Is the Scottish cabinet secretary for Justice’s bill on “hate speech” totalitarian?

The answer to this question lies in a thoughtful article by Dr. Mathieu-Bock Côté published today in the Journal de Montréal, and entitled “Scotland and the thought police” [“L’Écosse et la police de la pensée”]:

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2020/11/07/lecosse-et-la-police-de-la-pensee

Below is quick translation for you:

let’s keep an eye on Scottish news. Because at the rate that ideas are circulating today, especially the worst ones, the strange debate Scotland is going through at the moment should worry us.

Hatred

Humza Yousaf is the Scottish Minister for Justice. And he has embarked on a fight against “hate speech” by proposing a very ambitious bill, the “Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill”.

We know that any criticism of progressive ideology has the potential to fall into the category of hate speech. Nothing is more free today than accusations of racism, sexism, Islamophobia or transphobia.

With this in mind, Humza Yousaf intends to control private conversations in homes.

His theory?

Why should what is forbidden in the gallery, restaurant or pub be allowed in a private home?

Shouldn’t virtue reign everywhere? The new inquisition, to be effective, must it not enter homes? The home is no longer sacred.

Humza Yousaf thus intends to create the conditions for a generalized denunciation of private conversations which could offend the sensibilities of groups deemed to be minority by the dominant ideology.

Don’t you reproduce the orthodoxy of the regime in your private conversations? We can denounce you.

Stasi

Be afraid of your guests who might misreport your words if they misunderstand, distort, or dislike them.

Fear your children socialized in a school system which pushes to see microaggressions everywhere.

In the name of the fight against hatred, we will even come to hunt down ulterior motives. It is already being done in the corporate world, through the famous implicit association tests that claim to detect your unconscious prejudices.

All of this is reminiscent of East Germany and the Stasi. I do not think I am exaggerating in saying that. The fight against “hate speech” is the new mask of totalitarianism.”

Even after his chat with Mr. Macron, Trudeau still does not name Islamism. What does this say?

If you read this official statement, you understand between its lines, that Mr. Trudeau is letting down France, freedom of speech, and with it all the innocent populations in Europe and the Middle East (+ South Asia) aspiring for safety and the freedom to be/remain free. Why is Bambi saying this? Because of all the platitude in his statement. We can read about his concern for the fight for climate change even :), but… not the topic of the day, that is the fight against Islamist forces!

Isn’t it this sad given the recent tragedies not just in France, but also Austria and Afghanistan (i.e. in Kabul University)?

https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/readouts/2020/11/05/prime-minister-justin-trudeau-speaks-president-france-emmanuel-macron

In contrast to our PM, Mr. Aoun, Lebanon’s President, courageously stood up for France, in his personal name and in the name of Lebanon, against Islamist terrorism (Bambi thanked him in an earlier post).

Note that he is the President of a country with a large proportion of Muslims.

He is even aligned with an Islamist party (Hezbollah), who was vocal about the cartoons and against Mr. Macron.

He also has some Islamist dormant (sometimes not that dormant) forces in his tiny country. Mr. Erdogan is agitating them against France. They even criticized the President for speaking as he did.

How ironic that the President of tiny Lebanon showed more dignity (and courage) in his position than our own Mr. Trudeau who clearly is in less danger.

Not only Mr. Trudeau did not defend free speech in Canada. With his silence about Islamism and his choice of words, he seems to be choosing his side. It is not the side we would have expected from Canada.

Mr. Christian Rioux (Le Devoir) & Mr. Mario Dumont (Journal de Montréal) analyze the American votes thus far

The United States of America are divided in a dramatic way.

It is not just for economic reasons.

It is also and perhaps more so for cultural reasons (or visions) of the world.

Hopefully, their new Presidents, now and the ones in the years to come, will be skilled in uniting their country.

To do so, they must know how to govern for all the Americans, that is especially for those who did/do not vote for them.

