Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Facebook Shouldn’t Censor Pro-Life News Outlets

The National Review
Facebook Shouldn’t Censor Pro-Life News Outlets

Read more at:
by Michael J. New November 21, 2017 11:07 AM @Michael_J_New

This month, the New York Times ran an op-ed by Rossalyn Warren entitled “Facebook Is Ignoring Anti-Abortion Fake News.” In the piece, Warren expresses displeasure over the fact that articles from pro-life websites such as and are frequently shared on Facebook, while abortion-related stories from mainstream-media outlets apparently receive less online attention. Warren applauds Facebook’s efforts to censor articles that are hoaxes, generated by spammers, or written with a clear profit incentive.
 But Warren also calls on Facebook to explicitly censor content from pro-life news outlets because she believes such articles spread “misinformation.”

There is plenty to criticize about Warren’s piece. First, she provides no evidence that pro-life websites run stories that are factually inaccurate. Certainly some articles rely on anecdotes and some engage issues – such as the abortion–breast cancer link — about which there exists scholarly debate. 
But Life News, Life Site News, and Live Action make no effort to disguise their ideological leanings. Online viewers certainly account for this when they read those articles, and surely those sites receive so much traffic in part because mainstream media outlets rarely publish news or commentary that even bothers to include pro-life perspectives.

An article recently published in the journal Contraception is instructive on this point. The authors interviewed 31 progressive journalists who frequently report on abortion-related issues. 
During the interviews, over a third of the journalists admitted that they felt no need to present “pro-life” and “pro-choice” arguments with equal weight. Instead, these reporters felt it was their responsibility to address differences in merit between the two sides. Of course, in practice this often means entirely ignoring pro-lifers.
 While pro-life spokespeople tend to be quoted from time to time in political stories about abortion, the useful perspective of pro-life researchers is almost always ignored when policy developments occur or when new studies on these topics are published.

Warren’s notion that mainstream-media outlets present unbiased information on life issues is truly laughable. For instance, in 2006, the New York Times ran a front-page story claiming — based on a superficial analysis of state-level abortion data — that six recently passed pro-life parental-involvement laws were ineffective at lowering abortion rates among minors. 
The article all but ignored the 15 peer-reviewed studies in academic journals finding that parental-involvement laws reduce minors’ abortion rates.

Furthermore, in 2016, New York Times columnist Gail Collins claimed that funding cuts to Planned Parenthood resulted in an increase in the unintended-pregnancy rate in Texas. 
But Collins’s source was George Washington University law professor Sara Rosenbaum, who in fact wrote a study predicting an increase in the unintended-pregnancy rate; Rosenbaum provided no data indicating that such an increase had actually occurred. 
When this was brought to the attention of Collins and Rosenbaum, neither took steps to issue a correction.

Overall, the development of Facebook and other social-media sites has been beneficial to pro-lifers, making it easier for them to organize online. 
These sites have also made it far easier for the pro-life movement to bypass mainstream media and disseminate news and commentary on a range of life issues. Americans of all political stripes benefit when there is rich and open debate about issues of public concern. 
Facebook and other social media sites should recognize this and take a clear stance in favor of free speech, resisting the urge to censor articles and opinion pieces simply because of their ideological content.

Read more at:

$650 million pledged on March 8, 2017, for abortion and reproductive services overseas

Question No. 1202 Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Routine Proceedings
November 20th, 2017 / 3:25 p.m.
Part of the answer was Project search.. 
Arnold Viersen Peace River—Westlock, AB THE QUESTION Q-1202


Arnold Viersen Peace River—Westlock, AB
With regard to foreign aid funding: 

(a) what is the complete itemized list of funding recipients from the $650 million pledged on March 8, 2017, for abortion and reproductive services overseas, broken down by (i) country, (ii) organization or individual, (iii) title of program or project, (iv) amount received; 

(b) which government department and section is overseeing the funding in (a);

 (c) what is the complete and itemized list of funding recipients from the March 2, 2017, pledge of $20 million for sexual and reproductive health services, broken down by (i) country, (ii) organization or individual, (iii) title of program or project, (iv) amount received; 

(d) which government department and section is overseeing the funding in (c); 

(e) which line in the 2017-18 Main Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development do the funding commitment in (a) and (c) fall under; 

(f) will any funds referred to in (a) or (c), which are directed to countries or jurisdictions where abortion is illegal or restricted, be used to pay for illegal abortion services; and 

 (g) what oversight, tracking, or planning mechanisms have been established and applied to ensure that funds mentioned in (a) and (c) respect and abide by all laws of recipient countries?

