May 29th, 2008
You are currently browsing the articles from Jay Currie written on May 29th, 2008.
Given the Tribunal’s rejection of the request by the CCF in its ruling of May 16, 2008 (2008 CHRT 17), there does not appear to be a principled basis for granting intervenor status Simon Fothergill, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
Well, at least Fothergill can spell “principled”.
But remember, Fothergill acts for his client and his client is the Department of Justice on behalf of the Government of Canada. That means Rob Nicholson, the Cabinet and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Had any of these people an ounce of integrity, much less a passing acquaintance with 800 years of common law, they would instruct their lawyer to switch sides.
Fat chance.
(As a piece of legal reasoning this makes a good deal of sense…”Mr. Member, you blew off the Canadian Constitution Foundation on specious grounds so let’s keep a good thing going and dump on the BCCLA. Otherwise, (sotte voce, you dork), you will look even sillier than you do already.”…Brilliant.)
Written by jay on May 29th, 2008 with 2 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and free speech.
Get out your gas masks and tin hats. We are under attack from a noxious army of doom-troopers demanding that we treat climate change as a rerun of the Second World War. In the latest move to militarise everyday life, the Environmental Audit Committee of MPs has seriously proposed energy rationing, aka “personal carbon credits”.
What next? Little (green) Hitlers patrolling the streets yelling “Put that high-energy light out!”? Or a campaign to bring back rickets? Everybody from the Prince of Wales to liberal newspapers and former Labour ministers now compares climate change to the war. Baroness Young of Old Scone, head of the Environment Agency, says this is “World War Three”. If it’s not breaking the Official Secrets Act, could somebody explain what on earth they are on about? The notion of a “war on carbon” makes even less sense than the glorious “wars” on terror/drugs/crime/whatever. times of london
The good news is that all over Europe people are fighting back against the science challenged doomsters:
After hundreds of angry drivers shut down highways in England yesterday in protest against green automobile taxes, and drivers and fishermen in France and Spain paralyzed their ports and roads in a fuel-tax protest, politicians began to signal Europe’s ambitious emission-control policies may soon have to be abandoned.
While Europe has led the way in using tax incentives to encourage people to buy low-emission cars and to build carbon-neutral houses in order to meet Kyoto targets, it has become increasingly apparent that inflation-battered voters are no longer willing to go along. globe and mail
No one who has spent more than ten minutes thinking about it could ever have expected the regular, normal, work a day, people of the West to buy into the Climate Change hysteria once it actually cost them something. A fact that Kyotoists like M. Dion has not quite come to grips with.
As the cost of making the bogey man of Global Warming go away begin to actually bite, there will be two results: first, people will vote against governments which make their lives more expensive. Second, people are going to want their governments to take a good hard look at the “science” and the cost benefit analysis of attempting to counter global warming by reducing carbon emissions. They are not going to like what they find.
Jigs up, shark’s jumped: time for the nattering nannies of global warming to find another cause around which to build an authoritarian state.
Written by jay on May 29th, 2008 with 3 comments.
Read more articles on "Global Warming".
The Covenant Zone bloggers will be demonstrating in support of Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine, and against the ludicrous operation of ‘human rights’ law in this country, when Mark’s hearing in front of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal kicks off, next Monday, June 2. Click Here for details
I’m coming over from Victoria. It is not clear if the Hearing will be open to the public but if it is I’ll be there for most of the morning.
Written by jay on May 29th, 2008 with 2 comments.
Read more articles on free speech.
This writer’s first-hand experience as Deputy Minister of Labour, drafting the first Human Rights Code for B.C. in 1974, fully supports the view from Mr. Levant’s testimony: “The commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas.”
The only solution to this unwelcome censorship in my opinion is new legislative amendments to cut down the human rights officials across Canada which are out of control by usurping a role of censors of political speech. Censuring those such as Mr. Steyn and Mr. Levant, who are debating the troubling realities of religious and cultural conflict, is a disservice and is not the intention of the original authors of the legislation. jim matkin - stockwatch - subscription required
Matkin writes an excellent account of Mark Steyn’s sold out speech to the Fraser Institute but I thought his remarks as a former, and very widely respected, deputy minister are interesting. First because he confirms that none of the people drafting the legislation contemplated speech as a target. Second because it is clear that our concerns with the HRC interference with freedom of speech have gone well beyond the blogosphere.
Written by jay on May 29th, 2008 with 3 comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized.