Hey! Look! We have fans!
Red Watch CanadaThe Reason Why i created this blog. To Expose Communism and Anarchism. Well, look at here ''Anti Racist Canada'' Notice The picture, It is V from the Famous motion picture V for Vendetta, a Fairy Tale motion picture about overthrowing the ''fascist'' government in Britain in the future. V promoted Anarchism. '' People Shouldnt Be Afraid Of there Governments, Governments Should Be afraid of there people'' Well Well a ''ANTI RACIST'' Site, with the main picture promoting anarchism. This Blog, Tracks people , groups FREE SPEACH, and are against law enforcment. anyone visiting this blog im sure has been to this one as well. Hey, if i was that ugly i would hide behind a screen and a mask for that matter. This site is nothing more but commies/anarchist's succeding at getting the general public on there side, But please DONT be fooled any more. ANTI RACIST CANADA IS VERY VERY Communist/Anarchist.Actually
"V For Vendetta" is based on the brilliant 10 part series, later made into a graphic novel, by Alan Moore. Moore wrote "V For Vendetta" in response to the election and policies of Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives. We especially liked this description contained in the theme of "Anarchism versus fascism":
V's tactic of humiliating and ridiculing the fascist regime to destabilize it is like the ideas of the Situationists. In issue #8, the phase between fascism and anarchy is called Verwirrung, a German word meaning "confusion", but used here as reference to The Illuminatus! Trilogy (Book One of the trilogy is so titled). It also may be a direct reference to Discordian philosophy in general, as many other aspects of the series (chaos, the creative arts, anarchism, and the obsession with the number "5") draw similar parallels. Sadly, our new fans aren't correct. None of us are communists and, despite our disappointment with the inaction of the police in some cases that we've covered, we actually are supportive of the authorities (a difference distinguishing us from some of our supporters but which doesn't preclude a fruitful and friendly working relationship).
And boys, if you're going to place us in the cross-hairs, you might want to consider running your rant through a spell and grammar check first. And your screen shoot is very
clumsily put together. Take some pride in your work, just don't splash any garbage on your blog. Really, you people need to pick up your game if you want to keep up with us.
From this we move on to the speechies. As most of our readers are aware of, Mr.
Ezra Levant, who has had some issues with human rights commissions, recently had a book released in which he takes these commissions, Richard Warman groups such as B'nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress to task. We'd like to share with our readers a fantastic review of Levant's,
Shakedown:
Here are a few parts:
Levant picks his targets inclusively if predictably, given his neoconservative leanings. His ultimate target is the whole concept of equality as a human right. Although he starts and ends with hate speech provisions in human rights codes, before he is done he has taken on both federal and provincial human rights commissions and tribunals, those who work for them, those who complain to them and those who support them. Within the bounds, one assumes, of the laws of libel, he settles grudges and scores with a long list of adversaries old and new, who parade through his pages in their assigned roles of dupes, rogues, buffoons and hypocrites.We're not sure if we'd make that assumption ourselves based on
past incidents, but we digress.
Shady characters with apparent radical or totalitarian sympathies appear as human rights complainants or even investigators. A restaurant is ordered to compensate a worker for discrimination on account of a disability after she has been let go because a medical condition makes it impossible for her to wash her hands as often as the health code requires. In another restaurant incident, a local layabout insists on exercising his legal dispensation to smoke medical marijuana by toking up at the front door of the establishment. This puts the owner in the impossible position of having to choose between being found guilty of discrimination on the one hand and driving away his customers and potentially losing his licence on the other.
These and similar tales of Keystone Kommissars are meant to support Levant’s argument to delegitimize human rights regimes. According to Levant, there was a time when human rights were worth fighting for, a time when racial prejudice and religious discrimination were real. But, he says, those days are gone. The battle has been won. Today we live in a tolerant cosmopolitan society in which human rights have become a weapon wielded by feckless claimants and cynical left-wing ideologues to advance personal or political agendas that in fact conflict with the “real,” still-valid fundamental rights underlying democracy, such as freedom of property and the freedom to say whatever one chooses. In this “shakedown,” the scheming antidemocratic conspirators are enabled by “useful idiots”—the investigators and adjudicators employed by human rights commissions and tribunals—and by the unprincipled politicians who support the entire ramshackle regime in order to curry favour with special interests. For Levant, human rights code provisions dealing with “hate messages,” such as those under which the Alberta complaint against him were made, are only the extreme manifestations of a human rights regime whose hallmark is a wanton disregard of individual rights in the name of political correctness.
There is a lot wrong with large swaths of this argument. Both at its widest point, with his claim of the obsolescence of the human right of equality in an age of tolerance triumphant, and at its narrowest point, with his allegation that the regulation of hate messages is nothing more than a craven concession to political correctness, Levant’s assertions simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
On his broad claim, Levant is hardly the first to allege that all meaningful battles against discrimination have been won and that claims currently being advanced are, in fact, nothing more than reprehensible assaults on basic civil liberties. A decade ago it was gays and lesbians, having had their sexual practices decriminalized, who were advancing the “bizarre” notions that spousal benefits and marital status should be extended to same-sex partners. Twenty years before that, women, having achieved legal equality with men, were making preposterous demands for preferential treatment when they voluntarily compromised their ability to continue with their employment by getting pregnant. Before that it was the Jews, fully protected from the excesses their co-religionists had suffered abroad, who were pushily trying to subvert property rights guaranteed in the Magna Carta itself by challenging property owners’ liberty to sell or not to sell to whomever they wished. As was the case in all previous instances, it seems a bit premature, not to say presumptuous, for Levant to unfurl his particular “Mission Accomplished” banner over the present social landscape.