C-45 Cannabis Act IN THE SENATE >>> Now what about Fetal Development see links

just google >>  fetal development children cannabis

  see also

     Proposed Approach to the Regulation of Cannabis

C-45  Cannabis Act            now what about Fetal Development see links above

Monday, November 13, 2017

While eliminating over 100,000 children /yr that could be recipients of the Child Benefits..

Blogger note: while eliminating over 100,000 children /yr  that could be recipients of the Child Benefits.. by denying the "RIGHT TO BE BORN" of those same,One Hundred Thousand Children,  
                       TRUDEAU/MORNEAU are a fraud.    filed #BabyTrudeau

a direct extract from this article:
"The planned parade of the Liberal greatest hits, where you can expect to hear a lot about the Canada Child Benefit, is meant to mark the midway point of the four-year mandate."

Inline image 1

Liberal MPs to blitz ridings with reminders of their greatest hits

Joanna Smith / The Canadian Press
November 12, 2017 10:30 AM

OTTAWA — As Liberal MPs spend this week in their ridings, they are tasked with reminding Canadians what they have done since the last election as they start boosting their efforts to convince voters they deserve to stay.

The co-ordinated blitz will involve visits to local businesses and schools, pitches at the doorstep, MPs serving customers at the local cafe and, of course, a centrally approved social media hashtag.
So far, 130 of the 181 Liberal MPs have agreed to take part in what they are calling a national week of action, being described as the largest mobilization of caucus since the 2015 federal election.

"It's focused on making sure we go home with one message," said Liberal MP Ruby Sahota, the Ontario caucus chair.

The planned parade of the Liberal greatest hits, where you can expect to hear a lot about the Canada Child Benefit, is meant to mark the midway point of the four-year mandate.

"I think a midway point is always a good time to step back and reflect," said Sahota, who represents the Greater Toronto Area riding of Brampton North. "What promises have we been able to keep? Which ones do we still have to work at?"

The campaign will have a high participation rate, but several MPs noted that spending time with constituents is just part of what they would be doing on any other week back in the riding.

"People don't need to tell me I need to breathe in and breathe out," said Montreal MP Nicola Di Iorio (Saint-Leonard — Saint-Michel).
Toronto MP Rob Oliphant said he has the feeling the party leadership is paying a little more attention to what is happening this week than usual.

"They are certainly, for some reason, seeming this week to feel anxious," said Oliphant (Don Valley West), adding that some staffers think MPs need to be encouraged to do their jobs.

"I just say I am doing my constituency work the way I always do it."

Rather than selling the Liberal track record, Oliphant said he would prefer to find out what people in his riding think of it in the first place.
"I talk in Ottawa and I listen at home," he said.

As standard as knocking on doors and hearing from voters at town hall-style events might be, the Liberal party keeps close tabs on what its MPs are up to back in their ridings — including on social media.

And that could end up playing a role in deciding whether they get to keep doing it.

During the Liberal leadership race, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to hold open nominations for local candidates in federal ridings, meaning even incumbents would have to fight for the right to keep their name on the ballot in 2019.

But there have been questions about just how committed Trudeau was to that pledge, as some would-be contenders have accused the Liberal leadership of playing favourites or have been barred from running.

As the 2015 victory began fading into memory, incumbent Liberal MPs started grumbling about the possibility of facing an internal fight in their own ridings, so the party launched a consultation process with caucus and former candidates to find a compromise.

One MP who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that based on the consultations so far, the party will likely measure whether an incumbent deserves to be protected from having their nomination challenged through a combination of social media presence, the number of doors they knocked on and fundraising.

The recommendations are expected ahead of the Liberal party convention next April.

Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz, who represents the Toronto riding of Davenport, said she would prefer having to reach a target than start all over again.

"I will be upset if there has to be another full-blown nomination," said Dzerowicz, who was chosen to carry the Liberal banner in the 2015 election after running against five others.

"It was an extraordinarily intensive process," she said. "We would have to ask the question: how would I represent the downtown riding well if I had to do a full-blown nomination race? But if that's what I have to do, that's what I have to do."

Toronto MP Adam Vaughan, who was elected in a 2014 by-election that was already plagued with controversy before he threw his hat into the ring, said incumbents should have to battle.
"You're not entitled to anything," said Vaughan (Spadina — Fort York).