Anyhow, Bambi loves the USA from the bottom of her heart. She wishes our neighbours the best. If they are doing well as a country, we would all be doing well with them, whether we admit or like it… or not.

When writing the above, Bambi is thinking of Canada, of the Western world by extension, and of tiny Lebanon whose fate depends much on the external policy of the future administration, especially with Iran, the big master of the Lebanese Hezbollah. The latter, along with the endemic corruption, have hijacked tiny bankrupt yet beautiful Lebanon.

It is that policy that would be key for Lebanon, whether led by Mr. Biden’s or by Mr. Trump’s administration… or by anyone else.

This being said, below you can find a quick translation of the two articles in question.

The thoughtful analyses of these journalists overlap, as you will see.

Let’s start with Mr. Rioux’ article first. It is entitled “Blindeness” [“Aveuglément”]:

https://www.ledevoir.com/opinion/chroniques/589257/l-aveuglement

“No one believed it in the fall of 2016. The Republicans had given themselves the most atypical candidate in recent American history. This vulgar, rough-hewn man couldn’t take her to the top tier of progressive, feminist, and globalized East Coast elites that Hillary Clinton represented. And yet, the impossible happened. Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States!

For a moment, these same elites wondered. The prestigious New York Times even went so far as to wonder what it had missed. Perhaps, from the skyscrapers of New York, Portland and San Francisco, weren’t you seeing exactly what was going on in the deep country? Like the children at New Year’s Eve, we therefore made resolutions. The New York Times even went so far as to hire centrist columnist Bari Weiss from the Wall Street Journal. She has since resigned!

For the denial immediately regained its rights. In the faculties, long theses were written that were as poignant as they were smoky, explaining that Donald Trump was nothing more and nothing less than Mussolini’s reincarnation. For four years, the well-meaning left repeated until more thirstily in all the stands that this monster had no legitimacy to govern and therefore had to be deposed. In short, that 2016 had only been an electoral accident.

Moreover, the 2020 election would be a shining demonstration of this. We would see what we would see. The Democratic sweep was underway. Happy globalization would resume its course as if nothing had happened. All the press and the biggest pollsters were convinced of this.

Tuesday evening at around 11 a.m., when it was learned that Donald Trump had just won Florida, this huge castle, carefully built for four years, collapsed. Because reality is stubborn. It took four years of denial to demonstrate that 2016 was not an accident.

Basically, whoever the president takes the oath on January 20, the election will have been played out of pocket handkerchiefs. In a way, Republicans are coming out even stronger in this historic voter turnout. Not only are they retaining the Senate and Supreme Court, but the Democratic majority is weakened in Congress.

Above all, it will be necessary to explain by what mystery a president who has been called a “white supremacist” for four years was able to increase his vote in all layers of the population, except … among white men! Not only did Donald Trump get more of the Hispanic vote in Florida and Texas, but more African Americans voted for him than in 2016.

No doubt some will repeat what a paternalistic left once said about these “insane” workers who were unconscious of voting for capitalist parties. Rather than admitting that, even outraged by the disgusting murder of George Floyd, many black voters do not share a racist ideology, that they have nothing to do with the “defamation” of the police, and that they enjoyed even less the long weeks of riots that set their neighborhoods on fire and bloodshed.

It seems indeed that the openly clientelist strategy adopted by the Democrats as well as the choice of Kamala Harris as candidate for the vice-presidency have not stood up to the economic results of recent years, which have benefited the poorest, among others. which there are many blacks. By signing the First Step Act, a bipartisan bill, Trump has also helped ease the sentences of many black offenders who populate American jails.

That doesn’t make Donald Trump a saint, let alone the greatest president of the United States, far from it. His astonishing statements on election night reduce politics to a power struggle. But that does not prevent him from being a candidate in whom half of the American population – including those strata that have suffered most from deindustrialisation and who do not identify with the societal reforms of the Democrats – can legitimately identify with.

