Showing posts with label hate speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hate speech. Show all posts

Monday, January 13, 2025

Lib-funded research links Conservatives to Nazis

Research projects funded by the Trudeau government have claimed ties between the Conservative Party and extremist groups including German Nazis.

Federal funds used to link Conservatives to Nazis and hate groups | Western Standard | Western Standard News Services:

January 12, 2025 - "Government-funded research projects claimed ties between the Conservative Party and extremist groups, including German Nazis, under a federal initiative created to combat online disinformation, according to Access to Information records. Blacklock's Reporter says despite the controversy, Government House Leader Karina Gould, who launched the 'Digital Citizen Initiative' in 2019, offered no comment.

"One taxpayer-funded project alleged, 'Efforts to reclaim Canadian history as a white, middle-class colonial space with firm cultural connections to Britain have jumped from fringe accounts into the mainstream and have been in evidence in the campaign rhetoric of the Canadian People’s Party and Conservative Party'....

"Carleton University received $99,115 for its project titled Triangular Hate: Digital Memory, Disinformation And Transnational Traffic Between Germany, The U.S. And Canada. The research aimed to document supposed links between opposition parties and 'National Socialist ideology.' 'Our research has clearly shown us there is a strong interest among far-right and populist groups in Canada to weaponize Canadiana and Canadian history in the service of acquiring adherents and mainstreaming extremist ideas and hate,' researchers wrote. 


The Red Ensign, Canada's flag before 1965, is now 
allegedly a "hate-promoting symbol",  Photo, Wikimedia Commons.

"Examples cited included 'hate-promoting symbols such as the Canadian Red Ensign,' the national flag before 1965.... The study claimed the Red Ensign was co-opted as an emblem of extremism during the [2022 Freedom Convoy]..... 

"Simon Fraser University received $95,500 for a related project, 'Understanding Hate Groups’ Narratives And Conspiracy Theories In Traditional And Alternative Social Media.' This research also focused on the Freedom Convoy, labeling it as a hate movement despite no charges of hate crimes being brought against any participants....

"Gould, who launched the Digital Citizen Initiative with $19.4 million in funding over four years, had previously said the program was designed 'to help Canadians understand online disinformation and its impact on Canadian society.' However, no parliamentary committee reviewed the projects or spending under the initiative."

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/federal-funds-used-to-link-conservatives-to-nazis-and-hate-groups/60981

Monday, October 7, 2024

Tim Walz gets First Amendment wrong

During last Tuesday's VPOTUS debate, Tim Walz fumbled a key moment by misunderstanding the First Amendment.


Minnesota Governor Tim Walz giving the State of the State 2024. Office of Gov. Tim Walz / Wikimedia Commons.

October 2, 2024 - "It would be nice if everyone on a presidential ticket understood how the First Amendment works, but unfortunately, that seems to be too much to ask of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. During an exchange about censorship and threats to Democracy — springing, inexplicably, from Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) dodging a question about whether former President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election — Walz made two major free speech fumbles. He claimed there is no First Amendment right to 'hate speech' and repeated the myth that you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

"When Vance pivoted to correctly pointing out that Walz had previously 'said there's no First Amendment right to misinformation,' Walz interjected, adding 'or threatening, or hate speech.' But Walz is wrong. While threats aren't protected by the First Amendment, 'hate speech' most certainly is. Speech that is merely offensive — and not part of an unprotected category like true threats or harassment — has full First Amendment protection.... 'The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly rejected government attempts to prohibit or punish hate speech,' reads a rundown on hate speech from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a First Amendment group.... 

"But that wasn't Walz's only error. A few seconds later, he said 'You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. That's the test. That's the Supreme Court test.' Again, this is incorrect. It's a common misconception that shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre isn't protected by the First Amendment — a myth that originates from a hypothetical used in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' 1919 Supreme Court opinion in Schenk v. United States. 

"Holmes wrote that 'the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.' Not only was this a purely hypothetical example used to explain Holmes' opinion, but the ruling itself was largely overturned 50 years later in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

"'The real problem with the 'fire in a crowded theater' discourse is that it too often is used as a placeholder justification for regulating any speech that someone believes is harmful or objectionable,' Naval Academy professor Jeff Kosseff wrote for Reason last year. 'In reality, the Supreme Court has defined narrow categories of speech that are exempt from First Amendment protections and set an extraordinarily high bar for imposing liability for other types of speech.'

"The worst part about all this for Walz is that his sloppy, revealing answers on free speech derailed what had been one of his strongest moments in the debate. The subject only came up in the first place because Vance, in an attempt to sidestep a question about Trump's election loss and the possibility of challenging future results, argued that big-tech censorship and government jawboning pose a bigger threat to democracy than Trump's election denial.... Walz was making a good point and asking an important question. That is, until he revealed what he really thinks about the First Amendment." 

Read more: https://reason.com/2024/10/02/yes-tim-walz-you-can-shout-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre/ 

Thursday, August 1, 2024

'Anti-Hate' group gets more $$ from Trudeau gov't

by George J. Dance 

The so-called "Canadian Anti-Hate Network" (CAHN) is back in the news – or would be, if Canadian media ever reported objectively on the group. In any case, this summer the CAHN received two new grants, totaling more than $600,000, from the federal Liberal government. In June, it received more than $400,000 from the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Program of Heritage Canada:

Informing, Connecting, and Encouraging Anti-Hate Activities in Canada | Canadian Anti-Hate Network: 

June 18, 2024 - The Canadian Anti-Hate Network has received a $440,000 grant to help good neighbours find each other and organize against hate.... We are launching a new project, titled Informing, Connecting, and Encouraging Anti-Hate Activities In Canada, which has been made possible thanks to the support of Canadian Heritage and a grant from the Community Support, Multiculturalism, and Anti-Racism Initiatives Program.  The CSMARI program provides funding for projects that increase capacity within communities to address racism and discrimination....

We will launch a communications campaign involving some traditional advertising and by working with content creators on newer social media platforms.... We will also hold townhalls to connect community members and organizations to exchange knowledge and organize against hate together.This project is funded for two years, ending on November 30, 2025, for a total of $440,000. We are looking for additional funding to add an additional team member and expand the communications campaign to blanket Canada....

Read more: https://www.antihate.ca/informing_connecting_and_encouraging_anti_hate_activities_in_canada

In July, CAHN  received a further $200,000 from Public Safety Canada: 

Canadian Anti-Hate Network Receives Funding From Public Safety Canada's Community Resilience Fund | Canadian Anti-Hate Network:

July 10, 2024 - "The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) will be hiring an established researcher to develop a framework to carry out studies on the far-right landscape in Canada.... The Creating an Ethical Framework for Research on Far-Right Organizing in Canada project is possible thanks to $200,000 in funding over two years under Public Safety Canada's Community Resilience Fund (CRF). Led by Public Safety's Canada Center for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence, the CRF provides financial support to organizations working to improve Canada's understanding and capacity to prevent and counter violent extremism."

Read more: https://www.antihate.ca/canadian_anti_hate_network_receives_funding_from_public_safety_canada_s_community_resilience_fund

Who are these people? According to the official description on their website, CAHN is just a group opposed to "hate" in general: 

Who We Are | Canadian Anti-Hate Network:

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network is an independent, nonprofit organization made up of Canada’s leading experts and researchers on hate groups and hate crimes. Our Advisory Committee includes academics like Dr. Barbara Perry, court-recognized experts on hate crimes, lawyers with decades of experience with hate groups, people who stood up to the neo-Nazi Heritage Front in the 1990s, and leaders in communities that are being targeted by hate.

We have relationships with colleagues and organizations doing similar work internationally, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, and experts in deradicalisation.