"It's healthy to earn your position in the party," he said. "It's healthy to earn your position in Parliament and none of this is given to you because of privilege."

— With files from Joan Bryden
— Follow @smithjoanna on Twitter

In total, 114 third parties poured $6 million into influencing the election outcome and many of those third parties were funded by the U.S.-based Tides Foundation

Millions in foreign funds spent in 2015 federal election to defeat Harper government, report alleges

In total, 114 third parties poured $6 million into influencing the election outcome and many of those third parties were funded by the U.S.-based Tides Foundation


Calgary Centre M.P. Joan Crockatt is introduced in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on December 12, 2012
Foreign money funnelled towards Canadian political advocacy groups affected the outcome of the 2015 federal election, according to a document filed last week with Elections Canada and obtained in part by the Calgary Herald.

The 36-page report entitled: Elections Canada Complaint Regarding Foreign Influence in the 2015 Canadian Election, alleges third parties worked with each other, which may have bypassed election spending limits — all of which appears to be in contravention of the Canada Elections Act.

The Canada Elections Act states that “a third party shall not circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, a limit set out . . . in any manner, including by splitting itself into two or more third parties for the purpose of circumventing the limit or acting in collusion with another third party so that their combined election advertising expenses exceed the limit.”

“Electoral outcomes were influenced,” alleges the report.
The Canada Elections Act also states: “No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate” unless the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident.
“Yet the outcome of the 2015 election was skewed by money from wealthy foreigners,” alleges the complaint, submitted by Canada Decides, a registered society with three listed directors — including Joan Crockatt, a former Conservative MP for Calgary Centre, who lost her seat to Liberal Kent Hehr, now the MP for the once long-held Tory riding and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The other two directors include Chad Hallman, a University of Toronto political science student.

The number of third parties registered during the 2015 general election more than doubled, to 114 compared with 55, in the 2011 election.
Americans are rightly concerned about Russia hacking into U.S. government emails. Well, this appears to be much worse
In total, the 114 third parties spent $6 million and many of those third parties were funded by California-and New York-based Tides Foundation — which is known in Canada for holding numerous anti-Canadian oil campaigns.
In 2015, Tides Foundation donated $1.5 million of U.S. money to Canadian third parties in the election year, according to the report.
Crockatt’s seat was one of the 29 targeted by an organization called Leadnow through its “largest ever campaign” called Vote Together. The complaint by Canada Decides alleges that foreign money “spawned” Leadnow and helped fund an elaborate campaign to oust the ruling Conservative Party.

Mount Royal University political science professor Duane Bratt says Canadians should be concerned about any kind of foreign involvement in our elections.

“The whole concept and idea of foreign influence in an election is an important issue and is something that Canadians should not tolerate,” Bratt said Monday.
Tides Foundation and Leadnow representatives did not return repeated phone calls and emails from the Herald to respond to concerns raised by Canada Decides.

A December 2015 Leadnow report, Defeating Harper, discusses how effective its campaign was in the 2015 general election. “The Conservatives were defeated in 25 out of 29 ridings, and . . . in the seats the Conservatives lost, our recommended candidate was the winner 96 per cent of the time.”

Leadnow’s Defeat Harper report also states: “We selected target ridings with field teams run by paid Leadnow organizers….”

Crockatt lost her Calgary Centre seat by 750 votes.
Conservative MP Lawrence Toet lost his Manitoba seat of Elmwood-Transcona to the NDP’s Daniel Blaikie by just 61 votes.
Former Conservative Finance Minister Joe Oliver lost his seat to Liberal Marco Mendicino with a margin of 5,800 votes. Only six per cent of voters in that riding voted for the NDP candidate, who complained of Leadnow’s tactics on Twitter.

Leadnow staff members flew around the country on numerous occasions, as Facebook postings and photographs show, to distribute flyers and put up signs. Also, 57 local polls were commissioned across 37 ridings urging citizens to strategically vote for the most winnable, left-of-centre candidate in order to defeat the Conservative candidate.

There is an $8,788 spending limit per riding for the election. NDP candidates and even CUPE complained about Leadnow’s activities being anti-democratic.
“This is not a partisan issue or a case of sour grapes by Conservatives,” insists Hallman, 20.

