From: "Ezra Levant" Subject: Fw: He will choose free speech Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:03:42 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004D_01C8CA7C.B347ED10" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Unsent: 1 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C8CA7C.B347ED10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable June 1, 2008 PIERRE POILIEVRE M.P. 433 West Block House of Commons Ottawa ON K1A 0A6 Phone: 613-992-2772 Fax: 613-992-1209 Dear Sir: I am a Conservative voter in your riding and have been for some time. = Like many other voters that currently vote Conservative it has become = clear to me over the last six months that the Human Rights Commissions = (including the Canadian one) have been hijacked by "Activists" and those = who seek to impose their view of what is proper speech on all Canadians. = To do this they are utilizing s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act = (and its provincial counterparts) to prevent discussion of topics which = they regard as controversial and offensive. This must be stopped. = Freedom of speech is not just one of the rights listed in the Charter, = it is the fundamental right which makes all the others possible.=20 It has become clear from the case of Warman v. Lemire, currently before = the Canadian Commission, that Commission employees are themselves = posting "hate messages" online and they have hijacked a private internet = account to cover their tracks. The current case against McLean's = magazine is an example of the gross misuse of s. 13 to stifle = political/social debate and opinion.=20 As you are aware there is currently a Private Member's Motion before the = House by Liberal Keith Martin to look at abolishing s. 13 of the = Canadian Human Rights Act. Can you tell me what is your position on this = issue and will the government continue to defend s. 13 before the = Canadian Human Rights Tribunal? I am including a quote from a Justice Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court = because he makes the point better than I ever can: BRANDEIS, J., Concurring Opinion 274 U.S. 357 Whitney v. California = (1927) "This Court has not yet fixed the standard by which to determine when a = danger shall be deemed clear; how remote the danger may be and yet be = deemed present, and what degree of evil shall be deemed sufficiently = substantial to justify resort to abridgement of free speech and assembly = as the means of protection. To reach sound conclusions on these matters, = we must bear in mind why a State is, ordinarily, denied the power to = prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which = a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with = evil consequence. =20 Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State = was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its = government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. = They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed = liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of = liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as = you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of = political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion = would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate = protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the = greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is = a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the = American government. They recognized the risks to which all human = institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured = merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is = hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds = repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable = government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss = freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting = remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason = as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by = law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the = occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the = Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed. Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech = and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of = speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify = suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that = serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be = reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. = There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented = is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some = measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. = Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of = approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of = mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of law-breaking = heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however = reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech = where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to = indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide = difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and = attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In = order to support a finding of clear and present danger, it must be shown = either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was = advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that = such advocacy was then contemplated.=20 Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did = not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of = liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power = of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular = government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and = present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that = it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there = be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to = avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied = is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify = repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with = freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is = therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free = speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying = it." ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "Poilievre, Pierre - M.P." To: [redacted] Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 11:03:03 AM Subject: RE: Your Correspondence Dear [redacted], Thank you for your correspondence and I apologize for my delayed = response. I share your frustration with the way in which politically correct = know-it-alls have decided what the rest of us can and cannot think. = There is a private members bill before the House to put an end to this = out-of-control insanity. I plan to vote for it, [redacted]. If there is anything else I can do, = let me know. Sincerely, Pierre Poilievre M.P. for Nepean =96 Carleton Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board PS. I will choose free speech over political correctness every time. ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C8CA7C.B347ED10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
June 1, 2008
 
PIERRE POILIEVRE M.P.

