Lee Richardson, freedom fighter!
I'm delighted to report that another government MP has publicly declared himself for freedom of speech, and against section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act -- the thought crimes section.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right... I support removing section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act and will vote in favour of [Keith Martin's] motion when the opportunity arises.
Good for him!
Folks, take a moment to send Richardson your support and thanks. Click here to e-mail him. And while you're at it, click here to e-mail Rob Nicholson, the Justice Minister, to tell him to get off the pot. And send the same note to the Prime Minister, while you're at it.
Such notes are not in vain; while you are likely to get a standard-form reply, especially from the PM, each week the correspondence unit tallies up the number of letters on each topic. As I've written before, human rights commissions have been on their Top Ten list for months now -- sometimes in the top two. It's one way that politicians use to measure the size of an issue.
So here are those e-mail addresses again:
Thank Lee Richardson.
h/t Don Sharpe
ADDENDUM: A few days ago I wrote a blog entry about Canadian Jews who dissent from the Canadian Jewish Congress's "official" position that section 13 and political censorship represent the will of the Jewish community. I asked for more examples of Jews for free speech. Fred Litwin, the author of the always provocative "Gay and Right" website, is on the list of freedom-loving Jews, too. So are the Post's Barbara Kay and Laura Rosen Cohen.
In fact, other than the Official Jews who make their living off human rights commissions, it's hard to find Canadian Jews who support censorship. I've been a Canadian Jew for, well, 36 years, and my views have never been canvassed by the CJC on this subject (or any other political issue, for that matter, including their inappropriate and ultimately humiliating support for the 1992 Charlottetown Accord). The next time the CJC, B'nai Brith or the Simon Wiesenthal Center claim in an affidavit that they speak for anyone but themselves, they should be cross-examined on that, and their bluff called. What evidence, other than their own hubris, do they have? Any surveys or plebiscites? We all know they have none, but it would be nice to get them to admit it under oath.