofO students ? So all 200 protesters are rabble, hooligans … I see… How long have you been having these hallucinations?

    It's entirely the dissenting students' fault that Ann Coulter was given more exposure and I'm ROFLMAO!!!! As to your comment that “free speech is quite alive and well in Canada,” piffle and hogwash.

    I'm not laughing, I'm scratching my head wondering why the right wants to circle their freedom-wagons over a self aggrandizing demagogue like Ann Coulter, and one poorly organized appearance.

    (Also, if you can publicly say piffle and hogwash, then CLEARLY there's no real restrictions on free speech. I mean, c'mon…)

    If you really really approve of unfettered free speech, I'm curious as to where you stand on our government banning George Galloway from even entering the country, in order to stop him from speaking in Toronto. That's now the STATE banning free speech, never mind 200 (or 50 or 12 or 4) protesters causing a security headache at ONE event.

    Regarding Provost Houle's email – did you actually read it? It's less threatening than the safety instructions that come with an electric toothbrush. I'd say the sheer embarrassment of writing such a wussy email is its own punishment. Had he said “just keep the f#*k away, you lying b!#ch” …then an apology would most certainly be required. On that we agree.

  • batb

    1. If there were any hooligans, why were there no arrests?

    'Beats me. 'Just more police ineptitude, I guess, which I find unacceptable and scary. Just because no one was arrested doesn't mean that laws weren't broken. Someone should have been charged with setting off the fire alarm when there was no fire (except for the “hot” Ann Coulter). If you call “Fire!” in a theatre where there is no fire, you'd be arrested. So, why didn't Ottawa's “Finest” (sic) charge someone, indeed?

    2. Tea partyers “issue death threats to Democrats”? Please provide a link.

    3. “Easy on the plurals – one fire alarm, one table, one entrance…” How do we know? If ONE person had been charged with any of these things, we'd know there was only one, wouldn't we?

    4. “Security was the organizer's problem and they didn't manage it properly.” Uh, not so fast, kenn2. I heard Alan Harrison, Provost and Vice-President (Academic) of the U. of Calgary, on the news on Thursday morning. He said that the U. of C. would be laying on adequate security (which seemed a reference to U.Zero's not having done so.). From http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/boosts+secu

    [begin quote]

    There are no plans to cancel the Calgary event, but security will be “significantly augmented”, U of C provost Alan Harrison said.

    The university isn't hosting the event, but is providing the venue.

    Extra costs will be billed to the organizers, Harrison said.

    The venue has seating for about 400.

    The purpose of a university is to encourage the exchange of ideas, said Harrison.

    “To do anything other than that is to go against, I think, what the university stands for.

    “Our concern is to ensure this event goes on smoothly and that she receives the same respect for her opinions as everybody else would expect to receive for their's,” he said.

    Harrison said it's not up to the U of C to decide in advance what Coulter might say and whether that is a promotion of hatred.

    [end quote]

    5. “AGAIN – organizer's problem for not enough security!.”

    Nope. See above.

    6. Show me where protesters of a left-wing speaker at a Canadian university has a) had to provide their own security, and b) has been threatened with physical violence or been shouted down by an angry mob? That's a CANADIAN venue I'm talking about, kenn2. Please don't bring up anything that's happened in the U.S.

    7. “They [the organizers] screwed up …” You're sounding like a broken record, kenn2 and you're WRONG.

    8. Of course not all student protesters are rabble, but the UofZerO students certainly were. Read their Facebook threats. Look at the video of their behaviour. 'Guess you don't have the same measurement for civility that I, and many others, have. Then, again, most leftists don't. Their standard is pretty low and shallow.

    9. George Galloway was banned because he supports groups that have been deemed terrorist groups by the Canadian government. I happen to agree with our government on this one. Ann Coulter's feisty and infuriating comments can in no way be put in the same category as George Galloway's support for terrorist groups. The state banned an appearance by a political activist from another country who openly supports terrorists — and who, BTW, are enemies of our state.

    11. Excuse me, kenn2. I didn't ask M. Houle for an apology to Ann Coulter or the U of Zero. The Canadian Association of University Teachers did.

  • kenn2

    Thanks for numbering. It'll speed things along.

    1) Police ineptitude… do you live in Ottawa? A personal anecdote to share? It's kind of shabby to sh!t on the police just to make a rhetorical point, don't you think? I think I'll take the actions of the police over your unfounded supposition. If they didn't press charges, or otherwise indicate that this was some sort of riot, then I'm inclined to think it was a fairly vanilla student protest.

    2)… problems with your Google?
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_… third-last para
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/twitte
    http://www.examiner.com/x-42653-Tampa-Progressi
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28ric
    (wow. Stay classy, American right wing…)

    3) I'm tired. Google this for yourself.

