Canadian Atrocities—the History that is too Easily Forgotten.
(too old to reply)
2018-07-09 22:17:09 UTC
"Bradley C. Eisenhower" wrote in message news:ace89768-f307-43e4-b985-***@googlegroups.com...
It depends on how you define “Canada.”
Canada was initially declared a country of its own 150 years ago, but
before that, it was a settlement for European people, and even further
back, it was the native land of many indigenous tribes. Canada, as a
recognized country, is only 150 years old, and already it has a long and
bloody history of colonialism, cultural genocide, and systemic racism.
And that’s not to say that I’m not proud to be a Canadian. I am—especially
lately. In a world where Donald Trump can be president of the United
States and people continue to lose basic human rights every day, I’m so
relieved to be living in a country that actually seems to be taking steps
in the right direction.
This is from a thread entitled "Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian
country", posted in 2000. Have things changed any? I doubt it:

"We don't have the hang-up you Americans have with free speech." And
Canadians don't have the Bill of Rights, either. All these whiney liberals
point to the Great White North as an example for the U.S. to follow, but in
reality, they conveniently stay on the Yank side of the border...
In Canada, Free Speech Has Its Restrictions

Government Limits Discourse That Some May Find Offensive

By Steven Pearlstein Washington Post Foreign Service

TORONTO: New Yorker Harold Mollin thought it was a pretty clever way to
market his new "weather insurance" to Canadians planning weddings or
vacations: a 30-second TV spot featuring a huckster dressed in an Indian
headdress leading a bunch of senior citizens in a rain dance.

But to the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC), the ad was an affront to
Native Americans and the elderly. The government-owned broadcaster refused
to run it.

"This is political correctness run amok," said an incredulous Mollin, noting
that the seniors in the spot included his 89-year-old father, his aunt and
his best friend's parents.

Or take the case of Stephani the cow. This fall, after a visitor to the
government's experimental farm complained that she didn't like sharing the
same name with the animal, the farm's director declared that, henceforth,
government cows would get only names like Rhubarb and Dynamite.

Whether you call it over-sensitive political correctness or an abiding sense
of fairness and decency, Canada has embraced it like a ... well, never mind.
Through its human rights laws and hate speech codes, broadcast standards and
myriad "voluntary" industry guidelines, Canada makes no bones about its
determination to impose liberal-minded limits on public discourse.

Although the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms put free speech and a free
press into the bedrock of Canadian law, neither the public nor Canada's
courts views these rights as absolutely as Americans have come to view the
First Amendment. The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled in a series of cases
that the government may limit free speech in the name of other worthwhile
goals, such as ending discrimination, ensuring social harmony or promoting
equality of the sexes.

"In Canada," said Ron Cohen, chairman of the Canadian Broadcast Standards
Council, "we respect free speech but we don't worship it. It is one thing we
value, but not the only thing."

Cohen said that Canada seems to have survived reasonably well without Don
Imus or Rush Limbaugh on any of its radio stations. (Howard Stern is heard
only in Montreal--and then only censored on tape delay.)

Last month, the Global Television network pulled the "Jerry Springer" show
from its lineup after the standards council found that it had violated the
restrictions on sex and violence.

Canada's most powerful tool against politically incorrect speech is its hate
speech code, which prohibits any statement that is "likely to expose a
person or group of persons to hatred or contempt" because of "race, color,
ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical
or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age."

Prosecutors are not required to show proof of malicious intent or actual
harm to win convictions in hate speech cases, and courts in some
jurisdictions have ruled that it does not matter whether the statements are

One person who has run afoul of the code is Hugh Owens, a Christian
fundamentalist who took out a small display ad in the Saskatoon newspaper
featuring a stick figure drawing of two men holding hands inside a circle
with a slash through it--a statement of his disapproval of homosexuality.

What made it worse, said the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, was that
the graphic was accompanied by citations from the Biblical books of
Leviticus, Romans and First Corinthians that, in some translations, call for
sodomy to be punished by death by stoning.

If a hearing officer agrees that this display violates the code, Owens could
become the first modern-day Canadian punished by the government for citing
the Bible.