433 West Block
House of Commons
Ottawa ON = K1A=20 0A6

Phone: 613-992-2772
Fax:=20 613-992-1209

 

Dear Sir:

 

I=20 am a Conservative voter in your riding and have been for some = time. Like=20 many other voters that currently vote Conservative it has = become clear=20 to me over the last six months that the Human Rights Commissions = (including the=20 Canadian one) have been hijacked by "Activists" and those who seek = to=20 impose their view of what is proper speech on all Canadians. To do = this=20 they are utilizing s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (and its=20 provincial counterparts) to prevent discussion of topics which they = regard=20 as controversial and offensive. This must be stopped. Freedom = of=20 speech is not just one of the rights listed in the Charter, it is the=20 fundamental right which makes all the others possible.=20

 

It has become clear from the case of Warman v. = Lemire,=20 currently before the Canadian Commission, that Commission employees are=20 themselves posting "hate messages" online and they have hijacked a = private=20 internet account to cover their tracks. The current case against = McLean's=20 magazine is an example of the gross misuse of s. 13 to stifle = political/social=20 debate and opinion. 

 

As you are aware there is currently a Private=20 Member's Motion before the House by Liberal Keith Martin to = look at=20 abolishing  s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Can you tell me = what is=20 your position on this issue and will the government continue = to defend s.=20 13 before the Canadian Human Rights = Tribunal?

 

I=20 am including a quote from a Justice Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court=20 because he makes the point better than I ever=20 can:

 

BRANDEIS,=20 J., Concurring Opinion 274 U.S. 357 Whitney v. California=20 (1927)

"This Court has=20 not yet fixed the standard by which to determine when a danger shall be = deemed=20 clear; how remote the danger may be and yet be deemed present, and what = degree=20 of evil shall be deemed sufficiently substantial to justify resort to=20 abridgement of free speech and assembly as the means of protection. To = reach=20 sound conclusions on these matters, we must bear in mind why a State is, = ordinarily, denied the power to prohibit dissemination of social, = economic and=20 political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be = false=20 and fraught with evil consequence. 

Those=20 who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to = make=20 men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the=20 deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued = liberty both=20 as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of = happiness,=20 and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to = think as=20 you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the = discovery and=20 spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, = discussion=20 would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate = protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the = greatest=20 menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a = political=20 duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American=20 government.=20 They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. = But they=20 knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for = its=20 infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and = imagination;=20 that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate = menaces=20 stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to = discuss=20 freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting = remedy=20 for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as = applied=20 through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the = argument=20 of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of = governing=20 majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and = assembly=20 should be guaranteed.

Fear = of serious=20 injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men = feared=20 witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from = the=20 bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech, = there must=20 be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free = speech is=20 practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger=20 apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that = the=20 evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing = law tends=20 in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation = of it.=20 Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of = approval add to=20 the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching=20 syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of law-breaking heightens it still = further.=20 But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a=20 justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of=20 incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be=20 immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and = incitement,=20 between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must = be=20 borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present = danger, it=20 must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected = or was=20 advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that = such=20 advocacy was then contemplated.

Those who won = our=20 independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political = change.=20 They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, = self-reliant=20 men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied = through=20 the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can = be deemed=20 clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so = imminent=20 that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If = there be=20 time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert = the evil=20 by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, = not=20 enforced silence. Only an = emergency can=20 justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be = reconciled with=20 freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is=20 therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free = speech and=20 assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying=20 it."



-----=20 Forwarded Message ----
From: "Poilievre, Pierre - M.P."=20 <PoiliP@parl.gc.ca>
To: [redacted] Sent:=20 Monday, June 9, 2008 11:03:03 AM
Subject: RE: Your = Correspondence

Dear [redacted],

 

Thank you for your correspondence and I = apologize for my=20 delayed response.

 

I share your frustration with = the way in=20 which politically correct know-it-alls have decided what the rest of us = can and=20 cannot think. There is a private members bill before the House to put an = end to=20 this out-of-control insanity.

 

I plan to vote for it, [redacted]. If there is = anything=20 else I can do, let me know.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Pierre Poilievre

M.P. for Nepean =96 Carleton

Parliamentary Secretary to the President of = the Treasury=20 Board

 

 

PS. I will choose free speech over political = correctness=20 every = time.

------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C8CA7C.B347ED10--