Sunday, May 31, 2009

Boissoin Rev. Stephen - Alberta HRC Part 3 What Happened

What Happened to Sanity in the Province of Alberta

Stephen Boissoin published a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate on June 17, 2002. At the time he was National Chairman of the Concerned Christian Coalition (now Concerned Christians Canada Inc (CCC). I have duplicated it in an earlier post, and also documented a bit of his background. It was a letter to the editor, not a call to arms (physically), but a call to people to stop the advancement of a homosexual agenda to indoctrinate children to an alternative to the heterosexual lifestyle that he believes as a committed Christian is God's call for mankind. He rendered an opinion, and the newspaper, as is their business, published his opinion.

But, a homosexual professor named Darren Lund took offence at the letter, and claimed that it promoted hatred of homosexuals. He filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission against both Boissoin and CCC and the games began. In the short term (6 years in this case) the games would end badly for the Christians, and all of us who value free speech in Canada.

I wonder at what motivated someone like Darren Lund to file a Human Rights complaint. In a world not run amuck, and over governed, he could have written his own letter to the editor of the Advocate. He could have cancelled his subscription to the paper in protest. He could have confronted Stephen Boissoin directly.

Let us not be naive boys and girls here. Filing an HRC complaint is an act of significant violence. Only a fool does not know what will become of the Respondent to such a claim. When you file an HRC claim, you bring the full might of the HRC down on your adversary. The Respondent, in this case Reverend Boissoin had legal fees to pay, where the Claimant, Dr. Lund stands back and lets the province do the investigating, prosecuting, and then hold whatever hearings they want to get to the desired objective. The Respondent is guilty, until and even if he is proven innocent. If Reverend Boissoin had not been found guilty in the end of discrimination, it would have been only after years of government mandated and led harrassment, and intimidation.

Oh, and by the way, if the Claimant wins, there is a financial windfall that is tax free at the end, with possible other punitive insults to the Respondent.

Interestingly, Darren Lund was on his own here, except for having the Alberta government on his side, including in a strange bit of chicanery, bigger brother, the Alberta Attorney General intervening on his side. Lund tried to get EGALE, a gay rights organisation involved, wanting to give them a share of the proceeds of this debacle. They did not want any part of this blood money. Although they deplored Rev. Boissoin's words, they agreed with his freedom to express his opinion.

Rory Lishman did an examination of this case for the Interim, which I have excerpted below, but which can be read in total here. Here are some who spoke on Reverend Boissoin's behalf.

"Gerald Chipeur, one of Canada’s top constitutional lawyers, argued before this panel that by virtue of the guarantee of freedom of religion and freedom of expression in Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Boissoin has a constitutional right to publish the honestly held religious convictions on a matter of political debate expressed in his letter to the editor.

Barry Cooper, a distinguished professor of political science at the University of Calgary, likewise told the panel that “reasonable people can disagree about whether homosexual practices are immoral and they can further disagree about whether the Bible is authoritative … If activists use taxpayer dollars to promote homosexuality in public schools, then Christians have a right to stand up and say they do not think it is okay.”

Counsel for the secular Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) repudiated Boissoin’s opinions on gay rights, while defending his constitutional right to express them. In addition, the CCLA argued that the provinces have no authority under the Constitution of Canada to censor the publication of political opinions in a newspaper."

But Charter be damned. Tinpot dictators are not bound by such things, and when you control the inputs and the outputs, you are really running a sausage machine, customised sausages maybe, but sausages none the less. So, on November 30, 2007 the Alberta Human Rights Panel under the able hand of Lori G. Andreachuk, Q.C, a divorce attorney from Lethbridge Alberta, Boissoin and CCC were found to be as the online summary of the case reveals "in breach of s. 3(1) of the Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act by causing to be published before the public, statements which were likely to expose homosexuals, as a vulnerable group, to hatred and contempt due to their sexual preference, effectively making it more acceptable to others to manifest hatred against homosexuals. The letter’s content exposed homosexuals to contempt and reinforced existing stereotypes."

Homosexuals are a vulnerable group, but Christians aren't. This is kind of like endangered species isn't it? As a Christian, I can't wait until we are an endangered species so we can fight back. however, that would not be our chosen way to respond to being ill treated or perceiving that we were.

If you are having trouble sleeping and want to read the Human Rights Panel decision, it is here.

On May 30, 2008, the Panel reconvened to stick it to Mr. Boissoin, and his co accused where the sun doesn't shine - on his wallet. Their entire decision is here. But here is the meat, the pound of flesh that they extracted from Stephen Boissoin and the CCC.

"The Panel finds, and the Panel orders as follows:

a. "That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund’s witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc."

Boy, would I like to have been a fly on the wall in some of Dr. Lund's little tete a tete's with his friends discussing their pyrhhic victory. I wonder if they said anything disparaging about those raging homophobes. Not that that would be actionable.

b. "That The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. and Mr. Boissoin shall, in future, be restrained from committing the same or similar contraventions of the Act."

Even if what what they were doing was not against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I muse about how provincial legislation gets to trump the Canadian Charter, but in a dictatorship, the dictator calls the shots.

c." That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint."

To the best of my knowledge this has not happened and will happen sometime after the moon turns to cheese. I believe that the Red Deer Advocate declined to be a part of this nonsense, and indicated that they would not be publishing anything more on this debacle. Mr. Boissoin made it clear that he would never make a false apology to Lund, and Lund appeared to make it clear that he did not want to receive a false apology.

d. "That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall request the Red Deer Advocate publish a copy this Order in the Red Deer Advocate and that they request their written apology for the contravention of the Act be published in the Red Deer Advocate."

Same comments.

e. "That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall pay to Dr. Lund an award for damages, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,000.00."

Dr. Lund got an award. Really he got the propellor. Boissoin got the shaft. This is blood money. I hope that it does not have the same effect on Dr. Lund that it had on Judas in an earlier time and place.

f. That Ms. Dodd shall provide a list of expenses incurred as a result of her testimony at the hearing to the Panel Chair for review and such sum shall be paid to her for her actual expenses associated with this matter up to the maximum amount of $2,000.00 as directed by the Panel Chair upon receiving her list of expenses. Such amounts so ordered by the Panel Chair shall be paid jointly and severally by Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc."

Anybody else out there short of cash.

The most important thing that Stephen Boissoin said in his letter to the editor was a quote from Edmund Burke: "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Reverend Boissoin was referring to his battle against what he views as the evils of Homosexuality. What I mean here is the battle against free speech.

But in this case, Stephen Boissoin is a victim of the Alberta HRC. He was railroaded, but also the street kids of Red Deer Alberta lost as well. They lost their mentor, because he resigned from full time ministry due to the stresses and strains on his life.

He will survive because good ultimately triumphs over evil, though evil might have its season. Will the kids he was ministering to? Does anybody even care about the real victims of this travesty of justice?

Stephen Boissoin - Please Contact me Again

I started a multi part commentary on the Rev. Stephen Boissoin case at the Alberta HRC a while ago, and had attempted to contact Rev. Boissoin by email, but was unsuccessful. As a result, I stopped part way through my blogging on this case.

In my earlier blogs, I gave some background on Rev. Boissoin based on what I was able to find, then I reprinted the letter that he wrote to the Red Deer Advocate, with some of my own opinions, but I did not go on to the actual case.

As I have mentioned in earlier posts, I have been recovering from a brain injury for several years. In this case, I got sidetracked and as often happens to me, I don't remember that I got sidetracked. I did not realise until Stephen Boissoin himself left a comment on my blog that I had not completed what I had set out to do, which was a review of the actual case and its results.

