Thursday, July 30, 2009

Ethical Debate About Human Rights

Do Personal Attacks Have a Place in Debate over Human Rights?

Janet Keeping, President of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership wrote an interesting piece for The Star Phoenix on July 30, 2009 here.

The premise of her article is as follows and I quote:
"an important aspect of this and other public debates is too often overlooked: Even if we had complete freedom of expression, it wouldn't follow that "anything goes." It's not ethically OK to be obnoxious.

Our legal right to speak is one thing, but how we exercise that right is quite another. Even if you are legally entitled to be offensive, you are still acting unethically if you deliberately set out to harm people by your words or if you just don't care about the "collateral damage" your offensiveness causes."

She opines that there are rules for verbal jousting, the first one being No hitting below the belt, although she calls it no personal attacking of your opponent, nearly always. Her point is that by attacking your opponents integrity, you are actually undermining your own policy position and for that matter your own integrity.

She claims that Ezra Levant is, if not the king of this (my words not hers) then pretty darn good at it, and cites examples of his chewing on Jennifer Lynch's hide, by calling her a "damned liar", and an "execrable woman". I know what a damned liar is, and I think he gave some pretty good examples of lies told to prove his point on that one. I just looked up execrable and it means "of very poor quality". I bet that is not something you would call your spouse if you planned on sleeping with both eyes closed in the same bed. She also notes that he said and I recall reading: "When she accosted me ... I didn't recognize her ... She is much more haggard and old than her ancient publicity picture." That might be able to be put under the category of fair comment. I don't know, I wasn't there, and he did not post pictures.

This, of course is Ezra Levant talking about the same Jennifer Lynch who heads the Canadian HRC, who had spent untold hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars to hound him over the ridiculous cartoons, until they ultimately dropped their case, at great cost to him. They were able to bully him and ethics rules did not apply to them. Just a thought. Ms. Keeping seems to think that Ezra is overreacting, and doesn't play well with others.

Basically, Ms. Keeping is late to the party, and a lot of water has flowed under the dam, and Mr. Levant and others have long since dropped gloves in this fight, because they perceive that they have no choice. They PERCEIVE that they have no choice.

Of course, you have an opponent, Ms. Lynch and the CASHRA members who intend to win the debate, and have the money to do so, and the power to do so. On this side, you have the bloggers, and the beaten up folks who have been the real victims of the HRCs over the years, and the misinformed public of this country. Ms. Lynch has even been invited to debate by Mr. Levant, and by Mr. Steyn in his stead, but the invitations have crossed in the mail or something.

The fact is they win the debate almost every day in most provinces by beating up on some poor shmoe who said the wrong thing to the wrong person or didn't, who didn't want to rent his apartment to some deadbeat, or some cop who thought the non Caucasian guy in a do rag, and ripped sneakers in the ritzy part of town might have been up to no good, and then said cop was tagged for racial profiling for doing his job.

Anyway, Ms. Keeping goes on to talk about the rules for making nice with your opponent in a debate. Interesting reading, anyway. And she closes well sort of:
Those, such as Levant, who argue that human rights commissions should not have authority to regulate speech are, in my view, entirely right. But how some people advance that view is quite wrong.

Those who attack their opponents personally, instead of arguing against their policy positions, are using freedom of speech in an unethical way. And it is no answer to claim that some human rights commission officials carry out their duties in an oppressive, even harassing, manner. If true, this should be remedied, but not through reverse bullying: Just as our mothers told us, two wrongs really don't make a right.

I kind of agree with the two wrongs don't make a right thing. Heck, I told my kids the same things, and I believed it then, and believe it now. For me, the t-shirt thing a while back was some blowing off of steam, and for Ezra some of the noise is also blowing off steam.

However, I get lost when she says that "it is no answer to claim that some human rights commission officials carry out there duties in an oppressive, even harassing, manner." The whole fricking process that the human rights commissions run by is oppressive and harassing to the poor shmoe that gets called before them, because he seems to have offended some member of a protected species. It is hardly a bald claim. It is merely fact upon fact.

For folks like me this is a debate, and I can take her advice. For Ezra Levant, this is more of a war and not a debate, so Ms. Keeping's comments are likely falling on deaf ears.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

A couple of Links for Today

Lazy Day But There is Good Stuff Out There

Ezra Levant has a link to the You Tube taping of The Shakedown Song here. It's Support Ezra Levant Day. While you are at this site listening to the Shakedown Song, make a donation if you can or wish to for his Defence fund.

