Category Archives: Human Rights Commission

Returning to the problem of the Canadian “Human Rights Commissions”

Posted on by

The Canadian HRCs are 1 small step away from Soviet interrogators.

Not yet in methods, but very close in purpose and ideology.

In listening through the Gulag Archipelago audio book, I think it’s Cassette 5 side 1 actually, I finally heard the quote that is so central to communist thought, and is often attributed to either Lenin or Stalin. These leaders did in fact say things that contained the exact sentiment, but the real spirit of it is how Solzhenitsyn used it. He overheard the Soviet interrogators passing around a common quasi-joke they shared to describe themselves. “Just give us the person and we’ll create the case” (for their conviction).

With the various HRCs the process is fully predictable once you know what it is they are doing.

They only take cases where they plan to find the defendant guilty.

The purpose of the cases the HRC takes on, is to move the culture to the left. The left in this case means more state power over what you can say, think, or act on and less for the individual. More specifically, it will always find in favour of state narratives, and truth will never be a factor.

So we have the case of Barry Neufeld, fined $750,000.00 for making factual statements about the nature of human biology.

When fact checking this video with Grok, what was interesting was that some of the statements they cited as evidence of his guilt, would in fact have been considered VERY progressive views some decades ago. He makes the case, (as do MANY gay rights activists not hijacked by the communist ‘Queer’ line of effort) that this is a deadly plot against gay kids, To destroy them. To remove them from the gene pool.

It is an interesting argument. In truth, all people who get trans surgery and hormones are entirely removed from the gene pool, gay or not. And we do not believe there can be a ‘gay gene’ per se. Nonetheless, it is fascinating to see how the left is in a constant mode of dialectical destruction, criminalizing yesterday’s narrative attack on normalcy and bringing in more and more draconian ones. What was progressive yesterday, is right wing fascism today. Just ask feminist author, J. K. Rowling how that works.

Here are the actual statements that the HRC cited to justify Neufeld’s conviction. This, matters.

