Archive | Censorship RSS feed for this section
November 27, 2014

Censorship Essential to Combat Terrorism says British Prime Minister David Cameron

Pete Snelson liked this post


Governments of all kinds despise Freedom of Speech. Dictatorships despise it because, if allowed, their detractors relentlessly denigrate them and their lack of integrity. Democracies despise Freedom of Speech for precisely the same reason. Freedom of Speech allows mere citizens to comment upon the actions of their so-called leaders, both good and bad.

The United Nations despises Freedom of Speech because when a free people discusses the worthiness or lack thereof of that wannabe world government it is obvious that organization is found…. wanting.

Governments of all kinds despise the Internet and the Freedom of Speech it affords mere citizens the world over. They despise how easily an individual on one side of the planet can share ideas with another individual on the other about the issues they face.

Governments, both tyrannical dictatorships and alleged democracies alike, desperately need to silence their citizens on the internet. So far, the goal of stripping the citizens of the world of their Right to Freedom of Speech has failed, but never fear: Government will always find a bogeyman to blame for the “need” to strip us of our rights.

A trial balloon went up in Britain this past week as British Prime Minister David Cameron declared the “new and pressing challenge” facing that nation and the world is to strip the Internet of Free Speech.

Of course, David Cameron didn’t use that language. He used language far more likely to garner support from the masses who have lost their ability to think critically about the task at hand.

Prime Minister David Cameron used the newest and brightest bogeyman of them all, terrorism, as his rationale for stripping the world of free speech on the internet.

The “new and pressing challenge is getting extremist material taken down from the internet. We must not allow the internet to be an ungoverned space,” Cameron decried.

Cameron demanded British Internet Service Providers (ISPs) create filters for “harmful material” and the “extremist narrative” he deemed to be the instigator of terrorist activity the world over.

This is the “root cause” of terrorism so far as David Cameron is concerned and, in his view, radical Muslims will no longer chop off people’s heads on the streets of Britain or anywhere else once the Internet is appropriately sanitized.

He’s completely out to lunch, of course, but that did not stop him from ordering Britain’s ISPs to comply with his demands. Unfortunately for British citizens, those companies caved fully, completely and immediately.

The UK’s major Internet service providers – BT, Virgin, Sky and Talk Talk – have this week committed to host a public reporting button for terrorist material online, similar to the reporting button which allows the public to report child sexual exploitation.

They have also agreed to ensure that terrorist and extremist material is captured by their filters to prevent children and young people coming across radicalising material.

David Cameron wholeheartedly supports censorship… so long as he is the one who determines what gets censored, and therein lies the problem with censorship.

“We are making progress but there is further to go. This is their [ISPs] social responsibility. And we expect them to live up to it,” the prime minister added.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it is said, and so is censorship. “Permitted speech” is in the eye of the censor, and God help anyone who gets on the wrong side of The Censor.

Cameron neatly sidesteps the actual root causes of terrorism, such as poverty and the foreign policy of Britain and other western nations, and places the blame on freedom of speech on the internet instead.

“And let us be frank. It’s not poverty, though of course our nations are united in tackling deprivation wherever it exists. It’s not exclusion from the mainstream. Of course we have more to do but we are both successful multicultural democracies where opportunities abound.

“And it’s not foreign policy. I can show you examples all over the world where British aid and British action have saved millions of Muslim lives, from Kosovo to Syria – but that is not exactly the real point. In our democracies, we must never give in to the idea that disagreeing with a foreign policy in any way justifies terrorist outrages.”

The root cause was in fact the “extremist narrative”, Cameron said.

Freedom of Speech is the cause of all the world’s ills. It’s that darned Free Speech on the internet that’s the culprit, don’t you know.

Well, I didn’t know but I’m so very grateful David Cameron set me straight.

You just can’t let people say anything they want! God knows what crazy things they’ll say!

How long until Australian, American and Canadian governments order their Internet Service Providers to censor internet content to their liking? It is the wet dream of every president and prime minister on the planet; the ability to control what their people say, read and hear, and therefore what they think.

There remains only one question to be asked, really.

How long will it be until my protesting censorship is considered “extremist material” unsuited for the eyes of my fellow mere citizens?

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

July 6, 2014

The Canadian Charter of Approved Beliefs? I thought it was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms!

Attila Vaski liked this post


I could have sworn we mere citizens, through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enjoyed a quaint little notion called Freedom of Religion and that we could not be discriminated against because of our choice of religion.

It appears I was mistaken. Either that or the moronic bigots at Nanaimo City Hall violated the Charter Rights of Canadians they identified as “Christians.”

Councillor Fred Pattje, the bigot who introduced the motion to ban the Christian leadership event, said in his introduction to his motion,

“The Nanaimo Daily News had sponsored an event, a leadership event, a cast, a podcast, in this facility that among others was sponsored by a company in the United States called Chic Fil-A, the owner of which has a rich history of homophobia and other divisive practices. The gentleman’s name is Mr. Dan Cathy.”

Dan Cathy is a Christian businessman who views marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Mr. Cathy also views homosexuality as a sin, just as stealing, adultery and murder are sins.

Allowing Mr. Cathy’s company to sponsor this event last year offended “members of the LGBT” community, said Mr. Pattje.

Well, we can’t have that, can we?

Councillor Jim Kipp compared Christians to terrorists after expressing his horror that Chic-fil-A funded “a very strong unbelievable Christian belief” opposing same-sex marriage.

“The company is renowned for major funding of what I would call a very strong unbelievable Christian belief, so for me this is really, real simple for us. We’ve said before to it, it’s not just… it’s not just the speakers coming here, it’s who’s funding it, what their messages are outside of this one realm where I… I can’t support it at all, the way they spread the stuff that they do.”

He went on to compare Dan Cathy and his family restaurant to criminals and terrorists.

“We won’t accept if a criminal organization wants to come into our community and, um, set up and have a podcast, so I just say this one…. I find this almost to be a criminal point of view in this day and age with the hatred that we’ve seen this past week in our own community? And the stuff that’s going on around the world… Little girls, 270 girls are missing? This is this is just nuts.”

That a man and his company can be vilified because of his religious beliefs is utterly offensive.

What shocks me is nobody has yet, to the best of my knowledge, filed a Human Rights Complaint against the Nanaimo City Council for both their vitriolic 20-minute anti-Christian tirade they call a City Council Meeting and the motion banning Christians from using the city-owned Convention Center.

Councillor George Anderson had the gall to say this:

“I think that goes to show that this council is showing leadership itself by saying we will not accept acts of hate and its even within our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that hate speech is not permitted and so for us to go ahead and say because it is just a leadership event that organizations that promote hate should be able to use our facility sends the wrong message. So I am happy top support the motion because its unfortunate to see this type of organization coming and using a publicly owned publicly funded facility so I’m happy to support the motion.”