Deborah Gyapong had it first, but Ezra has a bit of the back story, so I have linked you to his copy of it.

Fellow blogger and buddy Walker Morrow at The Lynch Mob has been posting some cool things (mine included) about stuff and such, including Jim Corcoran. Here is a good posting he cross linked from Scary Fundamentalist. Walker's copy is here, and SF's is over on his blog here below an update on the Corcoran thing.

And, any day is Support Stephen Boissoin Day, so I urge you to drop by his blog and support him too, please.

Monday, July 27, 2009

What is Going on in the Peterborough Catholic Diocese?

What About the OTHER Parishioners of St. Michael's Cobourg?

I don't receive a lot of Comments to my blogs, not a lot of readers either. But I received this comment to the Keep Barb Hall Out of the Catholic Church post I did a while back, and it touched me, and so I am repeating it here, and using it as the start of the detailed blog post I have been working on about what I think is going on in the Peterborough Roman Catholic Diocese.

"THANK YOU SO MUCH for this blog. Out of the several pundits and blogs that have commented on this situation, yours is the only one that I found which genuinely articulated 'Truth in Charity.'

As a man with same-sex attractions deeply in love with Jesus and His Church and striving to be faithful to her teachings, I'm familiar with the pain that come from a Church that is still trying with all good intentions to effectively minister to these her sons and daughter. I don't believe we as a Church have reached that point yet. This experience deeply hurts because there are many men and women with ssa who, by grace, see through the shallowness of the 'gay lifestyle,' have met Christ and are faithful to His Church. Sadly however, many of their brothers and sisters do not know what to do lovingly respond to their sensitive situation. I applaud Bishop DeAngelis for intuiting dynamic in our Church by responding to in light of the Word of God, particularly St. Paul's admonition on idols: He did not attack Corcoran but urged him in Christian charity to avoid scandal.

That being said, there is definitely more to the story than the "gay man vs church" spin off which is what is being regurgitated everywhere. Placing a church into the hands of the state is deeply troubling for me, especially in a context where secular power whose double standard will easily interfere in Church matters yet will silence her from the public square. I much appreciate your emphasis on prayer as ultimately, this is in God's hands. From him all will receive their just sentence.

p.s. "Consider it all joy" Omne gaudium existimate is not from St. Paul but from St. James. (1:2) =)" " Ed. Note. My bad on my bible quote.

But here is what I have been working on. I read Jim Corcoran's blog and the news pieces and realize that the whole story is out there, but it's not Out There. Seems that there's a lot of history in the Peterborough RC Diocese, and particularly in St. Michael's Parish, most of which Bishop De Angelis inherited, and as it clears itself up, or as he himself has to clear it up, the inevitable convergence of manure and fan blades occurs and feathers have gotten ruffled.

And the Ontario Human Rights Commission is the very last place for this to get sorted out. It is a Catholic Church internal matter.

When I read people commiserating with Jim Corcoran on his blog and taking his side against the "12", with really only his side of a very deep story that makes him out to be the victim I find it very frustrating. He is not lily white in this thing, and it makes me want to puke.

Some of this is my conjecture. I am not trying to write a treatise on the subject, but trying to figure out a bit of the insanity that is driving the participants, and people in the background to behave as they are so doing, because people only act in accord with their perceived paybacks. (At least that's what Dr. Phil says.)

This story did not start recently but begins probably over 30 years ago, when the so called "12" were raising their families in St. Michael's Parish. The latest responder to Jim Corcoran's Blog post Welcome (I think), Amy Coghill calls them narrow minded and old fashioned. Not so, methinks. The only narrow minded person I have seen thus far appears to be Jim Corcoran, though the Ontario HRC is far more narrow in their mind set than he can ever imagine.

These people (the 12) all live within a short distance of the parish, and it has been their life blood for probably their entire time living there. They have hatched, matched, and dispatched from there, while attending years of Midnight Masses, Easter Vigils, euchre parties, church picnics, and other social events. The men are probably Knights of Columbus and the women are in the Catholic Women's League. Their children attended the Catholic schools, and received First Communion, and Confirmation, and might have been married there, as well. It is in their blood. They love St. Michael's.

They probably served on Parish Council at various time, and attended parent teacher interviews. Their kids all grew up together. Unless you have tried to raise children in a Christian church setting, while holding onto values that you were taught to believe in you cannot understand where they come from historically.

This may not be their exact experience. In effect, I am juxtaposing the experience of my parents and myself as a child being raised in St. Michael's Parish in London Ontario. However, I am betting that it is pretty close.