“This is a Canadian issue. This affects all Canadians whether you’re an NDP, Green, Liberal or Conservative. You should be very concerned about foreign money being spent in Canada during an election campaign.”
Most Canadians would be very alarmed by this. This happened in the 2015 election
Crockatt, who prior to becoming a Member of Parliament was a journalist, including a stint as an editor with the Calgary Herald, said researchers from Fredericton to Nanaimo worked for 18 months gathering information on this issue.

“Foreign money meddled in a big way in our election and that’s not right,” she added. “Americans are rightly concerned about Russia hacking into U.S. government emails. Well, this appears to be much worse — foreign money, in many cases by very wealthy people — was donated and arguably changed the outcome of our Canadian election. It needs to be taken seriously and investigated.”

In the 2015 annual report of the California-based Online Progressive Engagement Network (OPEN) where Ben Brandzel, one of Leadnow’s founders, currently works, he said: “We ended the year with . . . a Canadian campaign that moved the needle during the national election, contributing greatly to the ousting of the conservative Harper government.”

Just how greatly these foreign organizations and money contributed to interfering in the Canadian election needs to be investigated by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, states Canada Decides.

“The threat to Canadian election sovereignty is real and must be eliminated by the Commissioner as quickly and decisively as possible,” adds the report.
It appears as though Yves Cote, commissioner of Elections Canada, is considering doing just that.
Cote admitted during an April 13 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that an investigation needs to be launched following questions by Conservative Senators Linda Frum and Bob Runciman.

“Issues of significance have been raised . . .” said Cote, during the senate committee hearing, “which in my view deserves Parliament taking the time to looking at the situation, trying to understand what has happened, what is likely to happen and then taking measures . . . to make sure there is compliance.”

Cote added that “the Supreme Court of Canada said the objective of maintaining a level playing field is, for them, a very important objective.”

Senator Frum is planning to introduce a private member’s bill updating the Canada Elections Act to prohibit third parties from accepting foreign funding for domestic political activity.

Canadians can only donate $1,550 to political parties and candidates. Union and corporate donations have been banned completely, and yet in the Senate hearing, Commissioner Cote said that as long as foreign money is donated to a third party six months prior to the election writ being dropped, the amount that can be donated is endless.

Frum made the following observation during the April 13 senate hearing: “I could take a cheque for $10 million from Saudi Arabia, from Iran, from China — I could take any amount of money from a foreign contributor so long as I, a Canadian citizen, am receiving it?”

Cote said as long as funds are received six months before an election “the third party is free to use that money.”
“Most Canadians would be very alarmed by this,” added Frum. “This happened in the 2015 election.”

Trudeau and high-ranking Liberals settle $3-million lawsuit over Toronto nomination battle

Trudeau and high-ranking Liberals settle $3-million lawsuit over Toronto nomination battle

Former Liberal minister Tony Ianno and his wife, Christine Innes, had sued Justin Trudeau and then-Ontario campaign chair David MacNaughton for alleged defamation.

OTTAWA—A settlement has been reached in a $3-million lawsuit that pitched a former cabinet minister and his wife against Justin Trudeau and a high-ranking Liberal operative, later appointed Canada’s ambassador to the U.S.

The Liberal party announced the settlement “by mutual agreement” in a statement Friday afternoon.

Former Liberal minister Tony Ianno and his wife, Christine Innes, had sued Trudeau and then-Ontario campaign chair David MacNaughton for alleged defamation during a nomination battle in downtown Toronto in 2014.

“The Liberal Party of Canada acknowledges the many years of public service and deep and valued contribution that Ms. Innes and the Honourable Tony Ianno have made to public affairs and the people of Canada,” the statement said.

“The Liberal Party of Canada regrets the circumstances that led to this lawsuit.”
Party spokesperson Braeden Caley declined to comment further when contacted by the Star.

The lawsuit was launched after Innes was denied the Liberal party nomination for a 2014 byelection to replace Olivia Chow in the west-end Toronto riding of Trinity-Spadina, who stepped down to run for mayor.

Innes claimed $1.5 million in damages from Trudeau and MacNaughton, alleging damage to her reputation after MacNaughton blamed her campaign for using “derogatory remarks” and “bullying and intimidation” on young volunteers in an effort to undermine the then-new Toronto-Centre MP, Chrystia Freeland.

Innes, who ran for the party in 2008 and 2011, told the Star, at the time, that she felt she was being blocked for not going along with the Team Trudeau plans for the 2015 election, and blamed the Liberal leader for breaking his promise not to interfere with local nomination battles.