Invoking the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to justify your violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms… Now that’s “progressive” in action.

Well done Councillor George Anderson!

Neither Dan Cathy or his company, Chic-fil-A, “promote hate”. They promote Christian family values. There is a difference, but one that the self-described progressive city council of Nanaimo can’t grasp.

Comparing Mr. Cathy’s Christian beliefs to “hate speech” and “hate crimes” is absurd. Mr. Cathy supports the traditional family. His chain of restaurants cater to families.

Bill Bestwick, proudly donning the hat of Nanaimo’s Chief Censor, declared it would be more effective to black out the event, to simply turn off the equipment in the convention center, than to cancel it entirely.

“I don’t want… Personally I don’t want to hear what this has to say. So, the reason that I might have suggested, that if I knew (ahead of the motion being presented) because staff knew on Friday and I totally respect the motion and I’ll support the motion, but for me I would love to black them, if all of the other speakers, if there’s a dozen or ten and its three hours long or however long it is, then black that out. I think it’s… Personally I think would be, actually more effective… to… to… it’s a blackout. You can’t get this game in BC. You can’t get this person in Nanaimo. Because we don’t support it.”


Yes, that’s the answer.

Censorship is ALWAYS the answer when you can’t handle an opinion that is different than your own.

Censorship is the sign of an incredibly small and closed mind.

When you are so terrified of opinion, as the members of Nanaimo City Council are, that you refuse to let anyone else hear that opinion either you reveal to the world what you truly are: petty, puny and ignorant.

When asked if the sponsor of the LeaderCast event, the Nanaimo Daily News newspaper, was aware a motion to cancel the event was before city council, Fred Pattje responded with,

“They were not. I know that as late as an hour and a half ago city staff have had a conversation with senior staff at the Nanaimo Daily News and I don’t know whether at that point that person was advised or not but it’s kind of beside the point as far as I’m concerned.”

What more would you expect from politicians behaving like cockroaches?

Why hear all sides to a story when you can proclaim from on high all that is Right and Good in the world, then ridicule and defame anyone who disagrees with you.

Like with all cockroaches, however, when you shine the light of truth on them they scurry for cover.

First the city issued a formal statement (PDF) on June 26, 2014. Like councillor George Anderson, they attempted to use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to justify their asinine and criminal act of discrimination.

The City of Nanaimo and its Council fully support and are committed to upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Canadians under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code.

The City of Nanaimo and its Council also recognize that the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code apply equally to the protection against discrimination of Canadians of all races, national or ethnic origin, colour, age, mental or physical disability, religions, sex and sexual orientation.

And finally, the City of Nanaimo and its Council recognize that the fundamental rights and freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code must sometimes be balanced between groups of Canadians having differing views and that the process of creating this balance is both challenging and complex.

Nanaimo’s Council accepts that, in passing the May 5 resolution, some Canadians support its actions while other Canadians do not. However, if presented with comparable circumstances again, Nanaimo’s current Council is confident that actions similar to those taken on May 5 would not be repeated.

The City of Nanaimo and its Council strongly believe that Canadians of all races, national or ethnic origin, colour, age, mental or physical disability, religions, sex and sexual orientation are entitled to use any facility that is either owned by or in the control of the City in the same manner, subject always to the rule of law.

Let me interpret for you.

“We didn’t do anything wrong but if faced with the same decision again we would not do it again.”

If you didn’t do anything wrong then have the courage of your convictions.

Don’t hide from what you did. Own it!

But they did do something wrong and each and every one of Nanaimo’s city council knew it. They could only defend the indefensible so much before they could no longer believe the drivel coming out of their own mouths.

Ezra Levant, after he was notified of the anti-Freedom act of Nanaimo City Council by the citizens of that city, got hold of this issue and went to town on it.

Whatever else you may think of Ezra Levant, the man is fearless when confronting petty thugs and censors like the Nanaimo City Council.

He ran special programs on Nanaimo’s anti-Christian bigotry. He started a legal defense fund to sue Nanaimo City Council. He started a petition that garnered over 5,000 signatures in 24-hours. He forwarded everything to the members of Nanaimo City Council.

Then he flew to Nanaimo to confront them in person.

I must confess I smiled as I watched both Nanaimo mayor John Ruttan and Fred Pattje backpedal as though their lives depended on it. Their political lives may very well depend on their backpedalling ability, given civic elections only a few months away.

Cockroaches hate the light. They despise being seen for what they are. That was evident as both men fell over themselves apologizing for their atrocious actions.

What was most fascinating to watch was Councillor Fred Pattje’s shock and hurt that anyone would disagree with him.

It was a deeply humbled Fred Pattje who Ezra Levant interviewed this week, not the outraged man calling Fred Cathy and Chic-fil-A “awful” for the heinous crime of defending traditional marriage.

“The connection alone between, you can go on the website, and the connection between that and Chi-fil-A and their awful history of dealing with things gay and lesbian should be enough (to cancel the event). This is about an organization that is being sponsored by a man who has done tremendous damage.”

That thousands of mere citizens from across this great land wrote him and expressed their disgust genuinely appeared to hurt him. That anyone would call him a “Nazi”, especially his own nationality, clearly distressed him greatly.

What is appalling is that until that moment, until his own bigotry was tossed in his face, Fred Pattje could not comprehend he did offended and discriminated against Christians without a moment’s hesitation.

As a result of Ezra Levant’s online petition, legal fundraising and relentless national coverage of their flagrant violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Nanaimo City Council is about to repeal the motion banning Christian organizations from using the Nanaimo convention center.

The lesson of Nanaimo’s bigotry and Charter violations is simple.

Petty tyrants and bullies must be fought everywhere we find them.

In this case it was at the municipal level and, in the grand scheme of things, took very little to force them to do the right thing.

But they had to be forced.

They refused to do the right thing on their own, despite being given many opportunities to do so. It took mere citizens standing up for themselves and their precious Rights and Freedoms.

It took the Light of the World being shone upon them before they would step back and obey the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


If you’re interested in seeing the entire fiasco unfold you can view the timeline of events at

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 19, 2014

Politically-Correct Madness: Washington Redskins Trademarks Cancelled by US Patent Office

Ryan Steacy liked this post


The Washington Redskins are a football team which has operated under this name since 1932. A bunch of nanny state ninnies decreed the term “Redskins” is derogatory and the team should be stripped of its name.

An article in Politico made a big deal about this, quoting such authorities as Harry Reid as if that lends legitimacy to the stripping of trademarks held by a business.

