Magna Carta … the foundation of our freedom And another thing: Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut … Hmnnn. Unless landowners are going to start posting signs in Latin to dissuade state harassment, which I'd support, I'd better rephrase that. But hold on to the thought. In English and complete, that passage reads: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." And yes, it's from good old Magna Carta. Clause 39 of the 1215 original, to be precise, and Clause 29 of the tidied-up 1225 reissue. Good old MCCXV.Those were the days. Not that I pine for cholera, plague and no coffee. But Magna Carta was an extraordinarily vigorous statement not just that Englishmen should be free in principle, but about how to be free in practice. It contains some strange or trivial things, especially the 1215 version, drawn up in haste and signed by King John under extreme duress. We worry less now than we once did about the heirs of barons paying only the ancient scale of relief, or whether some scurvy kinsmen of Gerard de Athee might acquire a government job in England. But Magna Carta also contains some important rules that are still observed to this day or, at least, until recently. For instance, in Clause 12 the King promised that "No 'scutage' or 'aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent" except for three specific and limited purposes. The terms are archaic but the essence of this passage is "No taxation without representation." It took a while to work out all the procedural details, some five or six centuries in fact, but the central idea was never relinquished in Britain, or America, nor should it be here. As for King John's promise in the original Clause 40, "To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice, " well, that one looks just fine as is. It's important to hold on to these rights because they are the foundation of liberty in practice. It's also important to hold on to the memory of where they come from because they illustrate that Canadians are, fundamentally and historically, a free people. If we were not, I would still say we should try to assert our fundamental human rights, since freedom is essential not just to prosperity but to dignity as well. But the task is far easier when we are actually reasserting rather than asserting them. For one thing, it protects us in debate against accusations that we are somehow unCanadian in wishing not to be fined or imprisoned without due process. For another, when we attempt to secure this kind of right, we touch a chord with far more of our fellows than we would in societies with less happy political histories. I wish everyone luck anywhere in the world who is trying to build a free society, without which a free government is not going to happen. But it's a lot easier when others have done the work for you over many centuries. Of course in recent decades Canada has seen much immigration from less free parts of the world, but overwhelmingly these people were attracted to Canada for the by John Robson right sorts of reasons and are at least as receptive to arguments for principled liberty as some of the folks born here. Magna Carta can be acquired as well as inherited. There's a third important benefit to asserting ancient liberties. It means we are not putting forward some speculative scheme that sounds good but, like the "freedom" promised by the French revolution, might turn out to be a high-minded recipe for slaughter and misery. The rights in Magna Carta were worked out in practice before being committed to paper, or parchment, for greater certainty against usurpation, and have been repeatedly vindicated in practice since. Indeed, those who brought King John to heel in 1215, and those who insisted that every one of his successors personally reissue it for the next 200 years, saw themselves as reasserting traditional freedoms, not imposing some novel system of liberty. That's how old these rights are. I'm tempted to say here that everyone talks about Magna Carta but no one does anything about it. But I'm not even sure anyone talks about it much. And when they do, they're liable to make some sort of vague reference to its position as a cornerstone of liberty, rather than recite specific provisions or pin it up over their desks. That's why I'm tempted to print T-shirts that say Magna Carta "Good then, good now." Let me know if you'd like one, in Latin or English. The Landowner Magazine – April Mqy 2009 25

All of us are vitally interested in the fight to maintain democracy and the rule of law.

The recent Obama fiasco re Professor Gates is illustrative once again of the Obama type of politician that thinks personal judgment by those in positions of power outweighs the rule of law.

There can be no true democracy containing inherent freedoms and liberties without the rule of law and strong adherence to all the underlying principles that uphold our justice system – a justice system founded on English common law, i.e. the equality of every individual before and under the same laws for all and laws that exist by common consent of the electorate passed either by the electorate's representatives or decided by the slow and deliberate rulings of judicial precedent. This system of law is used in all Commonwealth countries and the USA.

We in Canada have already leaped into the cesspool of man-made, off-the-cuff law, special laws for special groups of people and judicial personal opinion activism – Big time!.