He commented to my earlier blog entry as follows:

"It's funny how so many opinions can generate from one letter to the editor. I don't classify myself as a Fundamentalist by any means. My 2002 letter was against the propagation of homosexuality as normal yada yada to young people. I know many that do not consider themselves even religious yet still agree with my letter. My letter was submitted for specific reasons, some which were national, provincial and others that were ongoing in my own community.

If you are at all interested in who I am and what I think....ask.


Stephen Boissoin"

I believe that Rev. Boissoin was railroaded by the Alberta HRC freight train, which my next blog entry would reveal. I had also contacted his "co-accused" the organisation then called Concerned Christian Coalition of which he was National Chairman, and now called Concerned Christians Canada Inc.

I am interested in who you are and what you think, Rev. Boissoin. If you were to read my other blogs you would see that I am looking into the real victims of the HRCs, and in your case they are you, your family, and the children you ministered to on the streets of Red Deer Alberta, and probably others I don't know about.

I moderate comments to my blog before they are put onto the blog, so if you can leave me a comment with a way to connect to you, and an email address or phone number, I will use it only to communicate between us, and will not post the blog comment to protect you from being contacted by other readers of the blogs.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

An Ontario Disability Discrimination Case That Never Happened

And a ... Child Shall Lead Them

I have a young, single, female second cousin here in Ontario, who is 21 years of age, and since birth has had a disabling disease called Epidermolysis bullosa (EB). EB "is a rare genetic disease characterized by the presence of extremely fragile skin and recurrent blister formation, resulting from minor mechanical friction or trauma. This condition is not contagious", as quoted from the Debra of America Inc. website.

When she breaks out in blisters usually on her feet and/or hands it can be uncomfortable for her, but it is at worst going to limit what she does from a timing perspective, more than whether she can accomplish things that she wants to do ever. Over the years she has learned to live with it, and as with many people, it does not define her in a negative way, but has helped her to strengthen things about her that are endearing and charming.

Her mother, a Registered Nurse and her father, raised her to think for herself and to look past her own and other people's disabilities.

This young lady was working as a server in a well known chain roadhouse style restaurant here in London, Ontario, and had blistering break out on her hands. These blisters look like the ones you or I would get from raking or shoveling or some form of exertion. Hers come more easily than that, and she gets more than one, so they can become obvious. The manager must have had a complaint from a customer about her hands, because he sent her home from her shift and told her not to return until she was bandaged up. Subsequently, he fired her because of her blisters. Her work had always been of a high calibre, and her outgoing personality lends itself to work as a server.

Another relative, familiar with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, suggested that she could have a case for discrimination on the basis of disability, and from my knowledge of the facts, this is probably true.

The young lady and her parents, realising this, decided that there was no real purpose to such a complaint. Yes, she might have ended up with some money in the end. Would the manager have been forced to take her back? She did not want to go back there after this incident. Did she want to bring stress to her former place of employment and her former co-workers because she had been discriminated? Again to what purpose. To prove that she was right. She knew she was and that the manager was wrong, and did not feel the need to rub his nose in it, nor to be the one to bring him down a peg. She had learned already in life that things work out for the best given time. She also did not need to go through a series of investigative interviews and hearings to come to the conclusion that she knew was right already.

So, she moved on with her life. She was approached by another smaller chain of restaurants to work for them which was flattering, and she went to the job interview. She was about to be offered the job, when she said: "Hold it for a minute. I want to tell you a story first, and then you can decide if you want to hire me after that."

She then proceeded to tell them about the incidents from her previous employment, including names and dates, and that that was not acceptable to her. She was eager to work for the new restaurant, but would not be subjected to treatment like the last restaurant. She did not threaten to file a claim with the HRC if they mistreated her. She just told them her expectations.

On hearing her story they were appalled at the previous manager's behaviour, and hired her immediately. Since she has been working for them, they have worked hard to accommodate her needs, and she is prudent to not abuse their accommodation.

You see, she did not need to fix the first guy. She needed to learn to look after her own needs, rather than have the state look after them for her.

She did not need the Human Rights Commission. She saved the taxpayers of Ontario a potload of money that would have gone to investigate this. She saved the first restaurant and its manager a potload of money trying to fight her claim, and she did not have to wait 3-5 years for resolution. She got her resolution within days.

Chuck Swindoll, a well known preacher and motivational speaker says: "It is attitude not aptitude that determines altitude."

Good for you, Lizzie.

Friday, May 29, 2009

What is a Human Right Anyway?

I have been looking at a number of the Human Rights cases in Canada of late, and must say that I do not have a clue what a human right is based on the cases I read.

At its most fundamental levels, Word Net from Princeton University defines "human right" as "any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law." (italics mine)

So, a Human Right is a basic right or freedom and governments are not to interfere in my entitlement to that right. This I understand.

I find it particularly interesting to note that our governmental Human Rights Commissions are happy to interfere with my right of free speech if it interferes with your right to not be offended. I can see where a right to speak one's mind, even if one is an idiot is a basic right, but I am not so sure that a right to not be offended is basic or anything other than concocted or contrived.

Article 1 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." (italics mine)

WOW!! There are a lot of people in third world countries that don't know they are equal. My problem is more with the people here that think they are more equal than they are. I thought that equal was equal. But this I can understand as well.

The United Nations says that we are all endowed with "reason and conscience". Theoretically Yes. Practically Not so much. Most of us seem to be endowed with excuse not reason, and conscience takes formation, which is work, requiring thought about someone other than oneself. Good luck with that.

From the Ontario Human Rights Commission web site, I note what they have to say: "Ontario's Human Rights Code , the first in Canada, was enacted in 1962. The Code protects people in Ontario against discrimination in employment, accommodation, goods, services and facilities, and membership in vocational associations and trade unions.

There are fifteen grounds of discrimination under the Code: race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed (religion), sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, disability, age (18 and over, 16 and over in occupancy of accommodation), marital status (including same sex partners), family status, receipt of public assistance (in accommodation only) and record of offences (in employment only)."

So the code protects people against discrimination based on 15 different grounds. Correct me if I am wrong here, but if I go to the Ontario HRC and complain about you, and the HRC takes my side from the get go, investigates and prosecutes from my perspective, and then uses its own panel to come to a decision, is that not a form of discrimination against you? Of course it is. It is a form of persecution and contrary to all the principles of common law that we have always held dear in this country and most developed countries of the world.

This is taking Article 1 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and adding to it in my opinion. Once you take a simple concept and make it more complex, you lose the simple beauty that it once had.

It starts to remind me of things I noticed with some of my "Observant Jewish" acquaintances in my younger days. Back in the day, one of my acquaintances had to work on a Saturday. The 4th (if you are Jewish) commandment given to Moses said "Remember the sabbath and keep it holy". To an observant Jew that meant not driving a car (to many ot means not even being in a moving car), or an elevator, and things like that. Well, he had to get to work. Someone picked him up, problem solved. The client he was working at was in an ofice building, and he would have to take an elevator. Fortunately, on arriving the person that drove him, pushed the buttons. But later, he went out with someone else, then came back alone. He was in a quandary, because by his view of the Jewish laws he could not operate a conveyance, and he had to wait for someone to come along and push the buttons for him. In my opinion, my acquaintance and his peers have for numerous generations taken a simple commandment of God and worked the angles, to try and make the simple so complex that you cannot get it wrong. If the Lord's Day matters to you whatever day it is, then take a stand, and don't work that day. Don't niggle over the details.