Reid called the name a “sad reminder” of the bigotry Native Americans have faced and said the issue “is extremely important to Native Americans all across the country.”

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) is quoted saying

This is not the end of this case, but this is a landmark decision by the Patent Office that says that the NFL team here in Washington, D.C., does not have a patentable name, and that this is an offensive term not patentable by the Patent Office.”

Senate Indian Affairs Committee Chairman Jon Tester (D-Mont.) hopped onto Twitter with this quip:

This decision is a step forward for Indian Country and for all Americans who champion tolerance.”

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) whined about team owner Daniel Snider appealing the ruling stripping him of his intellectual property.

I don’t know how many times he needs to be told that the name is disparaging. I understand he says he’s going to appeal. Shame on him,” she said in an interview. “I mean, does he like losing?

What I find fascinating is the people complaining loudest about the name “Washington Redskins” in this entire article are old white folk pandering to their own sense of political correctness. It is not until the very last paragraph of the article’s first page that an actual native is quoted.

“I hope this ruling brings us a step closer to that inevitable day when the name of the Washington football team will be changed,” said Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc. plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse. “The team’s name is racist and derogatory.

I can’t imagine any pro sports team owner would name their team something derogatory. It simply does not make good business sense.

If you despise a segment of the population based on their race, why on earth would you name your team after them?

The answer is simple. You wouldn’t.

I believe former team owner Jack Kent Cooke said it best.

I admire the Redskins name. I think it stands for bravery, courage, and a stalwart spirit and I see no reason why we shouldn’t continue to use it.”

There are always those who look for ways to be offended.  They will always find them, since that is their focus and intent.  They wish to be labeled “victim” and will go to great lengths to prove their own sense of victimhood.

It matters not that there is no derogatory intent, or that in fact the opposite is the case.  In our age of politically correct nonsense the mere fact that someone is offended means you are wrong and they are right.

The Washington Redskins have operated under that name since 1932.

The team has already won previous petitions to cancel their trademarks, which does make me wonder about the legitimacy of the current proceedings.  Since this very same board dealt with this issue in 1992 and found in favour of the Washington Redskins the question that springs to mind is this:  How many times must a company defend itself against the very same charges?  As many times as it takes for their opponents to find favour?

That certainly appears the case here.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia was very clear when it overturned the previous ruling against the team.

The TTAB’s finding of disparagement is not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed. The decision should also be reversed because the doctrine of laches precludes consideration of the case.

Sadly those perennial complainers, professional victims and their advocates like Harry Reid, Maria Cantwell, Jon Tester and Eleanor Holmes Norton will never stop until they get their way.  It matters not that someone’s Rights are trampled underfoot.  These buffoons claim moral superiority and anyone offending their delicate sensibilities must be punished.

I, like team lawyer Bob Raskopf, believe this decision will also be overturned on appeal.

We’ve seen this story before. And just like last time, today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo,” he said in a statement, citing rulings in 1999 and 2003. “We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal.”

This preoccupation with “hurt feelings” is… well… just that; a bunch politically-correct nonsense perpetuating the myth that every term they don’t like is ipso facto “offensive” and “derogatory”.

The fact a Sports Illustrated 2002 poll of Native Americans found 75% had no issue with the term is irrelevant. A 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found 91% of Native Americans had no issue with the name.

That pretty much leaves a few perennial complainers and some old white folks desperately trying to win political points who dislike the team’s name.

Sadly for both the Washington Redskins and the overwhelming majority of Native Americans, their opinions mean nothing.

This is, after all, the Arena of Political Correctness and that’s no game.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

December 23, 2012

Arthur Topham & Hate Crime Trial – Freedom of Speech Legal Case Update



On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 Arthur Topham was back in the Quesnel, BC, Court house for his latest attempt at a bail hearing. The regular Judge presiding over Arthur’s case was unable to attend so a female judge, M. Church, heard the application instead.

Crown Council Jennifer Johnston opened by giving Judge Church a brief overview of the case, including Crown’s reasons why she has still not provided Topham’s lawyer, Douglas Christie, with full disclosure in the case.

She claimed that almost 5 months from the time of Arthur Topham’s arrest on May 16, 2012 until October 9, 2012 was insufficient time to gather enough evidence for an indictment against Mr. Topham. She also claimed this somehow justified not providing Mr. Christie with full disclosure, despite two previous promises to the judge to do so.

Mr. Topham had received a disclosure document from Mr. Christie that was not marked confidential in any way. Mr. Topham shared this document with a friend via email and portions of that document subsequently were found in an article in the National Post. According to Crown Council Jennifer Johnston, this is why she refused to divulge any more disclosure documents to Mr. Christie.

The issue of the leaked disclosure was addressed first and Mr. Christie told that Judge that he would have no problem with the Court issuing an Order stating that in future neither he nor Arthur Topham would disclose any confidential information to any third parties not directly connected to the case, and definitely not for publication.

Doug Christie then commenced his argument by referencing a host of case law where he outlined for the Judge many precedents for the legal right of publishers and writers to criticize both Jews and Zionists. Christie cited articles in mainstream publications, such as the New York Times, making the point that no particular group is exempt from public criticism.

Regarding Topham’s criticism of the RCMP, Doug Christie pointed out to the court the RCMP is certainly not above criticism and, given their current atrocious public image, he didn’t think Crown’s argument in defense of them was even worthy of consideration.

Lastly, he also made it clear that Crown’s attempt to curtail Mr. Topham’s Charter Rights to Freedom of Expression before he was even convicted of any crime was absurd. To a priori assume that whatever Mr. Topham is publishing is “hatred” and then ask the court to impose such a severe curtailment upon his Charter rights should not even be considered in Canada.

Doug Christie concluded his arguments approximately 4:15 p.m., at which time he informed the Judge he had a plane to catch at 5 p.m.

The Crown tried to refute all of Mr. Christie’s arguments and told the Judge that because Mr. Topham was charged with a “hate crime” the Crown could impose whatever restrictions they wanted on him.

The Judge reserved her decision, telling both sides she would consider the arguments and submit a request to another body (it is not known which body she meant) for further clarification in early January, after which she would notify Crown and Defence of her decision.

This state of affairs leaves Arthur Topham free to exercise his Right to Freedom of Speech for the moment, as well as to access the internet.

This is good news, if only temporary, but there is a long legal battle ahead for Mr. Topham.

If you are able, please mail a donation in support of his Right to Freedom of Speech to:

Arthur Topham
Attn: Free Speech Legal Defense Fund
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C. Canada V2J 6T8

To support Arthur Topham’s fight against our “hate” laws and Internet Censorship via PayPal, please go to either or The PayPal button is in the right hand corner on either site.




If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

December 1, 2012

An Open Letter to the Free Speech Censors at



Arthur Topham believes in his Right to Freedom of Speech. He’s a very vocal advocate for that right, and has been for many years.

Arthur Topham is also the latest individual being harassed by RCMP for what they call “hate speech” on Arthur Topham’s website


Even though Mr. Topham has not been convicted of any crime, the RCMP Hate Crimes Unit has contacted Mr. Topham’s web hosting company,, and “suggested” that promoted hatred on the internet and should be pulled down immediately. complied with the RCMP “request.”

I would suggest if you’re looking for a web hosting company, that you do NOT use Any company that will, on the whim of a state official, deny a Canadian citizen’s Right to Freedom of Speech by yanking their website from the internet is not a company that I want to do business.

For me this is not some arbitrary thought. I’m actually a Netfirms customer. I will not be for long, however, and steps are already underway to move all my web business to another company.

I don’t believe in making idle threats. I wrote to Netfirms on Arthur’s behalf and expressed my displeasure with their intention to take down

I explained that should they choose to deny Mr. Topham’s Right to Freedom of Speech before he has been convicted of anything, that I would remove all my business from the immediately.

Choices have consequences. chose to violate Mr. Topham’s Right to Freedom of Speech.

I choose to never again do business with this company, and will urge everyone I know to boycott them as well. It’s called “voting with my dollars” and is a principle I believe in very strongly.

Here is a link to the letter written by Arthur Topham that describes the latest events in his case. I urge you to read his letter in its entirety, and think about the ramifications of the RCMP actions against him. If they can do this to Arthur Topham, they can do it to anyone.

And in case you decide you can’t stand Arthur Topham or what he has to say, I would urge you to remember that Freedom of Speech is just that: the right to say what you think without
fear of persecution by any state entity.

It is NOT the Right to “Approved Speech”; to say only that which is politically correct.
When “Approved Speech” is the only thing left, we no longer have Freedom.

Here is a copy of the letter I sent to “Zach P.” at on November 26, 2012.

I have yet to receive a response. Shocking, I know…

Dear Zach P.

It’s come to my attention that you’ve threatened to take down the website, which is hosted on Netfirms servers.

Since the website has not broken the law and there is this pesky little thing we call Freedom of Speech in Canada, I’m very curious to know why you would be taking this action.

The RCMP, or at least one constable from the RCMP, seems to have taken it upon himself to see to it that Arthur Topham’s website is removed from the internet.

Guilty until proven innocent would appear to be this particular constable’s game, but that’s just not how Canada works.

Please be advised that I am also a Netfirms customer, and that should you remove Arthur Topham’s website from the internet, I will immediately remove all my business from Netfirms.

Free Speech is the right to say what I think. It does not mean your anyone else has to agree with what I say.

I will not do business with a company that does not 100% support my Right to Freedom of Speech, or that of any other Canadian, including Arthur Topham and

I look forward to hearing back from you precisely why you threatened to take down this website, and under what authority you would do so.

Thank you.

Yours in Liberty,

Christopher di Armani

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 25, 2012

A Resounding SLAPP in the face for Politicians Wishing to Stifle our Freedom of Speech



Freedom of Speech is the fundamental right of every Canadian. This right is, first and foremost, a protection for those of us who speak out about public affairs and public people.

Our Right to Freedom of Speech trumps a politician’s desire to punish those who would say unkind things about her.

If an individual runs for public office, we mere citizens have every right to comment on both their actions and character, and any politician too thin-skinned to deal with that should find something else to do.

Thin-skinned crybaby Phyllis Morris

Thin-skinned crybaby Phyllis Morris

One such thin-skinned politician is the former mayor of Aurora, Ontario, from 2006 until December 1, 2010: Phyllis Morris.

In October of 2010 Morris ran for reelection. By most accounts she wasa pretty lousy mayor, and many news sources commented on her lack of leadership ability, perceived or otherwise.

One critical source was the Aurora Citizen, an online news website aimed at keeping the citizens of Aurora informed about the antics of their elected politicians.Then-mayor Phyllis Morris took exception to an article and subsequent comments about her published on the Aurora Citizen website.

In keeping with her strong beliefs of Freedom and Liberty for all, Phyllis Morris did what all defenders of freedom do when faced with critical opposition: she filed a lawsuit against everyone she could think of to shut them up.

She filed suit against Richard Johnson, William “Bill” Hogg, Elizabeth Bishendon, a number of anonymous bloggers who left comments and, last but not least, Automattic Inc., the makers of the blog software platform WordPress.

That’s akin to filing suit against Microsoft because someone wrote a Word document you didn’t like, or suing Ford Motor Company because you were hit by a drunk driver. I suppose Phyllis Morris figured that if anyone had deep enough pockets to pay off her $6 million lawsuit it would be the makers of WordPress.

Lawsuits like this are only filed for one purpose: to stifle the free expression of ideas and information by a free people. Morris clearly despised criticism and was willing to go to any extreme to stop people from saying things she didn’t like.

This type of lawsuit has occurred often enough to garner its own name: Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, or SLAPP lawsuit. The sole purpose of a SLAPP lawsuit is to silence someone by the threat a massive judgment against them. In Morris’ case, she sued these individuals and Automattic Inc. for $6 million. That’s a big enough threat to scare most people into silence.

While this sort of lawsuit has already happened many times in Canada, this time the judge clearly saw it for what it was and ruled accordingly.

Let me step back a little so you have the full picture.

Phyllis Morris first filed the lawsuit against anyone she could find:Richard Johnson, William “Bill” Hogg, Elizabeth Bishendon, a number of anonymous blog commenters and the makers of the blogging platform WordPress.

As she was still mayor at the time the suit was filed, she managed to convince the Aurora city council to fund her lawsuit.

She then attempted to have the identities of the anonymous blog commenters revealed so she could name them specifically in her SLAPP lawsuit. She lost that case. Then she made the surprising announcement that she was dropping the case entirely.

I’m sure losing the election and subsequently being forced to fund the lawsuit herself both played a large part in her new-found common sense.

However, since it was Morris who dropped the lawsuit she was still on the hook for the consequences of her ill-advised actions, and defendants Johnson and Hogg found a unique section of law that allowed them to make a claim against Morris for their legal costs.

In a weird turn of events, Morris never even contested the motion for costs and that resulted in a default judgment against her for the legal costs for Johnson and Hogg. Elizabeth Bishenden had already settled previously, so she was not able to sue for costs.

This case is a resounding victory for common sense and our Right to Freedom of Speech, and sends a loud warning to politicians who think they can use public money to silence their critics through abusive actions in the courts.