Canada Free Press published my article on the subject yesterday. It is apparent the mass media in general have seemed only to focus on who is the racist, racism and who is right and who should have said or not have said what. In my view the more important point is that Obama has once again shown himself not fit to be the leader of any free country. The USA will soon be in racial and other judicial turmoil if this stuff keeps up.

Leaders in our own country established the first HR tribunal system and are still bloody-minded enough to tolerate them because they fear to even challenge them is "Toxic". They will simply have to be defeated at the polls ASAP.

In the case of the recent leadership election in the Ontario PC Party, Tim Hudak and Randy Hillier showed the way, stood up and won the respect of all. Klees and Elliott proved they should never be in a position of power. Let's see what the Tim and Randy can do.

If you have time please encourage them to make sure the issue remains front and center.

Dick Field, July 29, 2009

With the release of the Moon report, Parliament has no excuse not to kill the censorship powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Comment by Ezra Levant, November 25, 2008, in the National Post

The scandal-plagued Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has had a rough year — and it just got rougher.

On Monday, Richard Moon, a University of Windsor law professor, released his report on the CHRC’s troubling penchant for Internet censorship. Moon had been hand-picked by the CHRC to review its conduct, so the whole arrangement had at first looked pretty cozy. In the past, Moon had written favourably about government limits on free speech. That, plus a large payment for his brief report, made Moon’s review look like a PR stunt, especially since the CHRC simultaneously hired the pricey lobby firm Hill & Knowlton to provide “communications” advice. It all looked like a strategy to offset six months of bad press — not to mention embarrassing investigations into the CHRC’s conduct by the RCMP, the Privacy Commissioner and Parliament’s Justice Committee.

But to the surprise of critics like me, Moon recommended that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act — the so-called “hate speech” provision, which empowers the CHRC to censor the Internet and other electronic media — be repealed. Instead of a whitewash, Moon’s report was the opposite — another nail in the coffin of the thought police.

The CHRC was surprised, too, and obviously not pleased. Although Moon’s report used the word “repeal” 11 times — it was his primary recommendation — that word appears nowhere in the CHRC’s press release announcing his findings.

In fact, the CHRC has already thrown Moon under the bus, minimizing his report as merely some “suggestions,” and announcing that they want a do-over. In the very same press release, they announced another round of consultations on the subject, at untold public expense — and this time they’ll be more careful about who’s allowed to participate.

It’s a lot like Quebec separatists and their referendums. They’re just going to keep on asking the question until they get the answer they want: the power to censor Canadians.

In the meantime, Canadians have run out of patience. Earlier this month, 2,000 delegates to the Conservative party’s national policy convention voted nearly unanimously to repeal section 13. That’s not too surprising. But what was surprising is that Rob Nicholson, the Justice Minister, publicly cast his vote to repeal section 13 as well — an incredible statement from the man in charge of Canada’s laws. And just last week, Keith Martin, the Liberal MP from Vancouver Island, introduced two private member’s motions attacking the CHRC — one of them to repeal section 13, and the other to investigate the CHRC’s conduct (such as their staff’s routine practice of joining neo-Nazi organizations on an “undercover” basis, and publishing hate propaganda themselves in an attempt to entrap real hate-mongers). Rick Dykstra, a Conservative MP from St. Catharines, Ont., is expected to reintroduce a similar resolution in the Justice Committee, too.

Moon’s report is not without its flaws. But it does restate some basic truths to which the CHRC, especially its chief commissioner, Jennifer Lynch, have become blind.

Moon points out that because of its abusive process, the CHRC has a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression, “even if the complaint is dismissed by the CHRC at the end of the investigation process.”

He also condemns the CHRC’s scheme to pressure Internet service providers to do the CHRC’s censorship dirty work for them.

Ordinary Canadians accept some very limited infringements on speech, but only in extreme cases — such as when the speech is a real incitement to violence. That’s already covered by the criminal code, however. We don’t need redundant prohibitions in our human-rights law.

The fact that the CHRC continues to cling to its censorship powers — even after Moon’s dramatic rebuke — shows how out of step with Canadian values the CHRC has become. When it was created in 1977, the CHRC was designed to be a shield, protecting the civil rights of Canadians. A generation later, they’ve mutated into a sword, violating our freedoms. And their Kafkaesque conduct violates our norms of natural justice, too.