Discrimination has become unpopular because people with formed consciences have said: "Enough is enough", and have chosen to do something about it. Civil rights in the US did not come about because of legislation. If so, then the Civil war and legislation of the time would have solved it. No, it took people of good will actively doing something about it, and along the way, people died, because it was worth dying for.

I do not for one second think that the actions of the Ontario or any other HRC is going to make me love a member of the 15 groups they claim to protect.

When Jesus walked the earth he gave us two commandments: 1) Love God (however you want to define your God), and 2) Love your neighbour as yourself, and everyone is your neighbour. The United Nations says we should act towards others in a spirit of brotherhood. That's close, but Jesus was more specific. He gave us an action word command to Love.

The HRCs have missed their mark, but that is because they have no firm foundation on which they are basing their actions. They are making it up as they go along.

Example. Ezra Levant was charged with hate crimes for publishing the Muslim cartoons in Western Standard. He was such a pain in their collective a??es that they dropped their charges against him. Rev. Stephen Boissoin wrote an opinion letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate about homosexuals, and they pilloried him. The list goes on.

We need to love one another, regardless of any of the 15 distinctions the Ontario HRC or any of the others define. That comes from the heart, not from legislation.

The HRCs are a hindrance to true Human Rights not supporters, regardless of what they tell us.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

What is Discrimination Anyway?

Does Sex/Race discrimination include discrimination against someone acting like an a??hole?

In 1970, I had just graduated from university and became an articling chartered accounting student. The apprenticship program had just changed, and more changes were occurring in hiring practices. I had gone to work in Toronto for one of the largest accounting firms in the world. That year, they hired about 25 of us as first year students in the downtown Toronto office at Bay Street.

Among that group were one woman, one black man, one Israeli Jew, and a bunch of white Anglo Saxon guys. I had just moved to Toronto from London. At that time, I knew what a woman was, had had very limited exposure to black people, due to where I was raised, and had never met an Israeli Jew before.

The woman was a really enjoyable person to work with. The black man was a really nice guy, whose company everybody enjoyed. However, the Israeli Jew was a jerk. He made up stories, was arrogant, tried to get others to do his work for him, and was in short a pain in the a??. He made no efforts to fit in, and made every effort to be obstreperous.

So, we pranked him at the company orientation week at Trent University that summer. First, we took a bucket of cold water and set it up so that when he opened the door to his room, it would fall on him from the dresser near the door. The next day, we took his bed and hid it in the washroom down the hall. It seemed funny at the time. Not so much almost 40 years later.

After that we avoided him like the plague. Sometime that Fall, he returned to Israel, and we bid him a not so fond farewell.

If the woman had acted like he did, we would have pranked her. If the black man acted like he did, we would have pranked him. If I acted like he did, they would have pranked me.

We were a bunch of early twenty somethings at the time. Long on energy, short on smarts and sensitivity. Today I would go out of my way to ignore an a??hole like that. But, at the time, we took it as a challenge, and rose to it.

If the Israeli Jew, the woman, the black man or I had raised a Human Rights Commission complaint for being pranked as a discrimination complaint, I expect that the complaints of the Jew, the woman, and the black man would prevail, and the complaint of the white man (me in this case) would fail.

But I can tell you that we honestly pranked an a??hole, not a Jew, or a woman or a black man or a white man.

I don't think what we did was right. I also don't think that the confusion of a HRC investigation would have made it any more wrong, or would have resolved it. Because the last thing it was about was human rights as defined in current legislation.

It was about people treating each other with respect, which none of the parties to this incident did, including the Israeli Jew from the day he arrived on the scene. I know that I did not respect him and treat him accordingly. You can't legislate this stuff, and force it down people's throats, and try to find a discrimination label to put on it to make it fit. You have to learn it, often the hard way.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

The Truth Will Set You Free, But Holding Some of it Back Will Get You The Cash

ADGA Group Consultants Inc. - Ontario HRC

I felt very uncomfortable with this case when I read the decision, and have agonized over this posting. Although I can empathize with the Complainant and his disability as a disabled person myself, I cannot condone what he did and what he failed to do, and even worse than that I cannot in any way justify what the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal put ADGA Group through for 6 years over this case. The purpose of this blog is to try and discern the truth out of what is happening, but to find that the truth is ignored or glossed over in favor of a commitment to an answer from the get go is really depressing.

You can read the entire tribunal decision along with many of the gory details on which it turned, at:

Here is the Reader's Digest version.

First a little background. The timing is September 2001.

Does anybody remember what happened on September 11, 2001 in New York City, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania countryside? Think tall buildings falling down. Think Terror. Think airplanes. Think "Our world will never be the same." Now think high alert for the US Military and for its friends and their military, particularly its closest neighbor. That would be us. Remember us. O Canada. Or is it Oh! Canada?

Canadian Military. Weapons Systems. Highly Sophisticated, and highly in demand. Failure is not an option. One of the things that makes these weapons systems work is computer software, and that software is as sophisticated as the weapons it drives and must be foolproof. Which in this particular instance means that it must be rigorously tested through all possibilities, and under a lot of time pressure and stress, in our post 9/11 world.

ADGA Group Consultants Inc. is a company that does that work for the Department of National Defence (DND). At the time in question, they derived about 65% of their corporate revenue from DND. One of their projects at that time was testing the software involved in weapons systems. How's that for being on the hot seat?

Enter Paul Lane a Quality Assurance Analyst, with a reasonable resume, but also a disability that he hid from ADGA during the interview process.

About 3 years prior to interviewing with ADGA, Mr. Lane was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, though he said he was aware of some of the signs of the condition prior to that time. Bipolar disorder is thought to occur in 1% of the population and maybe up to 6% to some degree. As a disability it is one that is triggered possibly circumstantially or by body chemistry or by both. Life can be very normal, and with little or no warning, at least in the control of the individual, it can become like a roller coaster ride that can only be taken alone, and must be very hard for loved ones to observe, and incredibly difficult for the bipolar individual. In Mr. Lane's case he later said that his roller coaster rides could last 3 days to 3 months.

But, Mr. Lane also knew that in the event that he were to enter into a pre-manic phase heading towards the manic phase, he needed someone to be watching out for him, and to bring into the picture someone he trusted, his wife or his doctor. Isolation would be his worst enemy. It is believed that an informed and trusted individual by the bipolar person can help the bipolar person reduce the length and depth of the manic and depressive phases, and possibly even avoid them.

He did not mention that he had bi-polar disorder. He later said he didn't mention it because he figured they wouldn't hire him. He was probably right. However, by keeping this secret, he set himself up for the big manic depressive episode that he had after his firing, because he was on his own.

ADGA had asked about sick days taken in the last year, and Mr. Lane was less than truthful about how many he had had in the previous year. He didn't think they had a right to ask that question. With the pressure they were under to get their work done for our military, why would they have a right to know if an employee they were going to hire was going to be dependable to show up for work regularly? Hmmm!!

As well, in his interview, there was a discussion about handling stress. In the Decision it was reported: "It was made clear during the course of the interview that the job could be stressful at times. Mr. Lane indicated that he was used to working under pressure and multi-tasking and that stress was an occupational hazard in the information technology sector." There was another opportunity for Mr. Lane to be open and honest with ADGA about his needs, but he wasn't.

As it turns out, bi-polar people don't always handle stress real well. It is one of the big triggers for episodes. They can handle it better if the people around them are aware and make accommodations for them, but it is still challenging, and when they handle it badly, it can be very bad for them, particularly, and in this case, it did not go well for ADGA either. Oh, and by the way, others certainly can't help if they don't know you need the help.