This election bears witness above all to the monumental failure of the American elites. A blindness that has a lot to do with the contempt in which the new graduate elites hold those portions of the population that do not participate in the knowledge economy and that the British political scientist David Goodhart describes in his last essay (Head, hand, heart, The arenas).

Ever since the university youth replaced the old working-class base in the left-wing parties, one has the impression that these ugly, dirty and wicked people no longer have the right to exist. As if four years of blindness were not enough, we see a proliferation in the press of paternalistic sermons which teach 48% of American voters. Who for their racism, who for their sexism, who for their homophobia.

Ironically, these sad sires resemble that character of Bertold Bretch who, from the top of his ivory tower, wondered whether it would not be “easier … to dissolve the people and elect another”.”

End of Mr. Rioux’ article for Le Devoir.

Now, Bambi will present a quick translation of Mr. Mario Dumont’s article, published in the Journal de Montréal, entitled “Distrustful Latinos” [“Les Latinos méfiants”]:

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2020/11/06/les-latinos-mefiants

Donald Trump’s convincing victory in Florida was directly linked to the Hispanic vote. Many Latinos are extremely suspicious of the Democratic Party, because of the presence of more radical left elements in it.

It was primarily Cubans and Venezuelans who largely voted for the Republican candidate. The least we can say is that we are talking about citizens who have a “privileged” relationship with everything that calls itself the radical left.

For half a century, Cubans have lived through a Castro-style communist dictatorship. Little freedom, no free access to information, a life in poverty and rationing.

The reality is not always easy for them in the United States, but no one wants to return to live in Cuba.

Now imagine the Venezuelans who have tasted Hugo Chavez. The coups, famine, unavailable drugs, a regime of terror in a country in permanent crisis.

Nationals of this country who are fortunate enough to live in the United States are grateful.

They misunderstand?

What bothers me is the analysis done in most media of their vote.

It seems to be insinuating that they were wrong in voting Republican, but that they should be forgiven given the circumstances in their country of origin. They would be voters a little less enlightened since traumatized.

Can I claim the opposite? In terms of mistrust of the touting speeches of the radical left, we could well see these Latinos as particularly competent and lucid people.

Their life experience, the damage experienced by their families, are they not concrete realities that illustrate the dangers associated with revolutionary movements on the left?

Cubans and Venezuelans have heard the beautiful promises: “social justice”, a better world when the working class has crushed the economic profiteers and the big companies.

Then they experienced the deprivation of liberty and economic misery. The apprehensions of those who have lived through this misery should be understood as a life experience rather than as a political deviation.

Not with a 100-foot pole!

I understand that Joe Biden has nothing to do with Fidel Castro and that the more extreme minority in the Democratic Party will not bring the United States into socialism. Not at all.

But I note that those who have known leftist revolutions closely do not want to know anything.

To the point of rejecting from the outset a party that houses a minority wing of socialists.

Their opinion is worth at least as much as that of thousands of pseudo-intellectual professors who tout campus socialism while enjoying the comforts of life in the United States.

As much as that of the media which rightly denounce the far right, but with a smirk come to terms with the excesses of the far left.

This time, the alternative choice of a Cuban from Florida was Trump.”

The guy who has proven to us again with his behaviour of the last 24 hours that he is no match for a leader.

But they will have chosen what is the least worse for them.”

Canada-France: Bambi is (still) disappointed and ashamed of Mr. Trudeau…

Whether he fully realizes it or not, his words on the “limits of freedom of expression” have…

Aligned us with radicalism over freedom of expression.

Seemed to align us with Turkey’s Neo Sultan, Mr. Erdogan, over France’s President, Mr. Macron.

Aligned us with Islamists over Muslims (the moderate silent majority!) in the Arab world and South Asia.

Put French resources and interests in the world at risk.

Put Mr. Macron’s safety in Lebanon a risk.

Put Lebanon at risk, undermining France’s efforts to support the Lebanese people.

Aligned us with stupidity and terror over freedom of expression.

Seemed to further align us with this collective craziness of our times, called political correctness, that the tyrants of our world know how to instrumentalize.

