In June of 2020 the CBC announced that it would start capitalizing the word “Black” when referring to Black people, but would continue to write “white” with a lowercase “w”. The result of the policy-change is that the CBC now capitalizes the names of all racial groups (eg “Black”, “Asian”, “Indigenous”) with the exception of “white” people. This is an insult which establishes a clear racial hierarchy in the mind of the public and delegitimizes the identity of White/European Canadians.
Yes, the CBC has an explicit policy where they do not capitalize the W in White People. They are that anti-White and petty.
In response to the policy, SWC has:
1. Contacted the Standards Editor of the CBC;
2. Contacted The Canadian Radio and Television Commission;
3. Filed a Freedom of Information request to look at the CBC’s internal communications about the issue;
4. Compiled a petition with over 1,000 signatures (which we encourage you to sign—you can do so anonymously);
As of now that petition has well over 2,000 signatures. Like I said, their YouTube channel has almost a million views, and more than half a million views for the video announcing their lawsuit against the CBC. This anti-White policy of the CBC is not popular, and was not asked for by the public.
We also filed a racial discrimination complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) seeking that the CBC apply a racially neutral policy by either lowercasing or uppercasing both racial descriptors or, alternatively, to use ‘European-Canadian’ and ‘African-Canadian’ as racial descriptors—Here’s our video announcing the complaint. That complaint has now been dismissed.
Following the advice of our lawyers, we have decided not to appeal the decision to the courts, however, we are currently exploring relaunching the case with new facts.
To be clear, our complaint did not go to trial. It was dismissed before trial on the grounds of being “trivial” under the definition of the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 41. The Commissioner decided that our complaint was not serious enough, arguing that the CBC’s policy did not cause harm against White people.
The only possible defense that I heard from this policy was that it’s too petty to cause damages. And yet it’s their policy. I agree that this is incredibly stupid, but they took it upon themselves to not capitalize the W in White People, not me.
THE CBC APPEALED TO AN ANTI-WHITE CONSPIRACY THEORY TO ARGUE THAT WHITE PEOPLE ARE NOT PROTECTED BY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW.
The Canadian Human Rights Act protects Canadians from discrimination on the basis of numerous characteristics. Three of those characteristics are “race”, “colour”, and “ethnic or national origin”. Our complaint was based on all three. However, in its arguments for why our complaint should be dismissed, the CBC strawmanned our complaint as based only on the grounds of “colour” and ignored the other two characteristics. As the CBC’s lawyers wrote:
The Complainant alleges that the CBC’s journalistic decision to capitalize “Black” but leave “white” lowercase … is discriminatory on the protected characteristic of colour.
After wrongly characterizing our complaint, the CBC then went on to cite a long quote from a 2013 case in front of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission in the attempt to argue that White people are not protected from colour-based discrimination.
This is excellent work by SWC, and George Hutcheson specifically, but he once again shows the limitations of activism without the backing of a political party. Politically, the second the CBC explicitly makes the arguments that White People are not legally entitled to Human Rights Protections, unlike all other races, much of the political benefit has been gained. At this point, you can simply say that the CBC is an explicitly anti-White organization, hence why it is important to vote for a party that will fix this.
Unfortunately for Hutcheson, because he is doing activism, he sort of has to play along with their anti-White bullshit arguments. He can’t just say “that’s anti-White,” because he needs to actually win the case. The political arguments and the legal arguments are two very different things, at least in this case.
Not even the cited Nova Scotian tribunal reached this conclusion—the argument is entirely the work of the CBC. As stated, the Nova Scotian case was one in which a White-looking Black woman complained of discrimination on the basis of the fact that she looked White—and she won. Thus, in contradiction of the CBC’s contrived conclusion, discrimination on the basis of having “white” skin actually is protected by human rights law, and the conclusion of the Nova Scotian case was another reiteration of that obvious point.
That’s not to say that all his work was wasted, of course. He did excellent work here, and there is lots of value in showing the absurd bullshit, even from a legal perspective, that the CBC will pull out of their collective asses, in order to justify their anti-White policy. It’s not even legal autism they’re working with here, they just flat out invented a precedent that did not exist.
2. THE COMMISSIONER UNCRITICALLY FOLLOWED THE CBC’S LEAD, CHARACTERIZING OUR COMPLAINT AS ROOTED ONLY ON THE GROUNDS OF “COLOUR”.