In 1998 and 1999, there was another stressful situation going on in the computer field, though no lives were probably in jeopardy. We called it Y2K. There was a drop dead date, and lots of work that had to be done. I was involved in that, and in my position in a public computer consulting company managed project managers and when there were not enough project managers managed projects myself. Everybody was stressed to the max, and we hired people to the best of our abilities, who could work to the best of theirs. However, we had no tolerance for people who were not honest with us, because they jeopardized our work and our relationships with our clients, and we terminated one person who lied to us and more than one incompetent along the way. We did not have one spare moment to babysit someone who was not able to get the job done we had hired them for and they had told us they could do.

So, Mr. Lane started work on Monday October 22, 2001, and had to spend time reading manuals and documentation for a while to get familiar with systems and so on. He did that but, he also spent some of his time socializing with others, and his behavior was on the edge of inappropriate from time to time. On the 24th, he met with a supervisor and alluded to a need for her to advise him if she felt his behavior was in any way inappropriate, but did not mention that he had bipolar disorder at that time.

Then on Friday, his 5th day of work, he met with the supervisor again, and this time was more open and honest with her. He pointed her to the Mayo Clinic site for its discussion on bipolar disorder, which frankly is bereft of any real information that would have helped someone from ADGA in working with Mr. Lane. He gave her a strategy of how to deal with him should he have pre-manic episodes or start into a manic episode. He told her that depending on how soon the condition was caught he could be out from 3 days to 3 months of work. But, he left feeling that he had given her a strategy that she could deal with this new revelation.

Canada looked at the time like it was heading off to war at any minute, and did deploy to the Far East as we all know. So, this company is testing weapons systems software under extreme pressure, and some new guy, just hired in off the street, goes to his boss, and says: "When I applied for the job, I lied. I did not tell you the truth about my ability to do the job. So now, you need to watch out for me, and here's how you can do it."

So, on Tuesday next they terminated him. But, they say they terminated him because his work effort was not there.

It is too bad that Mr. Lane has bipolar disorder, but there is no way on God's little green earth that he should have applied for a stressful job at ADGA in that time and space knowing the truth about bipolar and stress, and the work that had to be done. He had a manic then depressive episode that lasted 3 months when he got fired. Imagine what would have happened in the middle of a stressful test series when everybody was on edge, and so he started to feel things getting out of control and started to move towards a manic phase. He could have spun out of control in a way that was dangerous to himself and to those working with him, and ultimately to the project, and therefor to our troops who rely on the weapon systems being tested.

As I have said in other posts, I have a brain injury and am disabled. One of my challenges is that I can no longer handle stress very well, whereas previously I would have said that that stress tension held me together. But, I do well in one on one interview situations that do not last long, and I can present well during that time. If I were to try to return to work, and apply for jobs based on my technical skill set from prior to my accident, I could probably get myself hired, as long as I did what Mr. Lane did and ignored some important facts about my health.

From the experience of trying to return to my own job on a few occasions after this injury, I know that I would last for a few hours. Then I could go to my supervisor and say, by the way, I have a disability and I need you to accommodate me. If I read this case correctly, because I am disabled, they could not discriminate against me, and if they did, I could go to my local HRC, hitch up to the tax free gravy train, and my new employer would get treated like ADGA did, with similar penalties to the ones listed below.

The Tribunal held that ADGA had not accommodated the disability that Mr. Lane had misled them about, when they finally figured it out, and so they penalized them to the tune of (with my amendments for clarity and editorialisation:
  1. Damages for violation of Mr. Lanes' inherent right to be free from discrimination and to lie like a rug to the tune of $35,000
  2. Damages for reckless infliction of mental anguish, $10,000. The Ontario Human Rights Commission recklessly inflicted mental anguish on ADGA for free, except for the cost of ADGA's own legal fees.
  3. Special damages of about $34,300 for loss of Mr. Lane's salary because his rights were violated. These aren't special damages. They are extraordinary. If he had been truthful with them in the beginning, they never would have hired him because they would have known from the beginning that he could not do the job.
  4. Pre and Post judgement interest.
  5. ADGA had to retain at its own expense a qualified consultant to provide training to all employees, supervisors and managers on the obligations of employers under the Human Rights Code, particularly to disabled employees and more particularly those with mental disabilities, plus 3 other ways to rub their noses into this.
I empathize with Mr. Lane. Being disabled is no walk in the park. Nobody deserves to have bipolar disorder, and have to try and figure out how to live with it. But ADGA did not deserve it either, and ADGA certainly did not deserve to get screwed over by the Ontario HRC. Mr. Lane could not handle the work period.

The Ontario HRC screwed ADGA over for 6 years making a discrimination case out of this, because they do that. This case sucks.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

John Fulton - Ontario HRC

Gender Discrimination Maybe or Maybe Not

John Fulton owns 2 fitness clubs in St. Catherines Ontario. One is a mixed club, Fulton Fitness. The other is a Women's Only Club, Downtown Health Club.

Now, Mr. Fulton has been in the fitness business since 1982, and is a pretty open minded guy. He supports worthy causes regardless of sexuality, religion, skin color etc. He is basically a pretty smart business man, as well as a stand up guy.

So, a few years back, he was running a special for his clubs and a woman came to join, and as she was about to complete the membership, the discussion got around to the fact that she was in fact transgendered and also still had male genitalia. Mr. Fulton did not know how to handle this and asked for a pause to figure it out.

Well, the prospective client left in a Huff, or some other mode of transport, maybe a broom, and the legal letters started and then the Ontario Human Rights Commission got involved, when they received the complaint from her.

You know the Pit Bulls from the Ontario HRC. I am calling them that not because they are persistent, though they are. I am thinking of it more in the context that they come onto your property uninvited, bite you in the a??, then sh?t all over, and then leave you with a sore a??, and a mess to clean up.

Mr. Fulton actually was really interested in how he could accommodate this transgendered person, as well as his other clients. However, it got harder with all the manure that had to be sifted through.

I have a friend who is transgendered, and a fine person. When we first met at a mixed retreat, she asked if she could bunk in with the women, rather than the men, although she still has male genitalia. She asked, and a few of the women offered to take her in with them, and it worked out very well. She did not presume anything, but asked for assistance, and what should come as no big surprise, she got the assistance and care that she needed for her special circumstance, and we all were the better for it.

But, in this case, the transgendered individual has not asked for help, but demanded so called rights not to be offended, and the rights of the women who are members of the club already don't count. What is the fairness of that?

John Fulton is being bled dry by this nonsense, because that is how the HRCs operate. They will win as Ezra Levant said on the radio when talking with Mr. Fulton and Roy Green because that is how they operate. They intend to bleed Mr. Fulton dry until they get what they want, and then they have a precedent.

If you want to help Mr. Fulton fight this injustice you can donate to his cause at Canadian Constitution Foundation

Friday, May 22, 2009

Why Go After Ezra, Kathy et al

Dear Reader:

I was musing over why the good folks at the HRCs are targeting Ezra Levant in particular, and Kathy Shaidle Mark Steyn, and other conservative free speechers in general with law suits, and it came to me, like in a vision, a moment of clarity, or maybe it was gas. I'm not sure.

But here it is. I will deal with their particular and current plight in a later post or two, because they are being victimized, and I think I have inadvertently diminished the challenges that they face in earlier posts, because they put a brave face on their work, and soldier on.

So, again here it is. In my professional life, I had as an educational background a Chartered Accountancy designation earned after my years at university here in Ontario. Later I earned a Masters Certificate in Project Management, and along the way, I was active in managing my own business and in project and branch management for a public company in the computer services field.

What I learned along the way and imparted to the folks who worked under me was that we, and anybody in any business, were in the business of "managing expectations". It was not about a particular product, but managing the expectations of your boss, your employees, and your clients.

