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

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:

FULL Session from the Parliamentary committee on ‘hate speech’, June 4, 2019

I would advise Canadians, and Americans, wishing to understand the Canadian zeitgeist at this time, pay attention to this video and the outcome of these hearings.

Here is the bill under discussion.

The controversy regarding the CHRC’s practices comes from its enforcement of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, prior to its repeal, which stated that it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or Internet any material “that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”

Video now on Youtube:


Short segment of Parliamentary committee badgering Mark Steyn on ‘hate speech’

This morning, an odious procedure took place in Canada’s increasingly Soviet like, Parliamentary committee on ‘hate speech’, where three worthy witnesses, Lindsay Shepherd, John Robson, and Mark Steyn, defended freedom of speech, which is to say, are against the Trudeau government’s proposition that Section 13 of the Hate speech act, be reinstituted into the criminal code of Canada.

A reporter from RAIR Foundation, at the hearings this morning, explained to me that had they committed an actual crime and been on trial for it, their Lawyer, and quite probably the Judge, would never allow the defendant to be treated the way these, volunteer witnesses for freedom had been treated.

Before you watch this, it may help you to understand the intentions and fairness of this committee, to know two things.

  1. The Committee voted before this started, not to televise the video of this. So there is only audio of it. We can only guess as to why they chose not to broadcast video, as it was a “non-debatable motion” not to broadcast to which most agreed not to broadcast, and one abstained.
  2. They passed another odd motion not to name the New Zealand shooter and not to quote from his manifesto, even though it was irrelevant to this hearing. However it does relate to an event last week where a conservative MP used facts from the manifesto to counter a false claim, and for which he was immediately reprimanded. This second motion as I see it, is Orwell’s last prediction. Loosely quoting: “The future is a boot on humanity’s face for pretty much eternity”.