Conservatives Opening A Door To The Spreading of Hatred In Canada

Bill C-304: Hate Speech Clause's Repeal Gives White Supremacists Rare Moment Of Glee

White Supremacists might be happy about this, but the purpose of removing this clause was to allow the Christian Right to further spread hatred against the the gay community, same sex marriage and a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. The Christian Right has been pushing for changes like this (removing this clause of the Human Rights Act) for years in order to spread their hatred.

From Marci McDonald's The Armageddon Factor: (2010, p. 276 hardcover edition): Indeed, as Christian nationalists ... vent their views in the unregulated ether of the Internet, their chief worry is  a complaint filed against them with one of the country's assorted human rights commissions, which have become the religious right's new bete noirs - the latest gatekeepers of balance and secular humanism forcing Bible believers to measure their words.

The Christian Right has been part of the Harper Conservative government for years now and are a core supporter of this government. To maintain this support, Harper has to continue to open doors for them. In an effort to make it look to the rest of the public like his government is not pushing for draconian measures, he is getting his MPs to introduce controversial legislation as private members bills. He and his ministers may also claim that they are not interested in supporting them. But make no mistake, his government is 100% behind these private members bills.

From the CBC article Should The Human Rights Act Forbid Online Hate Speech?:
The Canadian Bar Association says that promotion of hatred is a "social evil" that has increased with the proliferation of the internet, and that the standard for wilful promotion of hatred in the Criminal Code is very difficult to prove. The CBA supported "retaining section 13 as a useful tool," but had reservations about the punitive fines. (PDF file)

List of Toronto G20 Lawuits

The following is a partial list from The Toronto Star: G20 Summit: Cop Unmasked As Protest Couple File Suit
(Read the Star article for all the details)


March 7, 2012: Toronto police settle a human rights claim filed by a paraplegic man arrested during the G20 summit. Terms are not public due to a confidentiality clause.

Feb. 16, 2012: Toronto lawyer Nicholas Wright sues Toronto police for $25,000 for alleged unlawful arrest.

June 24, 2011: Sean Salvati, a paralegal arrested prior to the G20 summit and allegedly strip-searched, assaulted and held naked in a jail cell for nearly an hour sues Toronto police for at least $75,000.

June 23, 2011: Courtney Winkels, threatened with arrest by an officer in a YouTube video for blowing bubbles, sues the Toronto Police Services Board for $100,000 for false arrest and Charter of Rights violations.

March 15, 2011: Two plaintiffs file lawsuits naming the Toronto Police Services Board as defendants and claiming $25,000 in damages. Luke Stewart, a 25-year-old PhD candidate, alleges that during the G20 summit, police said he couldn't enter a park unless he submitted to a search. The other complainant, identified as Kalmplex, is suing police for $25,000 for a wrongful arrest in Parkdale and for extended imprisonment of 20 hours.

May 11, 2011: Charlie Veitch, a British filmmaker arrested under the so-called five-metre law during the G20, sues the province and police for $350,000.
January 2011: Dorian Barton, a 30-year-old cookie maker, files a $250,000 lawsuit against the Toronto Police Services Board and seven unnamed officers, alleging his shoulder was broken and he was denied proper care after his arrest.

Sept. 7, 2010: Natalie Gray of Montreal, who claims she was shot by Toronto police with rubber bullets, files a $1.2 million suit against the Toronto Police Services Board and unnamed individual officers for damages.

Sept. 2, 2010: A $115 million class-action lawsuit involving 1,150 people arrested and detained during the G20 protests in Toronto is filed with the Superior Court. The plaintiffs are represented by lawyer Charles Wagman. The lawsuit has been stayed.

Aug. 6, 2010: A class-action suit is filed by lawyers Eric Gillespie and Murray Klippenstein against the Toronto Police Services Board and the Attorney General of Canada (responsible for the RCMP). The suit, which represents 800 people, seeks $45 million in damages.

NDP warns against Conservatives' snooping law

NDP warns against Conservatives’ snooping law

TIMMINS, ON – If the Conservatives get their way, police will be
soon be able to track every e-mail sent, every website visited and every
comment left on Facebook - all without warrants or judicial review.

“Canadians do all manner of business and personal pursuits on their
cell phones and online,” said New Democrat Privacy and Digital Affairs
Critic Charlie Angus. “These provisions would force local phone and
internet providers to spy on Canadians.”

Conservatives have indicated that "lawful access" provisions will be
included in their omnibus crime legislation this fall. Experts warn this
would legalize widespread snooping on average citizens – all without a
warrant. Telecom providers would also be forced to install surveillance
software giving police the ability to track internet and mobile phone
activity.

