Tuesday, September 28, 2021
PTBC is about normal
principled conservative viewpoints.

PTBC has over 12,000 articles written by several columnists, over 20+ years.

Unfettered speech is not dangerous, unfettered power is

Related Articles

How to lose

BC Liberal Party website — They obviously put out a news release announcing their leadership debate, stating, as even their own website states, that you can stream it at their website. The Globe and Mail said so too, even. But go to their website, and nothing like an anticipatory video teaser is there. Like they're not even set up for it. Or don't care if you watch it. You can, they say, watch it on Facebook. But I won't support that crap. So heckofa job, Libbies.

Click to (not) watch it


Canadians love their cheap Chinese trinkets despite the moral question

Globe and Mail — Startling reports out of the Port of Vancouver indicate just how much Canadians care that communist China was (and still is) holding Canadian and American citizens illegally, steals intellectual property from everyone around the world, is a rogue racist state, an authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorship, which is bent on global communist domination, which enslaves and arguably eliminates ethnic groups, and which pollutes the entire globe to beat hell.

The Port of Vancouver is sending record numbers of empty shipping containers to Asia ... The reason so many shipping containers are going back to Asia filled with nothing but air has to do with a surge in consumer demand for Asian goods ...

...There were 597,443 TEUs of empty containers exported from Vancouver in the first eight months of this year, up 89 per cent from the same period in 2020. And 2020 was previously the record-high year for empty-container shipments from the port.

Almost half of all the containers that have left Vancouver so far this year have been empty.

In total, the Port of Vancouver has handled 2.55 million TEUs of both imports and exports during the first eight months of 2021, up 17 per cent from the same period in 2020.

China is the largest shipper into the Port of Vancouver of containerized merchandise, including consumer goods.

What happened to all that bellyaching about "sustainability?" It doesn't apply to the country of Canada itself? Trudeau? Liberals? Maybe lose the woke BS, lose the love and admiration for "that basic dictatorship" and labels that read "Fabrique en Chine," raise the Canadian flag that you've shamed from its now months-long half-mast detention, and show you give more of a crap about Canada and its real, actual issues.

Hey has China relaxed its restrictions on tourists from the west yet? Asking for literally nobody.

Wall Street Journal —Don't plan your next trip to China without writing your will and saying goodbye to loved ones. The WSJ's editorial board is not impressed - with China or with President Biden and his team of surrender monkeys.

China’s Hostage Triumph

The U.S. lets Huawei’s CFO off easy, and Beijing frees two Canadians.   
By The Editorial Board
Updated Sept. 27, 2021 7:56 am ET

Westerners working in China are officially on notice. You could be arrested on trumped up charges at any time and used as hostages to promote Communist Party interests. That’s the message from the humiliating U.S. surrender to China’s hostage diplomacy in the case of Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou.

Canadian authorities arrested Ms. Meng in 2018 at the request of the U.S., which charged her with bank and wire fraud. Under a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) reached Friday, Ms. Meng was allowed to return to China without going to trial. She merely admitted to facts she had previously denied. Shortly thereafter, and right on cue, China released two Canadians it had arrested on phony charges not long after Ms. Meng’s arrest.

China’s immediate release of businessman Michael Spavor and former diplomat Michael Kovrig proves their arrest was a hostage-taking to pressure Canada and the U.S. over Ms. Meng. In China the law serves the Party. But in the U.S. the law is supposed to operate independent of political interests. ...

I'd no sooner visit China than I would North Korea, Iran, or Cuba.

“Health Reasons.” Fer sure, China.

Globe and Mail — It's not the Globe and Mail's fault. In this case, they're just reporting. And it — China — is just utterly insulting our intelligence and totally disrespecting us. I didn't even read the article because I don't take well to being insulted by communists or a-holes. But on the other hand, this one is all Globe and Mail. For me it's about the contrast between how they treated the last president's handling of the border crisis — a problem not of his own making; and how they are treating this president's handling of a far worse crisis of his and his comrades' own making. Media bias 101? Or them more simply utterly insulting our intelligence and totally disrespecting us?

Joe Oliver for leader? Alas no. But heed to his leadership.

Financial Post — Joe Oliver penned a good column today offering good conservative sense for Conservatives. So that's something different and worthwhile for you to read today in the papers increasingly filled with total bunk and muck — usually from lefties — about how the Conservatives need to go still further leftward to win. It's headlined "Conservatives must persuade the electorate, not pander to the left." And it's worth your read.

"...There is an economic and cultural route to broaden the appeal of Conservative values and policies: bring the public to you, rather than mimic the left-wing’s latest faddish ideals and retreaded socialist truths. That is what leadership is all about. ..."

