[Click here for more information]
Freedom of speech is not just important - it is, in fact, the foundation of an open and free society. In Canada, however, as in other countries in the Western World, this and other basic freedoms are under attack under the pretext of protecting and promoting human rights.
Join us in Ottawa December 7 as we survey Canada's historic commitment to individual liberty and how current government practices conflict with that proud tradition. Learn how, by suppressing free speech, human rights laws are actually undermining human rights in Canada and abroad. Examine the prospects for reversing the tide and learn from the experts what you can do to help.
Speakers include:
Brian Lee Crowley - Past President and Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and author of the new book Fearful Symmetry - The Rise and Fall of Canada's Founding Values Barbara Kay - National Post columnist Peter Stockland - Former editor of the Montreal Gazette and currently Executive Director of the Centre for Cultural Renewal Karen Selick - Senior Counsel at the Canadian Constitution Foundation Joseph C. Ben-Ami - President of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies Bjorn Larsen - President of the International Free Press Society - Canada John Robson - Radio commentator and Ottawa Citizen columnist Richard Bastien - Director of the National Capital chapter of the Catholic Civil Rights League and member of the board of CIVITAS Gerry Nicholls - Former Senior Executive with the National Citizens Coalition and publisher of LibertasPost.ca
and many more distinguished panelists - including MPs and policy-makers...
It may be the silly season in politics. But how much attention can adults reasonably give to the possibility that the NDP might consider a name change because they're not new any more? Lots, apparently, if they're pundits. My favourite thus far is the Globe and Mail's lead editorial (no, really) on August 5, which concludes sonorously that "The CCF-NDP has earned a place in Canadian politics, but would do better with a name that suggests a good balance between pragmatism and principle." Yeah, they could be the Pragmatic Principled Party or "Flexies". Incidentally one point universally missed by the press, which is weird since it's purely a press concern, is that the reason there is no nickname for the NDP is that "NDP" fits into a one-column headline (unlike "Conservatives" or "Liberals" but exactly like "Tories" and "Grits"). My own suggestion is safe because they'd become the PPP. But if the party chooses something new, pompous, ponderous and long, which they easily might, they'll get stuck by us media types with a short nickname in short order and who knows, it might be an unkind one. If only there was something suitable besides "New" that started with an "N" so they could stay with NDP.
With the Ontario government hurling public money hither and yon "picking winners", the Ottawa Citizen reports complaints that the program is... not sufficiently geographcially balanced. The money is going to southwest Ontario including the dreaded Toronto and not to Ottawa. How can we be spending our time on such issues? I may have to give up reading Premier Dalton McGuinty's words to avoid grinding my teeth to nubbins. He responded to this criticism with an absolutely predictable burst of oleaginous blather, at once ingratiating, insubstantial and utterly useless: "I have great faith in our ability in Ottawa — as you know, it’s my hometown — for us to recover from a very difficult period which is affecting every Ontario community. The Nortel loss, in particular, was a heavy blow. I don’t think anybody would argue with that. But I’m convinced given our talent base there — you know, we’ve got two universities, colleges — that we have the foundation for new growth.”
Apart from its other disagreeable qualities, this response takes no account whatsoever of a new poll also reported in Saturday's Citizen showing that Canadians do not trust the federal government to meet its budget projections and that 88 per cent of respondents want governments to cut spending rather than raise taxes to meet such targets. Maybe he knows there's no longer any effective way for us to make our wishes felt in official circles. But in that case couldn't he just limit himself to smirking and spare us this ghastly rhetoric?