Since the lawsuit filed against Johnson and Hogg was ruled to be a SLAPP lawsuit, they were entitled to what is called an “elevated award of costs”. This is meant as a deterrent to politicians or corporations who think they can silence dissent through punitive court cases, and it is a very good thing.

Here is the relevant section from the ruling by Master Thomas Hawkins:

[27] The following evidence before me is uncontradicted. Mayor Morris brought this action expressly in her capacity as Mayor of the Corporation of the Town of Aurora. Initially and up to December 14, 2010 she had access to Aurora municipality money to fund this litigation.

The action was commenced without any prior demand letter to Johnson, Hogg or Bishenden from Mayor Morris or her lawyers. The action was commenced without complying with the prior notice provisions of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990 ch. L-12 respecting broadcasts. (Johnson and Hogg take the position that Aurora Citizen “broadcasts” its content as that term is defined in the Libel and Slander Act).

The action was commenced three weeks prior to the municipal election in which Mayor Morris was seeking a second term as mayor. The action was commenced by notice of action rather than by statement of claim. In her notice of action Mayor Morris expressly sought damages of $6,000,000 from the defendants.

In an action for damages it is unusual for the plaintiff to claim a specific amount of damages in the notice of action. The notice of action was served on the defendants Johnson, Hogg and Bishenden immediately and without any statement of claim, in contravention of subrule 14.03 (4).

[28] I infer from these facts that Mayor Morris was not prepared to wait and see if a demand letter would have the desired effect of silencing Johnson, Hogg and Bishenden, and not prepared to wait until her lawyers prepared a statement of claim.

In my view, Mayor Morris wanted to hit Johnson, Hogg and Bishenden quickly and hard, in order to silence them as her critics sooner rather than later in the weeks leading up to the October 25, 2010 municipal elections.

[29] I therefore come to the conclusion that this action is indeed SLAPP litigation.

Morris was so desperate to shut up Johnson, Hogg and Bishenden that she couldn’t be bothered to file her lawsuit in a legal manner. She wanted these people silenced, and silenced immediately. That was all she cared about, and attaching a $6 million price tag to their Right to Freedom of Speech all but guaranteed the three would indeed be silenced.

That is just plain wrong.Abusive bully tactics from thin-skinned whiners like Phyllis Morris can never be permitted.

It’s obscene that, in a nation that supposedly prides itself on the Rights and Freedoms of every citizen, a politician at any level of government would dare try to extort a citizen into silence.

That Phyllis Morris now must pay back $21,275 in legal costs to Johnson and Hogg is the loudest and best “shot across the bow” I’ve ever had the pleasure to write about.

It’s refreshing to see our right to Freedom of Speech upheld so convincingly, and that a politician so clearly undeserving of elected office as Phyllis Morris was soundly put in her place.


In closing, I would urge you to read the entire 6-page ruling by Master Thomas Hawkins for yourself. It’s great reading!


My previous articles on the Phyllis Morris case:

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 12, 2012

Why we must Support Marc Lemire’s Appeal of the Bizarre Federal Court ruling on Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act



As you no doubt already know, MP Brian Storseth’s Private Members Bill C-304, an Act to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, has passed the Canadian Parliament. However, it must still pass the Senate before this piece of freedom-crushing legislation will be gone for good.

Serial plaintiff Richard Warman is “Canada’s most offended man” according to Ezra Levant

Serial plaintiff Richard Warman is “Canada’s most offended man” according to Ezra Levant

In the meantime, Marc Lemire’s long legal battle with serial plaintiff Richard Warman continues. Warman is the man who Sun TV commentator Ezra Levant refers to as “Canada’s most offended man” because he is personally responsible for over half of all complaints before Canada’s Human Rights Commission.

Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley recently ruled in the case of Warman v. Lemire (view PDF of decision) and his decision was quite bizarre. It struck down the penalty clause of the Human Rights Act, Section 54, while simultaneously upholding the constitutionality of the freedom-killing Section 13.

If you think that is confusing, don’t worry. You’re not alone. Ezra Levant is also a little puzzled, and he’s done his best to explain what the federal court ruling means with some help from Chris Shafer of the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. You can watch that video at the bottom of this article.

It is important to remember that Marc Lemire is the only person to win their case in the 33 year history of the Canadian Human Rights Commission! He is the guy who finally broke their 100% conviction rate.

So far this case has eaten up 8 years of Marc Lemire’s life and the battle is still not over.

Since this is currently the law of the land until the bill to repeal Section 13 passes the Senate, Marc Lemire must continue his battle to have the law struck down on constitutional grounds.

But is it really necessary to appeal this ruling since Bill C-304 will inevitably pass the Senate?

Yes, it is, and here’s why.

First, at the moment there are dozens of Section 13 cases that are “on hold” pending the outcome of Marc Lemire’s case. Should Lemire decide NOT to appeal this ruling, then all those cases will be taken off hold and the unjust persecution of those Canadians will resume.

Second, we have no idea when Bill C-304 will pass the Senate, even though it’s practically guaranteed to do so. The problem lies, as I outlined above, with the time period between today and the day when the Bill C-304 is actually proclaimed into law. During this time period cases already “in the system” will move ahead, even though everyone knows the law will be repealed.

Marc Lemire

Marc Lemire

Since it is currently the law of the land, it will be applied as such, despite the impending repeal of Section 13.

As I see it, if for no other reason than supporting Lemire’s case prevents all these other cases from resuming, it is well worth supporting.

So I urge you to please join with me in supporting Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

You can donate online through PayPal (you don’t need a PayPal account to donate as long as you have a credit card) by using this link:

If you prefer not to use PayPal you can mail your donation directly to Marc Lemire at:

Marc Lemire
Attn: Free Speech Legal Defense Fund
762 Upper James St, Suite 384
Hamilton, Ontario L9C 3A2

But I don’t support what Mr. Lemire says,” you’re thinking.

So what? That’s not the issue, is it?

I don’t have to agree with what someone says in order to support their right to say it. That’s the whole problem with Section 13 of the Human Rights Act! It takes Free Speech and turns it into Approved Speech.

The problem with Approved Speech should be obvious. So long as you’re on the side of those who get to decide, you’re okay. But what happens when the political climate changes and you’re no longer on the side of the “approvers“?

Unless you are content to live in Orwell’s world, support Marc Lemire. He is the good guy in this fight and he has earned our support, if for no other reason than he is the first and only person to ever win a case against the Canadian Human Rights Commission! Their 100% conviction rate was secure until they went after him.


Ezra Levant and Chris Schafer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation discuss Federal Court ruling in Warman v. Lemire.