Ronald Reagan believed in and practiced this philosophy very effectively, making wonderful speaches counseling his fellow conservatives to speak up — "in bold colors" — to convince the electorate to vote for the values — conservative values — which most of their fellow electorate actually already believed in. And he was one of the best and most popular presidents in US history. Joe Oliver wrote today about some of those Canadian conservative values, which, similarly, are actually Canadian values.
Joe Oliver isn't running to be the leader. He's 81 and is rightly enjoying retirement. But anybody who wants to follow in Ronald Regan's — or Joe Oliver's — footsteps is more than welcome to step up at this time, please.

Advice to GOP, which Canada’s CPC should heed: Just. Say. No.

Washington Post — From this surprising source  — the...

Lefty Mayor caught maskless but it’s ok: “I was feelin’ the spirit!”

National Review — Another article you won't read in 99% of the "news" media because, oh do I even have to say it?... she's a lefty mayor! (and we can well imagine the "news" media's faux outrage if she was a he and he was a Republican):

The mayor of San Francisco [London Breed] says that she shouldn’t be criticized for breaking her own COVID rules, because, and I quote, “I was feeling the spirit and I wasn’t thinking about a mask.” CBS reports:

“We don’t need the fun police to come in and micromanage and tell us what we should or shouldn’t be doing,” said Breed during an interview to address the controversy.

The city’s health order states attendees at live indoor performances must remain masked except when actively eating or drinking. Breed maintained that she was drinking at the time.

“My drink was sitting at the table,” said Breed. “I got up and started dancing because I was feeling the spirit and I wasn’t thinking about a mask.”
As Charles C.W. Cooke points out, the hideousness doesn't stop just at her hypocrisy, her failure to take responsibility for her own actions, or her elitist rule-breaking, it's the fact that she laments the notion of "the fun police," when, in fact, as mayor and as the perpetrator of these asinine rules, she IS "the fun police."

Best post-election headline so far

Wall Street Journal — They get the headline just about right: Their opener:

The late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher counseled that in politics “standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous. You get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.” That’s the lesson delivered to Canada’s Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole in Monday’s national election.

I like that they added this because Canadian "news" media are loathed to mention it:

Yet while they again won the popular vote, they finished a distant second in seat count with about 119, two seats down from 2019. (By the way, the Tories have won the popular vote in five of the last six elections, which is a lesson for Americans who think this only happens because of the Electoral College.)

They see what I see. O'Toole: Speaking in pale pastels — largely pink — instead of bold colors. Lesson #596 for the Conservative Party of Canada. They'll learn someday. Maybe.
Read the WSJ take here. (Free link)

BC’s NDP gov and their “news” media divisions hiding stats and facts? Here’s one.

health-infobase.canada.ca For all the noise from the Canadian national "news" media, you'd think Ontario was the only province in the country, and that it's doing terribly with regard to the Wuhan Virus (which everybody still calls "COVID" on orders from the Communist Party of China). That's not news to anyone outside of Ontario. What might be news to people both outside and inside of Ontario is that BC's rate of death is nearly twice that of Ontario.
Don't worry lefties, even people in BC don't know that, because the "news" media in BC are actually cheerleaders for the NDP government of BC — much as the national news media is actually a division of the federal Liberal Party (well and the Ontario Liberal Party of course). Ontario is led by a party with the word "Conservative" in it, even though "Progressive" is the first and foremost word and concept in their party name and style of governance. But, you know, it's just deathn shit. Politics is way more important to the "news" media.
Facts. Get 'em anywhere you can, because you can't reliably get them from the "news" media.
See also:
And from liberalvision CTV: Secrecy over B.C.'s true number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients

The Article

Joseph C. Ben-AmiOne would think that if anyone could mount a strong defence of Canada’s much maligned human rights commissions and their role in regulating free speech in this country, it would be Maxwell Yalden. A former ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg, Yalden was Chief Commissioner of the federal Human Rights Commission from 1987 to 1996 and Commissioner for Official Languages from 1977 to 1984. He also served on the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Yalden finally waded into the debate by drawing a connection between historical events and what he calls “unfettered” free speech in a column published by the National Post. “After two disastrous world wars and the horrors of the holocaust,” he writes, “we are surely obliged to judge rather differently the anything-goes theory of free speech”.  In other words, if only there had been laws limiting free speech, creatures like the Nazis might never have come to power and there might never have been a Holocaust.

This is a popular and seductive theme that proponents of hate speech laws return to again and again to justify their positions.

It’s also wrong.

Yalden wants readers to believe the Nazis were able to come to power and perpetrate the Holocaust in part because of “unfettered” free speech when in fact, the opposite is true. Suppression of civil liberties in Germany, especially free speech, was essential to the Nazi’s successful acquisition and consolidation of power.