“The Conservatives' ‘lawful access’ proposal essentially means it’s
open season on the privacy rights of Canadian citizens,” said Angus.
“The real question here is why are the Conservatives pushing for such
widespread changes and starting such a full out attack on personal
privacy and liberty in Canada?”

Angus said New Democrats support modernizing policing powers to deal
with digital issues, but pointed out that removing the requirement for
warrants altogether opens the door to all manner of abuse by security
officials.

“Without oversight or limits, the question isn’t if abuse will occur, it’s how extreme will the abuse be,” said Angus.

This is what fascism looks like. Decreasing rights and privacy of the people and increasing the powers of the state and the police.

Conservative voters and people who didn't vote - this is what you support.

Toronto G20: One thug down, many to go.

Toronto police officer charged in G20 assault - thestar.com
Many more officers guilty of assault causing bodily harm will remain at large and uncharged due to a system that fails ordinary citizens when trusted police officers break the law.

US Congress to Palestinians - You do not exist

Congress to Palestinians: Drop dead - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
by MJ Rosenberg, Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network.

If anyone had any doubt about whether the Palestinians would declare a state in September, they can't have them now.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu delivered a speech to
Congress that essentially was a series of insults to Palestinians and
every insult was met by applause and standing ovations.

In fact, Netanyahu's appearance itself was an insult.

In the entire history of the United States, only four foreign leaders have addressed joint sessions of Congress more than once.

Prime
Minister Winston Churchill, America's great ally, addressed Congress
three times during World War II. President Nelson Mandela was honored
for destroying apartheid and freeing South Africa. Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin was recognised for opening negotiations with the
Palestinian people.

And now Netanyahu. For what?

In his
entire term in office he has done nothing but reject every request by
the United States that he take some action (like freezing settlements)
to promote Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In the history of Israel,
there has been no prime minister as hardline on Palestinian rights and
as indifferent to the wishes of the United States as Netanyahu.

So why was he invited to address a rare joint session?

He
was invited because the new Republican leadership of the House of
Representatives wanted to demonstrate, loudly and clearly, that Congress
will not support President Barak Obama in the event that he tries to
achieve an Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

And that is exactly
what the Netanyahu appearance today did demonstrate. The prime minister
unambiguously stated that he had no intention of making peace with the
Palestinians.

He began by saying that, in point of fact, there is
no occupation, stating, that "in Judea and Samaria [the term Israeli
right-wingers use for the West Bank], Israelis are not foreign
occupiers" but the native inhabitants. (He cited Abraham and Isaiah from
the Bible!)

He said he might consider giving up some of that
land but not an inch of Jerusalem. Additionally, he said that Israel
would retain most settlements and insist on a military presence in the
Jordan Valley (thereby ensuring the any State of Palestine would be
locked in on both sides by Israel).

He said that Israel would
never negotiate with a Palestinian government that included Hamas,
whether democratically elected or not. He declared that not a single
Palestinian would be allowed to return to Israel; not even a symbolic
return would be acceptable to him.

There is little reason to
elaborate. Netanyahu today essentially returned to the policies that
Israel pursued before Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat agreed on mutual
recognition and the joint pursuit of peace.

And the worst part
is not the appalling things Netanyahu said, but how Congress received
them. Even Netanyahu's declaration that there is no Israeli occupation
was met with thunderous applause with the Democrats joining the
Republicans in ecstatic support. Every Netanyahu statement, no matter
how extreme, was met with cheers.

Netanyahu was also applauded
wildly when he invoked Palestinian terrorism over and over again, even
seeming to lump his former "partner," President Mahmoud Abbas with
people who "educate their children to hate, [who] continue to name
public squares after terrorists. And worst of all continue to perpetuate
the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of
Palestinian refugees."

His bottom line, which Congress fully
bought, was that all Palestinians are terrorists who haven't earned a
state. And probably never will.

Congress cheered and cheered and when Netanyahu was finished, they climbed over each other to touch the hem of his garment.

It
was as if Congress thought that no Palestinians or other Arabs (or
Muslims) would be watching. It was as if it believes that it can shout
its lungs out for Netanyahu (and thereby secure those campaign
contributions from AIPAC), without any consequences to US policy and
national interests in the Arab world.

But Congress is wrong. The
message it sent to the Middle East today, to the whole world, in fact,
was that Palestinians cannot count on the United States to ever play the
role of "honest broker" between Israel and the Palestinians. Even if
President Obama was inclined to, Congress would stop him. And AIPAC,
using the leverage its campaign contributions gives it, would hold
Obama's feet to the fire too. As far as Congress is concerned,
Palestinians do not exist. They have no rights, to a state least of
all. 