"Our position is that you can't rely simply on the free exchange of ideas to
cleanse the environment of hate and intolerance," said John Hucker,
secretary general of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

For the Canadian press, however, a more serious challenge to free speech is
posed by a case brought by the Human Rights Commission of British Columbia
against Douglas Collins, a former columnist for the North Shore News in

In 1994, Collins wrote four columns that questioned whether as many as 6
million Jews were killed in the Holocaust and criticized Hollywood for
contributing to the "Holocaust propaganda" with movies such as "Swindler's
List," as he called Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List." Acting on a
complaint by the Canadian Jewish Congress, a commission tribunal ruled that
the columns had expressed his "hatred and contempt...subtly and indirectly"
by "reinforcing negative stereotypes" about Jews.

CAFE Demonstration - "Tribunals are a Travesty"

The tribunal imposed $2,000 fines each on Collins and the newspaper and
ordered the paper to publish a summary of its decision--the first time that
any Canadian government agency or court had dictated editorial content to a
newspaper and ordered that it be published. The case has been appealed to
the British Columbia Supreme Court.

The electronic media operate under even tighter content restrictions. Last
month, in the midst of violent protests in New Brunswick over Indian fishing
rights, CBC reporters on orders from network officials, began referring to
participants as "native fishers" and "non-native fishers."

The Fishing Dispute in Eastern Canada

"Why can't we call them what they call themselves?" complained CBC producer
Dan Leger in an internal e-mail leaked to the National Post. "Mik'maqs call
each other Indians. Fishermen call themselves, well, fishermen." Leger
called the new designations "urban, technocratic, precious, racist and,
above all, imprecise."

Failing to follow such guidelines, however, can have consequences. In
Winnipeg last year, radio talk show host John Collison lost his job after
the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC) complained to station
owners about his repeated and sometimes salty diatribes against Glen Murray,
who eventually became the first openly gay mayor in Canada. Collison also
used his show to stir up opposition to a program proposed by some school
board members to eliminate homophobia in the city's schools.

Collison concedes he was playing the role of "shock jock." In response to
threats from the CRTC, Collison said, the station not only fired him, but
also gave up its all-talk format in favor of easy-listening music.

"This is the way things run in Canada," Collison said. "There is no way of
escaping the mandarins of political correctness."

Andrea Wylie, a member of the CRTC, disagrees. "We are not the thought
police," she said. "We use our power lightly."

Wylie cited figures showing that the commission and its broadcast standards
council took action in only about a dozen of the 14,000 viewer complaints
lodged last year. While acknowledging that the very existence of the codes
might have a chilling effect on public discourse, she called it "a
reasonable chill," reflecting what Canadians are willing to hear.

"We don't have the hang-up you Americans have with free speech," Wylie said.

Advertisers in Canada also must adhere to a strict set of guidelines adopted
voluntarily by the industry, but no less effective than the government
regulations. Under their dicta, a national restaurant chain was recently
forced to pull a television spot showing a helpless dad trying to prepare
dinner for the kids (he eventually gives up and takes them out for burgers
and fries). A hearing officer ruled that the commercial "reinforced negative
stereotypes" about men that "cannot be excused by an attempt to engage in

There are a few Canadians who worry about these limits, but, as Alan
Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has
discovered, it's a very few. Despite 30 years of crisscrossing the country
warning of the dangers of speech codes and laws, Borovoy's organization has
a mere 6,000 members and a budget of less than $300,000. Typically, he can
take on fewer than 10 cases a year.

Sitting in his cramped office in a rundown office building in downtown
Toronto, Borovoy is philosophical in describing American and Canadian
attitudes toward civil liberties. While Americans are suspicious of
government and rally to the cry of "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness," Canadians, he said, tend to respect authority and set their
sights on the more modest goals of "peace, order and good government."

"In this country, we give the government too much power and trust them not
to abuse it," said Borovoy, noting that, for the most part, voters have not
been disappointed. "I tell people that Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian

2018-07-09 22:17:20 UTC
And that’s not to say that I’m not proud to be a Canadian. I am—especially
lately. In a world where Donald Trump can be president of the United
States and people continue to lose basic human rights every day, I’m so
relieved to be living in a country that actually seems to be taking steps
in the right direction.
More from "Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian country":

Maybe because of Political Incorrectness, you don't hear anything in the
U.S. about all the crap that Afro-Canadians have to put up with, regardless
of whether they are immigrants or Canadian-born. The URLs at the bottom of
this page would lead you to a LOT of sites, nearly all Canadian, which would
expose a less-than-flattering picture of race relations in the Provinces.
Too bad these links are (unsurprisingly) all dead...
Racial Profiling of Black Canadian Citizens at Port(s) of Entry in Canada:
Black Citizens are targetted, questioned, detained, searched and abused by
Canada Customs Officials when returning to Canada from visits overseas as a
result of Racial Profiling Sanctioned by the Canadian Government

by S. Pieters, B.A.

