Why you should rush out and buy the Jan. 14 issue of Macleans

Care about free speech in Canada? Then buy Macleans and support them in their CHRC battles.

Mark Steyn explains what he understands to be the basis for the complaint:

If you examine Dr. Mohamed Elmasry's formal complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission about my article, Grievance #16 objects to the following assertion:

"The number of Muslims in Europe is expanding like 'mosquitoes.' "

That claim certainly appears in my piece. But they're the words not of a notorious right-wing Islamophobic columnist but of a big­­shot Scandinavian Muslim:
" 'We're the ones who will change you,' the Norwegian imam Mullah Krekar told the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet in 2006. 'Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.' "

Given that the "mosquitoes" line is part of the basis on which the HRC accepted Dr. Elmasry's complaint of "Islamophobia," I'm interested to know what precisely is the of­­fence? Are Mullah Krekar's words themselves Islamophobic? Or do they only become so when I quote them? The complainants want a world in which a Norwegian imam can make statements in a Norwegian newspaper but if a Canadian columnist reprints them in a Canadian publication it's a "hate crime."

He asks if the Canadian 'Human Rights' Commission should be able to make decisions as to what you and I are allowed to read, in a so-called 'free country':

But, given that the most fundamental "human right" in modern Canada is apparently the right not to be offended, perhaps I could be permitted to say what offends me. I'm offended by the federal and British Columbia human rights commissions' presumption that the editing decisions of Maclean's fall within their jurisdiction. Or to put it another way, I don't accept that free-born Canadian citizens require the permission of the Canadian state to read my columns.

Rex Murphy (God bless him) is also outraged:

The complainants read the article as “flagrantly islamophobic”.

Maclean’s magazine? Well, we all know what a hotbed of radical bigotry and vile prejudice Maclean’s magazine has been. Go away … for what seems like a century Maclean’s was no more "offensive" ... than a down comforter on a cold day and if Mark Steyn's article offended them: so what? Not every article in every magazine of newspaper is meant to be a valentine card addressed to every reader's self-esteem.

I read 'America Alone' and my take on it can be summed up in Steyn's quotation from the late historian Arnold Toynbee - "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder."

In other words, wake up!

This overbearing power of the CHRC has the potential to erode our democracy as Steyn puts it, "one distributor, one publisher, one novelist, one cartoonist, one TV host at a time".

And perhaps one blogger at a time as well.

* * * *

Update: Sign the petition!! A Free Dominion against the HRC's.

(Sign it while you still have the freedom to do so.)

More here from Steyn. This was the end of the trail from a huge rat's nest of links at BCL.

And hey, we did finally track down Gayle (9:28 pm)

Related - Toronto Catholic Magazine faced with Human Rights complaint by Homosexual.

* * * *

Saturday Update: MUST-READ in the National Post - It's a human right to be an idiot, by George Jonas. (H/T Jack's Newswatch)

Also worth checking out - Just Right: Islam's prison bitch.

Michael Coren - Consider the Source.

Public pressure triumphs over political-correctness

"Frosty the Snowman" has replaced "Silver Bells".

See? Don't give up.

We can make a difference.

Soon it will be 'nothing' day

PC Police on the hunt in Ottawa - Choir drops 'Christmas' from Christmas Carol.

H/T National Newswatch.

* * * *

Thursday Update: National Post - The Grinchly spirit.

Poppy = War = Evil

In case you were staying awake nights wondering who makes up that tiny percentage that Justice Woolcott was trying to protect from the trauma of having to see a POPPY in court . . . We seem to have found a spokesman - The Poppy is a Symbol that Represents War:

I support Justice Margaret Woolcott who did not want a police officer wearing a poppy in her court. The wearing of poppies is no longer a neutral symbol of honour to our fallen heroes. Without intending disrespect to our veterans of the past, present, or future, I want readers to know that, for a small but growing percentage of Canadians, the poppy has become a partisan symbol of acquiescence to the necessity for war and violence as a solution to human conflicts...