Our mandate is to monitor, research, and counter hate groups by providing education and information on hate groups to the public, media, researchers, courts, law enforcement, and community groups.

https://www.antihate.ca/about

What's not to like? Aren't we all opposed to "hate" no matter the source? However, other articles on the website (including the following job posting) indicate that CAHN's actual mandate is somewhat different from that: 

Hiring: Researcher With Human Subject Research Ethics Background | Canadian Anti-Hate Network:

July 10, 2024 - About the Organization 

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network is an independent, non-partisan non-profit organization with a mandate to counter, monitor, and expose far-right and white supremacist movements, groups, and individuals with every legal, ethical, and reasonable tool at our disposal.  

Read more: https://www.antihate.ca/hiring_researcher_with_human_subject_research_ethics_background

In other words, the CAHN actually has two "mandates" - a public one, to monitor and research "hate groups" in general, and an internally-used one to counter the "far right" with any tool at their disposal. This dual mandate makes the CAHN sound similar to the U.S.-based Southern Poverty Law Centre – and, indeed, Wikipedia notes that CAHN "is modelled after and supported by the American Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)." The SPLC is a fundraising site which grifts quite successfully off leftist fears of what Hillary Clinton called the "vast right-wing conspiracy" While the SPLC may well do some good, that good is more than balanced off by the harm caused by two of its tendencies: 

(1) to counter, 'expose' and oppose any and all right-wing groups, regardless of aims and tactics, as "far right"; and 

(2) to completely ignore hateful and violent activity on the left.

The same for the CAHN;  while it may have certainly have done some good, by exposing some bad actors, it is principally known for three actions that reflect these same flaws and biases. 

(1a) The CAHN was the source for the story that the Freedom Convoy was a "far-right" movement that aimed to violently overthrown the Canadian government. This propaganda narrative undoubtedly influenced the Liberal government, preventing it from even talking to the Convoy protestors, thereby prolonging the protests; and ultimately resultomg in the unconstitutional overreach of the Emergencies Act. 

(1b) The CAHN was also the source of the story that a Nova Scotia shock-jock podcaster, Jeremy Mackenzie, was the head of a secret militia group, "Diagolon," that was plotting acts of terrorism. As a result of these allegations, Mackenzie was hit with a blizzard of charges, and spent literal months in prison, for charges that ultimately resulted in not eveb one conviction – what looks like a clear case of lawfare being waged against an innocent Canadian private citizen.    

(2a) On the other hand, CAHN was conspicuous by its absence in condemning the Soros-backed anti-Israel protests that have plagued Canada since October. This failure to condemn even the worst occupations, threats, genocidal chants, and even outright violence, was duly noted and condemned, and may have led to the resignation of CAHN's CEO, Bernie Farber. (Farber remains on CAHN's board, as "Founding Chair Emeritus.") 

There is, though, one major difference between SPLC and CAHN. While the former is simply takes advantage of private dupes who waste their money on it, CAHN also feeds out of the tax trough. They have received at least $500,000 from the federal government in the past, and have also applied (though not been accepted) for permanent funding. That makes them worth keeping an eye on in the future. I doubt that this will be the last time I shall write about them.                                                                       

Saturday, June 8, 2024

Trudeau regime's extremist attack on free speech

Canada's Online Harms Bill C-63 would impose draconian criminal penalties on hate speech and curtail people’s liberty in order to stop crimes they haven’t yet committed.

Canada’s Extremist Attack on Free Speech | The Atlantic | Conor Friedersdorf:

June 6, 2024 - "In 1984, George Orwell coined the term thoughtcrime. In the short story 'The Minority Report,' the science-fiction author Philip K. Dick gave us the concept of 'precrime,' describing a society where would-be criminals were arrested before they could act. Now Canada is combining the concepts in a work of dystopian nonfiction: A bill making its way through Parliament would impose draconian criminal penalties on hate speech and curtail people’s liberty in order to stop future crimes they haven’t yet committed.

"The Online Harms Act [Bill C-63] states that any person who advocates for or promotes genocide is 'liable to imprisonment for life.' It defines lesser 'hate crimes' as including online speech that is 'likely to foment detestation or vilification' on the basis of race, religion, gender, or other protected categories.  And if someone 'fears' they may become a victim of a hate crime, they can go before a judge, who may summon the preemptively accused for a sort of precrime trial. If the judge finds 'reasonable grounds' for the fear, the ... judge may put the defendant under house arrest or electronic surveillance and order them to abstain from alcohol and drugs. Refusal to 'enter the recognizance' for one year results in 12 months in prison. This is madness.

"The proposed law ... does many other things too. One section concerns the obligations of online platforms to police content. Another bears on the worthy goal of protecting children from viewing pornography and stopping the distribution of child-sexual-abuse material, raising the odds that the bill will pass with too little attention to its worst provisions. (In February, it passed its first reading in the House of Commons. Becoming law would require a second and third reading in that body, where amendments can be proposed; passage in the national Senate; and approval by the governor general.)... 

"Arif Virani, Canada’s minister of justice and attorney general, is championing it. 'We need the ability to stop an anticipated hate crime from occurring,' he declared last week. 'The Conservatives need to get on board. Now.' According to The New York Times, some version of the bill is likely to pass, because 'Trudeau’s Liberal Party has an agreement with an opposition party to support government legislation.'

"Just countries do not punish mere speech with imprisonment, let alone life imprisonment. Just countries do not order people who have not committed and are not even accused of a crime to be confined to their home or tracked with an ankle bracelet. I have reasonable grounds to fear that the Trudeau government is going to trample on the civil rights of Canadians. That is hardly sufficient to secure the house arrest of its officials.

"Earlier this year, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association urged substantial amendments to the legislation. 'The broad criminal prohibitions on speech in the bill risk stifling public discourse and criminalizing political activism,' it warned. 'The bill imposes draconian penalties for certain types of expression, including life imprisonment for a very broad and vaguely defined offence of "incitement to genocide," and 5 years of jail time for other broadly defined speech acts. This not only chills free speech but also undermines the principles of proportionality and fairness in our legal system.'

"But amendments would not go far enough. No one who favors allowing the state to imprison people for mere speech, or severely constraining a person’s liberty in anticipation of alleged hate speech they have yet to utter, is fit for leadership in a liberal democracy. Every elected official who has supported the unamended bill should be ousted at the next opportunity by voters who grasp the fraught, authoritarian folly of this extremist proposal."

Read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/canada-online-harms-act/678605/

Thursday, May 2, 2024

Trudeau's Diagolon stories malicious fabrications, says Diagolon's creator

Jeremy MacKenzie, creator of the internet meme country Diagolon, denies any connection with either Pierre Poilievre or the carbon tax protest at the Nova Scotia border, calling Prime Minister Trudeau's claims about him and Diagolon "malicious fabrications" based on a "fantasy narrative." 

Diagolon founder denies ties with Conservatives despite Trudeau’s accusations | True North | Clayton DeMaine:

May 1, 2024 - "Jeremy Mackenzie, the creator of the internet meme country Diagolon, denied Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s claims that he and the Conservative Party of Canada or its leader Pierre Poilievre are connected in any way. 'The CPC has no connections or affiliations with myself or anyone involved in my circles,' Mackenzie said on his podcast. 'These claims by the Liberals are an outright and deliberately malicious fabrication in a desperate and pathetic attempt to sway support away from the Conservative Party’s momentum that appears overwhelmingly likely to crush the Liberals'... 

"The claims, spurred on by Trudeau, came after Poilievre visited a legal carbon-tax protest encampment on the side of a highway in an Atlantic Canada border town. The flag of Mackenzie’s made-up country can be seen on the door of a camper Poilievre entered. The Prime Minister accused Poilievre of meeting with Diagolon, and has since continued to levy accusations of 'courting white supremacists' and 'conspiracy theorists.' The protesters denied any connection to Diagolon and told True North the drawing was made by someone who stopped in one time to get warm at the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa and was never seen again.