As stated, the CBC mischaracterized our complaint as being only on the basis of colour. However, the Commissioner in the case seemed to simply do as she was told, also characterizing our complaint as discrimination only on the basis of colour, and not also on the basis of race and ethnic origin. She began her opinion as follows:
Again, the complaint was centered on “race,” not “colour.” Here we see the Human Rights Tribunals working with the CBC to enact anti-White discrimination.
Relying on this false characterization, the Commissioner went on to write the most significant paragraph in the decision:
The [CBC]’s policy does not single out or target the Complainant for adverse treatment. Rather, the policy speaks to grammatical rules as they apply to the words used to refer to a racial group. There is no support, apart from the Complainant’s personal opinion, for the proposition that these grammar rules adversely differentiate the Complainant from others. (emphasis ours)
Contained in these sentences are the central issues of the case. Below, we will dissect them.
The refusal to capitalize the W in White People does not target a specific group. Apparently.
As any objective observer can see, if you compare “Black”, “Indigenous”, “Asian” and “white” it is patently clear someone is being ‘singled out’ and ‘targeted’.
But I mean obviously, right? Hutcheson, and SWC, did excellent work here, but once again I reiterate, the outrage that this should generate is muted because there is no outlet for said outrage. There needs to be in the form of our political party, and there will be in the future. For now we need to appreciate the work that Hutcheson has done here, which we will make use of in the future.
Many people have resigned themselves to the belief that ‘there is no point’ in attempting to address the concerns of White people through the courts, because they see those institutions to be hopelessly corrupt. Part of the objective of our legal work is to assess that theory: To its proponents, our questions are ‘why do you believe that? upon what data does this theory rest? what information can you point to to support the position?’ Our primary aim is to peacefully and legally secure our human rights, however, if it is true that our courts are as corrupt some believe them to be, then we must make a sincere effort to reform them, and in order to reform them we must first compile a body of data to empirically demonstrate the alleged corruption. This case has provided some data points which are consistent with that theory, and our ongoing and future cases will provide further clarity to the picture.
Hutcheson has a great head on his shoulders. And once again I applaud his efforts here. He’s effectively done legally what I always say needs to be done politically.
You’ll hear some losers say things like “there is no political solution.” If they mean “don’t vote for existing parties you Finkled idiot,” then that’s totally correct. However, the obvious solution is to start our political party, and start contesting elections.
It might be true that ultimately there is no way to avoid getting the Golden Dawn treatment. That if you start a political party and start getting some traction, they’ll simply throw their hands up and say “look, you got us. Democracy is completely fake and you all go to jail now.” In that case, you already have organization to fight back against it, and you have also 100% justified more radical actions in the eyes of the populace.
Imagine for instance, a trucker protest after a political party polling at 15% of the vote got shut down, with stated arrests of the leaders.
As mentioned, we are currently exploring relaunching the case under different facts. If that fails, it will pave the way for and further legitimize social pressure tactics such as poster campaigns, banner-drops, etc. Regardless of how we proceed, however, please sign our petition, as it will be one of our most powerful instruments in this ongoing fight.
The same goes for signing petitions. You need to get people to sign your petition, if only to show how utterly fake the whole “muh petition,” bullshit really is. I’ve been relatively measured in my support of the Trucker Protest, but they’ve made the double standard between how BLM/Antifa riots are treated, and how actual populist protests are treated explicit and undeniable.
The official style policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is to capitalize the names of non-white racial groups, such as “Indigenous” people, “Asian” people and “Black” people, but to refer to “white” people with a lowercase “w”.
SWC again did the right thing, and appealed the decision. They had ample ground on numerous lines. Needless to say, they did not win, but have forced the HRT’s and CBC to make explicit anti-White arguments, and ignore the laws as written, flawed though they might be.
We will not give up the fight against this racially dehumanizing policy and are currently reviewing other legal options.
But again, you have to escalate this to a political party, to punish them for this. If the courts are entirely corrupt, then they need to be purged, and you need to start a political party in order to achieve this. If that’s what is meant by legal options, than obviously I agree. But if not, well, these people don’t have an enormous incentive to deliver us justice.
Others in our thing have asked me if I can get an interview with Students for Western Civilization, and George Hutcheson specifically. I would absolutely love to do so, and I’ll email him inquiring about that.