Being Canadian means always having to say you are sorry
Or so it would seem, judging from a survey:
"The Ipsos-Reid poll of 1,000 adults for Canwest News Service and Global Television says two in three Canadians agree that "it's about time that the government and Canadians come to terms with its past actions, and so issuing apologies for past transgressions and mistakes is appropriate".
Westerners, women and the young are the more apologetic.
I am with the 1/3 who judge the whole process ludicrous, as I do not accept any conception of collective guilt, still less collective guilt for historic matters.
"The Ipsos-Reid poll of 1,000 adults for Canwest News Service and Global Television says two in three Canadians agree that "it's about time that the government and Canadians come to terms with its past actions, and so issuing apologies for past transgressions and mistakes is appropriate".
Westerners, women and the young are the more apologetic.
I am with the 1/3 who judge the whole process ludicrous, as I do not accept any conception of collective guilt, still less collective guilt for historic matters.
Labels: Canada
This entry was posted
on Monday, June 09, 2008 at 8:49 am.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
What the heck do the Canadians have to be sorry for???
One would wonder, wouldn't one? Mainly not being as nice to the Amerindians / Inuit as they are now.
another sense of humour failure; nice to see people living down to their stereotypes.
Excuse me ... would this be the same Canadians who are having a kangaroo trial of Mark Steyn, Ira Levant and Maclean's Magazine in British Columbia for "speech crimes" supposedly committed in Ontario and Alberta?
Those Canadians? Who are going to ban 100-years old stellar corporate citizen Maclean's Magazine from writing anything negative about Islam, and forbid Mark Steyn to write anything at all about Islam? Who have already forced heroic publisher Ira Levant into bankruptcy because he dared to reprint some of the MoToons from Denmark?
And this "Human Rights Tribunal" isn't even part of the Canadian legal system, although it can impose draconian penalties on "offenders" it judges guilty. The "Human Rights" outfit in BC agreed to hear the case despite that none of the alleged offences took place in British Columbia, but in Ontario (which declined to hear the case) and Alberta (which declined to hear the case), and where none of the Muslim law students who complained lives and where Mark Steyn also does not live and where Maclean's Magazine is not published). Even the lefty Toronto Globe & Mail - doubtless feeling the hot breath of self-righteous Muslim censorship breathing down its own neck) has said these "Human Rights Tribunals" have to be dismantled stat.
Meanwhile, international columnist Mark Steyn is being tried in a stuffy basement room in British Columbia for offences against human rights because he refused to issue apologies to three vicious, self-righteous Islamic law students who are building their future on this case. And Levant and Maclean's are co-defenders because neither would be forced to publish long, boring justifications of Islam in their publications (although both said they would print short letters and blog items).
Steyn says he and his fellows in shackles are in the position of The Producers. They are putting their all into their defence, but they're hoping they fail so they can appeal all the way up the (legitimate) legal system to the Canadian Supreme Court and get these tribunals shut down.
I hope I haven't abused your blog, Croydonian. This makes smoke come out the top of my head. Steyn has just issued the paperback version of his book "America Alone" and he has had a banner put across the front reading "Soon To Be Banned in Canada!"
Anyone want to follow this absolutely outrageous travesty of the law and all our notions of freedom of speech and our notions of justice can follow this at Steyn's website - which has a lot of funny links from supportive media - at steynonline.com
Meanwhile, Steyn moved to New Hampshire several years back anyway, where gun ownership is not only allowed, but encouraged, and the state motto is Live Free or Die. It certainly beats Canada!
Thank you, Croydonian.
Verity - thanks for that. Interesting, if rather disturbing, stuff.
Both Ira Levant and Mark are blogging on their own trial. There was a Canadian TV talk show - an Ontario station - on which Mark appeared and it is absolute dynamite. The three Islamic student lawyers were on but declined to appear on the screen with Steyn. Finally the host persuaded them and their little table and chairs were scraped over into the light. What a nasty little clutch of people. There's no denying that all three are clever and articulate, but they are dripping with hate. Militants.
Mark prevailed because, of course, he is cleverer and more entertaining than drabs with a mission. I will try to find the link. The programme's around 30 minutes and the host is very skillful.
I asked a Canadian blogger living in BC how the public is taking it (on Stephen Pollard's blog) and he said it's not even on the radio call-in shows in BC. Such are the guardians of free speech. From the Princess Pats to 1984 in 60 years.
Fortunately, self-interest appears to have raised its pragmatic head in the person of the media who are beginning to feel the cold fingers of censorship on the backs of their necks. As I mentioned, even The Toronto Globe & Mail (think The Independent) is getting nervous.
Thank you for allowing me to mention this because it is getting virtually no coverage in Britain, and Canada is a member of the Commonwealth!
Here is what William Nicholls, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, University of British Columbia, wrote a few days ago.
"It is fundamentally unjust that a body not bound, as is a court of justice, by the presumption of innocence and the rules of evidence should, like a court, have the power to inflict penalties."
Not only is it "not just", it is insane.
Here's the link to the very illuminating Ontario talk show programme Agenda. Well worth the watch.
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/tvoutils/globalfiles/VideoPop.cfm?spot_id=5587&sitefolder=theagenda
Theo (Last of the Few blog for those who don't know) has something similar about this subject posted today under the heading "Article of the Day". Interesting and disturbing stuff, especially the article linked to Ezra Levant and the comments on it. Bubble, bubble... I think there are going to be some cracked heads ere long.
If you go to steynonline.com there are a couple of dozen links about this, including, of course, to Ira Levant,a hero. Steyn, too, is a hero.
And with the Canadian "Human Rights" commissions, the defenders cannot recover costs, even if they win. On the other hand, those who bring the suits have their fees paid out of public funds.
It is a truly grotesque set-up. Steyn, Levant and Maclean's have all had to retain legal representation from their own funds, and these are not recoverable, even in the case of a victory. This is doubly awful in the case of Levant who has so far gone bankrupt and had to close his magazine defending himself.
These "human rights" people are vicious.
Odd that Canada, as a common law jurisdiction is not taking on board the /basic/ tenets of natural justice:
# A person accused of a crime, or at risk of some form of loss, should be given adequate notice about the proceedings (including any charges).
# A person making a decision should declare any personal interest they may have in the proceedings.
# A person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith. He therefore can not be one of the parties in the case, or have an interest in the outcome. This is expressed in the latin maxim, nemo judex in sua causa: "no man is permitted to be judge in his own cause".
# Proceedings should be conducted so they are fair to all the parties - expressed in the latin maxim audi alteram partem: "let the other side be heard".
# Each party to a proceeding is entitled to ask questions and contradict the evidence of the opposing party.
# A decision-maker should take into account relevant considerations and extenuating circumstances, and ignore irrelevant considerations.
# Justice should be seen to be done. If the community is satisfied that justice has been done, they will continue to place their faith in the courts.
In the UK, one can use the principles of natural justice as the basis of a lawsuit.
Yes, Croydonian, but these "tribunals" are not part of the legal establishment. They are a maverick operation. Defendants can not recover their costs, even if found not guilty. They are vile.
I believe this case will cause Ottawa to have another look at these extra-legal fiefdoms and close them down.
» Post a Comment