"Mackenzie confirmed their claims. He said he asked Sam Field, who according to Mackenzie owns the trailer, to remove the drawing 'immediately.'  '(The carbon-tax protest Pierre visited) was born out of a small orbit of perennial freedom protesters seemingly cornerbacked by Mr. Sam Fields,' he said. Mackenzie said he has no relationship or recollection of any interaction with Fields. 

'My partner Morgan (Guptill) doodled a Diagolon flag on his trailer door over two years ago, during the Ottawa protest action meant as a friendly gesture of support, and nothing more.... There is no connection between myself, Morgan, or any of the more prominent voices in our makeshift loose-knit community than that. Any connections being made are tenuous at best and purely coincidental. There is no involvement whatsoever.

”Poilievre denounced Mackenzie and Diagolon in September 2022.... In an email to True North, Sebastian Skamski, a spokesperson for Poilievre said the Conservative leader stands by his disavowal of Diagolon. 'Frankly, like most Canadians, until about a month ago I never heard of Diagolon and these losers. They are all odious,' Poilievre wrote on Sept. 26, 2022. "Mackenzie said he and the Conservative leader do not see eye to eye, and Mackenzie will remain a 'sharp critic' of ... Poilievre.

It is very clear to my audience as well as the CPC I’m sure and Mr. Poilievre himself that we are not mutual friends. There’s a very deep and I’m sure mutual disdain for one another.... It is my sincere hope that somehow Mr. Poilievre and his team will succeed in proving me to be impressively incorrect in my assessment of their character....

"The government has often alluded to extremist groups operating within the Freedom Convoy to justify its use of the never-before-used Emergencies Act to crack down on protesters. 'At its core, (Diagolon) is a tightly knit group of like-minded folks who enjoy my podcast and commentary. This government used this fantasy narrative painted by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network to enact the Emergency Measures Act in February 2022,' Mackenzie said....

"The Liberal government gave the Canadian Anti-Hate Network $268,400 in 2022. The group has since asked for $5 million over five years from the government." 

Read more: https://tnc.news/2024/05/01/diagolon-founder-denies-ties-with-conservatives/

Trudeau pushes Poilievre to “condemn” right-wing extremist group Diagolon #politics #Canada | Global News | May 1, 2024:

Wednesday, April 17, 2024

Governor-General's symposium promoted Bill C63

Canada's Governor-General is officially non-partisan and apolitical, but hosted a symposium where Liberal cabinet minister Arif Virani promoted his Online Harms Bill C-63 to a selected group of influencers. 

‘NON-PARTISAN, APOLITICAL’: Governor General hosts event in support of Online Harms bill | Western Standard | Jen Hodgson:

April 16, 2024 - "Governor General Mary Simon’s office insists she is 'non-partisan and apolitical' after she personally hosted a symposium in support of the Trudeau Liberals' Online Harms bill. The guest list was limited to Attorney General Arif Virani and supporters of internet regulation, according to Blacklock’s Reporter. No opposition members or critics of Bill C-63: An Act To Enact The Online Harms Act were invited.... 

"Simon’s office would not disclose the names of all invitees or explain why others were excluded from the April 11 event. Nor did Rideau Hall justify the pro-government event. 

"Further, it refused to release any video or audio recordings of the conference or a transcript of speakers’ remarks. 

"Some guests did include former CTV News anchor Lisa LaFlamme, Le Devoir columnist Emilie Nicolas, former Global News reporter Rachel Gilmore, Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam, gender activist Fae Johnstone and Ottawa school trustee Nili Kaplan-Myrth....

"Simon supported the bill publicly on her social media as well. 'Let’s transform these conversations into action,' the governor general posted to Twitter ('X'). 'Help us create a safer online world.' Virani on social media confirmed Simon’s private conference was intended to support Bill C-63. 'We know online harms have real world consequences,' Virani wrote. 'With industry experts at the Governor General’s symposium we discussed this and our Online Harms Act.'

"Bill C-63 would require that Facebook, YouTube and other social media platforms 'mitigate the risk that users will be exposed to harmful comment' with compliance monitored by a five-member Digital Safety Commission. The bill would also appoint a federal ombudsman to 'provide support to users of social media services.” The proposal follows a failed 2021 measure C-36 An Act To Amend The Criminal Code that went further in granting a 'digital safety commissioner' powers to block websites containing legal content deemed hurtful. Hate speech is already prohibited under 1970 amendments to the Criminal Code."
Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/non-partisan-apolitical-governor-general-hosts-event-in-support-of-online-harms-bill/53842

The Governor General deserves better, but we deserve impartiality  | Macdonald-Laurier Institute | Philippe Lagassé for Inside Policy:

April 16, 2024 - "As well-intentioned as the Governor General’s symposium was, she should never have hosted it in this context, a conclusion that’s reinforced by the Minister of Justice publicly tying the event to bill C-63. As soon as the government tabled the bill, Her Excellency should have understood that the symposium was no longer appropriate and would present a risk to her office’s impartiality.... As the King’s vice-regal representative, the Governor General performs core constitutional functions. These demand that the Governor General not only act impartially but be perceived to be impartial. This isn’t just good form, it’s a fundamental part of the job....

"Turning back to the symposium, it’s important to clarify why it undermined her impartiality, or at least perceptions of it.... A full-on violation of constitutional norms isn’t the standard here. Instead, we should be asking why the Minister of Justice was even there, and why the Governor General decided to host the symposium, considering how contentious Bill C-63 has been already. Hosting the event allowed Her Excellency to get pulled into the partisan fray, a predictable outcome that she shouldn’t have risked.

"Those who participated in the symposium will counter that it was the Minister of Justice who made the connection with Bill C-63, not the Governor General. Her Excellency’s motives, and the importance of the cause addressed by the symposium, shouldn’t be impugned by a careless, partisan tweet. Alas, partisans are going to partisan and politicians are going to politick. This is precisely why vice-regal representatives should avoid wading into politically charged topics.... Defenders of the symposium offer another argument: as the sovereign’s representative, the Governor General should address important social problems that affect Canadians.... This is a fair point, though Governors General need to be careful about what causes they take up.... Anything that’s the subject of notable partisan and parliamentary debate, is ideologically fraught, or might be fought over during an election should raise red flags.

"Thankfully for the Governor General, the controversy surrounding her symposium hasn’t extended beyond the Ottawa bubble yet. She should keep it that way by abandoning her 'We Deserve Better' campaign while partisans battle it out over Bill C-63 and the courts review the Online Harms Act if it becomes law. This isn’t because the Governor General doesn’t deserve better; she does, as do all those who suffer online abuse. It’s because Canadians deserve impartiality from the Governor General, both real and perceived."

Philippe Lagassé is an associate professor at Carleton University. He’s the co-editor of Canada and the Crown: Essays on Constitutional Monarchy (2014) and The Crown and Parliament (2015).
Read more: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/the-governor-general-deserves-better-but-we-deserve-impartiality-philippe-lagasse-for-inside-policy/

Monday, April 8, 2024

NY AG wages lawfare against anti-immigration site

New York Attorney General Letitia James is using the same lawfare tactics she has used against Donald Trump to shut down anti-immigration website VDARE.

Letitia James’s Offensive Against VDARE is Harrowing for Free Speech | The American Conservative | | Christopher Brunet:

April 3, 2024 - "After spending several years hauling the former President Donald Trump through court in an attempt to puncture his bottom line, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James is now employing the same lawfare tactics against VDARE, an anti-immigration website. This appears to be a war, not of laws, but of ideology, where the stakes are nothing less than the foundational principles of free speech and dissent.

“'I launched VDARE.com on Christmas Eve 1999,' wrote Peter Brimelow, VDARE’s founder and editor, on Friday. 'So it is perhaps appropriate that, on Good Friday 2024, the anniversary of Christ’s death, I must announce VDARE.com’s crucifixion by New York State’s communist Attorney General Letitia James.'