When I look at the business model of the HRCs, up until fairly recently they were doing a darn fine job of managing expectations up and down the food chain, at least until Mr. Levant stuck his meddling mug into the mix, and his cronies, those right wing, conservative apple cart disrupters came on the scene.

What a business model. You have all the funding you need, with no requirement to show a profit. So, that part of expectation management is off the table, unlike normal businesses, like the ones that the so called victims are going after usually. You're on the government dole people, with no accountability. How's that for a start?

Then, to keep the money coming in, year after year, all you need is a tricked up annual report of all the good you are doing for society to keep your masters happy. So, if you can control the spin on who society is for purposes of this annual report and control your inputs and outcomes, you've got it made in the shade, Bubba. It doesn't get any easier than this.

Now here is where the business model gets even better. In this case, you can control it from first input to final outcome, thereby pretty much guaranteeing the ability to give your Masters what they need to keep giving you more and more money each year ad nauseum.

First, you get new business, you know, the victims of discrimination, or hate. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. Oops, wrong country!

It's not like they need a sales force out in the field looking for customers. There is enough history that they will come banging on the door, though I understand that Ontario is hunting amongst new immigrants with a new booklet they are publishing, but that's probably overkill just to grease the skids. And, sometimes on slow days, I have heard, the Canadian HRC has been known to put lipstick on one of their pigs, and go chatting on the white supremacist sites, trying to stir up a bit of business.

Anyway, I digress. People knock on the door figuratively or literally with their complaint in hand. It's also not like they can go down the street if they don't like your product or service. You have the product and the service is free. There is one tiny fun bit of competition though. A Claimant, under some circumstances, can file claims in multiples jurisdictions, sort of a double jeopardy thing for the Defendant, no biggy for the Claimant.

So, Mr. (in this case) Whomever comes with his complaint to the door of his local HRC. He is greeted by the Investigator who will steer the case through the Gates of Hell for him. The Investigator cheerfully explains the good news of HRCdom to them.

Here's how the opening monologue of the first interview might go, after the HRC Investigator greets Mr. Whomever who has arrived at the doors of the HRC.

"Hello, Mr. Whomever. Welcome to the HRC. We are here to help you with your grief. In fact, it is your lucky day Sir. On days, that end in a "y", we offer free service from beginning to end, meaning we will investigate this egregious offence to your Human Rights, we'll prosecute it and finally we will adjudicate it all here at the HRC, with no muss, fuss or bother to you along the way.

I also want to advise you that that any sums which we are able to weasel out of your employer (or other miscreant we might be putting the blocks to on your behalf) will be tax free to you.

Here's the best part, Sir. While we pick up your tab, the Defendant will need a flock of Bay Street lawyers at up to $500 per hour, if he wants to have any chance to keep up with us. Oh, and by the way, the odds of him winning are pretty slim, since we make this stuff up as we go along, so his high priced lawyer doesn't stand much of a chance.

Oh, you were looking for the Motor Vehicle Licensing Office. That's 2 floors down, Sir. Are you sure that you were never discriminated against? I mean, you are here. We could whip up a complaint in almost no time whatsoever."

You want me to put what where the sun never shines."

Well, you get my point. I hope that I have not offended anybody, with my little attempt at humour.

So, what you have is a cradle to grave integrated business. It is a one stop industry. It doesn't get any better than this.

How can a client be dissatisfied? They got what they paid for, right? And Big Brother took on the Bad Guys on their behalf. No Pain. Potential Big Gain. Purrfect.

Since the HRC does their own investigating, they steer it in the direction of their objective. This is a sausage making machine. The objective is to get sausage out at the end. Things that would hinder the taste of the sausage like the possible odious background of the Complainant or the Sainthood of the Defendant are "poof" like they never happened. See no evil (or good). Speak no evil (or good). Hear no evil (or good). Unless it helps our case.

Then, along comes that big mouthed Jew Ezra Levant. Oh, and Mark Steyn also another big loud mouthed Jew, even if he isn't Jewish. And then Kathy Shaidle, a teeny weeny loud mouthed Jew, for a Roman Catholic.

I can hear the head honchos of the HRCs saying now: "We get mean when someone messes with our green."

I gotta tell you, Ezra, Mark, Kathy et al, if you think these HRC folks are going to roll over and play dead you are sorely mistaken. And to them it is not about the truth. It is about being right. It has always been about being right.

William Pitt, British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778 said at one time"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it." It appears that the HRCs have had unlimited power, and have made this statement true in the extreme here in Canada.

The strategy of Ezra, and those who work with him to denormalize the HRC juggernaut looks like a pretty good one to me, but it will not accomplish its goals without a fight along the way.

I urge any of you who are reading to support Ezra, Kathy and the others who are trying to bring light to the darkness of this HRC debacle that is a stain on our society. Donate funds on their blogs to their defence funds. Show them we support them.

Is There a Bottom to this Pit?

Many years ago, when my life was not what my Mother wanted it to be, she prayed that God would hit me over the head with a baseball bat. Well, 5 years ago, he let me get hit in the head by a 1994 Ford Aerostar van. He showed her who was boss, didn't he.

So, everyday I have these headaches and brain fogs, but in between I have these few hours of clarity of emotion and mental thought. Until today, I have cursed the headaches, because I would like to get back to doing more with my life. Having devoted what energy I have had available recently to looking into the sick joke in our society that is the Human Rights Commissions in Canada, I have realised that my headaches are a blessing. Without the headaches, I would spend more time beating my head against a brick wall trying to figure out the insanity of this whole thing, that is really nothing more than a hammer in search of a nail or more accurately a bulldozer in search of the next mountain to move, whether it needs it or not.

Yesterday, I thought maybe I was being too harsh, and so I went to the Ontario HRC web site to try and get their perspective on things. What better way methinks, than to look at their latest annual report for 2007-2008, and read about all the good things that they are doing.

Right there on the first page it said "Printed on recycled paper", and went downhill from there. I downloaded it in PDF format to my computer so did not get the full benefit of the recycled paper, but gave them the benefit of the doubt.

It was in reading the annual report that I came across how they screwed over Viola Landry and the Popeye Restaurant in Geraldton Ontario, and how her former employee, Ms. Giguere had tried to bribe someone to testify against Ms. Landry to the Commission. Are you people nuts? Why would you put that in your annual report? Didn't you do anything better with your time, and my money?

Oh, but you did, didn't you, you sneaky Devils. You reported that in the Lepovsky V. TTC case that you got the TTC to call out all stops on all transit vehicles because Mr. Lepovsky is blind. I have very seldom ever seen a visually impaired person on the TTC, but I am sure glad that we don't require them to think any more or perish the thought to ask for help, or even worse that a TTC employee (like a driver) might offer to assist them. Instead the TTC installed these fancy shmancy Call Out systems, and then raised fares, of course.

But, it does not end there. Hot on the heels of this success (excess), our friends at the Ontario HRC wrote this in their annual report:

"With this precedent in place, the Commission is working to expand call-outs across Ontario. The recent Tribunal decision shows that a policy of announcing stops only upon request is not enough — the only way to ensure an accessible system is to call out all stops."

Are you kidding me? Please read to the bottom. They did not stop there.

"In a letter to operators across Ontario, the Commission asked transit services to review their accessibility policies and practices and inform the Commission on the steps they were taking to make sure all transit stops were announced. The Commission is reporting publicly in May 2008, and will then consider its next steps. Its goal is to have the effect of the Tribunal’s decisions applied across Ontario, and make sure the duty to accommodate riders with disabilities is respected."