    4) Ah. Nice to see your Google's back.
    From your link & quotes:

    There are no plans to cancel the Calgary event, but security will be “significantly augmented”, U of C provost Alan Harrison said.

    The university isn't hosting the event, but is providing the venue.

    Extra costs will be billed to the organizers, Harrison said.

    Read the last sentence aloud; it might help. Do you get it now? Security is the responsibility of the organizers. It sounds like Harrison doesn't think there's enough security arranged for by the organizers, and he's chosen to lay some more on. Harrison gets it.

    Many moons ago, I've helped organise entertainment events. I know from experience that the event organizer is ALWAYS responsible for security, unless contractually arranged otherwise.

    5) see 4

    6) I've personally seen protests and booing at lefties on campus. I imagine George Galloway might have drawn some protests, if Harper wasn't terrified of him.

    7) see 4. You is wrong, sorry.

    8) So. All 200 protesters were hooligans. Pictures?

    Some people on both sides got shouty, a table got overturned, but no-one was hurt, no-one was charged.

    9) http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/

    Many consider Galloway a nut. Nobody disputes he's a pacifist and anti-war. He turned over some ambulances and relief supplies to the elected government (Hamas) of a state in need (Palestine). Last I checked, Hamas hasn't yet started shooting ambulances or bags of flour into Israel.

    Note that Canada, the US and even Israel also pump aid into the Palestinian areas. Any aid to the Palestinian people, direct or indirect, leaves Hamas with money to spend on other things. So, we're all supporting terrorists now. Turn yourself in.

    10) Bo Derek

    11) You're excused.

  • batb

    1. Yawn

    2. Yawn. Broken windows, Democrats “report” …?

    3. Yawn.

    4. Yawn.

    5. Yawn.

    6. Yawn.

    7. Yawn.

    8. I already said that not all protesters are hooligans. In this case, a critical mass were. Yawn.

    9. “The governments of Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the United States classify Hamas as a terrorist organization.” http://www.google.ca/search?q=hamas%2C+canadain… …
    Yawn.

    10. Dudley Moore

    11. Yawn.

  • kenn2

    well, can't argue with a closed mind. Maybe you'll be less intellectually lazy after a good sleep.

  • batb

    Hey, kenn2, I'm wide awake.

    You seem to be the dozey one.

    Sweet dreams …

  • cousinarlo

    The fact that this is even being proposed by yet another senior politician is at the very least better than them NOT having proposed it!

    kenn, you have admitted to two mistakes in this baiting session of yours, so how about getting down off the pony?

    When PeterLT said, “Free speech is either free or it is not, period. There is no gray area.” You jumped right in with a cliche that all modern censors use- the old “fake theatre fire epidemic” straw man.

    Hell-lo-o kenny! We already have laws against fake fire and airport bomb threats! We're already good there, buddy!

    What YOU and all power addicts in government want is the “Right To Hurt Feelings” being added to our laws.

    Later on you used “rights of others” three times in one paragraph, when you REALLY mean “Right to hurt feelings” Sorry. Hurt feelings don't cut it.

    And your inane comparison of serious free speech talk with not being able to drop the f-bomb in a blog? Yikes.

  • cousinarlo

    The fact that this is even being proposed by yet another senior politician is at the very least better than them NOT having proposed it!

    kenn, you have admitted to two mistakes in this baiting session of yours, so how about getting down off the pony?

    When PeterLT said, “Free speech is either free or it is not, period. There is no gray area.” You jumped right in with a cliche that all modern censors use- the old “fake theatre fire epidemic” straw man.

    Hell-lo-o kenny! We already have laws against fake fire and airport bomb threats! We're already good there, buddy!

    What YOU and all power addicts in government want is the “Right To Hurt Feelings” being added to our laws.

    Later on you used “rights of others” three times in one paragraph, when you REALLY mean “Right to hurt feelings” Sorry. Hurt feelings don't cut it.

    And your inane comparison of serious free speech talk with not being able to drop the f-bomb in a blog? Yikes.

  • http://www.filecabinetkey.net/hon-lateral-file-cabinet-dividers HON Lateral File Cabinet

    I like this article! Will come again next time for sure, thank again

  • Anonymous

    So if all this hate on for the human rights commission results in total eradication of any vehicle hearing violations of human rights, or any rights for that mater, will this mean that those of us who hold views counter to the current conservative regime in Canada will be free to speak out publicly for, let’s say… the second class treatment of Palestinians by Israel; with out any form of government censorship?  Or will we be painted as agitators and hate mongers?  I’m just sayin’, for argument’s sake.