"VDARE has not been charged with any crime, yet has 'fought NYAG Letitia James, at a cost of up to $1 million, for nearly three years.' An onslaught of onerous subpoenas marks not a quest for justice but an orchestrated attempt to financially and morally bankrupt those who dare resist the liberal creed. 

"Letitia James’s electoral platform was built on this very promise: she vowed to 'shine a bright light into every dark corner of [Donald Trump’s] real estate dealings,' just like she promised to 'take tougher legal action on organizations that engage in…online hate speech against protected classes.' Except, James cannot actually take legal action against VDARE for their 'hate speech against protected classes' because everything that VDARE writes is protected by the pesky First Amendment. So she has been digging for a reason, any reason, to bring them both down, desperately searching for anything that could be construed as a misstep.... 

"After years of aimless fishing expeditions, what James has latched onto is VDARE’s real estate dealings, just as she latched onto Trump’s real estate dealings. In 2020, the VDARE foundation bought a castle for $1.4 million in West Virginia to use as a conference space because hotels kept canceling their meetings. (Similarly, VDARE can’t get any bank to enable credit card donations.) They needed a cancel-proof event space. VDARE is hardly the first charitable organization to buy a nice conference space. The American Institute for Economic Research has its own mansion, and the Aspen Institute has its own ski resort. And who can forget Black Lives Matter buying a $6 million dollar mansion to use for parties?

"The legal case against VDARE’s castle now appears to hinge on whether or not the founders of VDARE use it as their personal dwelling. In December, President of the VDARE foundation Lydia Brimelow (Peter Brimelow’s wife) denied she lived there: 'It’s not our home. It’s our office,' she said.... 'It is not our home. We do not live here. We have a house with our family, which is not this house.' One month later, New York trial court judge Sabrina Kraus ruled that the Brimelows 'paid rent to live in the cottage [on castle grounds]...and Lydia Brimelow signed the document as both landlord and tenant.' (Per Brimelow, his family was paying independently determined rent to the VDARE Foundation, a distinct 501(c)(3) charity, in a transaction that had been carefully reviewed by VDARE’s lawyers.)...

"As part of this investigation, Letitia James is demanding that VDARE hand over 40 gigabytes of emails which 'could in fact reveal the names of [our] pseudonymous writers, as well as our donors.' VDARE’s donors and writers wish to remain anonymous because they will lose their jobs — or worse — if their identities are linked to what they support online. While the court has ostensibly extended a courtesy by permitting VDARE to redact their names from these emails, the estimated fees for such redactions are projected to come to $150,000. This presents VDARE with a stark dilemma: incur a hefty $150,000 expense to protect the anonymity of its donors and writers, or risk revealing their identities. The lesson here is that if your speech falls outside the Overton window, the state of New York will aggressively attempt to bankrupt and/or doxx you."

"In this crucial moment, when the principles of free speech are under direct threat, the silence from prominent conservative outlets is deafening. The American Conservative is not afraid to stand up for free speech, but where is Con Inc.? Crickets. Fox News, Ben Shapiro, National Review, and the MAGAverse, among others, must recognize the slippery slope they tread by allowing VDARE to face this battle alone. Today’s targeting of VDARE sets a precedent for the suppression of any form of dissent tomorrow.... The absence of solidarity today not only betrays a lack of genuine commitment to free speech but also risks validating a future where such 'lawfare' becomes a standard tactic to silence opposition, leaving no voice safe from suppression."

Read more: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/letitia-jamess-offensive-against-vdare-is-harrowing-for-free-speech/

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Trudeau gov't tables Online Harms Bill C-63

Any Good in Ottawa’s Online Harms Bill Is Overshadowed by Its ‘Hate Speech’ Provisions | Epoch Times | Cory Morgan:

Feruary 26, 2024 - "It’s been a long time in coming and now the government has finally tabled a new version of its Online Harms Act (Bill C-63).... The full title of Bill C-63 is: 'An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.' It’s quite a mouthful and it reflects a bill that’s trying to take on many issues at once....

"There is a lot to unpack in the bill and there are some good regulations within it.... Child pornography is a scourge that must be pursued and prosecuted with the utmost vigour. The internet has offered a platform that has allowed the production and distribution of child pornography to flourish. We need to give law enforcement, government agencies, and internet providers tools to try and protect children and hold those exploiting children to account.... That said, the world has changed.... On websites that have hundreds of thousands if not millions of interactions per day, it can be tough to keep up with what’s being posted. The legislation must give providers reasonable timelines and means to keep inappropriate content under control....

"As always, the devil will be in the details. The bill calls for the establishment of a 'Digital Safety Office of Canada' to administer the whole thing. Forming a new bureaucracy rarely leads to a more efficient administration of laws or regulations no matter how well-intentioned the action was. It also raises the scary prospect that a few bureaucrats can decide what content is harmful.

"The bill also calls for revisions to the Criminal Code to increase the maximum sentences for hate propaganda. It specifies increasing the sentence for promoting genocide from a maximum of five years to a life sentence. This is where this bill is going to get into trouble. For one, the nation can’t even settle on what the definition of genocide is anymore. It can range from calling for the extermination of a race to opposing the changing of gender pronouns in schools. Secondly, while the promotion of real genocide is odious and could indeed earn criminal sanction, offering a penalty of a life sentence is beyond reasonable. Even murderers in Canada often don’t get life sentences. This is just inviting legal challenges.

"The bill delves into hate speech and further empowerment of the Human Rights Commission. It is returning restrictions on expression and speech that went too far in the past which is why the Harper government rescinded Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. Speech was being unduly infringed upon and the commission was overstepping its bounds. The new definitions of criminal hate speech will surely land in our courts, too.

"Bill C-63 has some merit but the bill may be lost due to the government’s zeal in trying to pack hate speech provisions into it. If the child protection section could be broken free into a bill of its own, it could be a fine piece of legislation." 

Read more: https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/cory-morgan-any-good-in-ottawas-online-harms-bill-is-overshadowed-by-its-hate-speech-provisions-5595592

Bill to combat harmful online content | CBC News: The National | February 26, 2024: 

Monday, September 25, 2023

Millions of Canadians believe far-right conspiracy theories, claims Canadian Anti-Hate Network

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network claims that as many as six million Canadians believe "one or more" far-right conspiracy theories, and wants $2.5 million a year from the federal government to monitor them. 

Canadian Anti-Hate Network claims 6 million Canadians conspiracy theorists | Western Standard | Christopher Oldcorn:

September 24, 2023 - "According to a 'media monitor' that receives federal subsidies, approximately 15% of Canadians are considered conspiracy theorists, as many as six million people. According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network believes it needs additional financial support to combat those who aim to 'do away with our liberal democracy.' 


The Red Ensign, Canada's flag before 1965, is a hate symbol, says 
the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. Photo, Wikimedia Commons.

"'We believe 10% to 15% of Canadians are consuming far-right content and believe in one or more far-right conspiracy theories,' the Network wrote in a submission to the Commons Finance committee. It provided no source for the claim....  The Network applied for $5 million in funding over five years to serve as an unofficial 'anti-hate watchdog' for the Government of Canada.

"'None of the government’s programs explicitly name the far-right as a threat to Canada’s democracy and marginalized groups,” it wrote the Finance committee. 'None of them fund efforts to address the far-right movement as a significant origin of hate in Canada. We need to address the far right because it wants to do away with our liberal democracy.'

"The Network [has] received two grants, one for $268,400 to maintain its website and another separate grant of $268,400 to produce a school guide, Confronting and Preventing Hate in Canadian Schools. On June 29, 2022, then-Diversity Minister Ahmed Hussen called the Network 'an organization that I respect very much.'

"The Network’s school guide called the 'Red Ensign' a hate symbol, despite it being Canada's national symbol until 1965. .... [T]he guide stated the Conservative Party was susceptible to 'infiltration' by 'racists' and 'white nationalists.' Additionally, the guide cautioned children to be cautious of Canadians who use 'free speech' in political discussions, as it claimed this was one of the 'common defences of hate propaganda.'

"In its Finance committee submission, the Network described the Freedom Convoy as a 'product of Canada’s far-right movement'.... 'The COVID-19 conspiracy movement and Freedom Convoy have since pivoted to attacking the (sexual minority) community primarily by spreading the dangerous and inciting lie that transgender persons and sexual minority persons are pedophiles with an agenda,' wrote the Network. 'Today they are targeting school boards and trying to ban books, force students to use the wrong washrooms and force teachers to out the gender and sexual identity of their students to what might be unsafe homes.'"

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/canadian-anti-hate-network-claims-6-million-canadians-conspiracy-theorists/article_dc0a1cee-5983-11ee-9aa1-53a564e310ae.html

Monday, September 18, 2023

Ontario unions organize to disrupt parents' march

Ontario unions are organizing to take urgent action against the planned parental rights protest March on September 20.   

Unions plan disruption, counter-protests against Wednesday parents march | Western Standard | Lee Harding:

September 15, 2023 - "The Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) is strategizing on how to counteract the million-person march Wednesday. On September 11, OFL President Patty Coates sent an email to the OFL executive board, executive council, union heads, committees, coalitions, and community partners. Its notice read, 'Urgent Action Required: Rapid Response to September 20th Canada-Wide (anti-sexual minority) Protests.' 

"The email warned, 'the ultra-conservative right have planned nationwide events to protest teaching (sexual minority) content in schools under the guise of protecting children.' Although the rallying cry is entitled, 'A day to unite all religions in the defence of children against (sexual minority) indoctrination in Canadian schools,' Coates took a different view. 'We know that far from protecting students this will hurt them in so many ways,' she wrote. 'In this time of unprecedented hate and emboldened anger against so many people, it is time now, more than ever, for labour to show up as allies to protect targets of hate and bigotry wherever they may be.'

"The email said the one million person march protests were planned for Toronto, Hamilton, Burlington, Kitchener, Niagara Falls, London, Windsor, Orangeville, Barrie, Sudbury, Whitby, Ottawa and 'the list keeps on growing.'

"'We must make our voices louder and the message heard that there is no place for hate in our province,' Coates wrote. 'The OFL encourages all leaders/heads of unions to join with labour councils and community groups to organize workers and communities to form rapid response teams who can show up on the 20th at the locations listed and counter this rhetoric and these lies'.... Coates invited recipients to join her at a strategy meeting on the morning of Friday September 15 to 'draft a system to ensure that no city in Ontario where an event is planned is left unchallenged. Let’s work to broadcast the message that no groups will be left alone'....

"The million person march is the initiative of Muslim activist Kamel El-Cheikh. Hundreds of Muslim parents gathered in Ottawa June 9 and 13 to protest sexual minority education in schools. In September, Prime Minister Trudeau told an audience at a mosque in Calgary that 'people on social media, particularly fueled by the American right wing' were stirring up such protests."
Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/unions-plan-disruption-counter-protests-against-wednesday-parents-march/article_e7bc4f94-532f-11ee-90a3-a37360a254ec.html

Unions declare war on parental rights protest | True North | September 18, 2023:

Hamilton union leader says members will follow parental rights protestors | Western Standard | Jonathan Bradley 

September 18, 2023 - "Hamilton and District Labour Council (HDLC) President Anthony Marco said when protestors gather in a parking lot to participate in the One Million March for Children, it 'has got a couple seasoned activists who are willing to go over and take some pictures of licence plates'.... He said these HDLC members will be showing parental rights protestors they 'know they are being watched, that they are not doing this in secret, that people are noticing what they’re up to'.... As a person, he said it is not an action he plans on doing or has ever done....

"The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) blasted the One Million March on Friday for wanting to stop sexual minority topics from being discussed in schools. The CAHN said these protests are supported by far-right and conspiratorial groups, including Christian nationalists, COVID-19 conspiracy theorists, sovereigntists and anti-public education activists. It said there are at least two brands involved in the One Million March. Hands Off Our Kids and Family Loves Freedom are organizing under #1MillionMarch4Children. 
Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/updated-hamilton-union-leader-says-members-will-follow-parental-rights-protestors/article_8e9c3d92-5641-11ee-badb-8fc07ec92968.html

Thursday, July 13, 2023

"Disinformation" crusaders oppose 1st Amendment

Some critics of the injunction against the U.S. government using social media to suppress constitutionally protected speech actually have a problem with the Constitution itself.

Some Critics of the Ruling Against Biden's Censorship by Proxy Have a Beef With the 1st Amendment Itself | Reason | Jacob Sullum:

July 12, 2023 - "Some critics of last week's preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden, which bars federal officials from encouraging social media platforms to suppress constitutionally protected speech, reject the premise that such contacts amount to government-directed censorship. Other critics, especially researchers who focus on 'disinformation' and hate speech, pretty much concede that point but see nothing troubling about it. From their perspective, the problem is that complying with the First Amendment means tolerating inaccurate, misleading, and hateful speech that endangers public health, democracy, and social harmony.

"The day after Terry Doughty, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, issued the injunction, The New York Times gave voice to those [latter] concerns in a piece headlined 'Disinformation Researchers Fret About Fallout From Judge's Order.' According to the subhead, those researchers 'said a restriction on government interaction with social media companies could impede efforts to curb false claims about vaccines and voter fraud'.... 

"'Most misinformation or disinformation that violates social platforms' policies is flagged by researchers, nonprofits, or people and software at the platforms themselves,' the Times notes. But 'academics and anti-disinformation organizations often complained that platforms were unresponsive to their concerns.'

 The paper reinforces that point with a quote from Viktorya Vilk, director for digital safety and free expression (!) at PEN America: 'Platforms are very good at ignoring civil society organizations and our requests for help or requests for information or escalation of individual cases. They are less comfortable ignoring the government.'

"The reason social media companies are 'less comfortable ignoring the government,' of course, is that it exercises coercive power over them and could use that power to punish them for failing to censor speech it considers dangerous. In the 155-page opinion laying out the reasoning behind his injunction, Doughty ... cites myriad communications that show administration officials expected platforms to promptly comply with the government's censorship 'requests,' which they typically did, and repeatedly complained when companies were less than fully cooperative. He emphasizes how keen Facebook et al. were to assuage President Joe Biden's anger at moderation practices that he said were "killing people'.... As the fretful researchers quoted by the Times see it, that is all as it should be....

"The Times paraphrases Bond Benton, an associate communication professor at Montclair State University, who worries that Doughty's ruling 'carried a message that misinformation qualifies as speech and its removal as the suppression of speech.' As usual, the Times glides over disputes about what qualifies as 'misinformation,' which according to the Biden administration includes truthful content that it considers misleading or unhelpful. But since even a demonstrably false assertion 'qualifies as speech' under the First Amendment, the 'message' that troubles Benton is an accurate statement of constitutional law. That does not mean platforms cannot decide for themselves what content they are willing to host, but it does mean the government should not try to dictate such decisions....

"In an interview with the Times, Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, complained that the U.S. takes 'a 'particularly fangless' approach to dangerous content compared with places like Australia and the European Union.' Those comparisons are telling. Australia's Online Safety Act empowers regulators to order removal of 'illegal and restricted content'.... Internet service providers that do not comply with complaint-triggered takedown orders within 24 hours are subject to civil penalties.... Freedom House notes that Australia's law includes 'no requirement for the eSafety Commissioner to give reasons for removal notices and provides no opportunity for users to respond to complaints'.... Australia's scheme plainly restricts or prohibits speech that would be constitutionally protected in the United States. 

"Likewise the European Union's Digital Services Act, which covers 'illegal content,' a category that is defined broadly to include anything that runs afoul of a member nation's speech restrictions. E.U. countries such as France and Germany prohibit several types of speech that are covered by the First Amendment.... These are the models that Ahmed thinks the U.S. should be following.... Critics like Ahmed, in short, do not merely object to Doughty's legal analysis; they have a beef with the First Amendment itself, which allows Americans to express all sorts of potentially objectionable opinions. If you value that freedom, you probably consider it a virtue of the American legal system. But if your priority is eliminating 'hate and disinformation,' the First Amendment is, at best, an inconvenient obstacle."

Read more: https://reason.com/2023/07/12/some-critics-of-the-ruling-against-bidens-censorship-by-proxy-have-a-beef-with-the-1st-amendment-itself/

Tuesday, November 29, 2022

Canadian Anti-Hate Network loses libel suit

Jon Kay's legal victory exposes Canadian Anti-Hate Network's anti-conservative agenda | National Post - Jamie Sarkonak:

November 24, 2022 - "A recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has given Canadians yet another reason to question the federal government’s relationship with the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN). On Nov. 10, the court dismissed a defamation lawsuit launched by lawyer Richard Warman, also a board member of CAHN. Warman sued journalists Jonathan and Barbara Kay for tweets that criticized CAHN’s links to the Antifa movement in the United States, which has been covered by C2C Journal and The Federalist (the Kays did not name Warman himself in their tweets). In the end, the judge ruled that the tweets weren’t defamatory, which meant the Kays wouldn’t be liable.

"Even if the tweets did meet the legal threshold to be considered defamatory, the Kays would have been saved by the legal defences available. The judge said that the statements made had the benefit of being true, noting that, 'CAHN did in fact assist Antifa and that the movement has been violent'.... Additionally, the judge concluded the defence of fair comment could apply, meaning the opinions expressed by the Kays could be reasonably drawn from the known facts.... The judge noted that even 'Warman’s evidence was that he and CAHN were part of the Antifa movement,' and its 'muscular resistance' and 'physical disruption' were known to two other board members.

"The decision tells us two things: that there are members of CAHN who are willing to use the legal system to silence its critics, and that there is a relationship between CAHN and the Antifa movement. It’s yet another indicator that the Government of Canada — particularly the Department of Canadian Heritage — should distance itself from the organization.

"CAHN has received government funding in the past, including a grant of $268,400 to participate in an 'anti-racism action program' from October 2020 to March 2022. The grant agreement, obtained through an access to information request, shows that the money was used to hire additional staff members, facilitate workshops, write articles about hate groups (CAHN covers everyone from far-right neo-nazis to conservative-leaning school board candidates)  and engage on social media.

"A 'recommendation for ministerial approval' form (also obtained through an access to information request) ... described the expected outcomes:  'This project will increase the organization’s capacity to counter online hate by hiring four team members to carry out the monitoring of extreme-right groups, report on their activities and file complaints with law enforcement ... and will share information through 10,000 Facebook and Twitter followers.' Reporting citizens to police wasn’t an expectation written into the final grant agreement, but it’s concerning that paying a third-party group to investigate people for the purpose of initiating criminal investigations was on the table in the first place....

"In March 2022 — the month the government grant was set to expire — Canadian Heritage created an advisory group to help it craft its online censorship legislation. Among the appointees was Bernie Farber, chair of the CAHN.... The recommendations were released on June 15, 2022. A couple weeks later, the Government of Canada and CAHN launched an 'anti-hate toolkit' for use in schools — a project that was supported by the Canadian Heritage grant. The toolkit’s focus was on far-right radicalization (it should be noted that far-left radicalization and Islamic radicalization, which have also been problems in Canada, were not mentioned in it).

"Among other things, the toolkit outlined problematic behaviours in students that should be reported to teachers and corrected, including displaying the Red Ensign (Canada’s former flag), the use of various memes and supporting unsavoury politicians like former U.S. president Donald Trump.... The toolkit is very much a political document that primarily targets the far-right. But in doing so, it goes after mild traditionalism, classical liberal stances on social policy and mainstream conservative values, as well....

"[CAHN] is a politically motivated group that is now recognized by a court to be associated with Antifa, and has no qualms about accusing mainstream conservatives of being racist and using the legal system to try to silence them. It’s free to advocate for whatever it wants, but the federal government shouldn’t be using the group to push fundamentally illiberal views on the limits of free speech in a free and democratic society."

Read more: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jon-kays-legal-victory-exposes-canadian-anti-hate-networks-anti-conservative-agenda

MP Dane Lloyd Grills Canadian Anti-Hate Network for Hate Hoax against Freedom Convoy,  Clyde Do Something, Apr. 28, 2022:

Saturday, September 17, 2022

Freedom Convoy was recruiting tool for 'Hate' groups, says gov't-funded 'Anti-Hate' group

Anti-hate experts urge action against right-wing extremism in Canada |  IHeartRadio - Judy Trinh, CTV News:

September 16, 2022 - "Anti-hate experts are urging policy makers to take action against what they describe as growing right-wing extremism in Canada. One of these experts says research suggests that millions of Canadians have been drawn into the far right over the course of the pandemic, some of whom have been indoctrinated by misinformation and lies that were then amplified by the Freedom Convoy. 

"Evan Balgord, the executive director of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, says the convoy’s organizers were able to successfully use the month-long February protest to recruit vaccine-hesitant people into their movement. 'They were now rubbing shoulders with, you know, racists and bigots and people who would like to use violence to overthrow the government. A portion of those people are getting further radicalized'....

"Balgord says the movement’s ideas are entrenched in the mainstream. Balgord, whose organization tracked right-wing groups and monitored their activities and influence, ... estimates that there are now 10 to 15 per cent of Canadians who hold far right views, which encompass a wide range of extremist opinions including anti-government and anti-science perspectives along with racist and homophobic beliefs. Some of them may not consider themselves racist, but they are giving cover to extremists, he says....

"The Conservative Party of Canada’s new leader, Pierre Poilievre, has embraced convoy supporters and marched with a Canadian soldier who refused to be vaccinated.... Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland was ambushed by a Freedom Convoy supporter who verbally assaulted her."
Read more: https://www.iheartradio.ca/ctv-news-content/anti-hate-experts-urge-action-against-right-wing-extremism-in-canada-1.18502735

Canadian Anti-Hate Network executive director Evan Balgord on Freedom Convoy | CBC News, The National | Janiary 28, 2022:

Government of Canada and the Canadian Anti-Hate Network launch Anti-Hate toolkit for Canadian schools | Canadian Heritage (news release):

June 29, 2022 - "Today, the Honourable Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, joined members of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network to launch its new toolkit, Confronting and Preventing Hate in Canadian Schools. This toolkit will provide a comprehensive anti-racism education program to help equip educators, parents and communities better identify, confront and prevent hate in schools across Canada. It was created as part of the network’s project, Containing and Countering Canadian Hate Groups, which monitors and reports on the activities of extreme-right groups.

"The project is funded through the Government of Canada’s Anti-Racism Action Program, which aims to address barriers to employment, justice and social participation among Indigenous Peoples, racialized communities and religions minorities, as well as address online hate and promote digital literacy.... The Government of Canada provided $268,400 through the Anti-Racism Action Program to support the Canadian Anti-Hate Network’s project, Containing and Countering Canadian Hate Groups. 

"Since October 2020, the Anti-Racism Action Program has invested $35 million to support 175 anti-racism projects that aim to remove systemic barriers faced by Indigenous Peoples, racialized communities and religious minorities. Unveiled on June 25, 2019, Building a Foundation for Change: Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy, represents an investment of close to $100 million, including $70 million to support community organizations across Canada in addressing anti-racism and multiculturalism issues.

