Hinterland Who’s Who

Canadian Weasel-Watching

Cann Commentary

In watching the entire CPAC debate between Ezra Levant, Ian Fine, and MP Keith Martin, the scariest moment came when [ 47:50-48:28 ] an audience member (Robert Frank President of CHA Montreal) asked Ian Fine what his evidence was that Canada has a large public consensus that there must be restriction on free speech in Canada. CHRC Prime Weasel Ian Fine (former boss of a certain Richard Warman, present boss of CRHC staffer Dean Steacey) smoothly replied [ 48:29-49:11 ]

“Uh.. I.. if I said that there was a consensus in Canadian Society, then I mispoke, because I don’t believe that. I think that what I wanted to say at least.. um.. is that there’s consensus internationally.. in the sense that the United Nation– the United Nations through the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, uh, dealt with.. um.. limitations on freedom of expression, and talked about– as you may recall in my opening statement– uh, parameters of free expression and that that Convention has been ratified by a number of, uh, of uh countries. So, I-I certainly didn’t mean to say, and if I did I apologize, that there’s ‘consensus in Canadian Society.'”

Mr. Fine’s original comments [ runs 19:43-26:53 ] were read from a prepared transcript:he actually said about ‘consensus’ [ runs 23:00-23:55 ]–

Democracies throughout the world have laws that restrict forms of expression in order to protect citizens from hatred. Mr Justice Russell Juriansz of the Ontario Court of Appeal summed it up well in 2005 when he said:

“It seems fair to say that the American view in bcoming a minority one in the world. Canada is part of what appears to be a growing global consensus, which observes that careful restrictions of some forms of speech are both desirable and necessary. That consensus is reflected in domestic law and international law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1966 provides that freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions. The Convention also requires states to prohibit by law any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.”

What I Meant You To Hear Was..

So Fine didn’t exactly say it– Judge Juriansz of Ontario did, and Mr. Fine extensively quoted and agreed strongly with him, as proof that everybody is having a debate on free speech or something like that, and Canada should get on board with the UN in defining the issue.

Mr. Fine is a bureaucrat, paid by taxpayers to do a task. He’s entitled to private opinions, but advocacy is not properly part of his role. Why should that stop him?

Turtle Bay Über Alles!

As to following the United Nations standards of free speech, their Council on Human Rights is run by human rights abusers, to their own self-justification and the constant criticising of Jews & Israel (one of the reasons the UN was founded). Recent UN discussions on freedom of speech (such as Durban I and the Upcoming Durban II) are directed at protecting Islam and forbidding– globally, if possible–any and all criticism of that religion. It’s a totalitarian tragicomical farce, threatening our future.

Therefore, can Ian Fine actually retract and apologize for what Mr Justice Russell Juriansz of the Ontario Court of Appeal said in 2005? No. He can only agree or disagree.

It looks like Mr. Fine was making a very much larger plea for the normalization of UN-think in Canadian affairs; the strengthening of the role of the HRCs and governments in controlling thought and speech and thus media and opinion everywhere; knowing that people within the elites who agree with him and other soft-totalitarians would be protected and pleased with the railroading of politics, culture, and discussion within Canadian Society.

Whatever his personal niceness or good intentions or worth as a human being, to adopt Ian Fine’s radical agenda would aid and abet the soft-totalitarianism which is infecting the West, and soft Jihadism, which is invading and infesting the West. It’s nice to have the head weasel out of his bolt-hole, and to know the kind of motivations he’s imparting to his work and the staffers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission– to curb and ruin freedom of speech, upon which all other freedoms depend.

Canada is at stake. Write, phone in, e-mail your elected representatives, media, and tell your neighbours what’s going on. It’s all ours to lose. Repeal Section 13; review, reduce and retool the HRCs back to their original limited tasks.

We’ve seen what the HRCs amount to with Warman, Steacey, Fine, and now the BCHRT Alice In Wonderland Showtrial/ cicus. Game over.


Ezra Levant, MP Keith Martin and Ian Fine

Original CPAC Debate (90 mins)

3 thoughts on “Hinterland Who’s Who

  1. Thanks so much for this summation Binks…one of the most concise and capsulized assessments of UN creep into domestic policy and law making I have seen. You point fingers at the right targets.

    We should be aptly alarmed because out of all the contributors to the UN policies only the US Canada and some former commonwealth nations remain true free democracies…the rest who are busy sculpting UN policy, come from nations unfamiliar with individual rights and constitutional civil liberty. These compromised ideals of liberty and justice are aided by “transnationaist progressives” domestically.


    This is the crux of the conflict between “Human rights” and civil liberty in free nations. “Human rights” are a kind of modern transnaional-soviet compromise on civil liberty ascribing entitlement to identity groups where as the free nations had a far better system in individual right to egalitarianism under rule of law.

    In short, the British common law patterned western democracies had far better “individual rights” than the compromised, glasnost -styled “human Rights” central planning committees from UN’s communist nations signed onto.

    We have to start asking transnationalist bureucrats like Fine why we would want to compromise our traditional natural rights freedom for some shabby second rate soviet rights regulating system? Who in their right mind surrenders freedom willingly when it took so much blood to gain?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s