Lately, Mr. Macron thanked Mr. Legault for his position. He did not thank our Canadian PM. Can you imagine? This tells us something about Mr. Trudeau’s misjudgment.

Bambi hopes that it is not too late to correct his position in his phone chat with Mr. Macron… and hopefully be sincere about it.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-slated-to-speak-with-macron-amid-furor-over-his-response-to-attacks-in-france-1.5176294

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lapresse.ca%2Factualites%2Fpolitique%2F2020-11-05%2Fliberte-d-expression%2Fblanchet-invite-trudeau-a-presenter-des-excuses-a-macron.php

Why can’t Mr. Trudeau respect Québec, namely its Bill 21 on the state’s secularism?

Bill 21 came after 10 years of public debate in Québec about reasonable accommodations.

Bill 21 is moderate, compared to other bills in secular countries in Europe.

Bill 21 is mainly about public servants in positions of authority, including all the following:

the President and Vice-Presidents of the National Assembly, administrative justices of the peace, special clerks, clerks, deputy clerks, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, clerks and deputy clerks respecting municipal courts, and bankruptcy registrars, members or commissioners who exercise their functions within the Comité de déontologie policière, the Commission d’accès à l’information, the Commission de la fonction publique, the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec, the Commission des transports du Québec, the Commission municipale du Québec, the Commission québécoise des libérations conditionnelles, the Régie de l’énergie, the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux, the Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires du Québec, the Régie du bâtiment du Québec, the Régie du logement, the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal, the Administrative Tribunal of Québec or the Administrative Labour Tribunal, as well as disciplinary council chairs who exercise their functions within the Bureau des présidents des conseils de discipline, commissioners appointed by the Government under the Act respecting public inquiry commissions, and lawyers or notaries acting for such a commission, arbitrators appointed by the Minister of Labour whose name appears on a list drawn up by that minister in accordance with the Labour Code, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, and persons who exercise the function of lawyer, notary or criminal and penal prosecuting attorney and who are under the authority of a government department, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, the National Assembly, a person appointed or designated by the National Assembly to an office under its authority (or a body referred to in paragraph 3 of the bill), persons who exercise the function of lawyer and are employed by a prosecutor (Code of Penal Procedure), unless the prosecutor are persons acting in criminal or penal matters for such a prosecutor before the courts or with third persons, lawyers or notaries acting before the courts or with third persons in accordance with a legal services contract entered into with a minister, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, the National Assembly, a person appointed or designated by the National Assembly to exercise a function under its authority (or a body referred to in paragraph 3 of the bill), or lawyers acting in criminal or penal matters before the courts or with third persons in accordance with a legal services contract entered into with a prosecutor, peace officers who exercise their functions mainly in Québec; and principals, vice principals and teachers of educational institutions under the jurisdiction of a school board established under the Education Act or of the Commission scolaire du Littoral established by the Act respecting the Commission scolaire du Littoral.”

Bill 21 includes a “grandfather” clause, which allows existing public servants to keep serving.

Bill 21 also has a section on the necessity to have one’s face uncovered whilst receiving public services for safety concerns.

Here is Mr. Legault explaining this bill (video taken from the Government of Québec website):

Bambi has posted extensively on this bill in the past. When she started thinking about it, she saw the logic behind having police officers and judges representing the state not showing any religious symbol whilst on duty. It took her more time to understand the inclusion of teachers. It surely did not take her much time to respect the will of the majority of the population of Québec (thank you Mr. Legault for the bill).

Why can’t Mr. Trudeau respect Québec? Is it too much to expect from him?

Bambi finds it sad that his government is funding and leading the legal challenge of this bill.

Wasn’t it enough to impose the Canadian Constitution on Québec in 1982 (by Mr. Trudeau—his dad)? Québec did not even sign it.

Why are we imposing the multicultural vision of secularism on Québec? Why can’t we accept its own approach to secularism? This would respect its history, culture… thus its spirit!

As for Mr. Legault, to be fully congruent, when will the government stop funding private religious schools in his province? There is a contradiction between public institutions and the reality of private, religious schools in Québec?

Now, concerning all the media in English-Canada and the propaganda machine of the French CBC (Radio-Canada) and English CBC about this topic, it is getting ridiculous.

What is extremely odd for Bambi is to hear young women in Québec featured in those articles telling us that the “hijab” is a symbol of freedom and empowerment. Wow!

Did those young women forget about their peers forced to wear the hijab in their birth countries? By whom? By Islamist forces?

Of course, when you are an adult in a free society, like ours, choosing to wear whatever you wish, including a hijab and even a burqa, it is one thing. However, when you are threatened or literally killed if you do not do so, it is another story.

If you are an adult, chances are you know what you are doing. You are free to wear what you want. However, if you are a child who has not even reached puberty, the hijab is not a symbol of empowerment, but rather of a potential sign of authoritarian parenting or even abuse.

Anyhow, the above thoughts do not apply to Bill 21.

Bill 21 is about the state’s secularism, period.

Below, you can watch a few women expressing their disagreement with this bill. The video is called: “Me and my hijab”. It comes from a 2019 Montreal Gazette article. Of course, these women are free to think what they want… Bambi is also free to still think that the video of Mr. Legault above, explaining bill 21, makes much more sense to her logic than their words, especially when they talk about “prejudice” against them in Québec because of their hijab.

Bambi has lived in Québec for 15 years. This society is one of the most welcoming in the world!

This society also knows how to stand up for its language, culture, and values (of secularism, in this case). For that, Bambi has the utmost respect.

Yes, there will always be some individuals who may feel excluded or think it is unfair. Sorry for them. Luckily, they can work in the private sector. At the end of the day, as needed, a society has all the right to chose to live as it wishes.

This must be respected by all citizens, that is including Mr. Trudeau himself.

Mr. Joseph Facal: “Justin Trudeau, hate maker” [“Justin Trudeau, fabricant de haine”]

Bambi will spare you her long blahblahblah and quickly share the following thoughtful article by Mr. Joseph Facal about Mr. Justin Trudeau, published today in the Journal de Montréal:

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2020/11/03/justin-trudeau-fabricant-de-haine

Before she does so, she will just allow herself to cite a sarcastic yet brilliant relative who has always said the following: “The only group we are allowed to hate in Canada is French-Canadians“. She always used to reply something like: “Come on, aren’t you exaggerating a little bit here? However, in all honesty and VERY sadly, she is now starting to agree with this statement.

Now, in your own turn, if you think she is exaggerating, just tour the mainstream media titles, no need to read the whole articles of all newspapers. You can spare your time since all the titles are the exact same ones (is this normal, by the way?). Try also to listen to Mr.Trudeau, especially in French and particularly whilst campaigning, or read about the consequences of his politics and you can perhaps see what she is talking about.

Even odd racial (and racist) ideologies of so-called “whiteness” dilute French-Canadians by amalgamating them with English-Canadians, totally ignoring their history, culture, and… genes :).

___

“There was a time when the “social sciences” were serious. Hard to believe, eh?

This was before it became hijacked by ideologists.

At that time, a key concept in sociology was that of “perverse effects”: it refers to the negative outcome of what initially seems good intention.

In short, when you examine a policy or a politician, you have to look at the concrete consequences and not the beautiful speech.

Dangerous

Take Justin Trudeau, our world champion for anti-racism and tolerance.

In fact, this man fabricates hatred.

I’ll give you three examples.

This week, the Superior Court begins examining the challenge to Bill 21 on secularism.

Look at the list of the 18 parties who are challenging the law.

Along with Ichrak Nourel Hak, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the World Sikh Organization, a bunch of English-speaking groups, we find … the federal government and its endless resources.

All of these people, supported by Justin Trudeau, oppose a law democratically voted by elected officials in Québec and supported by a strong majority here.