"Recognizing that Canada’s fight against racism is far from over, Budget 2022 provides $85 million over four years, starting in 2022-23, to support the launch of a new Anti-Racism Strategy and National Action Plan on Combatting Hate."
Read more: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2022/06/government-of-canada-and-the-canadian-anti-hate-network-launch-anti-hate-toolkit-for-canadian-schools.html

Sunday, August 28, 2022

Canadian civility on its deathbed

Canada’s Inferno of Incivility | Brownstone Institute - Julie Ponesse:

August 15, 2022 - "Years from now, what I will remember most about the pandemic is not a virus but our response to it. We have become an intolerant, contemptful, rude and savage society, more inclined to cut off our relationships at the knees than to massage the joints a little to keep them moving. We threaten instead of persuade, mandate instead of respect, and gaslight, scapegoat, and insult our targets into submission. 

"Seared into my memory are the bold, black letters on the front page of The Toronto Star last August: 'I have no empathy left for the wilfully unvaccinated. Let them die.' These words are, unfortunately, more aligned with today’s rules of behavior than an exception to them. Online and off, we are becoming a crude, insensitive, and morally bankrupt society being slowly engulfed, it seems, by an inferno of incivility.

"Our own prime minister fuels the flames, modeling the very sort of hate speech his Bill C-36 is supposed to extinguish. He masterfully turned what should have been a campaign killer into a successful campaign promise — don’t think you are getting on a 'plane' or 'train' next to the vaccinated (i.e., the pure, acceptable citizens). Instead of electing someone who might have led us up and out of this swamp of incivility, we wanted a leader who would vindicate our rage and whose indefensible malevolence could be a model for our own....

"Maybe I should have seen it coming. Maybe I should have tried harder to prevent our nosedive into incivility. I didn’t. I thought we had learned the lessons of hate and intolerance, bigotry and dehumanization. I was wrong. Instead, I am left wondering, when did we become so publicly and unapologetically savage under the guise of well-signaled virtue?

"When I was a high school student, about to set off to study art in Italy, I was urged to wear a Canadian flag, the emblem of a people whose politeness was so legendary we were mocked for our tendency to apologize for the presence of our foot when someone else stepped on our toe.

"In May of 2022, Robin Sears wrote an article for The Toronto Star called 'Where did Canada’s famed civility go?' Referencing Hugh Segal’s 2000 book In Defence of Civility, Sears wrote, 'We had yet to fall to today’s depths, where a would-be prime minister once thought it was acceptable to attack a former Liberal party leader as the father of a policy ‘tar baby.’ (Pierre Poilievre was forced to apologize.)'

"Google blames the death of civility on Trump’s 2016 presidential win, but even if he did coarsen political discourse, we didn’t have to get in the ring with him as Bill Maher did when he went on his HBO show to defend and repeat a previous “joke” that Trump was the product of sex between his mother and an orangutan.

"Perhaps we should blame the decline of civility in Canada on its collapse in Russia, or on the long-term failure of Israel and its neighbors to broker enduring peace? Or perhaps on the tenuous relationship between anglophone and francophone Canadians? Maybe it’s due to the loss of civics education? Maybe a muddled and motley collection of all these things.

"Online communication certainly hasn’t helped. Jordan Peterson recently wrote that Twitter is turning us all insane. No doubt. It’s the catchy, acerbic barb that rises above the more civil discourse and is rewarded by retweets and, ideally, virality. The more efficiently we can criticize and inject our ideological venom into the virtual world, the faster our social currency rises. As Mark Twain wrote, the critic 'deposits his egg in somebody else’s dung, otherwise he could not hatch it.'

"We have learned to write first and think later (or maybe not at all). Online anonymity is changing us, and it’s saddling us with a social and moral debt we may not be able to pay. We no longer have to confront our victims, sit with them in the hurt of our words, and defend our views in the public square. We strike and then we run away. Maybe nothing. Maybe words are just words, a little harmless, hyperbolic theater.

"Maybe it’s a good sign, namely that we feel more comfortable than ever to express ourselves, to lay bare the darkest parts of our soul. Maybe it’s a way to work out our inchoate reactions as stepping stones to a more articulate understanding of what we are really worried about.

"Maybe it’s a quick and ready way to unite over a common struggle. Drawing from the well of terms already accepted by the dominant group helps to create a feeling of solidarity. Professor of Modern English Language, Ronald Carter wrote that verbal play brings people together around a set of collective cultural reference points creating a kind of lexical 'social glue.' It helps us to feel less isolated, more connected, more engaged with others.

"But this, I think, takes our charity too far. Words have immense power. As Ursula K. Le Guin wrote, 'Words are events, they do things, change things. They transform both speaker and hearer; they feed energy back and forth and amplify it.' Words place parameters around our ideas and frame how we perceive the world. They build our beliefs, they drive our behavior, they weave the fabric of our lived experience. The philosopher of language Ludwig Wittgenstein put it well: the limits of our language are the limits of our world.

"When we allow terms like 'Covidiot' into our ordinary communication, we don’t just mark our opposition to the subject’s views. We are saying that the person is 'so mentally deficient as to be incapable of reasoning. As the Greek idiotes suggests, to call someone an “idiot' is not just to denigrate their intelligence; it is to put them on the periphery of the community of citizens, or perhaps even outside of it. It is to imply that one’s opponent is not just wrong but irrational, inhuman and worthy of cyber (or even real) extermination.

"Our incivility is, to a degree, understandable when you consider how much there is to fear these days. We fear the loss of employment and relationships. We fear being found out for being on the wrong side of the right issue. We fear becoming conspicuous and, at the same time, insignificant. We fear being abandoned by the human race as it barrels ahead towards an uncertain future. Fear is the most primitive and earliest human emotion. It is particularly unresponsive to reason and therefore tends to charge ahead of our capacity to regulate our emotions, to reflect on our reasoning, and to be civil. 

"And, as Martha Nussbaum explains, fear has the capacity to infect every other emotion. Shame is fueled by fear that the shamed one will undermine what keeps us safe, anger can lead to unreflective scapegoating that is fed by fear, and disgust is an aversion to the terrifying possibility that we may become brutes (literally). Fear manifests itself through other emotions because we are impotent to manage it any other way.

"But the cost of our poorly managed fear is the disintegration of the bonds that hold us together. In a democracy, we don’t have the threat of an autocrat or a dictator to control our actions. We are constrained by the rule of law and by our willingness to be cooperative. We understand that democracy is fragile and that it needs civic cohesion to work. In the words of writer Peter Wehner, 'When civility is stripped away, everything in life becomes a battlefield, an arena for conflict, an excuse for invective. Families, communities, our conversations and our institutions break apart when basic civility is absent.'

"When we become uncivil, we lose our political footing, we lose what transformed us from animals into citizens, what took us out of the state of nature and put us into society together. Incivility, from the Latin incivilis, literally means 'not of a citizen.'

"As an ethicist and student of history, I think a lot about what I do and why, and why others do what they do. I try to keep biases front and center, knowing many are to a degree unavoidable, I read voraciously, and I try to listen as much as I talk. But I feel the seeds of incivility growing even in me. 

"The outcome of the 2021 federal election made me nothing short of nauseous and I find it increasingly difficult to relate to those Canadians who support our government’s draconian measures. These feelings are hard to reconcile with the desire to be reasonable and reflective and tolerant, but I still think there are things we can do to nurture civility in our current culture:

"Fine-tune your radar. The cold and unwelcome but also freeing fact is that the potential for civil discourse isn’t distributed evenly across the population. Not everyone is primed for it. Those who have fully embraced incivility have become savages and you can’t reason with a savage. There is a spectrum of civility and some are simply closer to the vile end than others.

"Also, civilizing is a process and civility is always, at best, precarious. Norbert Elias wrote a beautiful book on civility in 1939 but that was followed by years of war, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Creating a culture of openness and tolerance and curiosity and respect is a long-term project that will serve democracy well, but it doesn’t happen overnight and even once it does happen, we have to take great care to nurture it. If we want the benefits of civility, we must keep the devil on our shoulder where we can see him. We must build civility from the ground up, from the inside out.