I live in London, Ontario. Our transit system is far less efficient than the TTC, not because of anything wrong particularly at the LTC, but mainly because of the size of the city. In the smaller centres, the drivers know the handicapped people, and make an effort to assist them. That is the nature of living in smaller locales. The last thing we need outside Toronto is some morons from the Ontario HRC decreeing that the Human Rights of disabled persons, of which I am one, are being ignored because the transit systems need to spend money on Call Out systems. When you bump the fares in smaller centres, ridership drops.

I have a little conundrum for Ms. Hall and her cronies. I am a disabled person because I have a brain injury. As such, I am particularly susceptible to noise. I have been in Toronto a number of times recently to see medical practitioners, and to visit family. While there my preference is to take the TTC, since I get confused occasionally, and do not wish to have an accident. Before Call Outs, The subway trains had a route map above the doors on each car in the train. Now, not so much. Because of all the hubbub in the subway system, I had to frequently refer to the map and my current location to know where I was in relation to where I had to get to. Now, I can't always do that, and so it is more stressful for me to ride the subway. Also, in part of my travels, I often take a bus, and having to listen to the automated voice calling out each street that we pass causes me confusion and anxiety.

So, Ms. Hall, you took a bulldozer to the visually impaired Mr. Lepovsky's impairment. Got any bright ideas of how to integrate that with mine. I don't intend to give you the chance.

Ah!!! The Law of Unintended Consequences. I agree with Ezra Levant more every day, and I quote him: "Fire. Them. All."

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Viola Landry - Ontario HRC

Viola Landry and the Popeye Restaurant

Viola Landry operated the Popeye Restaurant on Main Street in Geraldton Ontario, a small town in northern Ontario, about 1,200 kilometres from Toronto, about 300 kilometres from Thunder Bay, and 30 kilometres off the Trans Canada Highway, with a population of about 6,500 people. If you are there it is because you want to be there.

One of Geraldton's mottos is "The Friendly Town with a Heart of Gold". Friendly, yes. But stupid, not so much. At least until the storm troopers from the Ontario HRC came marching into town to set things right.

You see, Ms. Landry hired a Ms. Giguere to come and work for her in her restaurant. But, it so happened that Ms. Giguere was in a common-law relationship with a man who was HIV-positive and also had Hepatitis C. Apparently, she had disclosed this to Ms. Landry, who at the time did not see it as a concern.

But then about 2 weeks later, Ms. Landry terminated Ms. Giguere apparently because of customer complaints related to her common-law spouse, and the concern of customers that Ms. Giguere had or might contract the AIDS virus.

Interestingly enough, under Ontario Labour Law, an employee with less than 3 months service can be terminated without cause and without notice, which Ms. Landry did to Ms. Giguere.

But Ms. Giguere appeared to be smarter than the average bear, of which there are a few in the area, and her Heart was interested in the Gold. So, she filed a complaint with the Ontario HRC for discrimination due to Association.

This was found to have been such a significant case and so egregious in its implications that the Ontario HRC reported it in its 2008 annual report. You know you have arrived when you make the annual report.

Anyway, at the Human Rights Tribunal it was found that Ms. Giguere was fired because of her association with a person with a disability. Further, the Tribunal ruled that "a business owner is not entitled to terminate an employee because they feel their business will suffer because of the views of customers, where those views are related to proscribed grounds of discrimination."

The ninnies at the Ontario Tribunal overruled Ontario Labour Law, and of course common sense, and good business practice. You see, Ms. Landry knew something that the people of the Ontario HRC did not. The people of Geraldton had 6 other restaurants in town to choose from, and if they were concerned for their health by eating in hers, they could choose to go elsewhere. The people of Geraldton made it clear to Ms. Landry that they considered it a risk to eat at the Popeye of Ms. Giguere was working there.

In the end it no longer matters, since Ms. Landry doesn't have the restaurant any more. She now works as the caterer at the local golf course. I hope to contact her and find out what impact the stress and strain of the HRC pounding on her door trying to convince her that common sense was no longer common any more, or even desirable.

Oh, and by the way, Ms. Giguere turned out to not be so lily white in her dealings with the tribunal. She seems to have offered money to someone to give testimony to the Tribunal. With the tricks that the Tribunal is alleged to not be above using to get testimony themselves, it surprises me that they noticed that she had abused their process.

So, the Tribunal in a magnanimous gesture refused to award the Claimant any damages. However, they made Ms. Landry commit to making a charitable donation of $2,500 to an HIV/AIDS related organization in the area. To add insult to injury, they rubbed her nose in it further, and ordered Ms. Landry to post Human Rights Code cards at the restaurant. This was probably to show all those people in "The Friendly Town with a Heart of Gold" who had dared to complain about Ms. Giguere that that was a No No.

What they should have done was have added all the residents of Geraldton to the complaint and then have sent them all for sensitivity training. Then they could have rewritten their motto to "The Really Pissed Off Town that hates those Assholes from Toronto", but only after they got their completion certificates.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

The Real Victims of HRC's and the Law of Unintended Consequences

5 1/2 years ago, my wife and I became disabled. During these years, we have struggled with many things, not the least of which was the insurance system. However, all along the way, we have received Disability Income and benefits. So although we have endured financial, mental, physical and emotional hardships, we have not been totally economically disadvantaged, and we have had resources provided to us to help us deal with the challenges we have faced.

The real victims of the HRC’s are not in this position, and I empathise with them, and their plight, which is one of the reasons why I am writing this blog.

This blog is about the real victims of cases that are brought to HRC's. When a complaint is registered with an HRC, if it is a Hate Speech type of complaint, there does not have to be an actual victim, just the possibility that there might be a victim one day in the future. There only needs to be a complainant. In the case of a discrimination complaint, there is an actual aggrieved individual or group putting forward the complaint. For the moment, the aggrieved is a victim.

However, once the HRC is on the job, there are new victims in play. The first real victim in these cases is the Defendant in the action once it gets started. Why would I call the Defendant, who has been charged with discrimination or Hate Speech a Victim? The Defendant is victimized because the Claimant is able to just stand back and let the full might of the HRC come down on the Defendant.

The HRC documents the claim, gathers their evidence of the claim, and adjudicates the claim, all internally. The HRC pays all expenses of prosecuting the claim on behalf of the original Claimant, and regardless of how frivolous the claim, the Defendant absorbs all of his or her own costs to defend himself. The Defendant has no right to confront his accuser, no right to speedy trial, and is not innocent until proven guilty. In fact, the opening premise is that the Defendant is guilty, and the odds that he/she can prove he isn’t against the HRC machine are pretty slight.

I watched as Ezra Levant, who the Alberta HRC has tried to pin down advised a small businessman in London Ontario, who was being victimized by the Ontario HRC in a complaint, to pay them what they asked and get on with his life. Ezra’s logic was that if you can’t afford to fight tooth and nail with these bullies, then you need to get out of the fight as quickly as you can. What a sad but probably true commentary on a disgusting situation in our society.

But, Ezra Isaac Levant is, or at least he would have been, one of the real Victims of the HRC’s himself if he wasn’t a modern day Don Quixote, driving an armoured vehicle and locked and loaded with cruise missiles sited on the hallowed halls of the Alberta HRC. I have no doubt that Ezra suffered sleepless nights, and that his personal life was impacted. I do not know if the demise of the Western Standard as a magazine was impacted by his early struggles with the cases brought against him, but it shure did not help.

Ezra Levant is a street fighter, unlike most of us, and refused to take being victimized lying down, or even standing up for that matter. He took it at full throttle, as he seems to take everything.