Ezra Levant: Good Riddance to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 18, 2012

“Obama Death Threats Completely IGNORED by Mainstream Media!”




“Obama Death Threats Completely IGNORED by Mainstream Media!”

Can you imagine seeing that headline if it were actually true?

Never in a million years.

No, if anyone were publicly threatening the life of the Pretender-In-Chief, their “Anointed One“, they’d be screaming about it from the rooftops. It would make front page headlines in every major newspaper in the nation instantly.

But since it was just Governor Romney who was threatened hundreds of times, both during and after the Presidential Debate, well…

Who Cares?

Can you imagine if Twitter lit up with death threats against The Anointed One like it did against Governor Romney?  The Lamestream Media would search to the ends of the earth to find the culprits.  However when it’s Governor Romney being threatened it’s just…

[Yawn] “Move along now… Nothing to see here folks.”

That’s the overwhelming sentiment of the Lamestream Media.

Who Cares?

Threats against Governor Romney is no story at all since they would rather see him dead than win the election.

That ridiculous sentiment is all that’s left of the carcass of Journalistic Integrity in America today, as evidenced by the antics of the [alleged] debate moderator Candy Crowley.

The blatant hypocrisy makes me cringe.

It is important to stress that these Twitter accounts are genuine, they are not fakes. Many of them have thousands of previous tweets.  The following Tweets are just some of the ones compiled by both during and after the debate;

“If Romney win this election, he might as well wear a shirt that says “Assassinate Me Bitch”.

“Yall ready to assassinate romney?”

“Somebody needs to assassinate This mofo Romney.”

“Romney make me wanna hop through the tv & just assassinate his ass.”

“I aint gone lie… Food stamps the shit! I mite assassinate romney my damn self if he get elected!”

“If romney get elected i hope a nigga assassinate his bitchass.

“No birth control???? Lol rlly Romney the american population is going to overflow and then we’ll have to resort to murder and you’ll be #1.”

“At this point in time I am completely prepared to MURDER ROMNEY MYSELF!”

“If Romney win, IM GOING TO JAIL FOR MURDER cuz imma whack his bitch ass ASAP.”

“If Mitt Romney wins, which I doubt, someone should assassinate him before he ruins the lives of our generation & our children.”


It is important to emphasize that these are just a selection of scores and scores of threats to assassinate Romney that have exploded on Twitter over the last 12 hours. We didn’t even have time to check Facebook or any other social networks.

Here’s a short sampling of the remarks on Twitter.  You can find lots more on, who compiled a bunch of them.




If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 12, 2012

Pastor Terry Jones Barred Entry. So Much for Freedom of Speech in Canada…


Florida Pastor Terry Jones is best known for his outspoken opposition to islam.  He made international headlines when he burned a Koran two years ago on the anniversary of 9/11.   He also created and promoted “International Burn a Koran Day” as a way of protesting against radical islam.

Terry Jones was scheduled to debate Toronto imam on the film Innocence of Muslims outside Ontario’s legislature Thursday evening, but instead spent over 4 hours being searched and interrogated by Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) agents before being denied entry into the country.

Eventually both Terry Jones and his assistant, Wayne Sapp, were handed letters from CBSA explaining they would not be allowed into Canada.

“Dr. Jones’ letter said they were denying him entry to Canada because years ago in Germany, when he lived there, he was fined by the German government for using the title doctor,” said Fran Ingram of Stand Up America Now, the U.S. organization that promotes Mr. Jones.

The CBSA letter also demanded that Mr. Jones provide a criminal records check before attempting to  enter into Canada again.

While the CBSA is arguing they had valid reasons for keeping Pastor Jones out of Canada it just doesn’t pass the smell test.

CBSA cited a note from German officials who were upset that Jones used the designation “Dr.” from an institution they refused to recognize and a claim that they didn’t have enough information about an alleged breach of peace bond against Mr. Sapp as the reasons why they were not allowing the two into Canada.

Yeah, okay.  That’s sketchy at best, and disingenuous to say the very least.

For reasons unknown, the Canadian government was not interested in allowing a Christian Pastor to debate a muslim imam in Ontario.

Odd, since they were perfectly willing to allow radical muslim Dr. Bilal Philps to speak at an islamic conference in Calgary earlier this year. Philips has been kicked out of two countries (Germany & Kenya) and banned from two others (Britain & Australia) for his outspoken views on homosexuality, among other things.

But since Philips was born in Canada it’s completely okay for him to speak, right?  But an American Christian pastor? Forget about it.

I guess that means that Ann Barnhardt is also unwelcome in Canada since she is

1) a Christian, and
2) burned a Koran and posted the video on YouTube.

It would seem that Freedom of Speech is based, not on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but on which religion you happen to preach.

Islam 1, Christianity 0.

How very open-minded of the Canadian government…

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 3, 2012

Seems in Obama’s America Freedom of Speech applies ONLY to Muslims

Download Full-Size Poster

Welcome to Obama’s America, where you can say anything you want about Islam, just so long as its positive.  Say something denigrating and, well, the director of “Innocence of Muslims”, Nakoula Basseley (or Mark Basseley Youssef  if you prefer), is living proof that the Obama White House, ever ready to pander to muslim extremists, will get you any way it can.

In Basseley’s case that means violating his parole on a 2-year-old fraud charge and laying some new charges of dubious merit, to say the least.

The man behind the YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims” was arrested on Thursday and was ordered to be held without bail by California Judge Suzanne H. Segal, where she appeared to be the perfect Obama acolyte, taking offence on behalf of the muslim world.

The court has a lack of trust in this defendant at this time,” she said, adding that he posed “some danger to the community.”

Danger to the community?  You just keep drinking that Koolaid, Judge Segal…

While the lame-stream press keeps trumpeting this as a triumph for justice, it’s anything but that.

Setting aside the apparently dubious character of the man being scapegoated as the instigator of the recent riots around the muslim world, this is a political show trial at its best.  At worst it is America bowing before muslim terror in the vain hope the murderous lunatics will magically spare the cowardly.

While the authorities are claiming he violated his parole and lied to investigators, this kangaroo court has absolutely nothing to do with parole violations and everyone but the lame-stream media knows it.

This is about silencing one man’s voice, of stripping him of his Right to Freedom of Speech for the sole reason that what he had to say in his film offended the one religion we are no longer allowed to offend: islam.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

September 25, 2012

Junking English for the Sake of IngSoc


The great failed experiment called the United Nations has come up with another bizarre notion.

This time it’s the outlawing of speech.

