Latest News

Transfer Payments
Free Trade
Debt & Taxes
Canada Pension Plan

Free Speech
Property Rights
National Energy Program
Historical Grievances
History of Secession
Pierre Trudeau
Secession from Canadah
Republic of Alberta
Symbols of Alberta
Independence Polls

Harper v. Canada

There is no speech more important than political expression in a free society. The Supreme Court found in favor of restricting third party speech because it found a lack of evidence supporting a notion that the wealthy will "dominate" political debate if third parties are permitted to spend real money. In the Court's words: "Given the difficulties in measuring this harm, a reasoned apprehension that the absence of third party election advertising limits will lead to electoral unfairness is sufficient."

Quite frankly, this is ridiculous. First, individuals have the natural right to free speech. Speech doesn't harm anyone. And every individual should have the freedom to do things if they don't harm anyone else. That alone should have been sufficient reason to overturn the Gag Law, especially since it is supposedly protected in the Charter of Rights..

Second, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the wealthy do not dominate political discourse, even when outspending their opponents. Did the Court reference the obvious example of the Federal government outspending all opponents manyfold while supporting the Charlottetown Accord, but still losing? People are not lemmings that simply do what they read or hear on TV.

Third, the court made its decision without any evidence one way or another. If they are so willing to dispose of our rights to speech, what's next?

Lastly, note that of the dissenting Justices, two of the three were Albertans and all Albertans dissented: Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin and Justice Jack Major. This is hardly surprising. Albertans dissented. The case was originally brought by an Albertan, Stephen Harper (then a private citizen). The gag law was struck down by the Alberta Court of Appeal.

For more information on the case, click

Bill C-250

Bill C-250 is the bill that makes "hate speech" illegal. It makes speech against "identifiable groups" distinguished by color, race, religion, ethnic origin and recently, sexual orientation, illegal.

Hate speech legislation is antithetical to free speech, period..

Moreover, it is legislation that is not applied evenly. For example, bigot Carolyn Parrish said "Damn Americans...I hate those bastards." According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, "ethnic" refers to "large groups or people classified according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background." Americans, quite obviously, are people classified according to national origin or background. And saying you hate a group of people couldn't be a clearer case of hate speech. I'm not saying that the bigoted Carolyn Parrish should be arrested for her bigotry. As shameful as her bigotry was, she has every right to be a bigot. That being said, this is a clear case of hate speech that should have been prosecuted under the Criminal Code. The fact she wasn't shows that such laws are not consistently applied.

Bill C-250 is a reprehensible restriction on free speech, and an unintended consequence of such a law is that it is inconsistently applied. Perhaps the next thing we could be seeing is a delay in charging a self-confessed jewel thief, like Svend Robinson.
CRTC: Censoring Radio & Television in Canada

The CRTC is a government regulatory body that censors Canadians. Those wonderful censors permit Canadians to watch Al Jazeera, but "protect" Canadians from American channels such as HBO, ESPN and ESPN2. Perhaps it is due to Tony Soprano making derogatory comments about identifiable groups distinguished by color (check), race (check), religion (check), ethnic origin (check) and sexual orientation (check). Actually, the CRTC requires broadcasters that carry Al Jazeera to censor Al Jazeera's anti-Semitic comments (which actually may serve to give Al Jazeera credibility they don't deserve).

Other inconsistencies see people persecuted for using DirecTV or Dish Network in Canada, but they are permitted to use Sky satellite (from the U.K.) without fear of being thrown in jail.