Marc Lebuis joins Secure Freedom Radio

Marc Lebuis, creator of Pointe de Bascule, a news publication dedicated to exposing radical Islam in Canada, joins us to discuss Bill 59 legislation in the Quebec Commons as well as the latest OIC efforts to implement shariah blasphemy laws in the west. Click here for audio version.

FG: Welcome back I’m going to talk with you in this last segment about an extraordinarily important development. It may not seem as such because it is happening north of our border in our neighbor Canada, specifically in the province of Quebec, but its implications for Canada and for our own country simply cannot be overstated. I’m very pleased that we have to talk with us about this a man who is with great courage and effectiveness taking on what’s happening, specifically the effort to suppress freedom of speech in his native Quebec. He is Mark Lebuis, he is the creator and driving force behind an absolutely indispensable website, Point De Bascule, or The Tipping Point in French. It is dedicated to exposing and informing the public about Islamist activity the kind of Islamic supremacism that is unfortunately not confined to the Middle East, or to Europe, or for that matter to Canada, but happening in our own country as well. It is a privilege to have him with us and to thank him publically for his leadership in resisting something called Quebec Bill 59, about which we will hear more momentarily. Mark welcome to Secure Freedom Radio. It is a delight to have you with us and as I say a real privilege.

ML: Thank you so much for having me.

FG: Give us in the shortest of short forms a kind of overview of what has been going on in Canada with respect to freedom of speech, so called Human Rights Commissions, that have been taking on people like Ezra Levant and the marvelous Mark Stein to this point, and what is in prospect now with this Quebec Bill 59?

ML: Well first of all Quebec, Canada has been one of the rare jurisdictions in the world where freedom of speech has been strengthened in the past few years for several measures, and also there has been what they call for the rest of Canada, The Canadian Human Right Commission, the federal body was also the article (inaudible) that allowed the Human Rights Commission to stifle free speech in so many words and was also taken out, sorry for my English here it was repealed. So now the Canadian body of the Human Rights Commission in Canada is not able to use that deprivation that was in article 13, in order to stifle free speech. Now what is happening in Quebec however, right after the two terrorist attack last fall, if you remember on the (inaudible) news Quebec and also the Canadian Parliament last fall there were two terrorist attacks October and November, and the reaction towards the Prime Minister, The Premier of Quebec, stretched out and invited members of the Muslim community to advise him of how to deal with the incredible problem of radicalization that we are faced with in Canada but most specifically in Quebec, and then they came out with two bills, one of them was Bill 62 and one was Bill 59. What mainly took the attention of the media was Bill 62 was mainly dealing with dress codes, key jobs, the secularism of the institution and so on and so forth, which was of lesser concern than something that similar to something like some countries in France. But now, we are dealing with a more insidious bill where when the Premier presented the bill, he presented the bill he justified it by implying that terrorism is a reaction by Muslims towards people who criticize their religion, so by banning the criticism of Islam we should end terrorism. The Premier did not explicitly mention Islam or Muslims in his explanation, but that is where an explanation of Bill 69 was leading. Now the bill is an answer to a proposal that was made by the Quebec Human Rights Commission in November 2014, and only until now only specific individuals who were directly targeted by these commendatory statement or actions can complain at the commission. Now what the bill is basically doing is there are two aspects over here. The way they are presenting the bill and then there is also the intention of the current President of the Quebec Human Rights Commission. Where he says he intends or how he wants to use this institution and this is what is literally freaky. His intents were expressed in two interviews. Or just to come back if the bill is adopted the QHRC itself or its members can initiate a new hate speech lawsuit. That means it doesn’t need to be filed by the person who is targeted by the feeling of being a target, but now it can also be done by lets say a university group that finds that these wordings are not appropriate, or the body itself the QHRC body like I mentioned at the Quebec National Assembly two days ago. I basically said this is subject like, so in other words what he intends to do, he mentioned what he intended to do in two interviews that he did to the state broadcaster the CBC, the French assertion in December 2014, because Hermione basically suggested that the government to get these increased powers, so he said he intended to use these new powers to initiate lawsuits against and I quote him, “people who would write against the Islamic religion on a website or on a Facebook page. Now he wasn’t even talking about protecting individuals against so-called discrimination. He was openly talking about protecting an idea, a religion in the case of the Islamic religion against criticism, not all religion, the Islamic religion, and then later on he said these resolutions were based on the UN. What he didn’t say is that those resolutions are emerging out of the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Conference, and that is what he failed to do. This is the only body that continuously builds pressure over there. What he didn’t say also is that Canada has systematically voted against this under conservative or liberal government, against all these motions to sensor to the UN.

FG: Mark Lebuis let me ask you about this because I think what you have said is chilling, but I want to make sure our American audience understands what it portends. Not just for Quebec and for folks like yourself, who at the Basque are doing incredibly important work of documenting the rising tide, and influence, and subversive activities of these Islamic supremacists, but for Americans as well. Is there a reason to believe that this organization of Islamic Cooperation as they now call themselves seeks to do in the United States what they have been doing in Canada and needless to say in Europe and elsewhere to suppress our free speech in the name of, or avoiding any offense to Muslims but as a practical matter is a way of imposing their Sharia blasphemy law on all of us in the free world?

ML: It absolutely is possible and I think what we are seeing and I won’t have a clear sense of exactly what comes to mind because they aren’t exactly called commissions but these types of sub legal bodies that can define what people will think or say are starting to be proposed and set in place. Your seeing them sometimes in cities like New York City, they are down under different kinds of jurisdiction, so these bodies they get inspired what is done in Canada through these Human Rights Commissions. They are getting inspired by the control of speech and it is almost as if they are bypassing the Constitution. They are adding a layer pretending like two days ago the Justice Minster who was presenting the bill was basically saying this is Orwellian. He was basically saying you know you need to trust this bill, because the role of the Commission is to protect the freedom of speech. I mean she literally said those words.

FG: Mark we have to leave it at that for the moment. We are hard out of time, but this is such an important subject and I would like to have you come back for a longer visit in the very near future. In the meantime keep up the terrific work you do at the Tipping Point the Point De Bascule as it is called in Canada, and thank you for your testimony earlier this week against Quebec Bill 59. We hope your sage council will be heated by the provincial legislature there.