I don’t know if the Marxist deadheads hanging out in the tombstone-shaped, 37-floor UN building in Manhattan intend to prohibit all speech to bring complete silence to the land or just continue their rout of demonizing and redefining select, politically-incorrect English words like the Durham District School Board in Ontario did, as was recently brought to our attention by Christopher di Armani.

Or perhaps these self-avowed UN brain boxes overshot their intellectual capacities in an attempt to continue the development of Dr. Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof’s fabricated, international language known as Esperanto.

The Polish oculist and linguist’s noble idea was that a bland, uninteresting, artificial form of Newspeak would be an easy-to-learn, politically-neutral communication method capable of transcending nationalities while fostering international peace among races speaking a multitude of languages.

Personally, I don’t care what these bonehead, skin-discoloured alien illiterates do who speak the politically-incorrect English as a Second Language (ESL).

I grew up in a household where the motto was:

“Say what you mean and mean what you say.”

That truism still stands.

In other words, be truthful. Don’t be skirting the obvious by trying to wallpaper over negatives with positives.

I remember neighbour ladies avoiding uncomfortable words, whispering euphemisms like “the poor old dear has expired.” Having “expired” sounded deliciously naughty and unfit for children’s ears, so I naturally wanted to hear more.

When my mother cut through the fog that had obscured my comprehension, I protested.

“If the lady died, why in thunder didn’t somebody simply say so?”

It’s an age-old problem. Preference leans toward lying to cover up ugly truths with snaky words or otherwise using vocabulary as a powerful people-control tool.

Meanwhile, numbskull Marxist apparatchiks are trying to trash the English language. Again. Still.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

September 14, 2012

Freedom of Speech and Marriage Fraud: How can they possibly be connected?

Lainie Towell cover

Actually, quite easily, unfortunately.

Meet Lainie Towell.

Yes, the photo looks a little weird, until you understand why this woman is wearing a wedding dress and carrying a full-size door, white on one side and red on the other, with the words “Mr. Immigration Minister, it’s getting heavy” emblazoned on the back of it.

To quote the Ottawa Life magazine story about her plight (which I encourage you to read in its entirety):

The story begins in 2004, when Ottawa dance artist Lainie Towell traveled to Guinea West Africa and fell in love twice. First with the country’s dance, and then with a Guinean drummer named Fodé Mohamed “Akra” Soumah.

After several trips to Conakry, a few bouts of malaria, countless hours apprenticing in an African ballet, and some visits to a witch doctor, Towell and Akra got married. She then sponsored him to come to Canada.

Twenty-nine days after he arrived in Canada, Akra disappeared. It seemed he had gotten what he wanted from the marriage – his Canadian permanent residency status.

Refusing to remain a victim, Towell took matters into her own hands. She launched what would become an international media campaign and exposed her broken heart – along with Canada’s lax immigration laws – to the public. When a Canadian Border Services Agency enforcement officer saw her story in the news and launched an investigation, Towell discovered first-hand that one woman’s courage and tenacity can help change the system.

Lainie Towell is a very courageous woman, from what I can tell.

She has single-handedly put the issue of immigration fraud onto the national and international stage with her very visual one-woman protest march on Canada’s Parliament Hill.

The decision from the Immigration folks that removed this “man” from Canadian soil is available at

Reasons and Decision — Removal Order Appeal

Fodé Mohamed SOUMAH

October 19, 2009

[3] The ID came to the conclusion that the appellant did not declare that he was the father of a child, prior to or at the time of his landing on December 21, 2007.  The ID did not come to the conclusion that the appellant had misrepresented the nature of his marriage to his sponsor, Helen Margaret Towell, who testified before the ID that she had been duped into marrying the appellant. The Minister did not appeal from that decision.

Lainie never knew about the child from a previous relationship when she married Soumah.  He never disclosed this to her.  Nice guy… (more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

August 25, 2012

Athiests won’t feed the football team but they don’t want anyone else feeding the team either

Ridgeland High School Panthers Football Logo

Don’t you just love the whining morons who complain that a church is doing something even though the whiners won’t do it themselves?

Ridgeland High School Panthers Football Logo

Take the case of churches in LaFayette, Georgia, providing meals to local football teams before games.  Here are people (yes, churches are in fact filled with people) doing a great thing (feeding young athletes).  I find it bizarre that feeding kids could possibly be deemed “unconstitutional”, yet that’s the word being bandied about by the lunatic fringe, aka the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).

The FFRF hates God and demands that the rest of the world fall in line with their opinion.  It would seem that Freedom of Speech applies only to the FFRF and nobody else.

Sorry… nobody’s buying that crap here.

Freedom of Religion is not Freedom FROM Religion, yet that’s what these idiots constantly promote.  Any mention of God or church even in the most distant way is an invitation to the FFRF to sue you.

Obviously these folks don’t have anything better to do, such as making meals for young athletes like those evil church folk do, and must instead mandate that nobody else make meals for the kids either.

“Taking public school football teams to church, even for a meal, is unconstitutional,” FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel wrote in a letter to the district. “This program is an egregious violation of the Establishment Clause and must cease immediately.”

Seidel said taking school children to churches and having ministers “present the Gospel of Jesus Christ” and having the food blessed “shatters the protections the First Amendment put in place.”

In other words… How dare churches feed young football players?!?!  It oughta be a crime!!!

How very… enlightened of them.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

July 3, 2012

BC’s new Animal Health Act (Bill 37) is quietly withdrawn due to outcry over prison terms for making fish farm diseases public


There is an old saying that probably began with Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech movement in the United States around 1750…

“The public has a right to know.”

That saying is based on the idea that it is best that we, the people, know what is going on around us, both good and bad.

The never-ending battle for Freedom of Speech is based on the conflict between the right of “we the people” to know things, and government censors and their minions to keep information secret that can and does directly affect us.

That’s exactly the issue with British Columbia’s government, led by the useless and self-serving Christy Clark, and headed by Agriculture Minister Don McRae.

Agriculture Minister McRae introduced Bill 37, titled the “Animal Health Act”, but it would have been better titled “The Animal Health Secrecy Act” since it makes it a crime for anyone to make it known publicly there is a disease outbreak in any animal population.  That crime would be punishable by 2 years in prison and a $75,000 fine.

Yes, you read that correctly.

It sounds like something out of a fiction novel or maybe the tinfoil hat crowd, but it’s not.

Under section 17 of this disgusting law it would be a crime for anyone, no matter who they are or who they work for, to divulge information regarding animal diseases publicly, such as the rampant diseases currently decimating farmed salmon in BC, for example.

