Let's take advantage of the opportunity presented to us, and use this election campaign to find out how committed all of the parties are to the issue of freedom of expression, and what if anything needs to change.It's not easy to campaign against freedom-snatching commissions that have the words "human rights" in their name. Many are simply afraid to speak out against those Orwellian tribunals, because they know that their opponents would immediately accuse them of trying to roll back human rights.
It's not as though the politicians need to be dragged kicking and screaming into a debate over freedom of speech -- it's right there beneath the surface:
The national critical issues survey sent out to Conservative candidates includes this question: "Do you agree that some of these 'human rights tribunals' have overstepped their bounds?" Sounds like the perfect question to ask during the leaders debate.
Earlier this year, a Liberal MP brought forward private member's motion M-446, which would eliminate Section 13(1) from the federal human rights legislation, thus removing the ability of human rights commissions to take on complaints regarding speech. How do the various parties feel about M-446? Or about Section 13 itself?
But a Federal election campaign offers a unique opportunity to fight back. Just raise the question in the televised debates and get the true nature of those commissions exposed to millions of Canadian voters. Once it becomes clear to everybody that those commissions are there not to protect our rights, but to take them away, who is going to believe our opponents' claims that anyone opposed to HRC is secretly plotting to roll back human rights? And, without their fear-mongering, what other arguments will our opponents have in defense of those quasi-judiciary tribunals where truth is not a defense?
No comments:
Post a Comment