And that is why Palestinians have no choice but to
unilaterally declare a state in the fall. They cannot count on America.
As David Ben Gurion understood when he went to the General Assembly to
achieve recognition of Israel, a small, powerless people must take its
destiny into its own hands.

The good news is that, although
Congress is in Netanyahu's pocket, the Obama administration isn't.
Netanyahu insulted the President at the White House last Thursday and
then again in the halls of Congress by eliciting support for policies
Obama rejects. And the administration is furious.

That means that
although Palestinians can and should ignore Congress, the White House
and State Department are still in play. Yes, they will both go along
with Netanyahu, but, probably, without much enthusiasm.

And they
can send a signal to our allies that although the United States cannot
openly oppose Bibi's policies because of Congress - and AIPAC's control
of it - the allies can. The Palestinians should not give up on Obama or
on Secretary of State Clinton either who cannot abide Netanyahu and made
sure she was out of the country to escape being present for his speech.


And so we can look forward to a unilateral declaration of
statehood in September. The Israelis who refuse to negotiate with
stateless Palestinians will have no choice but to negotiate
with the state whose land it is occupying. And those negotiations,
state to state, may produce peace and the "two states for two peoples"
that most Palestinians and Israelis aspire to. In any case, it's the
only hope.

Palestinians should thank Prime Minister Netanyahu
and, even more, the United states Congress for making their choice so
much easier. Together they helped create the Palestinian state today.
And that is a very good thing.

As for Americans, we should be deeply ashamed of our Congress. It has been sold to the highest bidder.

Did the Israeli army have the right to shoot?

Did the Israeli army have the right to shoot? - Features - Al Jazeera English
On Sunday, Israel's disputed northern frontier saw the first deadly clashes between civilians and the Israeli army since 1974.
 
Hundreds
of protesters from Syria and Lebanon marched south toward the two
countries' disputed borders with Israel to mark the "Nakba" - or
"catastrophe" - on the date Palestinians mourn their uprooting as a
result of Israel's founding in 1948.
 
What began as a mass march
by unarmed Palestinian refugees and activists soon turned bloody, with,
reportedly, 14 killed and hundreds wounded.
 
There has been much
controversy over the justifiability of the Israeli military's use of
force in the event of border transgressions.
 
But experts say
there is a fundamental difference between Israel's use of force in
disputed border regions on the one hand, and military action in the
occupied Palestinian territories on the other.
 
The distinction
lies in whether a boundary constitutes an agreed or internationally
recognised border between two countries - or whether it is a de facto
border through disputed territory occupied by one of the two states
separated by that border.
 
In light of the first violence in 36
years on territories under dispute by three countries, which involved
two state armies and large mobs of civilians, legal experts ask if the
IDF had the right to shoot civilian protesters from Lebanon and Syria.
 
Click the link to read the rest of the article.

The rights of Israel

The rights of Israel - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
Excerpt:

The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, now entering their twentieth
year had been hailed from the start as historic, having inaugurated a
"peace process" that would resolve what is commonly referred to as the
"Palestinian-Israeli conflict". For the Palestinians and the
international community, represented by the United Nations and the
myriad resolutions its Security Council and General Assembly issued
since 1948, what was to be negotiated were the colonisation of land, the
occupation of territory and population, and the laws that stipulate
ethnic and religious discrimination in Israel, which, among other
things, bar Palestinian refugees from returning to their land and
confiscate their property. In their struggle against these Israeli
practises, Palestinian leaders, whether in Israel, the Occupied
Territories, or the diaspora, have always invoked these rights based on
international law and UN resolutions, which Israel has consistently
refused to implement or abide by since 1948. Thus for the Palestinians,
armed by the UN and international law, the negotiations were precisely
aimed to end colonisation, occupation, and discrimination.

On the other hand, one of the strongest and persistent arguments that
the Zionist movement and Israel have deployed since 1948 in defence of
the establishment of Israel and its subsequent policies is the
invocation of the rights of Israel, which are not based on international
law or UN resolutions. This is a crucial distinction to be made between
the Palestinian and Israeli claims to possession of "rights." While the
Palestinians invoke rights that are internationally recognised, Israel
invokes rights that are solely recognised at the national level by the
Israeli state itself. For Zionism, this was a novel mode of
argumentation as, in deploying it, Israel invokes not only juridical
principles but also moral ones.

click the link to continue reading the article.

