Twisted language is screwing up our world

- July 22nd, 2011

Lady Justice outside of the Supreme Court in Ottawa. Her eyes are wide open and checking your race.

There is an old saying justice is blind. That certainly isn’t the case at the Supreme Court of Canada.

At the Supreme Court, they peek right out from under any blindfold to check your race before listening to your case.

On Thursday, the learned justices populating our court issued a unanimous ruling that said it is perfectly fair for a Metis group in Alberta to kick a woman out of their community because she registered as a status Indian and was therefore not Metis enough.

In essence, Canada’s highest court endorsed race-based settlements and laws once again.

The woman leading the court challenge, Barbara Cunningham, had been part of the Peavine Metis Settlement but then registered as a status Indian, an official government designation. The Alberta law dealing with Metis settlements said a person could not be a status Indian and member of a Metis settlement.

Cunningham appealed the decision, claiming under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms she is guaranteed freedom of association and the right to life, liberty and security of the person. She also pointed out to the court the Charter states, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.”

“Well of course you have all of that,” said the judges, before telling Cunningham to go jump in a lake if she thought all Canadians were equal.

The court actually said the kind of discrimination Cunningham was seeking to overturn was allowable because it is discrimination designed to make everything better.

“It corresponds to the historic and social distinction between the Metis and Indians, furthers realization of the object of enhancing Metis identity, culture and governance, and respects the role of the Metis in defining themselves as a people,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.

Well, I want to enhance my own culture and identity.

Can I fire my producer for not being the right ethnicity or religion? The answer is obviously no.

Yet, to the big brains at the Supreme Court and to most of our chattering classes, this decision makes perfect sense — even as the rest of the country is left scratching its collective head.
So this is Canada in 2011.

We have a Supreme Court that allows race-based settlements and cites the Charter to support its decision.

We have a federal civil service that hires based on race and a progressive elite that defend such practices.

We have a school system that disallows Christmas but does allow a Muslim prayer service in the school where boys and girls are separated and menstruating girls are pushed to the back of the room.

In Canada in 2011, we actually debated whether to release the names and photos of dozens of men accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. These men were believed to be living in Canada, but bureaucrats and politicians worried their privacy rights would be violated if the public were informed.

We truly live in a world gone mad.

It won’t do to make fun of this, to call it political correctness run amok. We’ve got to drop this mushy language from our own speech and call BS when we hear it coming from politicians, bureaucrats, judges or reporters.

Categories: Politics

Subscribe to the post

4 comments

  1. C H Ingoldby says:

    ” “It corresponds to the historic and social distinction between the Metis and Indians, furthers realization of the object of enhancing Metis identity, culture and governance, and respects the role of the Metis in defining themselves as a people,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.”

    So, as a White Anglo Saxon Protestant, as I allowed to exclude blacks and Muslims and Catholics from a settlement I establish? It would correspond with the historic and social distinction between WASP’s and blacks, it would further the reali(s)ation of the object of enhancing WASP identity, culture and goverance, and respect the role of WASP’s in defining themselves as a people.

    Just like Apartheid did in South Africa and we all know how great that was don’t we?

  2. Alain says:

    The only thing to which this corresponds is McLachlin and her fellow travellers thumbing their nose at our inheritance of the British rule of law whereby all are equal before the law. I suggest these judges be sent back to school to learn Canadian history.

  3. Jeff says:

    Ingoldby,

    “Just like Apartheid did in South Africa and we all know how great that was don’t we?”

    We do. The country ran much better and people where much safer under that system. Now whites are being slaughtered in their beds.

    You do make a good point about my race, the white race being denied the basic rights to self-identity and self-governance by the anti-white establishment ruling over our countries.

  4. John Gullion says:

    Barbara wanted the benefits of being metis and status

    it dont work that way just because a kitten is born in a bread pan dont
    make it bannock.

    Status indians have discriminated against metis forever now they want

    metis advantages(if any) Not stated but I think this has to do with land

Comments are closed.