Wednesday, September 23, 2009

US Foundation Asks "Is Freedom Coming Back to Canada?"

First Cracks Appear in 'Human Rights' Machine

The Chalcedon Foundation is a US "Christian educational organization devoted to research, publishing, and promoting Christian reconstruction in all areas of life."

They have an interesting take on recent developments in our Human Rights machinery in Canada and its slow smothering of faith based people and organisations here. In particular they have been the first to actually talk to Stephen and report on it since the Appeal Court sitting last week.

They started the article with an interesting quote from C. S. Lewis' The Witch and The Wardrobe:
“Come and see! This is a nasty knock for the Witch! It looks as if her power is already crumbling.”
For one thing, it is the first time I have seen the Boissoin case boiled down into one sentence that nailed it:
Seven years ago, Rev. Stephen Boissoin wrote a letter to his local newspaper in Alberta, metaphorically declaring war on homosexual activism and blasting the provincial government’s policy of using public education to promote the homosexual lifestyle.
They had previously done an article on Boissoin and Alphonse de Valk which was also worthy of reading.

They also summarised succinctly the essence of Gerry Chipeur's presentation on Stephen's behalf to the Court of Queens Bench:
Rev. Boissoin’s lawyer, Gerry Chipeur, argued that the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission exceeded its authority by trying “to limit public debate … and public criticism of government policy.” He also argued that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the hate speech/thought crime provision, is flagrantly unconstitutional.

(In the original hearing at the Alberta HRT) “They did not just ask for an apology,” Rev. Boissoin said. “They actually asked me to change my view. I think the judge made it quite clear that he considered it ludicrous.”
It has not ever been about homosexuality, but about public policy, which EGALE understood from the start. Darren Lunch, who was actually operating on the public policy, using it to define his materials for teaching, was offended, and so he used a government policing agency to do what he refused to allow public forum to do. Why Darren?

No comments: