What Canada`s Free Speech Victory Says About America`s Matthew Shepard “Hate Crimes” Bill

When American
leftists dream, they dream of

North of the
border, we`ve had

socialized medicine
since 1965; abortion on demand
(pretty much) since

(and with

no restrictions whatsoever
since 1988); official
multiculturalism since 1971; and nationwide

gay marriage
since 2005. All this, and higher Third
World immigration, relative to our population, too.

And best of all,
there is almost no opposition to our continuing
revolution—because in 1977 the Canadian Human Rights Act
essentially banned it.

There is nothing
in Canada—because until Wednesday it would have been
against the law. In Canada, people like
Steve Sailer
and Peter
(despite his
in the Canadian MSM) have not been allowed to
exist. My

own Wikipedia entry
notes my contributions to
VDARE.COM with something like astonishment.


Antonia Zerbisias,
]staffer at the

liberal daily
Toronto Star
said some nice things about me, she

quickly instructed in the party line

duly flinched
in horror. It goes without saying that I am no
longer employed in journalism in my

home and native land.

But if America`s
bien pensants (and the

shade of Teddy Kennedy
) were looking north for an
with which to burnish the impending

Matthew Shepard
"Hate Crimes"
they must now look elsewhere.
Because in a

genuinely shocking decision
on September 2,
Wednesday, , a bureaucrat at the heretofore
unimpeachably statist Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

section 13(1) of the
Canadian Human
Rights Act


Section 13(1)
has been key to the Canadian Establishment`s suppression
of debate on immigration and other matters. It reads:

"It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a
group of persons acting in concert to communicate
telephonically or to cause to be so communicated,
repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the
facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the
legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is
likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or
contempt by reason of the fact that person or those
persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited
ground of discrimination."

"protected classes", as defined by

section 15(1)
of the risibly-named

Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
are those defined by
"race, national
or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental
or physical disability"
—and in 1992 our Supreme
Court subsequently
"read in"
(i.e., legislated)

"sexual orientation"
as an additional class.
(Section 15(2) of the
specifically protects
or as we call them here,

"employment equity".

The chilling
power of the weasel words
"likely to expose
a person or persons to hatred or contempt"

were further strengthened by the policies that
mens rea
(intent) is not necessary for conviction, that hearsay
is not excluded and that the government funds the
complainants but not the accused.

And, oh, there`s
the Tribunal`s 1998 ruling in

Citron v. Zündel
that even
is not a defence.

So, for example,
for a Canadian newspaper to report, without comment,
that Sikhs and Vietnamese are disproportionately
involved in the

Vancouver drug trade
is against the law. Indeed,
even to list the names, without further identification,
of the 100-plus

Sikhs killed in the Vancouver drug wars
of recent
years is probably against the law as well. (This is not
to say that

media haven`t reported these facts—they have. But until
Wednesday, they were subject at any time to government
prosecution for doing so. Truth was not a defence.)

The Canadian
Human Rights Act came about as the result of pressure
from Canadian Jewish organizations, specifically, in the
form of the

"Cohen Committee"
of 1966. Canada`s
"first political
was an old neo-Nazi called John Ross
Taylor who was in the habit of leaving political
comments on his telephone answering machine`s Outgoing

After Taylor`s
conviction was upheld in 1990 by the Supreme Court of
Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress and B`nai Brith
Canada in effect enjoyed
carte blanche
to suppress any speech they deemed contrary to their
interests. (And to understand just how trivial that
speech could be,

click here
to read what Taylor was imprisoned for.)

It was in the
1990s that Canada`s provincial human rights tribunals
began to feel their oats, going so far as to ban the
quoting of

Bible verses condemning homosexuality

 The British
Columbia Human Rights Tribunal also

Vancouver`s most popular columnist, Doug
Collins, for his devilishly
anti-Semitism. So subtle, indeed, that the Tribunal was
forced to employ a daring new
technique called
"discourse analysis."
One of the Tribunal`s star
witnesses was forced to

darkly that Collins
"doesn`t use
overtly racist comments, and he calls attention to power
and control by using techniques of trivialization …
`in other words, you have to read it fairly carefully to
get the full impact of what he`s really saying.`"

The Tribunal was
obviously unfamiliar with the old nursery rhyme,
"Sticks and
stones may break my bones, but techniques of
trivialization will never harm me."

But it was after
2001, when the Canadian Human Rights Act was extended to
the Internet (in the guise of
that the number of Canadian
"hate speech"
prosecutions exploded.

In 2002, a

sinister fellow
called Richard Warman joined the
Canadian Human Rights Commission. Suddenly every
basement Nazi ranting about the Rothschilds on the World
Wide Web was at risk of being called before Canada`s
Grand Inquisitors. Warman initiated literally dozens of
complaints, citing himself as the aggrieved party, and
collected dozens of consent orders, cease-and-desist
his pockets, as the aggrieved party, with many thousands
of dollars in judgments. (Canadians are jailed for
speech only if they defy Tribunal verdicts.)

Even after
leaving the Commission in 2004,

Warman continued to churn out the complaints
he never lost.
In fact, the Canadian Human Rights
Commission had never lost a single section 13(1)
complaint…until Wednesday.

That`s how they
spelled "justice"
in Canada: G-U-I-L-T-Y.

In 2003,
however, Warman made the mistake of going after a
webmaster called Marc Lemire. It was the usual
operation: set `em up, knock `em down, shut `im up, grab
the cash.

But a funny
thing happened—Marc Lemire refused to go down. With the

of his lawyers, Barbara Kulaszka and
Doug Christie,
Lemire exposed the outrageous
procedural irregularities of Warman and the Commission.
(Full disclosure: for the past year, I have acted as a
part-time legal clerk to Christie.)

