I feature legal decisions from Canada on this blog. It’s an area of interest to me. Over the past decades, Canada has appointed many far-left judicial activists as judges, many of them progressive women. I’ve written about cases where the rights of men, fathers, husbands, Christians, churches and Christian universities were trampled by the courts. Today, I want to show you how bad it really is up north.
Today’s frightening story comes from Quillette, a web-site that features many voices from the center-left and left that question the far-left narrative. The article talks about the de-platforming and canceling of a lawyer named Sha4hdin F4rs4i. She’s a minority and a woman, but that didn’t save her from the secular leftist mob.
The article says:
The back story begins on December 16th, 2020, when the B.C. Provincial Court issued an announcement advising lawyers and the public of a new practice directive stipulating that all parties appearing in court would henceforth be asked to specify what pronouns they want others to use when referring to them, as well as their preferred forms of address. (Examples provided are “Mr./Ms./Mx./Counsel Jones.”) The Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court issued a similar practice directive on the same day, though without a press release.
This policy, pushed by far-left lawyers, was done so that the courts would be more “inclusive” and “respectful of everyone”. And you’re going to see in a minute how “inclusive” and “respectful of everyone” left-wing fascists really are.
On the surface, Sha4hdin F4rs4i may seem like an unlikely target for a progressive mob. She’s a young Iranian-Canadian lawyer whose B.C.-based practice has focused on dispute resolution and estate planning. Before joining a law firm, she clerked at the B.C. Supreme Court and obtained a master’s degree in Public Policy.
[…]To F4rs4i, the new directives from the B.C. courts represented a form of compelled speech—and not just in a nominal sense. Reciting one’s pronouns may seem like a mere courtesy, and no doubt, many people who do so intend it as such. But it also has a political and ideological connotation, as the ritual is meant to suggest that one’s biologically rooted (and outwardly observable) identity can be altered by declaration, and that everyone must accede to that self-identification, even in contexts where the interests of others are thereby affected.
In mid-January, F4rs4i’s article opposing the courts’ new policy was accepted by the Advoc4te, which is published by the Vancouver Bar Association and funded with fees collected from lawyers through the Law Society of B.C. F4rs4i’s essay was not a generalized rant against trans people (as critics would later claim), but a well-informed critique of a policy that, as F4rs4i persuasively argued, may serve to compromise a client’s legal interests in cases involving family law or alleged sexual assault…
According to the article, the far-left lawyers (called S0G1C) “allegedly threatened the Advoc4te with legal action, and raised the idea that the publication’s funding could be at stake, if they published F4rs4i’s piece.” See, that’s inclusive and respectful of everyone. Threatening people you disagree with with lawsuits and de-funding. Far-left activists really are tolerant people who are quite comfortable tolerating those who disagree with them, and letting them act according to their consciences. Real respecters of free speech and other human rights, they are.
Among the objections B4in received to F4rs4i’s (then unpublished) piece was an email from the aforementioned Adrienne Smith, who is described by the S0G1C as “the leading [gender] educator in this area within B.C.’s legal community.” Smith called the article “hateful, inflammatory, and wrong at law.” Smith also suggested that publication “would expose the Advoc4te to liability (or at least notoriety) in a human rights complaint for hateful publications.” S0G1C founder Barb4r4 Find14y personally telephoned B4in, “strongly encouraging” him not to publish the F4rs4i piece, and giving him “further case law citations to consider.”
Find14y speaks with some authority on these pressure tactics. In a 2016 seminar at the University of British Columbia, she told audience members:
Well, speaking as an organizer, the way—I mean, what I do is I file a human rights complaint. And I say, “Those regulations are deficient because … the omission of those kinds of things contravenes the Human Rights Code.” I do that without particular regard for whether ultimately I will be successful, because it’s an excellent pressure tool … And so then you’re armed with something more than your opinion. You’re armed with a legal duty. You say, “Don’t we have a legal duty to do this?” Yes, we do.
In the case of the Advoc4te, as it turned out, these tactics were successful: The editor was intimidated into killing F4rs4i’s piece.
They threatened them with legal action… in order to get the speech that they deemed “hateful” censored. That’s the secular left.
It was the tweets that really got me thinking, though:
So, the article they didn’t like wasn’t criticized LEGALLY. It was just declared hateful, mean, bigoted, and offensive. It wasn’t worth an intellectual response. It was worth a totalitarian fascist response.
Rather than accept what their consciences were telling them about the morality of their choices, secular left fascists instead try to use power to force anyone who disagrees with them to celebrate and affirm what they were doing. Like this “I feel bad, but I’m not going to stop being immoral. I’ll just use the government to trample the human rights of people who disagree with me. I’ll start with taking away their basic human rights, like free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, parental rights, etc. Then I’ll move on to getting them fired, vandalizing their property, threatening them with death or injury, imprisoning them, seizing their children, or even actual violence.” And our culture looks to them for moral leadership in “inclusivism”, “diversity” and “respect”.
One neat thing about Canada’s descent into secular left fascism is that it spells the end of marriage. After all, marriage requires a certain minimum level of moral character, self-control and mental health. The stability of the relationship depends on it. What kind of stable relationships can you expect from secular left fascists? Who would be stupid enough to speak to these people – or have anything to do with them? Eventually, they (and the people watching them) will understand that you can’t go full psychopath and have a normal productive life that includes love and marriage. Everyone will learn what works from their self-destruction, and destruction of others.