Ezra has now made a new career out of fighting the HRC’s, and I for one am on his side. Most of the HRC hit list will not fare as well, at least in the short term.

Take Reverend Stephen Boissoin from Red Deer Alberta for example. Reverend Boissoin ministered to at-risk youth on the streets of Red Deer Alberta. He cared for them, because he knew where they came from. He had been there. He knew that many were prostituting themselves to make money to survive, and he had had enough. So, he spoke out in writing to the Red Deer Advocate. His words might have been intemperate, but his heart was well intentioned. He loved the kids and wanted to heal them and bring them to the truth. But for 6 years, he has been fighting against the Alberta HRC machine, because one man Dr. Darren Lund took offence and rather than write a letter to the editor himself, complained to the Alberta HRC. So not only is Reverend Boissoin a victim of the Alberta HRC, but also the street kids of Red Deer Alberta, who lost their mentor, because he had to resign from full time ministry due to the stresses and strains on his life.

He will survive because good ultimately triumphs over evil, though evil might have its season. Will the kids he was ministering to? Does anybody even care about the real victims of this travesty of justice?

And take the case of my friend in Ontario, a grade school principal. She had worked her way up to being a principal by caring about kids and fellow teachers over many long years of hard work, and study. Then one day, an irate mother, a bully herself but with the advantage of dark skin, went to the Ontario HRC, and claimed discrimination, because her son who had stolen money from the principal’s desk was being punished, and because the principal would not allow certain so called medical equipment on school grounds without proper medical approval. The case, now in its third year strained the already fragile health of the principal, and she retired last year. She is a victim of the Ontario HRC, but so too are all the kids and teachers that relied on her for love and support.

She will survive because good ultimately triumphs over evil, though evil might have its season. Will the kids she was guiding? Does anybody even care about the real victims of this travesty of justice?

What is at play here is what is called the "law of unintended consequences". This is not an actual law but a maxim and states that "any purposeful action will produce some unintended consequences." From recent theatrical history, we may be familiar with the "Butterfly Effect".

The HRC's in an effort to protect us from the possible malicious thoughts or words or even deeds of others, that might be construed to be discriminatory unleashes undesirable after effects. As above, they have caused through their hubris a school to lose a loving, compassionate principal, and young people at-risk in need of a mentor to lose that mentor. As well, both of those individuals were left battered and beaten emotionally at the roadside by the weight of the ridiculous accusations leveled against them by these pompous, arrogant popinjays.

However, not all unintended consequences work for the bad. Ezra Levant's book "Shakedown" is for all intents and purposes of your local HRC an unintended consequence, as is his diligent promotion of his intent to see the end of these institutions.

So, the question that I have to ask anyone out there who is listening is this: Who is going to hold the HRC's to account for the lives that they have ruined with their ceaseless and senseless pursuit of the unattainable? Trying to manage the thought lives of your fellow man is arrogant, and reprehensible, as well as a total waste of time, energy, and precious taxpayer dollars. This must be stopped.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Boissoin Rev. Stephen - Alberta HRC Part 1 Who is Rev. Boissoin

In 2002 Reverend Stephen Boissoin found himself at the center of an Alberta Human Rights Commission charge that was levied by one Dr. Darren Lund, who took offense at a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate that Reverend Boissoin wrote on June 17 of that year.

Stephen Boissoin currently resides in Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. He was born and raised in Oshawa, Ontario, in a Roman Catholic home where he was introduced to Christianity, the values of which he ascribes to today.

He moved to Alberta in his teens and never left. It took him until his mid twenties to come to appreciate the presence of God in his life. At that time, as a rebellious young man, he discovered a deep and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This type of personal relationship can only be understood by someone who also has that relationship or who is ready to encounter God and undertake a similar relationship themselves. To everyone else, it seems like mindless drivel.

Stephen eventually entered Bible College and successfully completed his studies to become a pastor. He spent almost a decade of fulltime pasturing at both church and para-church venues, plus doing inter-city missionary work with at-risk youth.

Somewhere along the way in dealing with at-risk youth, it became apparent to him that there was an operative homosexual agenda that was one of the factors drawing youth away from traditional family values. He felt a need to stand up against it, and in his letter to the Editor of the Red Deer Advocate in early 2002, he declared war against the homosexual propaganda machine, as he saw it, in the only way he knew how, as a pastor of youth. He spoke out in a public forum, expressing views that were to him based on biblical values, and principals.

In 2005, he resigned from fulltime ministry due to the toll that 4 years till then and 8 now had taken on him and those he loved. As he says in his own words: “I decided to take a sabbatical, minister part time and find myself with God again. Though my own two gifts from God, daughter 12 and son 14, are my #1 focus, I am still very passionate about and still involved with youth ministry.”

Reverend Boissoin is a committed Christian. His lens on Christianity may happen to be a different lens than mine, yours and other flavors of other religions or belief systems. Only in the hereafter will we find out if any of us got any of it right. He speaks of war against evil, but means it in a spiritual warfare sense, and is not afraid to call what he thinks is a spade a spade.

From that perspective, please feel free to read the next blog, which is the letter to the editor that got Reverend Boissoin into hot water with the Alberta thought police.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Boissoin Rev. Stephen - Alberta HRC Part 2 Source of the Complaint

The Letter that Started It All

In 2002, then Reverend Stephen Boissoin had come to a personal conclusion that there was an operative homosexual agenda that was having a serious negative effect on young people that he was actively involved with as a youth pastor. He felt that he could not stand idly by and watch it continue and so he wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate on June 17, 2002.

The Following is the actual letter written by him. At the time he was National Chairman of the Concerned Christian Coalition (now Concerned Christians Canada Inc.) It is this letter that had him and Concerned Christians Canada Inc. appearing before The Alberta Human Rights Commission.

Homosexual Agenda Wicked

June 17, 2002

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.

Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.

My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term "morality."

The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, "I'm just not sure where the truth lies," or "If they don't affect me then I don't care what they do," abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.

Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.

Edmund Burke's observation that, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.

Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.

Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.

Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?

Come on people, wake up! It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn't rooted in protecting homosexuals from "gay bashing." The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.

Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.

If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It's time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.

Reverend Stephen Boissoin

Reverend Boissoin knew things about the youth that he was ministering to that we have no idea about because he saw them on a day to day basis, and because he was there himself years before. He knew the sexual influences that they were under or that he perceived that they were under in ways that we cannot imagine.

However, if the reader is not a Christian and familiar with the use of the term warfare in Christian context, there could be some confusion about its meaning, though there is no attempt in any way to imply any physical connotation whatsoever in the letter.

I myself might have written such a letter several years ago, and today would look at it as insensitive and intemperate, and not likely to get the type of result that I desired. However, I would stand by my/his right to pen such a letter as the heartfelt writing of someone trying to spark some debate, and discussion.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

An Ontario Human Rights Commission Travesty

Recently, I met Kathy Shaidle and Ezra Levant at a presentation in London Ontario about the Human Rights Commissions in Canada. Both of these people have been working tirelessly to bring to the light of day the injustices that have been occurring at the hands of the Federal, Provincial and Territorial human rights commissions and tribunals.

I have heard them and read both of their books and have read their blogs linked above. I also became aware of an ongoing case before the Ontario HRC which is shocking to me, as I know the person that is being charged by the HRC and know the circumstances.

For most of us the thought of an organisation set up to protect the human rights of our fellow citizens sounds like a good thing, and I was one of them. However, as I found out, an organisation that is autonomous and fundamentally not accountable to anyone is bound to lose its way and become corrupt, and this is what this case, and those reported by Ms. Shaidle and Mr. Levant and others has discovered.