Date & Medium
Key Quote/Statement
Context
Tribunal Category & Reasoning
Oct 23, 2017 (Facebook post)
“SOGI 1 2 3 is a ‘weapon of propaganda’… gender is social construct… allowing children to ‘change gender’ is child abuse… forcing biologically absurd theory… heterosexual marriage no longer norm… count me out!” (Linked to Paraguay ban article.)
Responding to SOGI school resources; contrasting past/present parenting norms.
Discriminatory (s. 7(1)(a)) & Hate Speech (s. 7(1)(b)): Erases diverse identities, promotes exclusion of non-traditional norms; undermines dignity and fosters contempt by labeling as “absurd” and abusive.
Dec 18, 2017 (Facebook post)
“Gender bending theory demonizes faith… prophecy: government apprehend children for homosexuality/gender fluidity… special foster homes for LGBT+… traditional families not approved.” (Described as threat from powerful lobby.)
Discussing books on gender dysphoria; issuing a “prophetic warning.”
Discriminatory (s. 7(1)(a)) & Hate Speech (s. 7(1)(b)): Advocates state intervention against LGBTQ families; invokes “powerful menace” stereotype, exposing to hatred via fear of genocidal policies.
Dec 8, 2018 (Facebook post)
“Elites destroy gay kids… trans agenda eugenics… snakes everywhere… division/destruction.” (Posted with image: “GENDER REVOLUTION.”)
Linking to article on blackmarket hormones.
Discriminatory (s. 7(1)(a)) & Hate Speech (s. 7(1)(b)): Portrays trans/gay people as existential threat or sub-human (“snakes”); vilifies as cause of societal destruction, no redeeming qualities.
Jul 24, 2020 (Newsletter/Email)
“Protect from pills altering bodies… sinister attack on family… recruit troubled… idolatry… Gnostic heresy… indoctrinate… traced to UNESCO/China… national inquiry.”
Letter endorsing a politician; invoking theology and credentials.
Discriminatory (s. 7(1)(a)) & Hate Speech (s. 7(1)(b)): Stereotypes as predators (“recruit”) and powerful menace (global/China link); calls for action (inquiry), framing as heretical threat to families.
Jun 29, 2021 (Facebook post)
“Desensitize to sexual behavior… trans craze linked to exploitation… Hungary on right track.” (Linked to laws controlling pedophilia/sex ed.)
Critiquing drag queen story hours and sex education.
Discriminatory (s. 7(1)(a)) & Hate Speech (s. 7(1)(b)): Equates trans issues to pedophilia/exploitation; endorses anti-LGBTQ laws as “reputable,” exposing to vilification as societal problem.
Jun 12, 2022 (Facebook post)
“Fun wears off… hormones/surgeries… transgender ghetto… suicide possibility.”
Critiquing a video of a trans child.
Discriminatory (s. 7(1)(a)) & Hate Speech (s. 7(1)(b)): Dehumanizes trans lives as leading to misery/suicide; fosters contempt by predicting inevitable negative outcomes without redeeming qualities.
Nov 21, 2017 (Speech at Culture Guard event)
“SOGI encourages ‘sexual addiction of gender confusion’… gaslighting… child abuse… accept own biology… gender rooted in biology.”
Framing SOGI as threat to traditional values.
Discriminatory (s. 7(1)(a)): Portrays trans identities as delusional/abusive; undermines inclusion by rejecting beyond biology.
Aug 29, 2018 (Facebook post)
“Opposed to indoctrinating with unscientific gender fluid ideology… for <1% with fleeting GD… protect majority… leads to sterility/cancer.” (With photo: “BEWARE CHILDREN AT RISK!”)
Warning about ideology’s risks to children.
Discriminatory (s. 7(1)(a)): Opposes affirmation for trans youth; prioritizes “majority” over minority dignity, stereotyping as harmful fad.
Oct 19, 2018 (Facebook post)
“SOGI promotes same-sex marriages… questions traditional marriage/gender… introduces sodomy… evil ideology affects minds… vote against.” (Citing Pride Education Network.)
Advocating for anti-SOGI school trustee candidates.
Discriminatory (s. 7(1)(a)): Labels SOGI “evil”; intends exclusion of LGBTQ topics from education.
May 11, 2022 (Facebook post)
“No way man born in woman’s body… no trans in Kingdom of God.”
Rejecting transitions; linking to biblical views.
Discriminatory (s. 7(1)(a)): Denies trans validity outright; existential denial excludes from recognition/dignity.
Sep 24, 2022 (Interview)
“Born boy in girl’s body like sex offenders grooming… gender on spectrum… kids into robots/no families… Sixties Scoop apprehension.”
Campaign interview on parental rights; drawing from offender experiences.
Discriminatory (s. 7(1)(a)): Equates trans affirmation to grooming/cult; warns of state harm like historical child apprehensions.

From our standpoint these are all criticisms of an ideology, and not a particular person. So of course there is no excuse to apply even the inexcusable hate speech laws as they are. Which means the state has found a way of criminalizing counter-narrative views from anyone even in the most minor positions of authority. Like a public school teacher.

This site used to focus a great deal on the Canadian HRC.s They are a despicable state organ which truly is dialectically named. They have as much to do with Human Rights as Auschwitz had to do with “work setting people free”. They are the antithesis of individualism, as human rights are the structure of individualism itself.

Ezra Levant, the only person I am aware of who managed to get a not-guilty out of that ludicrous star chamber, wrote a book about them and some of their more insane judgements prior to 2009, when the book was published. It is called, Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights, should anyone wish to buy it. But either way, we can see what the HRCs are and how they are used to deconstruct and even deracinate Canada and its values and individual rights for an arbitrarily defined collective and even an entirely, or in most case fictional one like ‘trans’.

In the exceptionally important and vastly under-viewed film, Killing Canada, by Michael Hanson, he has an interview with a BC comic fined by the HRC. Part of his sentence is that he is forbidden from ever telling anyone what his sentence is.

If that isn’t communist…

In the Same film,  (linked above) Michael Hanson interviews the owner operator of the amazing website, Point de Bascule in Montreal which keeps stats on the who’s who of the Canadian Islamic subversion program.

Lebuis, as an experiment, decided to go to the Quebec HRC and complain about a particular imam who was guilty not just of the kinds of semi-crimes that the commission deals with, but with actual hate and literature crimes as they are in the criminal code in Canada.

This imam had denigrated multiple groups of people, women, homosexuals etc. with widely distributed printed materials, internet broadcasts and live sermons. None of these were ambiguous. And the Quebec HRC of course, simply refused to take the case.

This is dialectics.

