For several days, I have had on my desk top a new column by Doug Collins, titled "Kiddie Porn Ruling Was Right", published in the North Shore News (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org) | January 31, 1999.
As usual, Doug has a knack of saying what most of us believe and feel.
JUDGING FROM the headlines and lamentations on the child porn issue, I must be one of the few who believe that Justice Duncan Shaw was right in ruling that kiddie lover John Sharpe had a right to possess such muck.
The judge found that laws permitting "the invasion of freedom of expression and personal privacy [are] profound," and that as long as Sharpe wasn't translating fantasy into action - he had every right to gaze upon sin in his own home.
Now I have about as much time for paedophiles and kiddie porn lovers as I do for poisonous snakes. But a struggle for freedom is taking place in this country, which is already awash with so-called hate laws and human rights atrocities. And things are likely to get worse before they get better.
Your demented rulers are even now planning more draconian measures on alleged hate literature, or what pressure groups like the Canadian Jewish Congress and leftist politicians like Ujjal Dosanjh choose to see as hate literature.
Draft legislation is in the making that would render the mere possession of "hate literature" a crime. It is part of an omnibus bill to be introduced in Parliament.
It has all been done on carpet slippers and we probably wouldn't know anything about it at all if the National Post hadn't run a story on it a couple of months ago. Unsurprisingly, little rage has been expressed about it in the rest of the media, who are inclined to catnap over such things until they are hit over the head with them.
In contrast to that, they are screaming that Justice Shaw's decision favoring freedom to look at pictures should be overturned. They don't understand that if mere possession of one sort of literature can become illegal, so can others. Like alleged hate literature. For who decides what hate literature is? For the most part, those who don't like what someone else is saying.
It gets worse. It is proposed that truth will be no defence, just like in B.C.'s anti-democratic human rights laws. Constable Pokenose will be authorized to enter your home and seize the hard drive of your computer if the narks and snoops of the anti-free speech movement denounce you.
Is there any difference between entering a home and seizing a hard drive and seizing books and magazines? Or letters? If the one thing is approved can the others be far behind?
We are developing a culture of conformity.
The dangers of this plan to make us all go baa on cue, like Dolly the cloned sheep, go beyond anything we have seen yet. Declaring that truth is no defence is an outrageous denial of justice.
It is aimed right at anyone (like me) who disputes the six million Holocaust figure, or indeed anything else that is part of the official, Jewish-approved version of what happened during the war.
What we have not had in Canada, you see, but what several European countries do have, thanks to gutless politicians, are laws that make it a criminal offence to question official history of that sort.
State-approved history of that kind may be just around the corner for us. Use the other at your peril.
The attorneys general who got together to bake this new cake - led by our very own Ujjal Dosanjh - were unanimous in saying that it tasted good. They would bring about the same official history law in Canada without being stating so in so many words.
The scope of the omnibus bill is as wide as a barn door and also harbors a strange contradiction.
Critics of Justice Shaw's decision want mere possession of kiddie porn to be a criminal offence, as we have seen. But if the omnibus bill goes through it will probably become a crime to denounce homosexuality, because "sexual orientation" is to be protected under the new hate laws.
So in gaining a point against the Sharpes, opponents of sodomy and kiddie porn may find they are on the criminal court griddle themselves, simply for their views.
To repeat. I'm for Justice Shaw. He knows what is at stake.
Yes, this judge knows. Doug Collins knows. The National Post knows. The North Shore News knows. Doug Christie knows. Ernst Zundel knows. And more, no doubt, will find out.
Here is the latest to help them find out. When you think you have seen it all, there comes a new "surprise", courtesy of yet another friendly Canadian Chosenite censor:
VANCOUVER - British Columbia's Human Rights tribunal ruled Wednesday a controversial columnist violated the province's human rights code and must pay compensation.
Doug Collins faced complaints over four articles he wrote about the Holocaust and Jews. He wrote the pieces for the newspaper the North Shore News in 1994.
The tribunal ruled those columns, taken together, were likely to expose Jews to hatred or contempt.
Collins and the paper have been ordered to pay the person who launched the complaint, Harry Abrams, $2,000 in compensation.
Collins had been brought before the tribunal over one of these articles already. In 1997 the Canadian Jewish Congress complained to the then Human Rights Council over a March 1994 opinion column, Hollywood propaganda.
The complaints were dismissed when the tribunal found that the article, on its own, did not directly express hatred or contempt against Jewish people.
The "Abrams" BC Human Rights Tribunal written decision may be accessed at:
WebPosted Wed Feb 3 20:15:58 1999 | CBC Radio Network
For those who are new to this "Human Rights" circus, here's how it works: If, at first, you don't succeed - try, try again!
Doug Collins and his paper won the first round, at the cost of a quarter million dollars.
Promptly he was charged again. For the ***same*** column. Plus three or four others.
Promptly he informed the censors that he had had it - up his nose! They could have their follow-up trial without him.
Which they did. Not much of that second trial reached the Canadian papers.
So now Doug Collins is "convicted".
So now B'nai Brith's Harry Abrams has found a way to pocket a hefty $2,000 - money he does not deserve. Reward for denying Doug Collins his constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression.
Watch for developments.
As "Lizard", one of the most visible Jews in the fight-censorship group observes quite correctly:
"It seems to me that groups like the 'Human Rights Tribunal' are the ones doing the most to promote anti-Semitism, by ***embodying*** the worst stereotypes about Jews."
Thought for the Day:
"But here on the Left Coast, human rights "r" us."
(Paul Sullivan of the Globe and Mail, Jan 16, 1999)
Back to Table of Contents of the Feb. 1999 ZGrams