Saturday, November 15, 2008

Cons Moving Far Right

Will have a more detailed run-down when this wraps up, but this party is moving FAR to the right with these policies passing - no to gender equality, no protections against hate speech, yes to assimilating all our immigrants, yes to bringing back Epp's "unborn victims of crime" bill, yes to making life harder for Aboriginals, and there's more to come.....Harper may veto some of these but Canadians are seeing a clear picture of his party today.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Recommend this Post


WesternGrit said...

Excellent post! Keep up the great work!

fern hill said...

Here we go again with the Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill, aka C-484. But this time we're ready. Birth Pangs has been on this for months. Here is our activist page.

jaycurrie said...

Or, put another way, Danielle, no corrupt, procedurally challenged bunch of cowboys posting neo-nazi filth on the internet to entrap losers into supposedly violating a vague, overbroad law. And no more "hearings" in which there are no defences, no rules of evidence, no penalties for lying under oath, no costs, no legal aid and, big surprise, no acquittals.

(But thank you for blogging the CPC convention, between you and the Dawg I am getting a full picture of what went on.)

David said...


I call bullshit on everything you said about the HRC. Even were those things true, are you advocating that the HRC should be abolished? Why? It sounds like you have areas to address that would improve it.

jaycurrie said...

David, do you really. And how long have you been engaged with the file?

Just so you are clear, for the moment I want to see s. 13 repealed and the hate speech unit disbanded (if not charged with assorted offences). I am an agnostic on the other sections of the Act; however, if their standards of conduct are similar to the hate speech unit's then they should certainly be closely examined.

Now, if you would like to chat about why s. 13 is beyond repair I would be happy to. But even the Members of the Tribunal sitting on current hearings are have grave doubts as to the language of the section.

My suggestion is that before you rush to the defence of this profoundly corrupt organization you do a little reading. Ezra is by far the most entertaining but I can refer you to a lot of places where you can get a sense of just how rotten the hate crimes section is and how it got that way.

Here is the key thing - go and read the section and then consider the following:

1) Person "X" says "All A's are scum"

2) Important/powerful person "Y" says "All A's are scum"

3) Person Z says ""Y" says "All A's are scum" and I think that is racist.

Now, the experiment is to determine - where a's are a protected group - which of these examples is hate speech.