Canadian Citizens regardless of the race, colour, ethnicity or religious
background almost invariably look forward to travelling overseas for
pleasure, or business.

Having travelled outside the country, citizens then return "home" to Canada,
as of right, to continue with their normal routines. For African Canadians
(Black) in Toronto, it is a different scenario when we return from overseas
trips to the U.S. or Europe or the Caribbean.

Canada Customs Officals carries out primary inspections to facilitate entry
into the country of those who have the right to enter Canada. Canadian
Citizens enter, remain and leave Canada as of right. The Customs Officers at
the Primary Inspection Line conduct initial interviews with travellers in
order to enable members of the public to present themselves and their goods,
and make a declaration, as required by the Customs Act. Canada Customs and
Immigration officials also carry out inspections so that inadmissible people
including major drug dealers or terrorists or war criminals are denied entry
into Canada. In Ontario such inspections are carried out at port(s) of entry
including Toronto's Pearson International Airport, Hamilton's Civic Airport
and land border crossings at Sarnia, Windsor, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls,
Marysville (near Kingston),Ivy Lea (near Gananoque), Prescott, Cornwall,
Sault Sainte Marie, Fort Frances, and Rainy River.

In relation to contents of one's luggage, the Customs Act requires every
person entering Canada to accurately report all goods and, if required,
provide those goods for inspection. Now this reporting is done by way of a
Customs Declaration Form, which is collected by Customs Officials at the
Port of Entry. The contents of this form is supposed to be presumed to be
true in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In cases where the
declarant is an African Canadian a different standard applies.

Before I elaborate on the treatment of African Canadians by Canada Customs
Inspectors, it is important to review briefly the The Declaration of Quality
(client) Services. This document, produced by the Treasury Board, states
that the Government of Canada is committed to delivering quality services to
Canadians. Its clients can expect to receive service that:

is prompt, dependable and accurate;

is courteous, and respects individual rights, dignity, privacy and safety;

is good value for money, and is consolidated for improved access and client

reflects a clear disclosure of applicable rules, decisions and regulations;
respects the Official Languages Act;

is regularly reviewed and measured against published service standards, and
these reviews are communicated to clients; and

is improved wherever possible, based on client suggestions, concerns and

Source: Treasury Board Secretariat, Quality Services: An Overview, October
1995, p.3

African Canadians are treated as suspected "drug dealers", "smugglers"
and/or "high risk travellers" regardless of status, income, social position,
occupation, age, or gender because of racial profiling which Canada Customs
Officials employ at the port of entry to deal with "Guns and drugs, and
criminality issues." See, for example, Canada Customs Visible Minority Study
and Black Passengers targetted in Pearson Searches?

Racial profiling is criminal profiling based on race. Racial or colour
profiling refers to that phenomenon whereby identified group in society on
the basis of race or colour resulting in the targeting of individual members
of that group. In this context, race is illegitimately used as a proxy for
the criminality or general criminal propensity of an entire racial group.

Revenue Canada the agency of which Canada Customs is a part has recently
commissioned a report to look into the concerns of travellers. That report
confirms that the existing attitudes and practices at Canada Customs
exclusionarily marginalize, and discriminate against African Canadian
travellers based on race and colour. The Canada Customs Visible Minority
Study noted that:

In Toronto, there were more problems, particularly with flights from the
Caribbean (especially Jamaica). Many felt that travellers on these flights,
particularly Black people, are subject to closer scrutiny than any others.
Participants commented negatively on the number of Customs officers, the use
of dogs, the frequency of luggage searches, and aggressive, disrespectful
treatment by Customs officers. Significantly, in one Toronto group eight of
nine Black people said they were treated much better coming back from the
U.S. compared to the Caribbean. These contrasting experiences caused
participants to focus squarely on the Caribbean flights as a problem area.

Participants spoke of stereotypes, where Canadians are apt to think that
everyone who comes from Jamaica causes crimes or problems. It was noted that
Jamaicans often come to Canada with little money, are among the first to be
deported if problems arise, and are often regarded with concern by other
Canadians. It was also felt that while Jamaica flights are targeted for
increased security due to drugs, Black people on other flights are still
scrutinized more closely. Most participants felt that both the country (as a
drug source) and travellers' skin colour contributed to the extra scrutiny
on Jamaican flights.

It was often noted that certain types of travellers are more likely to be
closely scrutinized by Canada Customs. The following were often seen by
participants to be subject to greater scrutiny, more questions, and more
searches: young men, people who are not dressed well (particularly young
travellers), visible minority travellers (and others) who do not speak
English or French well, people coming from higher-risk destinations (e.g.
Jamaica, Lebanon, Columbia), people who do not have Canadian, American or
European passports, bus travellers, and car travellers (vs. plane). It was
felt that any combination of these things tended to increase the likelihood
of close scrutiny by Canada Customs. When participants themselves fit into
more than one of the categories, they were often unsure about what triggered
more scrutiny from Customs officers. This issue contributed to the confusion
about whether participants felt they have been discriminated against because
of skin colour, since closer scrutiny may have been associated with some of
these other factors. In short, many did not think that different treatment
for some visible minority travellers was based on discrimination, but rather
that Canada Customs has some "working assumptions" or "predisposed ideas"
about the degree of risk. ....

Unfortunately, the treatment of African Canadians is not in keeping with the
principles enunciated in the Declaration of Quality Services.

On returning from Caribbean trips the Airplane is met by Customs Officers
from the Detector Dog Service (DDS), and the Flexible Response Team (FRT),
dress in dark blue "swat" uniform with drug and weapons sniffing dogs. The
Detector Dog Service handler and canine teams have the responsibility of
detecting the importation of narcotics. This responsibility is shared with
members of the Flexible Response Team (FRT). In addition, FRT members are
also given the responsibility of detecting drug importation, identifying
high-risk travellers, and detecting persons attempting to smuggle firearms
and weapons, undeclared or misdescribed commercial goods, and undeclared or
misdescribed personal goods.

Passengers, especially those who are black are treated very rudely, sent to
separate lines, our luggage are searched, and we are treated worst than dogs
by Customs Officials. The contents of our bags are removed, ripped open,
searched, and in some cases thrown on the floor, in front of all of the
other passengers. See, for example, Canada Customs Visible Minority Study
and Black Passengers targetted in Pearson Searches? To make matters even
worst when this intrusive, arbitrary, and demeaning inspection has been
completed we are required to pack up back our bags "as a courtesy to the
officer." [Customs Officer Badge #13489 comment at the Niagara Falls Port of
Entry (Whirlpool Bridge) on May 24, 1999].

On January 01, 2000, a white male Customs Officers at the arrivals area of
Toronto's Pearson International Airport announced to incoming passengers who
were in a primary inspection line that those who are smuggling "guns" and
"drugs" should go to a separate line. Four of his colleagues who were
standing with him found his announcement to be funny and were all laughing
and joking about it, amongst themselves. I can only speculate what would
have occurred if a Black or Middle Eastern passenger had joined in the
hilarity and went to the line that the Canada Customs Offical had proposed.
Amidst hightened concerns about the possibility of a holiday terrorist
attack, stepped up security checks of travelers at airports in the U.S. and
Canada, and long delays to clear customs and immigration at various airport
I was at on New Years day (LAX, OHARE and LBPIA), a number of passengers in
the area who had just returned home from the U.S., including this writer,
was not amused by the insensitive announcement and unprofessional conduct of
this Customs Official. His humour at best was in bad taste.

The Canada Customs report noted that:

...Many commented negatively on the search process, feeling that it was
dehumanizing, with little verbal interaction or friendliness from Customs
officers, and that the officers invariably left the luggage messy.

A number of people focused on instances where they felt the treatment they
received was different from the treatment they felt that Caucasian
travellers received.

This sort of humiliating and degrading treatment of African Canadian
Citizens is common practice because of the entrenched anti-black racism in
Canadian society. This entrenched anti-black racism systematically and
effectively permits and promotes racial profiling of African Canadian
Citizens at Port(s) of Entry by Government of Canada Officials with
The Customs Officers are not required to give you their names the only
information one has to identify these officials is a badge number on their

In cases where a complaint is filed in relation to the racial profiling,
poor client service, and abuse of authority, all that happens is the matter
is covered under the rug. Quite frankly Canada Customs and the whole
hierarchy within it is not open and is unreceptive to the experiences and
concerns of African Canadian Citizens with respect to the impugned treatment
at the hands of Canada Customs Officials. This anti-black racism entrenched
within Canada Customs and in the bureaucracy is so pervasive that most
African Canadians accepts this treatment as part of the norm.

This is a sad state of affairs in Canada, one of the world's leading
industrialized nations, a nation that gives the impression that it respects
the Charter and Human Rights of all of its citizens.

The excessive scrutiny which African Canadian citizens face at Canada's
port(s) of Entry, poor client service by Canada Customs Officers and the
unjustified and degrading searches of African Canadian travellers luggage
and person, the lack of redress when complains are filed in relation to the
unjustified behavior of Customs Officials, all of which has to do with
racial profiling of black citizens at the port of entry, speak volumes about
the disregard the Government of Canada, its agencies and officials have for
the human rights, dignity, worth and well-being of African Canadian citizens
in its society. As noted earlier, Canada Customs existing attitudes and
practices which exclusionarily marginalize, exclude or discriminate against
African Canada Citizens must be condemned because "it promotes the systemic
differential treatment of unsuspecting, uninformed citizens in a punitive
way. ...It is also bad because it shows a profound disrespect for honest
people." (Flavell v. Deputy M.N.R., Customs and Excise (T.D.) T-1944-92,
Campbell J) This harassment and racial profiling of African Canada citizens
at the various port of entry into Canada is unacceptable must cease.

A human rights complaint was filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission
on July 22, 1999, by this author in respect to an incident of Racial
Profiling at the Whirlpool Bridge Port of Entry on May 24, 1999. In that
specific instance I was treated in a rude and disrespectful manner by
Customs Officer Badge #13489, my bags were searched by this Customs Officer
in full view of 70 other passengers, the contents of my bag was removed by
Customs Officer Badge #13489, and I was required to pack up back my bags "as
a courtesy to the officer". My bag was the only one search on the train and
no reasons were given for the search of my personal belongings by Customs
Officer Badge #13489. I was also called a derogatory name by the Regional
Superintendent of Customs, Paul Morrison, when I voiced my displeasure at
this racist incident. In essence the behavior of the Customs Officials who
were involved in this incident was, in my view, aggressive, unwarranted and

If you or someone you know has been a victim of Discrimination in the
provision of service by Canada Customs Boarder Services due to Racial
Profiling by Canada Customs Inspectors you may wish to consider filing human
rights complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and/or launching
lawsuits seeking remedies for the violations of their rights.

In order for the CHRC to process a human rights complaint, under CHRC
jurisdiction, they require specific info regarding the alleged
discriminatory actions, including the full names or Badge Numbers and
addresses of the Department and/or the Customs Officers who are involved.
You should also provide the basis for the discrimination and the date, time
and place of the alleged discriminatory actions.


|| Email to Office of the Minister of National Revenue, Jean Augustine
Office and the Auditor General Office | Response from the Auditor General
Office | Response from Jean Augustine, M.P.P. Office | Sign Guestbook |
Black Passengers targetted in Pearson Searches? | Canada Customs, "Visible
Minority Study: Executive Summary" | Minister Dhaliwal releases study of
visible minority perceptions of Canada Customs | Canada Customs Visible
Minority Study | | ACLU Calls for Oversight Of Airport Security Profiling |
"Racial Profiling" in News Reporting | CURRENT WEBSITES ADDRESSING NATIONAL
Seat Of A Police Cruiser, Racial Profiling Is Not Racism. It's A Tool -- And
Cops Have No Intention Of Giving It Up. | THE COLOR OF SUSPICION
(continued): No one teaches racial profiling. "Profiling," of course, is
taught. | Read the interesting experiences that other Canadians have had
while dealing with Canada Customs | Customs Border Services Offices | Air
Canada Une humiliante discrimination douce à la canadienne | Lawrence v.
Department of National Revenue (Sustoms and Excise) | R. v. Monney | Customs
Act -- CHAPTER C-52.6 | SOR/83-196 - Customs and Excise Human Rights
Investigation Regulations | Canadian Human Rights Act-- CHAPTER H-6 |
CEUDA-PSAC Legal Page This page has been set up as a one-stop shop for
access to various Acts, and Regulations of Parliament ||