I bristle at ignorant people calling our eminents grises, old fashioned and narrow minded. They deserve to be understood, and listened to, not demeened and have their values ridiculed where they feel they have nowhere to turn and have to write letters to the Bishop to be heard over their concerns.

The people of St. Michael's have been traumatized over the last several years.

Back as far as 1998, their much loved paster, Fr. Ed Cachia first openly showed support for the ordination of women priests, and there should have been but was no negative communication to him from Bishop Doyle. However, when Bishop De Angelis became the leader of his diocese, one of the early things he did was attempt to quiet the disruptive dissident mouthings of Fr. Cachia, in the short term unsuccessfully, I might add.

A friend of mine a number of years ago taught me a lesson about obedience to church leadership. One afternoon, we had been working together, and I invited him to go for a beer. He had been a bouncer in a bar in his younger days and had liked a few pops, so I thought nothing of the offer. But, he said to me, that a few years back he and his wife had joined a Baptist Church, and that he no longer drank alcoholic beverages. His explanation to me was that if you were going to be a member of the club and wanted to be, then it was appropriate to follow the rules even if you would like to do other things. It made sense to me then for him, and it makes sense to me now for me, and it makes sense to me for all Catholics.

So, my answer to all the naysayers to what I am about to say is, if you are not Catholic, your opinion does not matter to me about the Church since you have not been there, and cannot understand, any more than I can understand your way of life, other than anecdotally. If you are a Catholic and want to be in disagreement with the Church teachings on something, and want to live out that disbelief as opposed to just explore your thoughts and feelings, then you are not really a Catholic and need to go someplace else. Being a Catholic is not for the faint of heart and it is not a smorgasbord. Sorry, but as Walter Cronkite said every evening at the end of his broadcast "and that's the way it is".

Fr. Ed Cachia was very much loved by his parishioners at St. Michael's Parish in Cobourg, as I understand, and as I also understand it he was by and large a pretty good priest. But, Ed Cachia has a serious blind spot about female ordinations for some reason. In July 2005, 9 women declared themselves ordained as priests or deacons in a wacky, yet secret ceremony on the St. Lawrence River and Fr. Cachia called this a momentous occasion, basically declaring himself a wack job as well. He said in an interview with the Osprey News Network, and in open defiance of the teachings of the Catholic Church:
“I believe that this is the beginning of a new and awesome change in the life of the Church.I feel a deep sense of respect and admiration towards these brave women. I would like to congratulate them for following their conscience and responding to the call of becoming priests and deacons.”
Catholic Church teaching about female ordination is well documented, and readily accessible. It is not going to happen. So anybody performing some kind of female ordination is outside the Church in doing so. There is a formation process for priests that is onerous and lengthy, and it does not end in a secret ceremony on the St. Lawrence River. What is not put forward by those in favour of this nonsense is that of those allegedly ordained, several are homosexuals, whose views of homosexual sexual activity are not in conformance with Church teaching. As well, some are pro abortion, and pro birth control measures that are not acceptable to the Church. This is not simply about ordaining women. It is about overthrowing Church teaching on many important topics. Do your homework before you support this stuff.

Bishop De Angelis had no choice practically but to give Fr. Cachia time to think and recant his public pronouncements of support. When he did not recant, and in fact set up a Church of his own outside St. Michael's Parish, Bishop De Angelis had no practical option but to confirm that Father Cachia had in fact excommunicated himself from the Roman Catholic Church. Frankly, those who have suggested otherwise are talking through their hats. If you have a child, and your child defies you, as a parent you have no choice but to stand by what you have said and take the appropriate disciplinary action. Otherwise your authority is lost. Make no mistake the Catholic Church is not and should not be a democracy. I don't recall Jesus ever putting anything up to his disciples for a vote.

Fr. Ed Cachia VIOLATED his parishioners when he broke his own oath of obedience to the Bishop of his diocese, and his vows of ordination. To say he felt moved by the Spirit to do what he did is a crock of BS. The devil is smarter than Ed Cachia, and loves to twist the truth around to make something that seems innocuous, yet is wrong, look good.

So, in early 2006, the parishioners of St. Michael's were violated by, and lost, a friend, a confessor, a parish priest. I don't know about you, but this would be very traumatic for me. In fact, when it happened that a priest that I really liked as a youth left the priesthood, it had a serious impact on my faith life for several years.

