Vote night


Last night, the House defeated an opposition motion that called on the government to reverse cuts to science and research and an opposition motion that called on the government to reverse cuts to search-and-rescue.

After dealing with eight votes on the estimates, the House then passed Conservative MP Brian Storseth’s private members’ bill to delete certain sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act by a vote of 153-136.

Conservative MP Dan Albas’ bill to allow for the interprovincial importation of wine passed by a vote of 287-0.

NDP MP Randall Garrison’s bill to add gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act passed at second reading by a vote of 152-130.

Liberal MP Hedy Fry’s bill to amend the Criminal Code to clarify that “cyberbulling” is an offence passed at second reading after the Speaker broke a tie.

And, finally, a Bloc motion that sought to have the governor general pay income tax was defeated by a vote of 147-141.


Vote night

  1. That bit amending the human rights bill? It basically guts the entirety of hate speech from it. So you are now entirely free to incite hatred toward a group of people. We can freely say now that all Christians are greedy fascists who want to enslave blacks and rape any woman who thinks she should be able to get a job and so should be exterminated by any means possible.

    Because it’s not against a single person, there’s neither libel nor slander involved, and so far as the government is now concerned it’s just fine and dandy to lie about folks in the aggregate.

    And while I’m sure the CPC yahoos around here will say, “Who cares? They can say what they want and we can say what we want.. the truth will out!” they’re not thinking that my lie above is completely obvious. It doesn’t hurt anybody because everybody knows it’s a lie.

    Now what about people going around promoting the ideas that native americans are all alcoholics, or that mexicans are lazy so they shouldn’t be hired, or that jews will cheat you, homosexuals are pedophiles, etc. It’s pretty easy for those who aren’t subject to regular discrimination to say that discrimination by words doesn’t matter.

    Pretty sad.

    On the bright side, Sun News can come out of its shell now.

    edit: Mea Culpa! When I wrote this post, I hadn’t done enough research and hadn’t yet spotted s.319 of the Criminal Code. Kudos to Mike514 for catching me on that. So my top quote there actually would be an actionable one if it were said in earnest as it probably could be construed as an incitement to violate the peace.

    The rest, however, still applies.

    • The horrifying things here are how much it gives to white supremacists and pretty much no one else, and how much ignorance got us here. Ezra Levant has spread completely misleading and downright incorrect information about how HRCs work and about cases they’ve heard (in fact, when a crazed minority holds the power, I’m not sure the truth does out). I like to think that in the past when MPs got too riled about stuff like this, the people who knew what the real deal was tapped them on the shoulder and just showed them how it really was. That’s gone now.

  2. The Human Rights Commissions are not the right bodies for investigating cases of hate crimes. This job is better handled by police and real courts. This bill proposes to put that responsibility onto the real legal system rather than politically appointed bureaucrats who lack legal training or credentials.
    The real courts are better trained and they have more integrity. Real judges are forbidden from being actively involved in any political party, whereas commissioners on the human rights tribunals are political appointees. Real legal professionals are allocated limited investigative and enforcement powers by established statutes that (try to) keep the system accountable and free of corruption. If anybody thinks police powers are out of control, then they should be very afraid of what human rights enforcers are allowed to do. Human rights commissioners in Canada have been known to use tactics that would be considered a gross misconduct if the case were being investigated by the normal police and courts. For example there was the case where the Canadian Human Rights Commission hacked into a private citizen’s internet service so that human rights agents could disguise their identity while they made inflammatory and racist comments on the neo-nazi website.

    • YOur statement is completely inaccurate.

      • That part about the human rights agents hacking Nelly Hechme’s internet service so that they could disguise their identity while they go to the Stormfront website to make racist comments with impunity, was actually proven in the human rights kangaroo court. Neither I nor Ezra Levant invented this scenario.

        Regardless of that specific incident, it remains that the real police and the real courts are better suited to investigate and prosecute crimes. Crimes of all kinds. Except perhaps crimes where police are under investigation. For those cases it seems appropriate that the investigation be carried out by something like Ontario’s Special Investigation Unit, where non-police investigate the police.

        • Lemire supplied a dynamic proxy. nobody hacked anything, witless.

          Kiddo, leave it to people who heard the word tribunal before they read it in Shakedown, and we’ll all better off. wish the current gov’t knew that.

          • You are correct: human rights enforcers did not “hack” Ms. Hechme’s unsecured home wireless internet signal. It was freely available to be exploited. I think the point you (GFMD) make is one of semantics. Human rights enforcers “took advantage of” or “pirated” her unsecured home wireless internet signal so that they could disguise their identity while they proceed to present themselves as “Jadewarr” on the Stormfront website and make racist comments with impunity.

    • Hint: Ezra’s lied to you.

Sign in to comment.