It’s a myth that Weimar Germany was a bastion of freedom and civil rights before being taken over by the Nazis. The Weimar Republic was no respecter of civil liberties and the rule of law – at least not consistently. Weimar “liberals” shut down newspapers when it suited them, they spied on political parties, they used plainclothes police or other surrogates to break up political meetings, they outlawed political parties – including the Nazis for a time, they not only tolerated armed militias but in many instances encouraged their existence and activity while the judiciary turned a blind eye.

There is a lesson to be learned here, but it’s not the lesson that Yalden and his ideological compatriots are teaching. National Socialist Germany is not an example of what happens when hate is tolerated – it’s an example of what happens when hate is empowered. The uncomfortable fact, moreover, is that the Nazis didn’t invent the apparatus of power or culture of repression in Germany, they merely took control of, and perfected, an apparatus and culture that had already been created and used by “liberals” to combat extremism.

In contrast to this, those countries that formed the nucleus of the alliance that fought and eventually vanquished the Nazis were distinguished by their respect for civil liberties such as freedom of speech. (The sole exception was the Soviet Union – tellingly, an ally of Nazi Germany up until the moment it was attacked and forced to fight for its life.) It may be true that some civil liberties were constrained by the democracies during the war years, but there is no comparison between the modest limits imposed by democratically elected governments and the brutal suppression practiced by the dictatorships. There is also no evidence that such measures contributed to victory. On the contrary, they were much more effective in silencing opposition to some of the sorrier acts of our governments, like the internment of Canadians and Americans of Japanese descent.

Yalden continues his defence by recycling the tired example of the individual who shouts fire in a crowded theatre to demonstrate the folly of “anything goes” free speech.

Here he is guilty of employing a rhetorical slight-of-hand to make his case. He bases his argument on the premise that defenders of free speech oppose any limitation. This is simply untrue. No credible defender of free speech would take the position that the right should be “unfettered”. As with all rights, freedom of speech can be abused, and when it is, the abusers should be held accountable. The dispute is not about whether there should be limits – it’s about what those limits are and how they should be enforced. Yalden contends that we need special human rights commissions to perform this function while his opponents, of which I am one, point out that the law already established what those limits are, and what penalties should be imposed on an individual for exceeding those limits, long before the creation of special commissions.

Let’s return to the example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Yalden appears to be arguing that human rights legislation and commissions are an essential deterrent to the act. But setting off a false fire alarm is already a crime punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. What more can a human rights commission do to discourage such egregious behaviour? The answer is nothing.

And where criminal courts end, civil courts take over. Anyone who suffers a loss as a result of someone’s negligent or irresponsible behaviour has the right to sue to recover their losses, and in many cases civil courts do not just award compensatory damages, they award punitive damages too. The same thing goes for slander or defamation – the civil courts are empowered adjudicate such cases based on laws that are, in many cases, centuries old.

The problem with all of these laws – if you call it a problem – is that to be enforced, a formal complaint must be lodged, a full investigation must be conducted to ascertain all of the facts, charges must be laid if the facts support the complaint, and then a trial must be held in an impartial setting, with an impartial judge, where the accused must be entitled to confront both his accuser and/or the evidence against him.

In other words, the wheels of justice grind slowly, they grind cautiously, and they grind very publicly. Is this inconvenient? You bet, but it’s what due process and the rule of law is all about.

Which is precisely what Canada’s progressive human rights champions and ‘practitioners’ can’t stand. For them, our existing laws and practices – laws and practices that I might add were sufficient to protect us from turning fascist when fascism was popular among progressives – are inadequate to their plans. Like all true believers, for them, only the cause matters, and if existing legal institutions and traditions impede the speedy success of that cause, those institutions and traditions have to be replaced by new ones, better suited to the efficient imposition of the ideology of the day.

This is the true innovation of human rights commissions and legislation in Canada. They do not enhance the rule of law – they circumvent it. Their supporters can adorn them with noble platitudes about tolerance and respect for diversity, but that doesn’t change the fundamental nature of their purpose, nor does it mitigate their inherent danger.

The only sure defence against tyranny is the maintenance of a free market in ideas, because it in such a free market that bad ideas can be weighed against good and exposed for what they are. Vile ideologies such as those espoused by the Nazis can never succeed in acquiring political power in a society that values above all the free exchange of ideas and opinions. They can only prevail in a society where the range of ideas and opinions that can be expressed in the public square is limited only to those approved by the state.

Unfettered speech is not dangerous, unfettered power is. Where there is unfettered speech, there can be no unfettered power.

In this context, Canada’s human rights commissions and their apologists are the best friends hate-mongers have in this country.

Joel Johannesen
Follow Joel
Latest posts by Joel Johannesen (see all)

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Your Message

    Do you Have a File to Send?
    If so, choose it below

    This is just a question to make sure you're not a robot:

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    — Normally this would be an ad. It's a doggy. —spot_img