Things bumped along until the arrival of Fr. Alan Hood in August 2008. Fr. Hood among other things is a loyal and esteemed member of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem. It seems to me that his involvement in that august order has left his head in the clouds as it relates to his pastoral charge.

Father Hood appears to have taken St. Michael's Parish by storm, as it were, and ruffled feathers on the way, after his arrival in 2008. It seems that there was no money in the kitty for building repairs, but he went ahead anyway, in spite of objections by the building and finance committee. At least that is how I read it. He moved his mother into the rectory, probably without as much as a "by your leave." And he seems to have gone about p?ssing people off at will, probably more by his style than anything else.

One of the things he did that got their goat, was creating an adult altar society of servers, and setting Jim Corcoran up as the leader, which occurred in the Fall of 2008. Jim and his partner David had started coming to St. Michael's from their home in Grafton about 65 km away in August 2008, when Fr. Hood came on board.

There certainly has to be some question as to how sensitive it was of Fr. Hood to invite Mr. Corcoran to the position he offered him. From an optics standpoint, if nothing, when a man, any man who starts coming to church when the Pastor arrives, and suddenly becomes head of ad adult Altar Society, that is peculiar. What about all the other faithful members of the Parish? I am not big on political correctness, but I am big on sensitivity to the needs and feelings of others, and this has a high repugnancy index for me.

So once again the parishioners felt VIOLATED. First, Fr. Cachia, and then 2 1/2 years later, Fr. Hood. As I said in an earlier post, this happens, and people sometimes leave or they may react. In this case, both happened. Some letter writing occurred because the people felt that violation, and felt disconnected from their new pastor. Big surprise there!

The letters were mainly about finance issues and other issues with the leadership of Fr. Hood. I can see why Jim Corcoran is a supporter of his. He has no sense of history (nor does Fr. Hood), and he got what he wanted, until the Bishop asked him to step down.

Corcoran said De Angelis urged him to take his dismissal from the altar in the spirit of Paul’s advice to the Romans on the issue of meat sacrificed to idols (Romans 14:13-23) — refraining from scandal. Instead, Corcoran said that the bishop should have confronted the 12 parishioners and their prejudice. Somehow this got to be all about Jim Corcoran and his partner. News Flash Jimmy Boy, it's not all about you. In fact, it's not about you PERIOD, and it never was.

“This is a man (De Angelis) who needs some help in understanding how to deal with confrontation in his diocese. The Human Rights Commission helps people do that,” Corcoran said. Well, he can run a spa, so a Catholic Diocese should be a walk in the park. What an idiotic thing to say.

But the take of Mr. Lawless, one of the 12 parishioners in the Corcoran crossfire is somewhat different: “We have not discriminated. We have simply asked the bishop to act on a situation which we had been informed on very good authority was in violation of church policy”. That sounds like a reasonable request to me.

Anyway, be all of this as it may, you might have been surprised to know that Ed Cachia surfaced at Ste. Anne's Resort, which is run by Jim Corcoran, as an unofficial chaplain in April 2009. But then this story is somewhat Kafkaesque anyway isn't it?

Timing is everything and there really are no coincidences in life. So that puts Ed Cachia back into the picture. Call him a fly in the ointment if you will, and not my idea of someone who I would choose to be having around me for spiritual direction at a time when I was in conflict with the Catholic Church.

Wally Keeler has some things to say that make sense to me here.

And you know what, somehow faithful Bishop De Angelis has to clean up this mess after first Fr. Cachia violated his parishioners, then Fr. Hood violated them once again, and then Jim Corcoran ran off screaming at the top of his lungs that he had been discriminated against.

Trying to look at it from the perspective of the parishioners of St. Michael's Parish, that's what it looks like to me.

How terribly sad for ALL concerned, and I mean ALL.

Stephen Boissoin/Bishop De Angelis in Context

The View from a Pew

Yesterday morning, my wife and I went to Sunday mass as we usually do. I say usually, in the context that it is something we very much enjoy, but due to a lot of illness over the last 5 1/2 years, we have been unable often to attend. In actual fact, we were only healthy enough to attend regularly and joined St. George's Parish in London, Ontario this past Fall, about the time Jim Corcoran and his partner went to St. Michael's in Cobourg. And that shows you where my mind is at as I attend mass each of the last few weeks.

I find it hard to concentrate at Mass lately, though the music and liturgy are very beautiful, the homilies are thoughtful, and the sacrament is after all the sacrament.

You see, I have been preoccupied with the trials, both literal and figurative of my friend Stephen Boissoin, and of Bishop De Angelis and the parishioners of St. Michael's, Cobourg. But, yesterday, I tried to put it all into context.