Careful selective enforcement by state agencies, and extra-state agencies like ANTIFA, in order to move the culture always to the left.

 

2009 hearings on the Human Rights Commissions with Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn

Posted on by

This is an amazing set of testimonies about the nature of Canada’s Human Rights Commissions, revealing among other things, that the HRC’s THEMSELVES are the largest producers of published antisemitism online.

This is not a dated Issue. The Trudeau government is attempting to reinstate section 13 of the Criminal Code, that this commission got rid of.

Below is the hearings the Trudeau Liberals held from June 4th 2019, with mark Steyn again, and Lindsay Shepard along with History Prof.

Below are excerpts from Mark Steyn’s testimony in the June 2019 hearings:

ATTN: anyone in or near Vancouver!

Posted on by
Call To Action!
 
This Friday, July 26, at 9:30am
your presence is requested in Vancouver at
the BC Human Rights Tribunal. 
Located at 605 Robson St.
 
**please arrive at 9am so we can fill the room with opposition to the HRC
and their despicable abuse of power.
 
The event is a gathering in support of the women who have been targeted by J. Yaniv….
the individual who has vindictively been dragging women through the coals
for declining services to wax his genitals.  
JY is also recently reported attempting to arrange an LGBTQ All Bodies Swim in Langley, BC
for children age 12…and up. 
“Individuals permitted to be Topless” (see attached)
Several weeks ago another organization attempted to arrange an All Bodies Swim for ‘Youth’
Age 12-24…which was cancelled due to backlash
as parents were not permitted and clothing was from the waste ‘down’.
Yaniv is 32 and therefore put no cap on age…12+
The UN considers youth to be 12-24. According to the BC Government youth qualify as 13-19.  
What is J. Yaniv up to?

An eyewitness to the HRC ‘trial’ of a man who demands his testicles be waxed by an unwilling woman

Posted on by

 

Personally I think this witness is far far to kind in his account of the HRC Soviet show trial. We all can see that the man, claiming to be a woman, is except from all normal limits and rules, both on Twitter and in real life. This witness also refers to him as “she” which is already going a step too far as if a person has a Y chromosome, its a freaking male. And if it isn’t a male, he doesn’t have balls to wax. So there you go.

Another B.C. woman forced out of business in transgender male-genitalia waxing case

Posted on by

From The Post Millennial:

A mother and business owner was forced to end her Brazilian waxing business after being taken to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for refusing to wax a transgender woman’s male genitalia.

 

Maria Da Silva, who is an immigrant from Brazil operated the business out of her home where her small children also live. Da Silva claims she refused to perform the procedure on the claimant, Jessica Yaniv, due to safety concerns raised by her husband and alleged harassment on Yaniv’s part and not because of the claimant’s identity.

Yaniv, who was formerly known as Jonathan Yaniv, has taken fifteen other B.C. women to the tribunal for refusing to wax her male genitalia citing discrimination based on gender identity and is seeking financial compensation. Many of the woman are of East Asian ethnicity and have English as their second language.

 

During Wednesday’s tribunal proceedings Da Silva claims that the incident directly led to her shutting down her business and losing it as a source of income for her family.

“Some of my clients have been very significantly affected on a personal level. [Another client also] closed her business, she has been depressed, anxious, sleepless and that has gone on for a period of many many months,” said her representative and Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms lawyer, Jay Cameron.

 

“It is a very serious thing to launch a human rights complaint against a person. My clients are people. They have a right to make a living and this has interfered with their livelihood, but also you have the stigma of being associated with this hanging over you.”

Please read the rest at the source. Perhaps most shockingly is the justification for these suits by the ‘plaintiff’. A true example of deconstruction of reason and a reversal of victim-aggressor. Something we are sadly getting used to under the new tyranny of leftism and Islamic rule.

It also shows how the “Human Rights Commissions”, a phrase that belongs in the sarcasm hall of fame, is complicit in genuine racism and targeting the vulnerable and hard working, as this plaintiff’s victims are nearly all ethnic, and in this case, East Asian. He clearly selected these people as he knew they were most likely to go with reason instead of post modern thought so he could launch one of his seemingly numerous similar suits.

He also had the astonishing temerity to claim that the people who refused to pretend his testicles is a vulva, of forcing their religious beliefs on him. Perhaps the most astonishing claim of all, and one which the “Human Rights Court” agrees with.