It’s no longer even a matter of serious debate in Canada. The entire political spectrum has rebelled against section 13, with critics as diverse as Egale, the gay rights lobby, PEN Canada and the Toronto Star joining the National Post, the Canadian Association of Journalists, Noam Chomsky and even TV’s Rick Mercer calling for section 13 to be repealed. The only people who don’t seem to get it are those with a personal stake in censorship — the bureaucrats and lawyers who make a living off the law; as well as the community groups that support them, such as the Canadian Jewish Congress and Canadian Islamic Congress.

It’s Parliament’s turn to act. A Liberal named Keith Martin and a CHRC consultant named Richard Moon both support repeal of section 13 — the Conservatives should make it unanimous and non-partisan, and just do it.

“a Hue of uniformity ”
As Canada expands its diversity, we increasingly are cornering our minds into a collectivist cage of consensus, where vocabulary and reason is subtracted from public discourse. Immigration from other cultures ought to and will increase our knowledge and expand our perspective, but not when we hold our freedoms captive while opening the doors of morality to relativism.

The true meaning and value of diversity in Canadian society is being fraudulently coloured by politicians of all shades and tinted by our courts, schools and the media. Diversity is a many splendid thing, but when it is limited to multiculturalism or skin colours, languages, clothing and restaurants that are visible in society, it demeans and destroys its real value. Although we deem diversity of race, creed, colour, and gender as valuable and essential, we vilify diverse opinions and thought in Canada. Clearly, diversity of thought is being starved by our appetite for consensus and is costing Canadians practical public policy, individual freedoms, and an understanding of moral rights and wrongs in society.

It is a timeless and natural law that freedom of thought, ideas and opinions are the prime movers, and essential for human progress and prosperity. Each and every advance in
human history is the result of an individual’s opinion or idea and their subsequent challenge of the status quo and accepted view. History is but a portrait of people who battled for advancement with their ideas. People such as Galileo, Newton, Darwin or Einstein in science; Aristotle, Jefferson or Marx in politics, moved the yardsticks for mankind. They all battled conventional thought or policy with ideas and diversity of opinion and the test of time has proven them either right or wrong. Had they and others succumbed to the uniformity and consensus of the day, the sun would till be orbiting the earth.

Although society finds value in diversity of colour and creed we increasingly view diversity of thought and opinion as bordering upon criminal. Just ask Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, MacLean’s magazine, or the many others who have faced the inquisition of our Human Rights Tribunals. What all these examples share in common is that a public challenge to the merit or validity of accepted edicts incurs the wrath and vengeance of the politically correct crowd and the progressive tribunals, and is stereotyped and marginalized. These same “progressive” people who jealously guard their own freedom of expression are first in line to attack others with their “legal” hypocrisy.

In addition while faulty public policies based on incomplete science and a collective misunderstanding of responsibility expands, our freedom to challenge these policies diminishes. To challenge the “crisis” of climate change is to blaspheme the green prophets of Gaia; to challenge the public monopoly on healthcare with private competition is a universal taboo; the only safe place to oppose polygamy or Sharia law is in a darkened closet; and, as we express endearment for racial inclusion we build segregated afro-centric schools.

It is indisputable that public policies now rely on the shields of political correctness because they cannot withstand the challenges of logic, experience and rational discourse.

As Toronto sees more killings per year than our losses in the Afghan war it is the gun that must be blamed and banned, not the culprits’ trigger fingers. Ontario’s government is waging a phony war on poverty, and excuses street violence because it is due to poverty not immorality. While police must create special “guns and gangs” units to combat the real war politicians refuse to recognize, the government issues another welfare cheque to buy more bullets for the impoverished combatants. The war on drugs parallels the poverty war offering government sponsored safe injections sites, crack pipe giveaways, and free needles, while the courtrooms fill with those who can buy their own drugs but get caught. Of course only racists and bigots would speak with such frankness on this subject. By deduction we can see that governments’ promotion of diversity leads to a universal policy of contradictions and hypocrisy.