I'm guessing he's not big on "Support our Troops" ribbons or pins either.

* * * *

Tuesday Update: Excellent rebuttal letter in today's Record (Letter of the Day) - Poppy is the symbol of the price of war:

...If Rev. Bosch is correct that most pacifists focus on the poppy as a symbol of war, I trust they can accept that to me and to many of those who came back alive, and to many of those related to those who fought and died, the poppy does not represent war nor the taking of lives. Instead, it represents the freedoms we enjoy today, personal sacrifice, unbelievable hardship, lifetime comradeship, gravestones in a far-off country and the knowledge that we need to try harder to avoid letting people like Adolf Hitler ever again rise to power.

The poppy is a symbol of peace. The poppy cries out "Please, never again. The cost is way too high."

Kitchener judge gets smackdown from National Post

Poppygate started as such a quiet little story buried in the local section of the Kitchener Record.

However, the outrage has been growing. Today the National Post chastises Judge Woolcott for suggesting that police officers not wear a poppy in her courtroom - "Respect the Poppy".


The Post makes this observation:

The judge did not make clear who she thought might consider the poppy an unacceptable symbol, or what their reasoning would be. Not that it matters: To the extent there are hateful eccentrics out there who fail to comprehend the disasters and destruction that would have befallen our world if Canadian and other allied soldiers didn't valiantly put their lives on the line, we don't see why public officials should be pandering to their sensitivities...

Madam Justice, I believe you owe the veterans in this country a sincere apology.

* * * *

Update: Record - No rules banning poppies in local courts.
Letters page full of outrage from Record readers (lower left of page)

Perhaps we have finally discovered our Canadian identity!

Poppygate backlash

Lots of outrage in today's Record regarding their recent story about a Kitchener judge who cautioned a constable against wearing a poppy in her courtroom around Remembrance Day.

First we have various Letters to the Editor, including the Letter of the Day - Judges have proudly worn poppies in court.

Even the Record's editorial gives Justice Margaret Woolcott a blast (accompanied with all due respect) - The poppy should be welcome everywhere.

Justice Woolcott never said who might take offence at a police officer wearing a poppy. That's because, in reality, no one probably would take umbrage. However, the best response to someone who objects to the poppy would be a polite but firm, "tough.'' Police who wish to should continue wearing the poppy. As for Justice Woolcott, she should read a good history book.

Well, Stephen Taylor suggested a much more eloquent response should Const. Haines ever find himself in this situation again:

"Your honour, this symbol represents the sacrifice that braver Canadians than you or me made to have a free and fair court. It is a symbol, yes, much like the robes you wear and the gavel you use. It is this symbol which gives the ones you carry any authority, for without the sacrifice represented by those I honour, your symbols bear none."
-- Stephen Taylor

Afterwards, Stephen notes that in Canada we would refer to the judge as "Madam Justice".


Whatever you want to call Justice Woolcott, the message still rings true.

* * * *

Update - The Politic: The Poppy is Offensive - BAN IT!

Wearing a poppy can be offensive

From the annals of Political Correctness "Believe it or not"...

A Kitchener judge doesn't think it's appropriate for constables and lawyers to wear poppies in her courtroom - Judge frowns on poppies in courtroom:

"Because however much -- and I really probably should have said something to (defence lawyer Richard Prendiville, who was also wearing a poppy) too -- but however much you may think that's a totally acceptable symbol, and that it is totally neutral, that might not be entirely the case for everybody who comes to court," the judge said.

Woolcott continued: "It represents a symbol of support and I suspect that 99.999 per cent of us happily wear it outside of the courtroom. You probably should not wear anything like that in court."

Before she excused Haines, Woolcott told him that she might ask him to remove the poppy next time...

Just when you thought things couldn't possibly get any worse.