To write to the Ontario Black Anti-Racist Research Institute
2018-07-09 22:17:32 UTC
Post by Byker
It depends on how you define “Canada.”
"Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian country" Part III:

If the PC freaks and other assorted liberals want to point to our neighbor
to the north as an example to follow, then maybe they ought to talk to the
man whom the "black leadership" calls a "White Man's Judas"-------
Walter Williams

Totalitarian northern neighbor

WASHINGTON POST STAFF WRITER Steven Pearlstein reveals some frightening
things about our northern neighbor in his Dec. 12 article, "In Canada, Free
Speech Has Its Restrictions." Andrea Wylie, a member of the Canadian Radio
and Television Commission (CRTC), sums up the Canadian attitude about free
speech with the observation, "We don't have the hang-up you Americans have
with free speech."

That means politically incorrect speech is banned in Canada. The
government's most powerful weapon against politically incorrect speech is
its hate speech law. The law prohibits any statement that is "likely to
expose a person or group of persons to hatred or contempt" because of "race,
color, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status,
physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age." If you think
that's bad, hold on, it gets worse.

Pearlstein says, "Prosecutors are not required to show proof of malicious
intent or actual harm to win convictions in hate speech cases, and courts in
some jurisdictions have ruled that it does not matter whether the statements
are truthful." That means you can say, "The average woman cannot fight as
well as the average man," and wind up facing fines or imprisonment.

In 1994, Douglas Collins wrote several columns for Vancouver's North Shore
News, questioning whether as many as 6 million Jews died in Nazi
concentration camps. A commission tribunal ruled his columns showed his
"hatred and contempt ... subtly and indirectly" by "reinforcing negative
stereotypes" about Jews. The tribunal fined both Collins and his newspaper
$2,000. The newspaper was ordered to publish a summary of the tribunal's

New Yorker Harold Mollin tried to market his new "weather insurance" to
Canadians planning weddings or vacations. His 30-second TV spot featured a
huckster dressed in Indian headdress leading senior citizens in a rain
dance. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation refused to run it because they
deemed the ad insulting to Native Americans and the elderly.

Canadian advertisers have strict politically correct guidelines. Thus, a
national restaurant chain was forced to pull a TV ad featuring a helpless
dad trying to prepare a dinner for his kids. He gives up and takes the kids
out for hamburgers and fries. A hearing office ruled that the commercial
"reinforced negative stereotypes" about men that "cannot be excused by an
attempt to engage in humor."

Last November, there were violent protests in New Brunswick over Indian
fishing rights. On orders from CBC network officials, reporters had to refer
to the participants as "native fishers" and "non-native fishers," even
though the Mik'maqs call each other Indians.

You say, "Williams, why are you telling us this? Those are Canada's
problems." No, they're not. There are speech codes at many American colleges
and universities. Students can face up to expulsion for politically
incorrect speech. Both professors and students can be required to take
sensitivity lectures, a la the Chinese reeducation camps. Sex harassment
regulations similarly restrict free speech in the work place and in the
military. Simply telling an off-color joke in the presence of a female
employee can bring charges of "creating a hostile workplace environment." In
the military, simply looking at female soldier for longer than the
prescribed amount of time can get you into trouble.

In the days of the House Un-American Activities Committee and McCarthyism,
our socialists used to criticize conservatives for wanting to silence
dissent and free speech. But who's stifling free speech now? It's America's
socialist elites, mostly now, on university campuses.

The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that government may limit free speech
in the name of other worthwhile goals that include ending discrimination,
ensuring social harmony or promoting sex equality. If we allow America's
socialist elite to continue to incrementally eat away at our liberties,
we'll find Canada's totalitarian laws here.