"Keep your eye on the prize. What is your goal when you enter into conversation with someone? Are you aiming to win, to exact revenge, or are you genuinely interested in the pursuit of truth? In his impressive 1866 guide to the art of conversation, Arthur Martine wrote, 'In disputes upon moral or scientific points, let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent. So you never shall be at a loss in losing the argument, and gaining a new discovery.'

"It takes humility and confidence to admit that we might have something to learn from another person. But we can approach conversation with the goal of learning, not converting. We don’t always need to be a Covid evangelist to have meaningful conversation about today’s challenges. We can respond rather than react. We can be both critical and charitable. We can push pause on a conversation while we gather more information and reflect. We can walk the path of truth together.

"Break up the masses. We all know how efficiently the masses can engulf you, and so the pressure to conform is strong, but the cost of conformity is higher than we might think. 'When you adopt the standards and the values of someone else,' wrote Eleanor Roosevelt, 'you surrender your own integrity [and] become, to the extent of your surrender, less of a human being.' Those who complied with the mandates over the last two years, but who did so against their better judgment, are starting to see the costs of their compliance. It is easy to feel protected by the size and the anonymity offered by the masses. But in the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"Leave this hypocritical prating about the masses. Masses are rude, lame, unmade, pernicious in their demands and influence, and need not be flattered but to be schooled. I wish not to concede anything to them, but to tame, drill, divide, and break them up, and draw individuals out of them…. Masses! The calamity is the masses.”

"Choose your words carefully: Words can undermine our moral treatment of others, but they can also elevate it. So which words should we choose?

  • "Words of respect: When George Washington was a teenager, he penned 110 rules of civility and wrote, 'Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect, to those that are present.' Words of respect can be as simple as 'I’m interested,' 'I’m listening,' 'I don’t understand your view, but I would like to hear you explain it in your own words.'
  • "Words of curiosity: 'Be curious. Not judgmental.' So goes the line attributed to Walt Whitman. Curiosity is rare these days in part, I think, because it takes a lot of effort. It requires attention and empathy and genuine interest and mental endurance. And, of course, only non-rhetorical questions are truly curious. 'What do you think?' 'Why do you think it?'
  • "Words of commitment: One of the biggest obstacles to productive conversation is the fear that we will be abandoned. We fear that the other will turn their back, walk out, and say 'We don’t talk about that.' Instead, we can say 'I’m in this conversation with you, let’s talk,' and then show you mean it by sticking around.

"I know what you’re thinking. Is she really so naive as to think that it’s possible to approach conversation with civility and survive? Can you really play by the rules and win a debate with someone who has no interest in your rules? No. But you won’t beat them any other way either. What you will have is a hurtful, pointless tussle of words, not a real conversation. To converse is to 'keep company with,' to discuss is to “examine by argument.” To do these things, you need an able and willing participant, skills that are in short supply these days but ones we can nurture with those closest to us and with a little effort in the tiny decisions we make every day.

"There are many who will disdain what I have written here since it threatens the collective thought process that sees itself as being in no need of, and being threatened by, individual critical thought. Talk of civility and respect, pulling individuals out of the masses, pursuing truth together. All of that threatens the conformity…ahem, I mean the cooperation that defines 21st century Canadian culture.

"But there it is. Civility is not conformity. It is not agreement per se, but rather how we handle our disagreements. A society made up of identical citizens speaking and thinking in perfect unison, perfectly purged of moral tension, is in no need of civility.

"If you know that no one disagrees with you, you have no reason to tolerate them. The virtues of tolerance and respect and understanding — those we must nurture if we are to have a flourishing, healthy democracy — consist in how we handle our differences, not in how we eliminate them.

"We stand at a precipice where we face the danger of losing our humanity forever. What can we do about it? What will we do about it? What will it take to turn us around? What are you going to do today, as soon as you finish reading these last few words, to rescue us from our inferno of incivility?"

Read more: https://brownstone.org/articles/canadas-inferno-of-incivility/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Saturday, May 14, 2022

Canada's war on free speech

Canada’s proposed speech and media bills are a buffet of bad ideas | The Hub - Peter Menzies:

May 11, 2022 - "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government gained fame this winter when protestors opposed to COVID-19 restrictions took over the streets of the nation’s capital.... In response, the Trudeau government used the Emergencies Act — giving it powers designed for wartime — to disperse the protestors. Assertions of a seditious white-supremacist-led insurrection have to date proven unfounded, no weapons were found, and the government is still struggling to explain why it had to take such drastic action. Unrepentant and undeterred, Trudeau and his Heritage Minister, Pablo Rodriguez, are moving forward with a buffet of speech and media legislation.

"The Online Streaming Act [Bill C-11] places the internet under the authority of the Broadcasting Act and Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which is best known for enforcing mandated levels of Canadian content (Cancon) and ensuring that which it governs is 'of good standard.' Rodriguez says the aim is to make streaming companies such as Netflix, Disney Plus, Pornhub, and Amazon Prime pay into funds used to make Canadian films and television programs. But the ... regulator will not only get money for the funds, but it will also be expected to force YouTube et al. to give priority to approved content as well as governing TikTok, podcasts, and social media posts. The impact on consumer freedom, preferred speech, online creators, and what has been a flourishing film and television sector fuelled by foreign investment is expected to be significant.

"Next up is the Online News Act [Bill C-18], which forces American companies such as Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, etc to make payments to Canada’s struggling news industry, which insists it should be compensated for the value its posts add to social media. Facebook and the others believe the value they provide to news organizations (free access to billions of eyeballs) is much greater than any they receive but, regardless, Trudeau’s government is anxious to send revenue the publishers’ way....

"The overreach doesn’t end there: the money comes with catches. Newsrooms wishing to benefit must be approved by a government-appointed panel that assesses applicants’ bona fides and also approves which media may (or in the case of Rebel News who may not) qualify for a tax credit which is not to be confused with another panel that doles out funds to pay reporters on panel-approved beats. (This year, one of those beats involves enhanced coverage of the Trudeau government’s presence in British Columbia)....  

"The Online News Act also makes the CRTC responsible for appointing arbitrators when needed and approving agreements that must detail how newsrooms spend the dollars they obtain.... The chill created by government involvement in newsroom decisions (Canada is going far beyond legislation elsewhere in the world, including Australia) has already been pointed to by experts such as Michael Geist who say op-eds critical of C-18 have been spiked by nervous editors. And, when last checked, only one columnist from media standing to benefit from what critics are calling a shakedown — Andrew Coyne — has published an objection to his industry’s pending subservience. Editorial boards have been unanimous in their approval.

"Meanwhile, a bill amending the definition of hate speech [Bill C-36], an offense within the Criminal Code since 1970, is also underway. The original law set a very high bar, targeting only speech likely to incite a breach of the peace against members of an identifiable group and/or that willfully promotes hatred against the same. Going forward, hate will be further defined as an 'emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain.' More significantly, the new Act will allow for pro-active censorship, albeit with court approval.... It remains unclear precisely what problem the government is addressing with this change, although that may become more obvious within its next piece of legislation.

"Waiting in the wings is the Online Harms bill which is, we are told, needed to deal with terrorism recruitment, unauthorized sharing of intimate images, child pornography, hate speech, and perhaps also the spread of misinformation and disinformation, about which the Prime Minister and cabinet members complain frequently. All of those are already illegal. Nevertheless, Rodriguez’s department initially envisioned creating a new online regulator with powers so extreme they were denounced across the board by civil rights organizations and many others. Twitter, for instance, referred to the government’s desired control over internet speech in the name of public safety as similar to authoritarian regimes such as Iran, North Korea, and China....

"It remains unclear whether these measures will be broadly debated, let alone opposed in the public square. At the moment, the only venue available for Canadians wishing to do either is via the free and open internet where, if Trudeau and Rodriguez have their way, they will soon be communicating only in manners of which their government approves."

Read more: https://thehub.ca/2022-05-11/canadas-crackdown-on-free-speech-rivals-totalitarian-regimes/