Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Stephen Boissoin- HRCs are not the Answer

This whole HRC thing is out of control

Dear Readers:

Yesterday three things converged for me that seemed not to be connected but which gave me more perspective on HRCs and how they fit into our society.

During the day, I had numerous email contacts with Stephen Boissoin. These contacts further enhanced my knowledge of the railroading that occurred in his Alberta human rights case. In one of our contacts, Stephen said: "I agree I am a victim." Well, Stephen I don't agree you are a victim. I am sure you were victimized, but you will never allow yourself to be a victim, unless I read you wrong. You have largely risen above this, and will rise far above this travesty.

The HRCs take someone who is an apparent victim, in the Boissoin case, Dr. Darren Lund (poor baby), and then help him to beat the cr?p out of the meany who hurt his feelings (tsk tsk Stephen). Then, in the penalty phase, they tell him (Stephen Boission) it was for his own good. Then they go on to the next case, thinking they made the world safer for some allegedly disadvantaged schmoe and his discernible group.

In the evening, my wife and I watched the movie The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. This was a movie about Nazi Germany in WWII, from the perspective of an 8 year old boy who befriends another 8 year old boy who is an inmate in a Jewish concentration camp. His father is the camp commandant, and keeps his work secret, particularly the extermination component of the camp. We see from the boy's perspective, his failing indoctrination by his tutor into the Nazi belief system that Jews are vermin and not human and more, because he meets his new friend. We see the Nazi propaganda film depicting the work camp as a happy place with social gatherings and cafeteria, which our young hero witnesses personally just before the climax of the movie to be nothing but lies. We see the Nazis operating under the law of the time to detain and kill Jewish citizens of their own country.

I was reminded of the HRCs when I watched this movie. The Nazis decided the Jews were evil, and not even human, then made laws to support that, and set about incarcerating and exterminating them for being the evil non humans that they had, by invention of their own minds, made them to be.

How different is this from our HRCs? The HRCs decide who cannot be discriminated against. By default then, you can discriminate against anyone not on the list, unless what you do is actually illegal according to another statute, that the HRCs have not overridden yet. They then torture and degrade those not on the list, who say or do anything, or are alleged to have done anything, that might be construed as against those listed. 'Splain me Lucy, how this is much different from the Nazis.

Finally, we went to bed and when doing our evening prayers together read a piece on the scripture verse: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the Things that are God's." The insight was that the people of the day were trying to trick Jesus into picking a side that they could criticize him from, but being who He is, He had a higher view and so not only did the trick fail, but He shared wisdom that has come down through the ages.

So, I take from that that we need fresh eyes to look at the whole existence of the HRCs, and maybe you agree.

The HRCs were created to try and put a stop to discrimination in this country. They have failed miserably for two reasons. They are trying to prove a negative, which is often impossible, and they are not very good at it.

Why make putting a stop to discrimination an objective? If you make me stop discrimination against you with the punitive approach being taken, I am more likely never to let you (or your kind - whatever that means) into my sight again in my life. How does that make the world a better place? It doesn't in my opinion. So, a better objective is to work at bringing peace to our world. What are the odds that by prosecuting everybody who says something we don't like we are going to get there? If the real objective is not to bring peace to our Canadian world, why would we have such things as Human Rights Commissions anyway?

Our human perspective seems to be that we can beat the so-called hate out of people, by prosecuting them, and them remediating them in the pocket book and forcing apologies out of them. That of course, presupposes that we have a sound basis on which to judge what is hate in the first place. If the Stephen Boissoin case is a good example, we should all just be "Nice" little boys and girls and tell everybody what they want to hear, so nobody is offended. Then we could live in a Nice place, full of Nice people, full of anger wanting to tell the truth for a change. I think I just discovered the foundation for road rage.

Jesus said: "Love your enemies." All great spiritual teachers, regardless of stripe tell us to love each other. But, we being naive, are less interested in loving each other than in getting each other to love us. It is not the same thing.

God gave the Jewish people the 10 commandments a while back. They make sense, and were necessary for the time and place, and still are appropriate today. But, telling me what not to do is not going to make me love you.

I was not aware until I heard the interviews of Stephen Boissoin on the Catholic Light site here, that Darren Lund claimed to be a Christian when questioned by Stephen's lawyer, Ezra Levant at one time. Darren, you might claim to be a Christian, but your actions speak much louder than your words. If you want to live the faith you claim to have, then you should have remembered your bible verses like "Love does not take offence," and that Christians are called to meet with each other over an offence first, then follow a process that does not in any way involve the court system.

I have just had two comment postings to a previous blog entry, stating that I erroneously was considering Darren Lund to be homosexual. Both have stated anonymously that he is not, so I cannot verify their veracity. I wondered why Ezra Levant, not one to mince words had called Dr. Lund the town scold. Let me get this straight, if this is true. Dr. Darren Lund complains to the Alberta HRC for being offended about something that has nothing to do with him, and the Alberta HRC took the case. If this is true, this is even more bizarre than my mind can conjure. Darren, I can feel your pain. At least I could before I start using Preparation H. ARGHHH!

This whole system of confrontation that exists with the HRCs is wrong from a Christian perspective, but just fails from any human perspective. The system accepts the word of the Complainant, in this case Darren Lund, and then goes about browbeating the Respondent, Stephen Boissoin and the organization he represented. It attempts to overpower the Respondent financially, and emotionally. Submission and contrition are the only acceptable answers from a Respondent.

I agree with Ezra Levant, as I do each time I try to rethink this thing. The HRCs are so far beyond redemption that there is only one practical solution. Fire. Them. All.

No comments: