Forget libel Mr. Warman. This blog post is openly, willfully and gleefully exposes you to hatred and contempt. Whatever it takes to get hauled infront of a Commission, just asume that I’ve said it. You need not worry about the pesky rule of law, the right to confront one’s accusers in open court or the use of “truth” as a legal defence. Please save everyone the trouble and skip the mere formalities of the constitution. Be a man, and take this case of flagrant Warmanphobia straight to your Commision.

*Contribute to Ezra Levant’s Legal Defence. Buy ‘Shakedown’ HERE.

And yes, I can say “ass”, because Canada, at least at one time, did stand for freedoms, did stand for rugged individualism, and did stand for free speech.

For self-proclaimed peaceniks, violently throwing aside the registration table, intimidating volunteers, attempting to storm the doors, blocking the entrance to registered attendees, bullying an elderly man and pulling the fire alarm would seem to be out of character. But anyone who has seen professional student activists who don’t seem to like the idea of having to pony-up a few bucks for their own education, this was them in their usual game-face.

Ann Coulter is over-the-top, sometimes rude, always offensive, never without an opinion, but the decision to listen to her or not rests with the right of free citizens to A: continue to listen, or B: change the channel. I myself was on the fence about going until the University of Ottawa’s self-styled censor-in-chief (send him your thoughts at francois.houle@uottawa.ca) sent an oh-so-slightly veiled threat to Coulter on charging her with hate-crimes. Well a foreign hate-monger teamed with home-grown threat-to-the-peace Ezra Levant made it too hot a ticket to say no to now! But just as well, I had the right not to go. As it turns out, the opposite choice was not an option.

That same day Google (peace be upon it) took a courageous stand for free-speech over their own profit by refusing to be censored by quasi-communist China.  It’s now time for the federal and provincial governments to show that same courage, do away with their respective “Human Rights” Commissions, and vow that Tie-Dye Shirt thugs will face criminal prosecution when they use physical force to deprive Canadians of their right to their own speech, and to listen to others.

The CTF filed three separate Access to Information Requests in August of 2009 to obtain details on Lynch’s expenses.  The CHRC refused to provide information within the legally allotted time frame as it would “unreasonably interfere with the operations of the [Commission],” but finally bowed to pressure and released the documents more than a month late.

In the Information Commissioner’s rulings dated January 27, 2010, the CHRC was deemed in all three cases to have failed to comply with the law and provide the required and complete information within the proper time frame.

The CHRC’s respect for Canada’s access to information laws should hardly be a surprise given its respect for Canada’s constitution and legal inheritance.

As has been amply discussed in the media, Governor General Michaelle Jean has declared herself Canada’s head-of-state, therefore usurping the role of the Crown.  Why is this a problem do you ask?  I mean, she has about as much power as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, or the mayor of a small town, so who cares if she styles herself not as the Queen’s representative in Canada, but as Canada’s de facto Queen?

The constitutional nature of Canada has been altered radically over the past 50 years, and hardly has it ever encompassed a formal amendment.  Aside from several minor amendments, the Constitution and Canada Acts of 1982 are the only formal, major changes.  In the meantime, the constitution has “evolved” without due process.  Consider:

• The concentration of executive powers, namely the ability of cabinet to raise new taxes without the consent of Parliament (see Magna Carta).
• Justices “reading” new sections into the Constitution as they see fit (see “living tree” or “organic” constitutional doctrines).
• The subordination of real rights – such as that of speech, assembly and conscious – to fiat right, such as the right to services or not being offended (see almost any case from the Canadian Human Rights Commission).
• The steady encroachment of the federal government into areas of provincial jurisdiction, accelerating a process that began with early Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decisions soon after confederation.

So maybe I’m a crusty old constitutionalist still hung up on such archaic things as the division of powers and due process, but if the constitutional nature of Canada is to change, it should be done so legally and formally, and not through the backdoor as most major changes have been.

As an ex small-r republican myself, I know the arguments for and against the monarchy well enough, but if we are to hive off our last remaining formal link to the Crown and empire of old, it should be done so publicly and through formal constitutional amendment, not through an appointed former Radio-Canada employee who “reads” her new title into it.

Cross-Posted at taxpayer.com/blog