“It was made clear to me that if I did not submit to their demands that they would ‘still get their way,’ ” Innes said at the time.
Three months later, in July 2014, her husband Ianno joined the lawsuit, but only sued MacNaughton, claiming another $1.5 million for damages to his reputation, emotional well-being and lost business opportunities.

“MacNaughton deliberately sacrificed Ianno’s reputation in order to create a smokescreen to shield Trudeau from public outcry for breaching his public vow of non-interference in local riding nominations,” Ianno said in his statement of claim.

Trudeau and MacNaughton said in their statement of defence that their comments on the blocked candidacy were fair and truthful on a matter of public interest. Their statement described Ianno as “well known within the party and generally as a person who is willing to use aggressive tactics in order to succeed in politics.”

With files from The Canadian Press


Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Trudeau et l'incapacité de livrer


Le gouvernement Trudeau et l'incapacité de livrer

Justin Trudeau et les ministres de son cabinet à leur arrivée lors de la cérémonie d'assermentation le 4 novembre 2015
Justin Trudeau et les ministres de son cabinet à leur arrivée lors de la cérémonie d'assermentation le 4 novembre 2015 Photo : La Presse canadienne/Justin Tang
ANALYSE – Il était un temps, au début du mandat du gouvernement Trudeau, où le mot à la mode était « deliverability » ou, en français la « productibilité », qu'on pourrait définir par la capacité de livrer que ce soit une promesse électorale ou un programme gouvernemental.

Un texte de Michel C. Auger

Midi info

À la retraite d’été du Cabinet, en août 2016, on avait même fait venir le gourou mondial de la productibilité, sir Michael Barber, qui avait averti le gouvernement que le plus difficile était à venir.
Comme toutes les notions à la mode, la productibilité finit par ne plus être aussi attrayante après un temps. Mais force est de constater que, depuis quelques mois et particulièrement ces dernières semaines, le gouvernement Trudeau a un sacré problème avec sa capacité de livrer des politiques cohérentes et susceptibles de bien fonctionner.

Bref, il ne suffit pas d’avoir une grande idée politique, il faut voir venir d’avance les critiques, puisque le diable est, comme toujours, dans les détails.

On a déjà vu le fiasco de la politique culturelle où la commande politique de ne pas imposer une supposée « taxe Netlfix » est venue enlever sa crédibilité à l’ensemble, même si la ministre du Patrimoine canadien Mélanie Joly ne semble toujours pas voir le problème.
C’est un peu l’inverse dans le dossier de la légalisation de la marijuana.

Actuellement, les actions du gouvernement viennent nuire à son objectif de sortir le crime organisé du commerce du cannabis et d’enrayer le marché noir.
À la conférence des premiers ministres tenue cette semaine, le gouvernement Trudeau a proposé une taxe d’accise de 1 $ le gramme, dont les profits seraient divisés moitié-moitié entre Ottawa et les provinces.
Mais, comme le faisait remarquer le premier ministre de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard Wade MacLauchlan, le prix au marché noir dans sa province est de 6 $ le gramme et une taxe de 1 $ va contribuer à rendre le pot légal hors de prix.

Les provinces, il ne faut pas l’oublier, devront payer pour des magasins ayant pignon sur rue et des employés qu’on devra payer.
Voici un cas, donc, où une nouvelle idée du gouvernement Trudeau nuira à son objectif ultime.

L'équité fiscal

Les ennuis avec la capacité de livrer du gouvernement ne s’arrêtent pas là.
Le ministre des Finances, Bill Morneau, a toutes les difficultés du monde avec un projet de réforme qui visait le louable but de renforcer l’équité fiscale. Pas nécessaire de rappeler ici que l’équité fiscale est précisément ce qui a coulé la politique de Mme Joly.

Très vite, on s’est rendu compte que ce n’était pas une réforme qui visait seulement le groupe des 1 % les plus riches, mais que certains des impacts touchaient directement la classe moyenne, comme la capacité pour un petit entrepreneur de mettre un peu d’argent de côté pour les mauvais jours ou celle des fermiers de partager leurs revenus avec les membres de leur famille.

Ainsi, un peu partout, depuis quelques semaines, on voit le gouvernement qui peine à donner des résultats, après des mois de grands et de beaux discours.