Levant is also wrong on the other end of his argument, in which he solicits recruits to join with him in a campaign to delegitimize, as a pernicious attempt to enforce political correctness, “hate message” human rights provisions in general and section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in particular.
Section 13.1 deems it a discriminatory act to use the Canadian telecommunications system for the repeated dissemination of hate messages based on race, ethnicity and gender. It has been used effectively against hate-based websites, starting with Ernst Zundel’s notorious Zundelsite and, perhaps because of its successes, has increasingly become the focus of scrutiny by commentators spanning a broad range on the respectability meter as an alleged assault against expressive freedom.
As it happens, the Supreme Court of Canada examined section 13.1 two decades ago. In the course of finding that this provision does not violate the guarantee of freedom of expression contained in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, Chief Justice Brian Dickson, one of the heroes of Canadian civil liberties jurisprudence, made it exquisitely clear that section 13.1 cannot be used to suppress unpopular opinions or offensive speech. It is only applicable to messages truly preaching “hatred and contempt,” which he defined as meaning messages that arouse “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification” based on a portrayal that “allows for no redeeming qualities” in its target. This is a very narrow definition designed to apply to extreme speech that crosses the line into becoming a danger.
Anyone doubting that extreme speech can be dangerous has not studied much history, and anyone who believes that the marketplace of ideas is an adequate regulator to defuse such danger has not thought through the economics analogy. The invisible hand of an unregulated economic free market has shown itself capable in the long run of rewarding efficiency and suppressing inefficiency, but along the way populations have had to tolerate cyclical joblessness, occasional depressions and, in extreme cases, even famines, to “correct” erroneous choices and initiatives. Similarly, the marketplace of ideas did eventually reject the ideology of National Socialism, but only after its consequences of genocide and total war had demonstrated its practical “inadequacies.”
Finally, and in response to the rhetoric that the neo-Nazi movement is not threat, we submit this article for our dear reader's:
5/7/2009- A network of suspected far-right extremists with access to 300 weapons and 80 bombs has been uncovered by counter-terrorism detectives. Thirty-two people have been questioned in a police operation that raises the prospect of a right-wing bombing campaign against mosques. Police are said to have recovered a British National party membership card and other right-wing literature during a raid on the home of one suspect charged under the Terrorism Act. In England’s largest seizure of a suspected terrorist arsenal since the IRA mainland bombings of the early 1990s, rocket launchers, grenades, pipe bombs and dozens of firearms have been recovered in the past six weeks during raids on more than 20 properties. Several people have been charged and more arrests are imminent. Current police activity is linked to arrests in Europe, New Zealand and Australia. Police are examining allegations that many of the guns were manufactured or reactivated, then sold over the internet to viewers of a right-wing website. Details of the previously secret operation were disclosed by Sir Norman Bettison, the chief constable of West Yorkshire, to security officials. Police sources say that in a recent case not linked to the current arrests, detectives seized maps and plans of mosques from the homes of suspected far-right supporters. A senior Whitehall official said MI5 was monitoring the police investigation. While the security agency did not have a brief to probe right-wing terrorism, that position was constantly under review, said the official. Fears have been heightened by the discovery of an alleged plot involving ricin, a lethal poison; two men have been been charged with offences under the Terrorism Act. Concerns that this might be part of a global trend have been reinforced by the case of James Von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist charged with shooting dead a security guard at the Holocaust museum in America last month. Bettison said 32 people had been arrested in the investigation, although the counter-terrorism unit in Leeds said this figure was in fact the number of people questioned. At least 22 properties have been searched. The operation had thrown up evidence that suspects were communicating online. “The internet gives it reach and scope,” said Bettison. “The big bad wolf is still the Al- Qaeda threat. But my people are knocking over right-wing extremists quite regularly. We are interdicting it so that it doesn’t first emerge into the public eye out of a critical incident like an explosion.” Several alleged right-wing extremists have been charged with terrorism offences in the UK in the past year. In one case, a jury convicted Martyn Gilleard, 31, a neo-Nazi forklift truck driver, who wanted to “secure a future for white children” and kept explosives at his flat in Goole, East Yorkshire. He built small hand-held bombs, and among the material seized were membership cards for the National Front, the British People’s party and the White Nationalist party. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison. In 1999, David Copeland, the so-called London nail bomber, carried out a campaign against black, Asian and gay communities. His home-made devices each included up to 1,500 4in nails. In his final attack Copeland killed three people, including a pregnant woman, after nail bombing a Soho pub. He got a life sentence for murder. Far-right parties across Europe are growing in popularity. In last month’s European elections, the BNP won two seats for the first time in Yorkshire and the northwest and took 6.2% of the national vote. The Times Online