It surely is the ultimate hypocrisy of all progressives, that they demand open hearts for a multitude of people from various backgrounds, ethnicities and faiths but demand closed minds to contrary opinions and opposing views. All public policies and opinions must be freely challenged from all corners and come under the scrutiny of millions of free and inquisitive minds, and should they withstand this assault of reason we will have certainty that the opinion is fact and the public policy is the best that mankind can attain at the time. Only then will we have the certainty that Canada is on the path to freedom, justice and prosperity and not just painting a surreal political landscape without perspective.

29 The Landowner Magazine – October/November 2008
By Randy Hillier, MPP

Conservative Party votes “overwhelmingly” to repeal hate speech law
By Ezra Levant on November 14, 2008 11:28 PM

According to reports from the Conservative Party’s convention in Winnipeg, Resolution P-203 — repealing section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the “hate speech” provision — passed “overwhelmingly”. The vote was in a policy plenary session.

My understanding is that a number of the resolutions passed in the policy plenary go on to the general convention floor for a further vote. Based on what I’m hearing, I suspect that P-203 would be handily supported in that broader forum, too, if it makes the short list of resolutions.
But it doesn’t matter whether P-203 makes it to the second vote, because the message is already clear: the party’s grass-tops activists — the people who knock on doors, raise funds, lead the local campaigns, etc. — support freedom of speech and thought, and now see the Canadian Human Rights Commission for what it is: a violator of rights, not a protector of them.

I’m delighted.

If P-203 goes on to a second vote on Saturday, great. But the victory is already achieved: the Conservative Party made the abusive “hate speech” provision a political issue, and voted to repeal it. That’s great.

Of course, policy votes at a party convention are not the same thing as a Parliamentary vote — which, other than a court striking down s. 13 as illegal, is the only way to repeal it. The mission, therefore, remains the same as that which I outlined in January: denormalize the HRCs, and then press legislators to act. P-203 was the result of denormalization, and it’s a precursor to legislative reform.

The decision now is for the Conservative caucus to make. I understand that the matter of s. 13 has been broached on at least two occasions in caucus, and that MPs are in favour of reform, though the Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, is not as enthusiastic as most of his colleagues. Of course, the decision in the end will be that of the Prime Minister’s Office, and the calculus will be whether this is a political winner. That’s the focus.

The PM knows that repealing s. 13 is a winner in caucus, and now he has confirmation that it’s a winner with the party’s activists. He knows that it’s a winner with editorial boards across the country and across the political spectrum, and he knows that it’s a winner with NGOs from EGALE to PEN Canada.

I don’t want to be presumptuous, but I think what the PM does not yet fully know is the degree of rot in the CHRC. In other words, while he knows that repealing s. 13 won’t be politically painful (and will likely be a political winner) I don’t think he knows just how bad doing nothing will be.

I’d hazard a guess that the PM is not aware of the RCMP and Privacy Commissioner investigations into the CHRC’s illegal conduct; I don’t think he’s fully aware of the CHRC’s practice of publishing anti-Semitic, anti-gay and anti-black bigotry on the Internet, in the guise of neo-Nazis; I don’t think he’s fully aware of the corruption within the CHRC, ranging from their decision to hire a corrupt ex-cop as an investigator, to their lack of an ethics code; and I don’t think that the PM realizes that almost all of the s. 13 complaints have been filed by one man, the serial censor Richard Warman.

I truly believe that if he knew that, he’d cauterize the wound.

That, my friends, is the focus now. The party is on side, the media is on side, the NGOs are on side. Let’s encourage our PM to do the right thing. Why not drop him an e-mail right now, citing the party’s vote, and giving him evidence of the CHRC’s corruption and abuse.
Let’s get this done.

P.S. Congratulations and thanks to the party activists who made this an issue, and took it through to success.

Note: the convention delegates voted for the motion. Now we wait. CWC

Gun Bans Don’t Prevent Murder Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, October 27, 2008

There is no one more persistent than a liberal with a bad idea. He knows his intellectual and moral superiority make him infallible, so he easily convinces himself there is nothing wrong with his idea; it is the world that is mistaken.

Even the facts cannot be the facts when they disagree with his idea. So he forges ahead against all reason, attempting to remake the world until it accepts he was correct all along. read more

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.