Personne ne doutera que le dossier autochtone est une authentique et sincère priorité pour le gouvernement. Sauf que c’est aussi celui où la productibilité manque le plus.
Que ce soit l’Enquête nationale sur les femmes et les filles autochtones disparues et assassinées, qui n’en finit plus d’avoir des difficultés de départ, ou le ministère des Affaires autochtones et du Nord lui-même, qu’on essaie maintenant de scinder en deux pour tenter d’obtenir des résultats.

Encore une fois, le gouvernement Trudeau n’est pas le premier à essayer de faire avancer le dossier autochtone et nul ne doute de sa bonne volonté. Mais sa capacité de livrer n’est guère meilleure que celle de ses prédécesseurs jusqu’à maintenant.

La même chose est vraie en matière d’environnement. Il y a quelques jours à peine, la commissaire à l’environnement et au développement durable, dans son rapport, disait que le gouvernement devait arrêter de faire des discours et commencer à agir et que même entre les ministères fédéraux, la coordination était déficiente.

Avec le résultat que le Canada n’est pas en voie d’atteindre ses objectifs de réduction des gaz à effet de serre, objectifs qui avaient été fixés par le gouvernement de M. Harper!
Le moins que l’on puisse dire, c’est que ça commence à faire beaucoup de dossiers où le gouvernement a du mal à tenir ses promesses.

Plus simplement, on pourrait dire qu’il a du mal à gouverner.