* * * *

Related - Gary Valcour, the Second-place winner of the National Post's Canadian motto contest was right on:

"Endless possibilities squandered in political correctness"

"Rev Jo" still a no-go - Updated: It's a Go!

Update: Thanks to my readers for letting me know that McGuinty overruled the PC Police and let the Rev Jo keep her plates:

“We can also do things that make ourselves outright laughable -- this is one of those instances.”

So I wonder how those nine civil servants feel now; knowing that their boss thinks they made a 'laughable' decision.

Christian Conservative has more with an informative Globe link. (Oh, boy. Now McGuinty is calling it an issue of "common sense". Yikes!)

* * * *

I sympathize with retired United Church minister Joanne Sorrill on this one, and it isn't just because of her terrific name. She is a victim of the Political Correctness Police (an anonymous panel of nine civil servants), which had been asked by Transportation Minister Jim Bradley to reconsider their decision to disallow the vanity plate that Sorill has held for 20 years - Rev Jo.

The Ministry's initial objections were that the plates might encourage speed or promote Christianity! (*Gasp*)

After further contemplation, they have come up with a new one - it might promote drunk driving! (Plate refusal #2 has cleric all REV'd up - Star). Gee, they totally missed the caffeine-addiction angle with the word "Jo".

Why couldn't they at least grandfather the existing plates, and then refuse to issue any new ones if this is suddenly so offensive in contemporary society?

All this craziness is well documented by Christina Blizzard this morning - I H8 Vanity Plate Censors. She closes with this:

Look, if you look hard enough, you can take offence at just about anything. But for pity's sake, let's stop this stupidity. Here's a licence plate that could sum up the entire ministry: GN BONKRS. Then again, they'd probably ban that. Too sexual in nature. How about: TOO PRISSY? Better still, try this one, then: BUTT*OUT.

I would only like to add that perhaps we should consider changing the titles of our elected officials and departments. After all, don't the words "Minister" and "Ministry" have some Christian overtones? Couldn't that be offensive to those who are Jewish, Muslim or atheist? We must change this immediately!

The Ontario Asylum of Transportation might be a good place to start.


Update: Hey! How about an acronym? ASSS - Asylum of Sentry and Street Services.

Or the previous one with the word "Greater" preceding it - GOAT. Instead of "Ministers" we could have "herders" or "tenders".



I'll bet you've got some suggestions too! Let's hear them.

* * * *

Thursday Update: Political correctness knows no borders - Santa gets the heave ho, ho, ho.

Sunday Update: Lorrie Goldstein - Licence this SOB H&R!

Why does Elections Canada have so much power?

For once it appears that Stephane Dion and the present government are in agreement on something - that Elections Canada went way overboard with political-correctness zeal when decreeing that women could vote with their faces covered:

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said "Canadian citizens have a responsibility to fully reveal their identities" when voting. He called on Elections Canada to rethink the decision.

"We find it doesn't make any sense," said Cannon, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Quebec lieutenant. "As a government and a political party, we do not agree with Elections Canada."

Charest also disagreed. "For me, it's a bad decision," he said. "The federal chief returning officer should have done the same thing we did in Quebec, which is that everyone who presents themselves to exercise their right to vote must be clearly identified. For me, it's as simple as that."

It would seem that will of our democratically-elected representatives has been circumvented. And if almost all politicians appear to be in agreement in this regard, Elections Canada should give its burgeoning, bureaucratic head a shake.



Even Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress shows more common sense:

The solution, he said is as simple as having women who wear the niqab show their faces to female elections officials.

"We don't want to force anybody to change their religious inclination and beliefs," he explained, pointing out it is also important for women from religious minorities to vote. "At the same time there is a certain level of integrity in the election process that we must maintain."

That's right. Have them show their faces to a female returning officer; even in a separate room if necessary.

Or let's vote on it in a national referendum - with faces fully visible and eyes wide open.

* * * *

Gerry Nichols adds his voice here.