July 16, 2008

What do Ontario Members of the Provincial Parliament Stand For?

A Question of the life and death of Freedom in Ontario and in Canada

Mr. Premier, – Regarding the newly introduced procedures of the Ontario Human Rights tribunal system, there are very serious problems you, your government and this legislature seem to have entirely overlooked. Essentially, you have placed designated minorities in a position to override every traditional principle of fundamental justice in the English speaking world.

Further, this procedure would guarantee that a group of lawyers and other academic “human rights experts” will milk the ordinary taxpayer for payment of their fees as prosecuting attorneys for designated minorities, “expert witnesses,” commissioners of Human Rights and creators of no known law beyond that of their own making.

The provincial government and all MPPs must understand that these tribunals are representative of a total breakdown of the Canadian justice system as we have always known it. Consider what they are and how unsavoury are the new rules allowing any government funded minority person or group to demand immediate access to the tribunal procedure. This is a totally one-sided attack on any member of the undesignated, unprotected majority.

Do you Mr. Premier, your cabinet and all MPPs in our Ontario legislature understand anything of our freedoms? Consider the HR Tribunal system’s methods of operation and their concept of fairness and justice. Is this what our representative wish to foist on our society?

• The Complainant has all expenses paid by Ontario taxpayer
• The Complainant will have a lawyer assigned and paid for by the Ontario taxpayer.
• If the Complainant wins the case, any financial penalty levied against the Accused is paid to the Complainant and must be paid by the Accused (the Respondent).
• The Accused must pay all legal costs, win or lose, and is not provided with a taxpayer-paid defense lawyer.

In effect, the Accuser has (for years) been placed in a win-win situation and cannot lose. It pays to bring false charges. The merits of the case do not matter. Do you really think the public supports this travesty of justice? Do you? Does this legislature? The public expects you to uphold their rights not destroy them.

These are the facts of these tribunal procedures:

• There are no rules of evidence. Any statement is admissible. Any evidence no matter how obtained is admissible. Hearsay is admissible. Etc.
• The truth is no defense.
• The ancient right of presumption of innocence is non-existent. The Accused must prove that he, she or it (if a corporation) did not offend the Accuser.
• There is no right to confront or cross examine the Accuser
• Causing some designated minority, “mental anguish” (hurt feelings) is an offence. No democracy of free people can exist without hurting “feelings.”
• The investigators hired by the tribunal or part of the HR establishment may enter any premises in order to obtain evidence and require that any documents be turned over. Mary Cornish, a Human Rights activist Lawyer even recommended to the Province that private homes be entered with no warrant. This same lady also recommended there be no appeal to the regular courts from the tribunal’s judgments. These are the tools of dictatorship.
• Most vicious of all is the concept that Human Rights laws take precedence over any other laws of Ontario or Canada. Eight hundred years of English- common law and Parliamentary history tossed away in an instant.
• For the most part, human rights tribunal judges are members of a designated minority group, thereby being automatically in a “conflict-of-interest” situation.
• Tribunal decisions have repetitively overridden the will of the voters of cities and provinces in Ontario and Canada, thereby invalidating the entire concept of democracy.

Given the foregoing, and the new system of direct access to these behavioral tribunals that you have put in place, the system will immediately be overloaded with complaints. Enormous sums will be requires to expand the system. Thousands of people and businesses will be hurt unjustly. The future of democracy and freedom will be severely damaged, as it already has been for years, but now more extensively. The biggest loss will be that you will have placed the real Human Rights in jeopardy by debasing the term.

There will be an even greater penalty to society. When minorities are given laws and rules to abuse the majority, tensions will mount and eventually minorities will be ostracized and hated. Special laws for special people do not constitute the justice system that Canadians, and especially English-speaking people, will tolerate for long.

It is our recommendation that the entire tribunal system be scrapped. The Human Rights establishment has proven itself a power hungry group of people that have little respect for freedom or democracy. This corruption of justice is intolerable and the huge expense in dollars and cents entirely unnecessary. With respect,

Richard D. Field

Chairman, Montgomery Tavern Society Copies to Media and all MPPs of Ontario