Keeping the Porch Light on in a Dark World
So this is hate speech.
What then, is this? (Content Warning: explicit, disturbing, and offensive photos).
For those who might miss the point: hypocrites. Western society has moved from non-criminalisation of homosexuality to a forced sanction.
It might be good to note that not everyone is seeking a political answer to a spiritual problem. See this article by John Piper, as well as this one.
Tristin Hopper Jun 21, 2012 – 10:45 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 22, 2012 11:44 AM ET
FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images files
Maina Kiai also levelled criticism on the Swiss Canton of Geneva, where the UN’s human rights body is located.
For the second time in a week, a United Nations official has listed Canada alongside illiberal regimes as a prominent violator of basic rights and freedoms.
Speaking on Wednesday before the UN’s human rights council, UN special rapporteur Maina Kiai listed Canada — along with Belarus, Ethiopia, the Russian Federation and Jordan — as countries where “the laws are particularly harsh in terms of restricting the freedom of association.” Mr. Kiai was specifically referring to Quebec’s recently passed Bill 78. The law — passed last month in response to unruly, ongoing street marches protesting tuition increases — requires demonstrators to give police eight hours’ notice before a protest.
Mr. Kiai also levelled criticism on the Swiss Canton of Geneva, where the UN’s human rights body is located. In March, following a referendum, Geneva enacted a law imposing fines of up to $107,000 on organizers who allow their protests to descend into violence.
The risk to freedom of expression “cuts right across the world and there’s no country exempt from them,” said Mr. Kiai, adding that “there’s no way I will pick and choose which countries I will pay attention to.”
The comments came just two days after Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, addressing the same council, called the Quebec bill an “alarming” move to restrict freedom of assembly. That prompted condemnation from Quebec premier Jean Charest and Federal Foreign Minister John Baird. “Quebec is a very democratic place, subject to the rule of law,” said Mr. Baird, noting that Bill 78 can be challenged before a court.
By failing to do her “due diligence” on the Quebec situation, Ms. Pillay “wasted a valuable opportunity to further focus on true human rights abuses,” Elissa Golberg, Canada’s Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, told the UN Human Rights Council on Monday.
“Too often at the UN, a doctrine of political correctness compounded by pressure from powerful blocs of states leads to jaywalkers being treated the same as rapists and murderers,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, in a statement Thursday.
Targeting Quebec’s protest laws do not promote higher human rights standards, but the “opposite,” said the Montreal-born Mr. Neuer. “If the brutal and oppressive regime of Belarus dictator Alexander Lukashenko is equal to Canadian and Swiss democracy, people may conclude that maybe he’s not so bad after all,” he said.
Both Mr. Kiai and Ms. Pillay’s comments were made before a human rights council notorious for a rotating membership that includes prominent human rights abusers such as China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia. Since its creation in 2006, the Council has directed more than half of its resolutions against Israel.
In May, the same UN Council sponsored a Canadian visit by Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food. After an eleven-day tour of Canada — his first to a developed country — Mr. De Schutter said Canada should drop its “self-righteous” attitude and own up to a severe food insecurity problem.
Speaking to Postmedia, the special rapporteur also blasted Canada’s “appallingly poor” record of taking UN human-rights bodies seriously.
Kelly McParland Jun 15, 2012 – 9:43 AM ET
As a three-part series in the National Post demonstrated, the judicial system in Ontario is so clogged with backlogs and delays that it threatens to grind to a halt. But prosecutors are never so weighed down with work that they can’t find time to pursue another charge against 63-year-old grandmother Linda Gibbons for the crime of handing out pamphlets.
Gibbons has already spent nine years in jail over two decades and is before a judge once again, thanks to the zeal of the crown attorney’s office to stamp out elderly ladies and pamphlets. Ms. Gibbons’ crime is that her protest is against abortion, and she carries it out where women seeking to terminate a pregnancy can see her.
In Canada, your right to march through the streets, shaking your fist or offering Nazi salutes to the police will be upheld as a fundamental expression of free speech. You can agitate to join a Pride parade carrying a banner accusing Israel of being an apartheid state, and sympathetic “progressives” will argue on your behalf while municipal leaders look the other way. But stand on a public sidewalk near an abortion clinic, holding a poster with the image of a baby on it, and the forces of justice come down on you with both feet.
Ms. Gibbons lost a case before the Supreme Court last week in which she argued she shouldn’t face criminal charges for defying a civil order to stay away from abortion clinics. The crown decided to drop that case even though it won, since she’d already been in jail for six months. But she’s still awaiting a judgment on another case, for handing out pamphlets depicting fetuses.
Crown attorney Andrew Cappell told Judge William Wolski Thursday that Ms. Gibbons’ pamphlets were “disturbing” to clients of the clinic. It was also a “nuisance” and interfered with the clients’ right to get their abortion.
“By doing this in front of the clinic, it is intimidating people into not having these abortions performed … intimidating them into not executing a legal right that they have,” Mr. Cappell said.
Cigarette packages in Ontario carry graphic depictions of cancer that are also disturbing – in fact, they’re intended to be so, and anti-smoking organizations want to make them even more so. Cigarettes can be purchased at any variety store. And Toronto regularly creates a nuisance to people trying to go about their business. The city core is frequently jammed with marches, protests, demonstrations or charity run-a-thons and bike-a-thons that prevent non-participants from going conveniently about their tasks. The two main highways into the city are regularly closed so some group or other can raise some money. Everyone is OK with that, but to have Linda Gibbons hand out a pamphlet 30 feet from the door of a clinic is intolerable and has to be stopped.
Daniel Santoro, Ms. Gibbons lawyer, noted that her actions are peaceful, and no more intimidating than an animal rights advocate distributing photos of baby seals near a fur store.
“That’s a totally lawful course of action, and constitutionally protected. What’s the difference here?” he asked the court. “It may be disturbing, but she’s allowed to do that.”
“She is not locking the door, harassing the staff, shining bright lights in the windows to disrupt them … nothing she is doing is disturbing the function of the clinic. If she persuades someone not to go in, so be it,” Mr. Santoro said.
That’s not good enough for the Crown, though. Baby seals are evidently more worthy of protection than baby children. A woman’s right to an abortion is sacrosanct; another woman’s right to protest is a violation of the law. The case against Ms. Gibbons will proceed.
National Post