My wife and I arrived just before mass started and so we sat at the very back of the church on the side. The Church has a lovely semi circular layout, sloping down to the altar, making the altar visible from everywhere.

As I looked over to the choir area, I saw the piano player, who is a 24 year old young woman, whose father I hired when he emigrated from Sri Lanka before she was born. I remember holding her in my arms when she was a little girl. In front of us was Dr. John Snyder and his lovely wife. Dr. Snyder has taught at King's College at Western University for over 40 years, though he officially retired years ago. He taught me and my not then wife, Theology of Marriage back in the late 60's, and then this past year taught the same course to my 20 year old daughter. I was a very slow learner, through no fault of the good doctor.

There are several Sri Lankans in our parish, as the Associate Pastor Fr. Francis Jeyaseelan is Sri Lankan, and a kind and gentle man. Near us a little 2 year old Sri Lankan girl in a pretty blue dress spotted another little girl along the way, and gradually left her family and worked her way across the back to her new best friend. The innocence of little children. At the end of the mass, the parents of both children spoke together for the first time.

Across the way, a woman training a guide dog to be given to a blind person soon was there with her trainee. There were 500 stories in that Church yesterday at just that one mass.

It was the 17th Sunday in Ordinary time, or as I prefer to call it, Loaves and Fishes Sunday. So, I symbolically laid my concerns for Stephen, and for Bishop De Angelis and the people of St. Michael's, Cobourg on our altar, and entered into the worship of the moment as best I could.

The readings available here, are not just about the multiplication of food that Jesus did, but also what happened when Elisha the prophet multiples the 20 barley loaves to feed 100 people by his faith in God.

The Psalm reading from Psalm 145 had as a response: "The hand of the Lord feeds us: He answers all our needs."

And in case it was not clear to me, there was the reading from Ephesians Chapter 4 with these words: "I, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love,
striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace."

Our Pastor, Fr. John Pirt spoke about a homily that Pope John Paul II had given about the gospel reading of the loaves and fishes. The Pope had spoken of the boy coming forward with his 5 barley loaves and 2 fish in humility as his gift. He said that when you present your gifts to God for Him to use in a spirit of humility, and allow him to mould their use, then the results will far exceed your expectations, as they did in this case.

Later, I thought of what this meant in the situations that I have been praying particularly about here.

I thought of Stephen Boissoin, and of his humility and prayerfullness, of how he has been through serious trials these last several years, and yet has continued to stand without losing his faith, or his resolve to stand until the end. he has the services of a very competent lawyer, and I pray that all will go well at the Alberta Court of Queens Bench this September.

I thought of the humble request that Bishop De Angelis made of Jim Corcoran, and of his prayerfullness. I thought too of how difficult it must have been for him to sign the order of excommunication for Fr. Ed Cachia, of his patience with him in offering him time to recant, even though Ed Cachia had done it all to himself.

Then I thought of Jim Corcoran, Fr. Alan Hood and Ed Cachia, and of their fears and sorrows. How many people will be hurt along this pathway? How many people's fragile faith will be harmed by what is happening here?

I feel a great sadness that the innocence and wonder that exists in St. George's, London is currently missing for the people at St. Michael's, Cobourg, due to this unnecessary, hurtful activity going on there. But then, maybe this is the gift that all of these people have to give to the Lord. God wants us to give what we have, including our hurt, our anger, our loneliness, our pride, our sadness, guilt, and fears.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Scaramouche Style Version of a Children's Classic

Trying my Hand at Politicizing a Well Known Ditty

Blogger Scaramouche often takes well known songs and puts politically incorrect lyrics to them. In the shower this morning, this song came to me. It's all in fun. Hope it tickles your funny bone.

The Old Gray Mayor

The old gray mayor,
She ain't what she used to be
Now she runs our HRC,
Free Human Rights for you, not me
The old gray mayor,
She ain't what she used to be
Many long years ago.

Many long years ago,
Many long years ago,
The old gray mayor,
She ain't what she used to be
Many long years ago.

The old gray mayor,
She kicked butt at the TTC,
Call outs for the blind you see,
Doesn't help the deaf or me
The old gray mayor,
She kicked butt at the TTC
Only about a year ago.

Only about a year ago,
Only about a year ago,
The old gray mayor,
She kicked butt at the TTC
Only about a year ago.

The new gray mayor,
lets Gays parade nude on Yonge you see,
Unions tell him where to pee
Garbage piled above the knee
The new gray mayor,
Is letting TO go to pot
Right fricking now.

Right fricking now,
Right fricking now,
The new gray mayor,
Is letting TO go to pot
Right fricking now.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Stephen Boissoin Appeal Document - Part 3

Ultra Vires - Not Just a Normal Virus

Here's another reason for staying away from the Alberta HRC, and any HRC for that matter. They seem to suffer in the words of Mr. Gerald Chipeur Queen's Counsel (his QC seems to mean something unlike Jennifer Lynch Queen of Censors, and Lori Andreachuk baby Queen of Censors) from the ultra vires.

Now, I am not really a dope, just a guy with a weird sense of humour, so I do know that ultra vires really means in Latin "beyond the powers", and if that does not say it all for our CASHRA members, I do not know what does. So, in my lexicon they all suffer from the ultra vires.

But here's what it means to Mr. Chipeur in defending Stephen Boissoin, and for the remedies decreed by Comrade Andreachuk and her Panel in 2007. He thinks our Comrade is one sick puppy with the ultra vires, that is.

Here is the summary of the answer on an ordered remedy by remedy basis to the question before the Court "Are the remedies in the Decision authorized in the HRCM Act and are they consistent with the Constitution?":
(i) the order prohibiting the publication of "disparaging remarks" about "gays and homosexuals" is ultra vires the HRCM Act and inconsistent with Section 2 of the Charter;

(ii) the order prohibiting the publication of "disparaging remarks" about "Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund's witnesses" is ultra vires the HRCM Act and inconsistent with Section 2 of the Charter;

(iii) the order requiring the removal of "disparaging remarks" from "current websites and publications" is ultra vires the HRCM Act and inconsistent with Section 2 of the Charter;

(iv) the order restraining future contraventions of the HRCM Act is ultra vires the HRCM Act and inconsistent with Section 2 of the Charter;

(v) the order requiring an apology for writing the Letter is ultra vires the HRCM Act and inconsistent with Section 2 and 12 of the Charter;

(vi) the order requiring publication Decision of the Panel with respect to remedy and the written apology of Stephen Boissoin in the Red Deer Advocate are ultra vires the HRCM Act and inconsistent with Section 2 and 12 of the Charter;

(vii) the orders awarding damages and expense reimbursements to Dr. Lund and Ms. Dodd, respectively, are ultra vires the HRCM Act.
This is a fricking epidemic of the ultra vires folks. We better warn Health Canada, and get inoculated against this stuff, or in the words of Ezra Levant, we should "Fire. Them. All."

Anyway, before I get carried away, that was just the brief summary, probably the part that is called brief in the Brief. However, the evisceration continues a little later in the Brief. Oh, you can still download the entire document here at Stephen's website, and donate to his cause here on his site.

OK, the remedies have no basis in law. Mr. Chipeur makes a compelling case with his opening paragraph in the section:
"Before considering the defects in the Decision under the HRCM Act and the Constitution, it is instructful to consider the remedies granted by the Panel. This is because the nature of the remedies granted illustrate why the Decision must be found to be inconsistent with the HRCM Act and the Constitution. The remedies demonstrate beyond doubt that Section 3(1) of the HRCM Act does not belong in the laws of a free and democratic society. Given the opportunity to apply this section to a public policy debate, the Panel, an agency of the Government of Alberta, issued an order of censorship unparalleled in Canadian jurisprudence."
Then he launches into dissecting each remedy in detail.

He starts logically with the first two remedies prohibiting publishing of "disparaging remarks". Most morons could have picked up on this one, and I don't mean Mr. Chipeur. He rightly comments that "disparaging" is not a synonym for "hate and contempt" which the legislation protects against, and in fact is broader in definition. In other words, but not Mr. Chipeur's what the heck did Lori Andreachuk mean and how would you ever enforce it, even if it were legal?

Now as to the writing of an apology and publication thereof, Mr. Chipeur writes eloquently once again. Here are his own words:
There is no authorization in Section 32 , or in any other section of the HRCM Act to order an apology. An apology in an expression of a feeling, such as regret, remorse or sorrow. By definition, then, an apology cannot be ordered without also ordering the underlying emotion. In effect, the Panel has ordered that the Appellant, Stephen Boissoin change his mind. In a very real way, the Panel has assumed the role of thought police. The legislature did not authorize or empower the Panel to act in this manner. Where a statutory delegate exercise remedial powers, the remedies issued must be specifically authorized by statute.
Wow!!! Mr. Chipeur then quotes 3 particular authorities in support of his statement. There's the other TP word, out in the open. I bolded it so you wouldn't miss it.