Here are the fundamental components of a case that the rocket scientists who protect us from each other have developed against a grade school principal in a large school board in a large municipality in Ontario and her school board. Since this is an ongoing case, I have not named any of the parties other than the Ontario HRC to protect everyone's identity at this time.

Here are the key details of the complaint. The complaint which was lodged on behalf of a grade 5 student through his mother arose in March of 2007. The complaint was lodged against the student's principal and against the school board for whom the principal works. Under the rules of the HRCs when a complaint is lodged, all investigation and legal costs of the complaint on behalf of the complainant (the student and his mother in this case) is paid for by the HRC. The costs to defend the complaint (by the principal and school board in this case), no matter how frivolous the case, are borne by the defendant.

I have known the members of the family of the principal for many years, and have discussed this at length with the principal and have reviewed all the legal documents that currently exist.

By way of background, the principal was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2006 and had a double mastectomy. At the same time, her 16 year old daughter, obviously unwed, was pregnant and delivered a baby that was put up for adoption. Shortly thereafter, the principal's husband got prostate cancer and was successfully operated on. All of this transpired by the end of May 2006. But that was the easy part of that year, as the daughter subsequently became a drug addict, and the principal and her husband had to remove her from their home to an apartment, while trying to get help for her, and save their marriage at the time. To say that daughter was hell on wheels for them would be kind, and it was not until mid 2007 (after the complaint was lodged) that they were able to obtain a rehab placement for her. This was all going on while the insanity of trying to deal with the HRC started up.

The daughter did a long and very successful rehab and is a very diligent member of AA. She is now the most sweet and mature 19 year old young lady that you would want to know. The principal is now cancer free, though the risk of recurrence is high, and when she was not being supported by her school board in a manner that suited her needs she took all the sick days that she could manage, and then retired. Except for the angst she feels about the ongoing HRC zaniness her life is full and real. The husband is also cancer free, and their marriage shows signs that it will survive.

The background of the parent complaint against the principal is as follows and of course is not all in the HRC files since they do not care to see what they are dealing with. Background, shmackground. Who needs background? We got a complaint, which gives us a target, and a victim, no matter how frivolous. We are on the job.

The parent is acting on behalf of a student who is claiming bullying and racial discrimination. The family is dark skinned, and of a student population at the time in the particular school of about 300 approximately 12 were dark skinned. Also 1 teacher of the teaching staff of about 10 was also a person of colour.

The student came to the principal's school in grade 5 after numerous previous transfers. In retrospect, one has to ask why. However, he apparently has an asthmatic condition, and there is some notice of it dated in 2002 in his file.

The mother immediately started to make a pest of herself coming on to the school property at any time, and entering the classroom without permission when she chose. The principal informed her that this was not appropriate, as had principals of previous schools her son had attended. The mother became verbally abusive, calling the principal names. On occasions when the mother did not come to the school, she would call the school and speak to the principal to tell her to remind the student to wear his coat to go out at recess, or not to go out at recess because it was too cold. Apparently, the student was not able to remember instructions given to him at the breakfast table, and the principal and staff at the school were really merely errand personnel for this particular parent, having nothing more substantial to do with their days. Big surprise, the principal and the teacher balked at taking on this role. So, the parent became verbally abusive on the phone.

After one such confrontation, the principal had the parent speak to a superintendent of the school board, whom she promptly told to F??? Off. He did not take too kindly to this, and requested that the principal obtain a No Trespass Order from the local police to prevent this parent from coming on the premises. This, of course, left the mother with a phone which she continued to use. The principal refused to take her phone calls, so she resorted to using the Fax machine.

It would come as a big surprise to me to discover that her child was in no way influenced by this rude and verbally violent behavior by his own parent. However the HRC has a target, and a weapon, and on we go.

The child, in the words of the principal was not bullied but gave as good as he got. The kids who allegedly bullied him were 2 Filipino kids, and a couple of others.

One particular day was a beautiful snowy day, and kids of various grades made snow forts. However boys from grade 5 broke some of them and so a situation arose. The principal believed that two particular miscreants, the complainant and a white boy were involved, and questioned them in her office. Their stories did not match, and so the principal decided to leave them alone in her office to discuss the situation among themselves until they could come to a common understanding of the issue and a common statement of facts.

However, while she was gone from her office the complainant stole $6 from her desk, of which she did not become aware until the next day. The details of this were a bit convoluted, but on a subsequent day the complainant arrived with an apology note confessing to the crime.

The principal suspended him for one day to be spent in her office doing work assigned by his teacher. This was to show all students the seriousness of the situation, and to show the student himself the seriousness of the situation.

Part of the complaint against the principal is that she did not suspend the other student because he was white. In the principal's opinion the other student did not participate in the theft, and the complainant confessed to it. She also did not suspend any of the other white students in the school who did not steal the money. But in fairness, she did not suspend any of the other non white students who did not steal the money.

The other major part of the complaint focuses on a piece of nebulizer equipment for the student’s asthma that the mother wanted in the school and to be administered by staff at the school. School board policy is that to bring such equipment onto school property an appropriate medical release must be signed and filled in by a medical practitioner to ensure that it is needed and that the school will not be liable as a result of its use on school property, not an unreasonable request. The principal refused to allow the equipment on school property until the forms were filled in and signed and she provided them to the parent to get prepared. They have never been submitted to the school, though claims of the system or really the principal being barbaric (I wonder if barbarism is a form of bullying or racism?) have been made.

In documentation about the principal and her work, the board referenced her exemplary behavior including her dealing with mixed races. Is there any possibility that the problem is with the parent here? How will we ever know? The parent is not the target.

The HRC has offered to the school board as a settlement that the board pay the student $10,000, remove the notice of the one day suspension from the student’s Ontario Student Record, remove the No Trespass Order against the mother, provide training in racial sensitivity to the teachers and to the particular defendant (the principal, now retired) and a few other gems of HRC wisdom which will make the world a safer place.

It all begs the question of what the HRC is doing involved in matters that need to be adjudicated within the school community. It is very obvious that the mother is the bully, and that the only racist is the mother, but, since she is not white skinned, she is not likely to be the target of the HRC.

I have intentionally not provided specific names and locations here since this is an ongoing action, and parties have signed documents not to disclose certain facts. That does not hide the insanity that is present.


"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

Words to live by, though we seldom do. It has been my experience that my ego and that of people of my acquaintance has gotten in the way of the truth. It has been more important to be right than to know the truth. Because of this marriages end (been there, done that sadly), relationships get stressed and sometimes broken (done and doing that again sometimes sadly), nations fight against nations, and within nations the irrational takes precendence over doing the right thing.

In this blog, I intend to publish the truth as I find it, and to expose lies that I uncover, and the ambiguities and vagaries that cause pain and suffering to others.

Where appropriate, I will blog about issues that arise because of the Law of Unintended Consequences, where good intentions resulted in bad results and victimization of people. The way of life is paved with good intentions, and where good intentions result in pain and suffering, those good intentions must be brought to the fore so that they can be corrected.

A particular focus of this blog will be looking at cases brought before Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals. I want to look at them from the perspective of the lives of the persons affected by the case, the person or group prosecuting the offense, and the person or group defending the case. I want to try and examine the lives of those involved before the incident that gave rise to the case occurred, during the prosecution, and after resolution.

I am interested in knowing if the HRC/T's have a positive impact on our society. So, I am hoping to hear from people that have been party to resolved or in progress cases, and to understand and then communicate about their experiences in this blog. Where it is necessary to protect the names of people as in the first case I am reporting on, I will do so. Where the case is a matter of public record or has been completed, I will probably prefer to report more specific details.