Israeli soldiers open fire on Palestinian protesters marking Nakba Day

Palestinians killed in 'Nakba' clashes - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Several people have been killed and scores others wounded in the Gaza
Strip, Golan Heights, Ras Maroun in Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied
West Bank, as Palestinians mark the "Nakba", or day of "catastrophe".

The Nakba is how Palestinians refer to the 1948 founding of the state
of Israel, when an estimated 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled
following Israel's declaration of statehood....

Israel's new laws promote repression

Israel's new laws promote repression - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
Excerpt:

There is a clear logic underlying this spate of new laws; namely, the Israeli government's decision to criminalise alternate political ideologies, such as the idea that Israel should be a democracy for all its citizens.

Hence, one witnesses an inverse trend - as the Arab citizens in the region struggle for more openness and indeed democracy, toppling dictators and pressuring governments to make significant liberal reforms, the Israeli book of laws is being rewritten so as to undercut democratic values.

Israelis celebrating the state's 63rd birthday should closely examine the pro-democracy movements in Tahrir, Deraa and across the Arab world. They might very well learn a thing or two.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid - The Harper Majority Government and the Christian Right

The Harper Government and the Christian Right
Harper is part of the Christian Right, make no mistake. And, he has let them into his government and into the halls of Parliament.
This article outlines some of the aims of the Christian Right regarding the governance of Canada.

With a majority in Parliament, and in the Senate, and stacking the judicial system with hard right-wing judges, Harper has the opportunity to finally unleash his true agenda of tearing down what makes Canada the country we know and love. Progressive and fair laws, freedoms, programs and institutions are all at stake.

See also:
The Armageddon Factor Blog: The Rise of the Religious Right in Canadian Politics

Parliamentary committee on the Toronto G20 police actions uncovers more skullduggery by the cops

Toronto journalist witnessed ‘police brutality’ at Toronto G20 - thestar.com
Excerpt:

“One officer held one arm, The other officer held the other arm and a
third officer came up to him and basically told him to shut up three
times, punched him in the stomach. He doubled over. The same officer
brought his elbow down on the small of his back and flattened him. It
seemed to me that that was a massive overreaction to try and check to
see whether somebody was who he said he was.”

Two University of British Columbia students Kirk Chavarie and
Grayson Lepp told the committee of their treatment by police after
attending a peaceful protest earlier in the day, including having to
stand in urine and feces for hours on end in a temporary holding cell in
Toronto’s east end only to have charges later withdrawn.

“Despite what some pundits would have you believe . . . I am
neither a thug nor a hooligan,” said Lepp, who is to graduate from the
UBC’s Okanagan campus.

NDP MP Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) told a news conference on
Parliament Hill earlier that not to hold a public inquiry is to accept
that Canada is becoming a police state where the toe of an officer’s
boot or punch in the gut is the rule of law.

Davies said not only has it been proven that police falsified
evidence to justify widespread arrests — the largest in Canadian history
— they also manufactured evidence, including so-called weapons seized
from completely separate incidents.

“What we need is a full public inquiry . . . if not, one of the
most shameful and largest mass violations of Canadians’ rights by police
and the state in Canadian history will go totally unredressed,” he said

Unidentifiable police can't be charged for G20 police crimes

Cops accused by G20 protesters cleared of excessive force allegations
The police who committed the crime of excessive force have been cleared of any wrongdoing because they weren't wearing their nametags, other police witnesses refused to testify, and civilian videos were shot from too far away to make out individual officers.

I've seen a lot of videos and some of the shots of police bludgeoning and kicking people were pretty close up. I wonder if civilian witnesses were asked to pick police out of a line up or to testify - probably not.

I say let's fire all the cops who decided to evade the law, abuse our trust, and assault peaceful protesters. Fire all the ones who were not wearing their nametags/numbers. That is the responsible thing to do here. And while they're at it, fire the thugs who gave the orders to beat and illegally arrest peaceful protesters and bystanders.

Addendum:
Toronto Sun: Our Cops and the Cone of Silence
All the SIU did this week was confirm the law does not apply the same way to those in uniform and the code of silence is not reserved just for the thugs.

Harper government plans on making ANY criticism of Israel's government's policies illegal

Dawg's Blawg: Push comes to shove

Excerpts:
Criticism of Israel will shortly become illegal in Canada.

That's the message of the "Ottawa Protocol"
agreed to behind closed doors this week by a group of international
parliamentarians calling themselves the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition to
Combat Anti-Semitism. The Canadian wing, of course, is the Canadian
Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism.

Here is what is about to descend upon us:

[The
Ottawa Protocol] aims to implement a series of measures to put an end
to hateful propaganda in places like universities. In particular, the group aims to stop the growth in the criticism of Israel and its policies that, it says, is increasingly a vehicle for anti-Semitism. [emphasis added]

It's
what some of us have been arguing all along--and we've been denounced
as paranoid for doing so. But you don't get a group of parliamentarians
deliberating for months and holding hearings if legislation isn't in the
works.
...
So now
Israel will achieve a status in Canadian law that no other nation
possesses. It will be shielded even from the silly commentary that is so
much a part of popular culture. You'll continue to be able to say "Bomb
Iran," but possibly go to jail if you say "Bomb Israel." The Toronto Sun can
still use the phrase "lock and load" in reference to a boatload of
Tamils, but a similar injudicious remark directed against Israeli
settlers on the West Bank would become a criminal matter.

Make no
mistake, this thing is a slam-dunk. When (not if) the Conservatives
introduce legislation to outlaw criticism of Israel, likely when a
federal election is in the offing, the Liberals will tamely go along,
not wanting to fight accusations of anti-Semitism in the thick of an
electoral contest.

No doubt the legislation will pretend to draw a
non-existent distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate"
criticism--non-existent, because the concepts are purely subjective. To
some, in fact, there simply is no "legitimate" criticism of Israel. The
legislation will, in word and in practice, be "very inclusive."

Such
legislation would quite possibly not withstand Charter scrutiny. But
that's small comfort at this point. It's on its way, and I, for one--who
have fought genuine anti-Semitism for decades, on the Internet and on
the ground--can feel a cold wind blowing. So should we all.


Read the whole post at the link above

See also:
CBC - Updated For The Record: The full text of the Ottawa Protocol

Toronto Police only accountable to themselves

Orwell's Bastard: The day they turned the Charter of Rights into toilet paper
Here is an excellent post on the problems of trying to hold the Toronto Police force accountable to abuses they commit.

G20 Inquiry: Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath introduces bill for a full public inquiry

NDP introduces G20 public inquiry bill | rabble.ca

On Tuesday afternoon, NDP leader Andrea Horwath introduced a private
member’s bill that would establish an independent commission to perform a
full public inquiry into the decisions and actions of the McGuinty
government and the police during the G20 Summit.

There were more than 1,100 arrests that weekend,
making it the largest mass arrest in Canadian history; extensive
violations of civil liberties and charter rights; peaceful protesters
silenced; and innocent bystanders detained.

“There are now six separate reviews underway,” said
Horwath. “Yet none of these has the mandate or the jurisdiction to ask
the most fundamental questions or provide Ontarians with the answers
they are seeking.”

Horwath’s bill requires that a commission shall be appointed within 60 days after the G20 Public Inquiry Act
comes into force that will make recommendations to the Ontario
government and police about how to reduce spending, arrests and violence
at similar future events.

The commission will also report on whether the
rights and freedoms of Ontarians were put in jeopardy during the G20
Summit and the exercise of power under the Public Works Protection Act.

Read more at the link

Referendum win by Erdogan mainly means a boost for democracy in Turkey

Turkey’s Erdogan ready to make changes after referendum win - The Globe and Mail
Excerpt:
The AKP ran an impressive campaign. Most aspects of the government’s
lengthy set of changes were immensely popular: They reduce the power of
military courts over civilians, grant greater protections of human
rights, and remove the immunity from prosecution that Turkey’s military
coup leaders gave themselves when drafting the constitution in the early
1980s.

Harper's Canadian government - a real change for the worse - Amnesty International

Canada unpredictable on human rights says new Amnesty boss - thestar.com
“There’s a feeling there’s a real change for the worse in terms of the human rights approach of the Canadian government,”

G20 Toronto: another late call for an inquiry

Growing case for G20 probe - thestar.com
Yes, a FEDERAL inquiry is needed. One that has the power to subpoena. One that will get to the bottom of who really called the shots and allowed the vandalism to happen, and that ordered the police to illegally arrest and detain hundreds of innocent people. This Toronto Star article sort of calls for that, but not quite.

G20 Toronto - Officer Bubbles hits the big time

Toronto's 'Officer Bubbles' gains web notoriety - thestar.com
The Toronto Star has reported that the Office Bubbles video has gone viral.
And today, at the protest at Queen's Park, many people are expected to be blowing bubbles.

G20 Toronto - Human Garbage Officer Bubbles - now with cartoon!

Anyone Wanna Be Friends With Human Garbage? Or Officer Bubbles?– (UPDATE) Officer Bubbles Now Has a Cartoon!
Watch the video at the bottom of the story.