Next Mr. Chipeur deals with the payment ordered to Dr. Lund. As he says: "There is no authority within the HRCM Act to order the payment of a bounty to an individual who brings another private citizen to justice", only someone who has been dealt with contrary to the act, ie. an aggrieved party. Dr. Lund claims not to be a homosexual, so it has always confused me that he never had a dog in the fight, but got to start the fight. Who did he think he was anyway, Michael Vick? He takes the same stand as to Ms. Dodd, calling her a stranger to the Complaint, meaning she was not named in it.

Last but certainly not least, for the remedies section of the Brief, Mr. Chipeur deals with the constitutional errors he uncovers there. He cites violation of Stephen Boissoin's Charter rights under Sections 2(a) and 2(b) and 12, and of course gives case authorities for so citing.

It has struck me as somewhat strange that the human rights legislation from province to province is not always consistent, and does not seem to be consistent with the Charter. I did discover that Ontario's legislation actually predates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So, the bottom line of all this, is that the Panel was way off the reservation in the Boissoin case, and Mr. Chipeur hopes to rein them in. Don't we all?

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Jim Corcoran - Did You Even Know What The Bishop Asked of You?

This is a Faith Issue not a Gay Rights Issue

If Jim Corcoran had taken the time to think and pray about what the Bishop had asked him instead of getting in a knot about it, he could have seen the wisdom in what the Bishop was asking of him. But, that would have required personal sacrifice and that does not seem to come easy to him, if his reaction is an example.

Here are the particular verses that the Bishop was referring Mr. Corcoran to when he asked him to step down as an altar server at St.Michael's Parish in Cobourg.

Romans 14:13-23 (NIV)

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.

16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.

17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,

18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.

21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.

23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

The Bishop was asking Mr. Corcoran not to put a stumbling block in the way of the other parishioners as in verse 20. He was not judging him personally. He was using the analogy of these verses to ask Mr. Corcoran to step away to allow the dust to settle, no matter how long it took.

Verse 22 is particularly interesting since it says to keep whatever you believe about these things between yourself and God. I guess that he missed that one. Oops. So now, Barb Hall is not Pope Barb, But God Barb, Wow, are we in trouble!

The Bishop gave Mr. Corcoran an opportunity to remove some of the stress from the parish in an effort to allow saner heads to prevail. But, Mr. Corcoran saw it as a Gay Rights issue, not a matter of faith.

It seems to indicate that Fr. Hood was premature in inviting Mr. Corcoran to serve on the altar only a few short months after his return to regular attendance at the Holy Eucharist. Apparently, the spiritual maturity is not there yet.

Too bad, I keep hoping that he will show it, but he keeps listening to the voices that agree with him. Spiritual maturity is about seeking the truth, not about trying to be right.

Stephen Boissoin Appeal Document - Part 2

Let's Get Started with the Details

I was first introduced to the Stephen Boissoin case by Ezra Levant's seminal book "Shakedown". Shakedown is not seminal in the sense of being the first writings about the insanity that is the HRCs in Canada. But it is the seed upon which those of us who have had no reason to believe that organisations that work to preserve (hah) Human Rights provincially and federally are in fact doing something other than their public mandate.

But, having read what Ezra said about the Stephen Boissoin case, I was somewhat in a "Say it ain't so, Joe!" state. But, as I read blog postings and then court details I found out that the blog posters were not nut bars inventing fiction out of whole cloth, but concerned citizens, fearing for loss of freedom of speech that this case prophesied based on its outcome.

The Complainant, one Dr. Darren Lund, who is not even gay himself was allowed to complain against a letter to the editor that then Rev. Stephen Boissoin sent to the Red Deer Advocate. EGALE wanted nothing to do with this bit of buffoonery, but not so the Alberta HRC.

The Panel Chair, Lori Andreachuk, a noted QC and divorce attorney in Lethbridge Alberta should have divorced herself from this case, but no, she lumbered on, and hit one out of the park, apparently not the park the game was being played on as you will see but hit it out of the park she did.

Anyway, Ms. Panel Chair rendered the most absurd Decision that you could imagine, and Mr. Chipeur is taking it apart, comma by comma, and dot by tittle. As I read the Brief, which is not really (brief that is), I marvelled at the restraint in the legal language used to describe the situation, and the chicanery that occurred. I picture Mr. Chipeur using more colourful language as he spoke about this Brief with his associates, and then mellowed into legalese for purposes of presenting his Brief.