Among other
revelations: it turned out that Warman and Commission
employees were in the habit of pretending to be basement
Nazis, signing up with false IDs and giving fulsome
encouragement to the Jew-baiters who hang out at
websites like


Vanguard News Network

(And this is as
good a time to as any to mention that Canadians have
been routinely prosecuted for
"publishing" messages on American websites. Take that,

Helsinki Accord!
"principle of
won`t stop the
Canadian Government.)

Entrapment is
not new to the Canadian managerial state. In 1989, an
agent of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was
instrumental in

founding and funding the neo-Nazi Heritage Front
of whose roles was to infiltrate the emerging Reform
Party. Ironically, the Reform party ultimately took over
the discredited

Canadian Progressive Conservative Party
and one of
its leaders,

Stephen Harper
, is now Prime Minister. But Harper
has done nothing about the continuing
"Human Rights"

Given Lemire`s
dodgy past, Canada`s
civil libertarians had a convenient excuse to ignore
him. But then another funny thing happened—Canada`s
Muslims decided to have a go at state censorship, in the
form of comically inept complaints against lawyer and
journalist Ezra Levant
(histrionic Conservative Party factotum and

Sammy Glick
of the Canadian Right), celebrated
columnist Mark Steyn and

Maclean`s magazine

This put
Canada`s bien pensants (and the Jewish organizations) in a quandary.
"Jews v. Nazis"
was one thing, but
"Muslims v. Jews"

, at least) was a different kettle of
entirely. It was at this point that Canada`s media actually began to use
the phrase "free
without quotation marks.

Last November, Canada`s governing Conservative
Party took the seemingly brave step of voting at
convention to repeal section 13(1).
because Prime Minister Stephen Harper had no intention
of instructing his Justice Department to cease and
desist from
Lemire at trial.

Back in 1999,
Harper had thundered,
"Human rights
commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our
fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a
democratic society … It is, in fact, totalitarian."

But ten years
later, in January, Harper purred to
editor Ken Whyte that his government
has no plans" to
protect free speech. Doing his best

John Conyers i
mpersonation, he explained that
Canadian Stalinism
"exist[s] for
valid reasons, which is obviously to prevent public
airwaves from being used to disseminate hate against
vulnerable members of our society."

intervention quelled the Conservative free-speech
uprising. Levant`s book

ecame a national best-seller (although

self-servingly ignoring opponents of the Human Rights
totalitarianism prior to himself
), but Lemire`s case
seemed hopeless. Perhaps he might score a few procedural
points against the Commission, but Richard Warman`s
perfect record would surely remain unblemished.

And then
came Wednesday`s miracle. Tribunal Member Athanasios
Hadjis  uncovered
the obscure section 2 of the Charter of Rights, which
purportedly guarantees Canadians

following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression, including freedom of the press and other
media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association."

Section 2 had
long ceased troubling Canada`s
legislators and judiciary, but Member Hadjis concluded
that it rendered section 13(1) illegal.

Dum spiro, spero!

"While I breathe, I hope".

Yet despite
Wednesday`s victory, it is too early to declare victory.
It is unknown whether the Commission will appeal—or
simply ignore Hadjis`s decision as not setting a
precedent. This is what

the Canadian Jewish Congress proposes.


At press time,
Stephen Harper has had no comment. Given his previous
duplicity, he may well continue to order his Justice
Minister to uphold the
status quo ante.

Although Harper
was brought to power by an insurrectionary movement, he
appears to be attempting to co-opt the center-left
Liberal Party`s electoral coalition. His rejection of
anything like a

Canadian version
of the
"Sailer Strategy"
becomes ever more intense. Abetted by his Immigration
Minister, the singularly odious Jason
in a hurry
Kenney, Harper

panders to Canada`s ethnics
as no Prime Minister has
pandered before. Harper and Kenney actually believe they
can induce both the Jews
and the
Muslims to support the Conservative Party.

Karl Rove
please go to the red courtesy phone…

As C.S. Lewis

pointed out
, the road to Hell is not paved with good
intentions; it is paved with bad intentions. Ezra Levant
claims that the Canadian Human Rights Act was

"a beautiful idea that failed".

This is pure mendacity.

And take it from
this Canadian: so are the

claims now being made i
n the U.S. that the Matthew
Shepard Hate Crimes bill

contains nothing t

"shall be
construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected
from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected
by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the
First Amendment to the Constitution"

ran roughshod over Canada`s Constitution for 27 years,
while our Parliament and judiciary yawned.

The purpose
of the CHRA was secret but obvious. It was to kill
politics in Canada. And in
that it succeeded.

Canada may
have the

highest immigration rate in the world
, but this is
not an issue. Canada`s major cities may have been turned into
simulacrums of the Third World,
but this is not an
issue. Quebec
is the tail that wags the Canadian dog, but this is
not an issue. There is little left of what we used to
be, and what little that exists steadily disappears, but
this is not an issue, either.

Self-censorship has become a defining Canadian
characteristic. Despite Hadjis`s brave decision, it is
unlikely we will see a hundred flowers bloom and a
hundred schools of thought contend any time soon.

At the
Lemire hearing,

Commission employee
Dean Steacy

actually declared:

"Freedom of
speech is an

American concept,
so I don`t give it any value."

If you take
anything from this essay, take this: if
you pass the

Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill
, freedom of
speech will turn out not to be an American concept
either—with all of the attendant evils that have
befallen my country.

Kevin Michael
Grace (send him
email) testified as an expert witness before the
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in

Citron v. Zündel
. He lives in Victoria, British
Columbia, and his blog,

, features original commentaries.