Michel C. Auger  

    Wednesday, October 4, 2017

    Testimony of Air Force Vet, Russ Cooper, to Heritage Committee on M-103


    hello I'm Russ Cooper and I'm here at

    the Canadian War Museum

    I'm a retired military and civil

    aviation pilot who is looking forward to

    his retirement years as I enjoyed more

    time with family and friends

    unfortunately I had to put these plans

    aside when Member of Parliament across

    Khalid came up with her motion m103 I

    did so because I saw embedded within the

    motion the seeds of the curtailment of

    Canadian free speech rights I came to

    this conclusion on the basis of my

    security background in both the Canadian

    military and in follow-on security work

    as an analyst I guess you could say that

    I gained a deep respect for the Charter

    rights of freedoms and Canadian values

    during my 28-year career as a as a

    military fighter pilot after all I had

    the benefit of enjoying those freedoms

    every day of my life but more than this

    I had the opportunity to fight for the

    projection of these values abroad

    against tyrannical regimes I was honored

    to have had the ability or the

    opportunity to do so as I believed that

    Canadian rights and freedoms are secured

    by a long line of citizen soldiers who

    have made efforts and sacrifices to

    preserve those rights freedoms and

    values I decided to join the debate back

    in January of this year when I kicked

    off a nationwide petition which turned

    out to be quite successful it garnered

    upwards of twenty seven thousand

    signatures from Canadians across the

    nation and these were everyday folk and

    they expressed extreme concern with the

    use of the term Islamophobia they didn't

    like the fact that the term was

    undefined and it might have the

    potential to raise Islam above all other

    religions in Canada and allow them the

    protections against being criticized or

    commented on in the public square

    Canadians were also of a mind that they

    were very surprised and somewhat shocked

    that their own government would accuse

    the nation and its citizens of systemic

    racism and religious discrimination how

    could this be the case when Canadians

    are so welcoming

    of an ever-increasing number of

    immigrants refugees foreign workers and

    students from all races all religions

    and all points of origin over the past

    several decades it just didn't make


    now Canadians can be forgiven for

    thinking that the term of Islamophobia

    is problematic after all they've seen

    the effects of fighting Islamic Osama

    phobia a tale out in the European

    experience as one that involves the

    curtailment of free speech rights there

    are many many examples that show this

    there's a case of United Kingdom police

    advising Facebook users that they better

    watch themselves or they might find

    themselves in jail the Mayor of the City

    of London commissioned a task force to

    track down Internet users who were

    annoying others in Ireland an Irish

    pastor was charged with hate speech for

    criticizing Islam in Germany a

    photojournalist was jailed for six

    months because he had the temerity to

    publish an historical photo that showed

    Adolf Hitler shaking hands with a Grand

    Mufti of Jerusalem

    now some Canadians might say this is not

    in the cards for Canada we live in

    different circumstances we have

    different laws but this assumption might

    very well be false for it as a fact that

    Canadian and European human rights

    legislation very much are founded on

    international declarations and covenants

    that have evolved in the international

    environment since the in the post-world

    War two ERA prime among among these is a

    United Nations Declaration of Human

    Rights of 1948 and the International

    Covenant Covenant of Civil and Political

    Rights of 1966 these two instruments

    underpin all of Canada's and Europe's

    Human Rights legislations

    even as they've moved the balance from

    free speech to hate speech from one that

    prescribed incitement to violence to one

    that censure is not only incitement to

    violence but incitement to hostility and

    discrimination as well this is of great


    the wording of the this wording was

    picked up in the International Covenant

    of Civil and Political Rights and was

    very concerning its vagueness was very

    concerning to the United States of

    America who ratified the sea CPR on

    condition that its wording wording could

    not be taken to authorize or require any

    restrictions in freedom of speech or

    Association here we see a fork in the

    path we see the Americans going down a

    free speech path and we see Canadians

    and Europeans going down a path that's

    more accommodating to those who are

    offended or take offence so we see here

    that things that are happening in Europe

    might very well happen in Canada because

    of the similarity of our human rights

    legislations and underpinnings now it's

    important to note that while this was

    human rights the legislation was

    evolving on both sides of the Atlantic

    it was also being paralleled by a

    separate system that was spearheaded by

    the Organization of Islamic Cooperation

    and they chose to put Sharia law at the

    center of their human rights efforts

    they determined that Sharia could be the

    only the only the sole source of

    reference for human rights in in Islam

    this was explicitly stated in the OIC 's

    Cairo declaration of 1990 it was a Cairo

    declaration on human rights in Islam and

    since that time the organization has

    been very busy aggressively lobbying the

    international community to embed Sharia

    blasphemy and slander laws within their

    Muslim and non-muslim legislative

    organizations this is of great concern

    the Organization of Islamic Cooperation

    scored a big success in 2011 would have

    helped engineer United Nations

    resolution 16/18

    this resolution swept up the the wording

    of the ICCPR but it went beyond that to

    say that all persons whether

    individually or in communities had the

    right to manifest their belief or

    religion in worship observance practice

    and teaching this raises a question if a

    religion teaches the

    it's criticism is forbidden is a host

    nation responsible for recognizing and

    accommodating that proposition this is

    not a moot point for Canada because

    resolution 16/18 is a consensus

    agreement Canada is a signatory to that

    consensus and they are obligated to

    consider resolution 16/18 when they make

    human rights legislation on a national


    now Canadians don't like the term

    Islamophobia but they also don't like

    the assumptions in logic that underpin

    motion m103 namely that we are

    systemically racist and we are religious

    discriminators they read OC the evidence

    for this even though the proponents of

    m103 point to the Quebec City mosque

    attack of January of this year as being

    evidence of such discrimination and even

    white supremacy the fact is at seven

    months after the event no hate or terror

    charges have been laid in addition to

    this Canadians understand that there is

    a wide secretive cloak placed over the

    whole Proceedings of this mass murder

    and it's very unusual because this is a

    story of international scale and

    Canadians just don't understand why no

    one is talking about it the other fact

    that Canadians are worried about is that

    data is being used in a cherry-pick

    fashion to affirm the fact that

    Canadians are religious discriminators

    the most used fact is the one that comes

    out of the stats can report that says

    that eight incidents against Muslims has

    increased 61% over two year period now

    while it is true that that might be the

    case the context is missing in the fact

    that the absolute numbers are involved

    are 99 in 2014 and 159 in 2015 that's a

    61% increase but then again these are

    negligible numbers and given the

    population of Muslims in Canada to be

    approximately 1 million people it's

    insignificant you could say that one

    case one year followed by two cases of

    next year as a hundred Senate increase

    but the truth is is that the situation

    is neither remarkable or unstable

    in summary Canadians do not like the

    term Islamophobia they feel it needs to

    be discarded because it bears with it

    the potential to curtail free speech

    rights they also do not like

    the motion the underpinnings of the

    motion in that they don't believe that

    the country is systemically racist or

    that they're all religious

    discriminators they feel that these

    assumptions need to be studied seriously

    by an authority that is impartial

    independent and competent an authority

    that is capable of determining the

    balance between the free speech rights

    of individuals in Canada and the rights

    of minorities in Canada not to be

    offended thank you very much for your

    consideration of this testimony I think

    it's quite important because I really

    believe that the fate of Canadian free

    speech rights are at stake