Under the heading “Protected Information” it says

16  Except as permitted under section 17 [duty to keep information confidential] or 18 [personal information], a person must refuse, despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to disclose the following:

(a) information that would identify the person responsible for an animal or an animal product or byproduct;

(b) information that would identify an animal or an animal product or byproduct that is located at or in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle;

(c) information that would reveal that a notifiable or reportable disease is or may be present in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle;

(d) information that would reveal that an animal or an animal product or byproduct affected by a notifiable or reportable disease is

(i) located at or in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle, or

(ii) owned, or in the custody or control of, an identifiable person or body, or that an identifiable person or body is an operator in relation to the animal or the animal product or byproduct;

(e) information that is derived from a sample taken under this Act or that is submitted to the ministry of the minister or a laboratory identified in an order of the minister.

Notice it says a person must refuse to divulge any information they may have concerning disease in animal populations, including who caused the problem, where the disease occurred, the extent of it, etc.

So much for “the public’s right to know” about diseased food that is being sold in stores, for example.  Nope, the Christy Clark government believes you have no right to know the food you eat is diseased.

Does that sound in any way rational or sensible?

Not to me, and not to Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham, either.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 29, 2012

Ezra Levant’s 5-Point Plan to eradicate the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council and Section 5 of the Canadian Television Broadcasting Regulations


On the June 18, 2012 edition of The Source, host Ezra Levant put forward his 5-point plan to rid Canada of the Canadian Censors Council, or as they like to call themselves, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC).

As I wrote last week, membership in the CBSC is 100% voluntary. If you do NOT want a television broadcast license, you have no need to “volunteer” to join the CBSC.  However, if you actually want to create a broadcast television channel then there is nothing voluntary about it.  You must join or your application will be denied.

Once you voluntarily join the CBSC you are required to abide by its Code of Ethics.

Ezra Levant was found guilty of violating Clause 6 of the CBSC Code of Ethics by the Canadian Broadcast Censors Board.

That clause reads as follows:

Clause 6 – Full, Fair and Proper Presentation

It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests or callers.

The problem is not that Levant violated this section; it’s that he actually exceeded its requirement and disclosed the full and complete facts about the Chiquita Banana corporation and their long history of paying off terrorists in order to produce their crops in third-world nations.

That was considered impolite by the censors, or as they prefer to be known, “impartial adjudicators” and they decided they needed to make Ezra Levant shut up.

Now, am I really saying these people specifically have it in for Levant and Sun TV?

No, I’m not.

What I’m saying is they are using the system put in place 30 years ago to their advantage.  That’s just human nature.  That’s also why the system needs to be changed, to be stripped of the power to censor someone simply for expressing an opinion they, the censors, don’t like.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 27, 2012

Canadian Patriotism: Fly the Canadian Flag, get a fine, have a lien placed against your property

The Canadian Flag - the flag of the ENTIRE country, despite what Pauline Marois and her merry band of morons believe.

Did you know that Canadians have no right to fly the Canadian flag?  As shocking as that sounds, as unpatriotic as that sounds, this is the reality here in the land of True North Strong and Free.

Fly the Canadian Flag and you can be fined by your condo association and/or your municipality or both, depending upon where you live.

How incredibly… patriotic.

Imagine, if you will… that you are a Canadian veteran who has served your country faithfully and put your life on the line for Freedom and Liberty.  You return home to Canada and years later move into a condo in Edmonton, and because you are a Patriot you place a Canadian flag windsock on your balcony and fly it proudly.

Seems innocent enough, doesn’t it?

It’s not.

It’s a crime and the Aesthetics Police will hunt you down and make you pay.  Literally.

Bill and Franca Nienhuis were fined $250 by their condo association for the crime of flying the Canadian flag.  When Bill Nienhuis wrote “No Freedom” across the notice and posted it he was fined another $250 for littering.

You see, the good folks (read morons) who control the condo association are clearly proponents of Bureaucrat’s Rule #1:

The Rules Are More Important Than People.

It means nothing that Bill Nienhius served this country faithfully.  It makes no difference that he is a proud Canadian.

He broke the rules, therefore he must be punished.  It matters not that the rules are stupid.

For his crime of exposing their asinine rule for what it was he was fined an additional $250.

Is this the message we really want to send to Canadians as Canada Day approaches?  Serve your country, fly the Canadian Flag, be patriotic and we’ll fine you hundreds of dollars?

I would hope not.

I despise petty bureaucratic dictators like those who infest Bill Nienhius’ condo association.  They do nothing but suck the life force out of good and decent people all in the name of conformity.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 18, 2012

Freedom of Speech, Censorship, Ezra Levant, terrorist-supporting Chiquita Banana Company and the Cdn Broadcast Standards Council


Freedom of speech is such a tenuous Right.  Every individual wants to say whatever he or she wants, but invariably demands that everyone else only say what meets with their approval.  It’s hypocritical but it is the human way.  Or maybe it’s just the Canadian way, I don’t know.

Ezra Levant, on his Sun News Network show The Source, invariably pushes the bounds of Freedom of Speech.  That is his job and, given his history with such staunch persecutors of our God-given Rights and Freedoms as the Alberta Human Rights Commission, it’s no wonder that Levant takes the position he does with respect to our most sacred Right: Freedom of Speech.

I have never been prosecuted (persecuted?) by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for 900 days like Levant was, but I believe that level of abuse by the state is not required for me to understand where Ezra Levant’s zeal for freedom comes from.

It comes from a deep understanding of our Canadian cultural heritage, from the Magna Carta, and from the brave men and women who have died defending our precious Rights and Freedoms.

The problem for folks like me and perhaps Ezra Levant is that we live in a post-Trudeau Canada.  Personally, I much preferred the pre-Trudeau Canada but, unfortunately for us all, that commie jackass came along and did a very good job of ensuring the country would be destroyed and stay that way long after he was dead and buried.

But I digress…

As I said, Ezra Levant hosts his own television show.  He does a fine job of it, for the most part, and while I try and watch his show every day there are times where, frankly, he takes things a little farther than I’m comfortable with.  Those days aren’t very many, to be sure, but on those rare occasions where Ezra goes off the rails I am quite capable, because I’m a grown man and can think for myself, of just changing the channel or (gasp!) turning off the television entirely.

I don’t feel any need to go running to mommy and daddy (The Nanny State Censors) to make Ezra Levant shut up.  Running off to the Nanny State to force someone else to do what I want is just, well, that’s just plain un-Canadian.

So when Ezra Levant went on an extended rant about that terrorist-supporting company, Chiquita Brands International, for publicly stating they were boycotting Canadian oil in favour of oil from… well… terrorist and torturous regimes, I pretty much loved every word Levant had to say.

Yes, that even includes his Spanish epithet directed to the terrorist-loving (or at the very least terrorist-supporting) corporate official that Levant singled out at the end of his December 22, 2011 show.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player