Lugh

Canada is given short shrift by most Traditonalist and conservative writers. Yet despite the relatively small role Canada plays in the worldwide power nexus, it lends itself to interesting case studies for right-wing Western commentators should they learn to take this small but politically intriguing country seriously.

Readers of Alternative Right will undoubtedly remember the controversy surrounding Anne Coulters prospective visit and speech to Canadian university students, where she was warned beforehand about a possible arrest should she say something that contravened “Canadian Speech Laws.” Unfortunately, a public admission that such “speech laws” exist did little to spark a debate on the nature of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nor did it provide the impetus to question and/or analyze the nature and limitations of federal and provincial authority, or even the merits of free speech itself. In fact, the average Canadian seemed hardly bothered by the notion of a speech law, although they were perhaps aghast (momentarily) to learn that the Canadian project does not include an emphasis or focus on freedom.

However, if Canadians were to look closely, or at all, at their Charter of Rights and Freedom they would discover section 2(b), which explicitly designates freedom of expression and opinion as a right for all Canadians.

However, what has consistently remains glossed over by marginal right-wing commentators in Canada is the provision in Section 1 in the Charter which states,

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The disconcerting aspect of such a proclamation is that the vagueness of “subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” exposes Canadian “citizens” to arbitrary state rulings regarding what is and is not acceptable speech. The root of the problem lies in the definition of what is “reasonable” as this is a consideration whose contextual meaning also changes depending on the overarching goal of any, but in this case Canadian, society. Should one express a truth or even an opinion that sheds light on the dubious nature of the Canadian project, or exposes any inherent contradictions in it, one is liable to have his freedom of speech restricted regardless of the veracity of ones opinion, as long as this restriction is considered “reasonable.”

In other words, Canada has lawfully inscribed limits to any freedoms in the Charter if the restrictions of these freedoms are deemed justifiable in a “free” society. Personally, I choose to read the charter in this way:

Our self-proclaimed “free society” can and will restrict your freedoms if need be in order to better facilitate our social-engineering project. Even though what makes us a free society is that our society is composed of citizens who are free, if we restrict your freedoms, we are still a free society.

This of course begs the question—how free are we really?

MONTREAL — The Conservative government moved to allay concerns among ethnic groups Friday that their job prospects could be diminished by a move to eliminate an affirmative-action policy in the federal public service.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney held a late-afternoon conference call in which he fielded a battery of questions from ethnic media about the implications of a federal policy shift.

The government announced this week that it would review federal hiring policies and said it planned to scrap a practice where some jobs are reserved for minorities.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada estimates that such an exclusive policy applies to less than two-tenths of one percentage point of all federal jobs -- or 91 of the 5,000 posted in 2008.

Kenney assured reporters from different community media outlets that broader efforts to encourage minority hiring would otherwise continue.

"There's been some misunderstanding that we're somehow ending or questioning or throwing into doubt the broader affirmative-action program," Kenney said.

"That is not the case. We are merely encouraging the public-sector employers to ensure the principle of equality of opportunity."

~CTV News

 Healthy societies concern themselves with quality and recognize and reward their best citizens. Unfortunately, by doing the exact opposite, duplicitous Western society seems bent on undermining its own efficiency and effectiveness in an attempt to achieve a “just and equitable society.” Instead of focusing on hiring individuals based on education, skill set, and experience, the 410 federally regulated employers -- “private sector employers” that fall under federal jurisdiction -- and employers and contractors certified under the “Federal Contractors Programs” (which unsurprisingly includes many of the major universities in Canada) are encouraged to:

analyze their organizational practices to determine whether designated groups are underrepresented, and develop employment equity plans to lay out remedial policies where needed. A finding that certain groups are underrepresented should lead to the use of short term numerical goals for the hiring and promotion of persons in designated groups in order to increase their representation in each occupational group in the workforce.<<

In order to achieve this quantifiable goal of universal mediocrity, Canada implemented its own federally regulated version of Affirmative Action under the auspices of the Employment Equity Act, which specifically states that:

The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.

And in case their should be any doubt the act also states that:

“[M]embers of visible minorities” means persons, other than aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour…”

This act, in conjunction with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provides the legal backdrop against which it may become the norm (has it already?) for the federal government and their related employers to discriminate against people of European descent, especially males, in an attempt to increase the workplace representation of “historically marginalized” groups.

The Federal government has been pursuing an obviously anti-White and discriminatory policy in its hiring processes for certain jobs, and yet few Canadians seem to care. I am led to wonder what reaction we could have expected had it been reported that the government had been reserving 91 of 5000 federal jobs specifically for White males?