Trudeau passes secularism as a vector of xenophobia, segregation, Islamophobia.

And are we surprised that Québecers are tense?

Trudeau manufactures hatred.

Ottawa just announced its target of 1.2 million immigrants over the next three years.

Next year’s 401,000 immigrants would be a historic record.

If the Legault government let this happen, we would have 91,000 immigrants in Québec next year whilst we are not be able to integrate 50,000.

As René Lévesque wrote in 1970, when a spade was called a spade:

We created an Immigration Ministry. The other in Ottawa, for whom we are paying, has the right to continue to drown us, it is it who has the power. But we have one in Québec to record the drowning“.

Trudeau often looks foolish, but he works actively, fiercely, conscientiously against French Québec.

And are we surprised that Québecers are tense?

Trudeau manufactures hatred.

Take the latest attacks in France.

Trudeau kneels for eight minutes to mark the death of George Floyd, but doesn’t even dare to say the word “Islamist”.

He does not dare defend a teacher’s freedom to teach difficult subjects.

He shoots Muslims who refuse to be silent and who, risking their lives, denounce the harm that Allah’s madmen do to their community, in the back.

As Maka Kotto wrote, “Islamists know who to vote for in Canada”.

Stupidity

See his justification for the limits on free speech that one does not shout “Fire!” in a cinema… as if this cry were an opinion.

I understand how tempting it is to laugh at a man who says such stupid things.

But we must, as I said at the very beginning, look at the concrete consequences of his positions.

When a country is ruled by an irresponsible blaster, how can we be surprised that so many Québecers are tense up?

Yes, this man, who calls himself for virtue, is a maker of hatred”.

Islamists, hands off Austria… and Europe!

At least one dead person and 15 injured…

When will this senseless violence stop?!!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/nov/03/vienna-austria-synagogue-terror-attack-police-live-updates

https://www.dw.com/en/austria-terror-attack-multiple-casualties-after-shooting-near-vienna-synagogue/a-55478882

Well said, Mr. Macron (in German and French) and Mr. Blanchet!

Are Islamists reading? Will they listen?

Mr. Trudeau, how does your example of screaming fire fire in a movie theatre apply here? Do you see now that it was irrelevant?

Of course, as a sensitive human being and a devoted dad, you do not like to see innocent people suffering.

So, please name the elephant in the big room of Europe and be firm with Islamists.

Islamists do not understand the language of kindness. They perceive it as weakness. Please be courageous and unite with Mr. Macron in his fight for our security and freedom.

Merci/Thank you for re-considering your position!

Luckily, there is Québec in our Canada and world to defend freedom of speech, like France and contrary to Mr. Trudeau!


Below, you can read that Mr. Legault said the following today:

We cannot accuse people who have made cartoons of justifying violence in this way. I really totally disagree with Mr. Trudeau, we have to protect freedom of expression”.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2020/11/02/liberte-dexpression-legault-totalement-en-desaccord-avec-trudeau

Here is a quick reaction by journalist and sociologist, Dr. Mathieu Bock-Côté:

Mr. Blanchet is preparing a press conference, but already the English CBC is writing against him, letting us think that he is digging a valley “between Quebéc and Canada’s values“, so to speak:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/blanchet-values-quebec-trudeau-1.5786269

This so-called “wedge” (to use the CBC own word) it is Mr. Trudeau (sadly supported by Mr. Singh) who is responsible for it. Instead of defending freedom of expression, he seems to be telling us that his cherished “diversity” will limit our freedom of expression. Shame on you Mr. Trudeau. Bambi is saying this and she is part of this so-called diversity in Canada. She is of Lebanese origins. Thus, Arab too. She is the closest you can get to a Muslim (she even has Muslim relatives). Yet, she thinks you are totally wrong. Please re-consider and re-choose our values, Mr. Trudeau!

To conclude this post, thank Goodness there is still common sense (and courage) in our so-called free, democratic world.

Merci Québec!