(I am referring to the plaintiff as he, because a person with a penis and testicles is a male and therefore gets the pronoun ‘He’. This entire case, and all his other ones against aestheticians, are about others refusing to pretend that Y is X. In a modernist world, one that adheres to facts, reason and evidence, one goes with reality, and not destroys the business of someone who refuses to pretend along with whatever may walk in.)

H/T SB.

Jordan Peterson meets with Ontario Premiere Ford, to discuss abolishing the HRCs!

Posted on by

CBC ran a story on it here.

 

Denmark: New ruling from the Human Rights Court undermines freedom of the internet

Posted on by

This is an original translation by Liberty Dk.

(EMD is a Danish acronym for Human Rights Court)

From McHangama Denmark

When the Danish media have finished digesting the election, they should probably look at the new European Human Rights Court’s (ECHR) ruling Delphi v. Estonia (16/6 2015) which could potentially have far-reaching consequences for the online platforms of commercial news media. The verdict states that a popular Estonian commercial news portal is held legally responsible for its users’ (including anonymous ones) defamation, “hate speech” and (very abstract) encouragement to violence in comments and news articles. This applies even if the portal removed said comments upon legal request, and even if on the comments page there was a notice-and-take-down system where offensive comments could be reported, just as comments that contain coarse and vulgar words would automatically be caught by a spam filter. The internet portal even had guidelines prohibiting certain forms of offensive comments. EMD stated in Section 110 which principles are at stake and which considerations that must be weighed in:

The Court notes at the outset that user-generated expressive activity on the Internet provides an unprecedented platform for the exercise of freedom of expression… However, alongside these benefits, certain dangers may also arise. Defamatory and other types of clearly unlawful speech, including hate speech and speech inciting violence, can be disseminated as never before, worldwide, in a matter of seconds, and sometimes remain persistently available online. These two conflicting realities lie at the heart of this case. Bearing in mind the need to protect the values underlying the Convention, and considering that the rights under Article 10 and 8 of the Convention deserve equal respect, a balance must be struck that retains the essence of both rights. Thus, while the Court acknowledges that important benefits can be derived from the Internet in the exercise of freedom of expression, it is also mindful that liability for defamatory or other types of unlawful speech must, in principle, be retained and constitute an effective remedy for violations of individual rights.

In paragraph 115 the EMD furthermore restricted the verdict’s reach in relation to other non-commercial actors:

Consequently, the Court considers that the case concerns the “duties and responsibilities” of Internet news portals, under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, when they provide for economic purposes a platform for user-generated comments on previously published content and some users — whether identified or anonymous — engage in clearly unlawful speech, which infringes the individual rights of others and amounts to hate speech and incitement to violence against them. The Court emphasises that the present case relates to a large professionally managed Internet news portal run on a commercial basis which published news articles of its own and invited its readers to comment on them.

Continue Reading →

Today’s game: Guess the IQ of the Canadian bureaucrat

Posted on by

This article is a great example of ‘competing rights’ and despite what the head of the ‘human rights commission’ says, there most certainly is a hierarchy of them. Anyone who has a flip through the case histories will rapidly find out what they are. And this case will prove difficult to them as lesbians have to be very close to Muslims in the ranking by the ”Methinks the woman doth protest too much” Barbara Hall.

To save you the time though, Muslims can do pretty much anything they want in the name of their religion and anyone who criticizes what they do or what they say, will likely find themselves in front of their august board facing 100K worth of legal bills if they choose to fight or paying off people who should really be in jail for genuine incitement and hate crimes with their partners, the HRC, who should really be in jail for extortion.

Click over for the interview with the HRC head. Its like watching an audition tape for the special olympics.

H/T Michael Laudahn:

CTV:

Woman denied haircut, files human rights complaint.

                          CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Thursday, Nov. 15, 2012 10:04PM EST
Last Updated Thursday, Nov. 15, 2012 10:43PM EST

Barbers in Toronto who refused to cut a woman’s hair have become the target of a human rights complaint, in a case that pits religious freedom against gender equality.

When Faith McGregor went into the Terminal Barber Shop requesting a short haircut, she was told the shop only grooms men.

Click to continue:

The reason, co-owner Omar Mahrouk said, was that as a Muslim he could not cut the hair of a woman who was not related to him.