Now that the HRCs are getting the light shone on them and Canadians are beginning to express their disgust with these Star Chambers, I think we have a good chance of gutting these tribunals for good.  The strength of any government institution is predicated on how much trust and respect they are afforded in our society. If there is a significant opposition to any punitive quasi-judicial body like the HRCs, it’s only a matter of time before they are disbanded.  People will simply not accept their kangaroo judgements.  A court — even one three rungs down from Judge Judy — still needs at least the tacit support of the Canadian public. Well, these kafka kourts who operate as fraudulent fronts for personal political inquisitions of the Left don’t have it. And if you don’t have the support of the public, then you have no moral authority to be doing, declaring, or deciding anything.

If the Levant and Steyn cases go ahead, there will be even MORE scrutiny and opposition to the HRC methods. If these cases don’t go ahead, it will call into question these Commissions’ legitimacy and impartiality.  Why, for instance, would Levant and Steyn get off while Christians are still being fed to the lions?  What will this demonstrate? It will demonstrate that those individuals who have the prominence and fame to defeat and brow beat the Commission back into its hole will be successful while everyone else who does not have the necessary stature is fair game. In other words, if you are publisher or a popular writer, you may be safe — for now.  But, as for everyone else, there are two rules and laws of these Star Chambers: one for the famous and one for everyone else who isn’t famous.

Isn’t that a form of discrimination?

If Levant and Steyn get off, it will mean that S.13 will be really reserved for the new subclass of Canadian society:  Christians and White Supremicists.  Everybody else is given a free ride.

9 Responses to “HRC Discrimination”
  1. Dr. Mabuse says:

    I think we may have a chance of uprooting these tyrannical fake courts, thanks to their arrogant overreaching. But we mustn’t go flabby and decide “Oh, well, they’ve learned their lesson,” after these two high-profile cases end. The only lessons tyrants learn is how to be better tyrants. If we don’t crush them, all they’ll do is learn to be quieter and more cunning, and keep up their anti-freedom campaign in a smarter way, so that it doesn’t come up on the radar again.

  2. darrell says:

    Well, yes. The-powers-that-be in Canada are in general indifferent or hostile to religion in general, and defer to Islam out of knee-jerk mulitcult political correctness, leaving Christianity wide open. The Premier of BC attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony in which a part of a public hospital was named after the founder of the Sikh religion. Would the Premier ever preside over a ceremony that celebrated the founder of Christianity by naming a public space after him. No, of course not silly–that would violate ‘the separation of church and state.’ See what I wrote on the erasure of Christianity from the public square here
    http://www.darrellepp.com/?p=77
    and steyn here http://www.darrellepp.com/?p=78
    http://www.darrellepp.com/?p=79
    http://www.darrellepp.com

  3. David Davis says:

    Dr Mabuse is quite right. The problem the West has today is that it assumes its enemies are rational humans capable of learning how to behave like, er, humans do in civilisation. This is not so any more; it may have been so 12, 13, 14 centuries ago when the ideals of conflict were being written by Saxon warriors – first defeat your enemy fully, then offer him mercy and friendship when he sees he has learned his lesson. Why were the Germans all struggling to surrender to the British, Canadians, Americans, Indians, Poles, Czechs and the like (even to the FRENCH if all else failed) and, er, not the Russians?

    Crushing I am afraid will from now on have to be truly that. We cannot any longer, for the safety of humanity as a whole, allow leftists (for that is what they all untimately are, or were, or will become) to feel that they have a moral case to believe sincerely and with pride what they do believe, about civilisation and how it runs, and how they think it ought to run.

  4. David Davis says:

    If it was possible to enact criminal justice bills covering offences of mere “possession” for tracts by, say, Lenin, or Marx, or Polly Toynbee, or John Pilger (and others) and if the penalties could be like those now experienced by child abusers, then I could find it in my heart to favour this. I KNOW I am a libertarian (see website link!) but we have been asleep and have allowed our mortal enemies to steal march after march on us and our positions, using as cover the freedoms we say ought to be the preserve of all. In return they have put in place structures and legislation that hampers us and not them. I’m sorry, but it’s “time to buzz the tower”, as Tom Cruise said in “Top Gun”.

  5. David Davis says:

    On the other hand “possession” may be inconvenient. I had a bit to say about this but wordpress keeps blocking this paragraph because i seem to be a spambot and using “spammy words”, but I can’t find what they are.

  6. David Davis says:

    Perhaps they didn’t like the word “lefties”?

  7. David Davis says:

    No, it’s clearly not that one!

  8. David Davis says:

    I give up. The rest of ny wisdom is denied you as I now have not time to scratch me arse before going to bed.

  9.  
Trackbacks
  1.  
Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>