Here's the areas of the Appeal that I want to touch on today:

There is no Legal or Evidentiary Basis for the Conclusions of the Panel

So, if you are telling somebody that the decision they made in their court had no legal basis, oh and by the way, there was also no evidence to back up your decision either, you've said a mouthful my friend. It is tantamount to saying to someone: "You are stupid. And if you want a second opinion. You're ugly too." In other words, harsh words, but justified, and nice legalese to boot.

Mr. Chipeur points out that the Panel relied on evidence from 2 parties and indirect newspaper evidence.

One party, Mr. Douglas Robert Jones established that "homosexuals are a vulnerable population", which Mr. Chipeur claims validly is not an issue in the case. ie. So What.

Then, Dr. Alderson gave hearsay and therefor as Mr. Chipeur calls it unreliable evidence to say that "hundreds of gay people . . . were horrified and fearful". As Mr. Chipeur says rightly, this statement which was relied on was not tested by the testimony of any of the so called hundreds.

And third, the Red Deer Advocate story of the alleged beating of a gay teenager was appended to the Complaint of Dr. Lund with no direct or credible evidence. The reporter was not called to testify, nor was the victim, nor any police officers, nor was any record of an assault read into evidence even. There was not even a first name of anyone who was alleged to have been assaulted.

The article that was attached did not indicate that the victim felt fearful. Instead, he is reported to have said: "I feel the letter was just encouragement for people to go out and stop the gay rights movement."

Mr. Chipeur then says in his next paragraph: "It is clear that the Panel was strongly influenced in her (bold mine) Decision by evidence that was not properly before the Panel."

Mr. Chipeur then zings one by the Panel Chair Ms. Andreachuk when he quotes from Justice Veit in Vantage Contracting Inc. v. Marcil, [2004] A.J. No. 368:
The HRCM Act authorized appeals from Human Rights Panel decisions. In deciding that human rights panels had no particular expertise and required no particular deference, the Supreme Court of Canada held, in Dickason, that the court to which the panel's decision was appealed should examine the evidence before the panel "anew and, if deemed appropriate, make their own findings of fact".
In other words, unlike with cases that have come from a real court, Appeals courts have to look at cases from the Alberta Human Rights Panel as if they were coming from a kangaroo court run by idiots. That's about right, I guess. But, Mr. Chipeur says it with style and grace.

Then, he goes on to his last piece of this section starting with the cool words: "In any event". Then he says that the Alberta Panel is behind the times in their way of approaching the definition of hatred. The better approach is the Owens v. Saskatchewn Human Rights Commission [2006] S.J. No. 221 case. This is curious since in the reported Boissoin decision, Owens is cited as having been reviewed. It mustn't have agreed with the decision that the Panel had in mind.

Basically Owens was about an advertisement a Christian put in a newspaper citing bible passages as against the homosexual lifestyle. The Saskatchewan HRC decision against Owens was struck down on the basis that Mr. Owens advertisement was in the character of a position advanced in a public policy debate rather than a character of a message of hatred or ill will.

In this case, where Reverend Stehen Boissoin ministers to all youth regardless of sexual orientation, yet writes a letter to an editor of a newspaper, it sure sounds a lot like Owens. Funny how Comrade Lori missed that one in her 2007 decision.

It is interesting to note that the Alberta Human Rights Panel is not a party to this Appeal. Dr. Darren Lund is on his own here, and it looks good on him, although the Apberta HRC should be on the hook as well. I can't blame them for running and hiding.

But, the Alberta AG is involved only as it related to the Constitutionality issues, which we will get to later.

There were no surprises in this aspect of the Appeal, not even in the style and nuance with which Mr. Chipeur crafted his document.

In the world of Human Rights litigation, this is their OK Corral, and Mr. Chipeur is a top notch gun fighter. Only time will tell if Dr. Lund brings a gun fighter to the Corral with him, or if the Doc. takes a Holliday. Mid September should be interesting.

The document is still available on Stephen's own site here.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Stephen Boissoin Appeal Document - Part 1

Reporting on the Brief Submitted to the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta

Last evening, I received from Stephen a pdf of the 36 page brief submitted on his behalf, and ultimately on ours, to the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta. His case will be heard before the Honourable Mr. Justice E. C. Wilson on September 16 and 17, 2009 in Calgary.

This brief, and its accompanying documents (which I did not receive) all of which make "brief" a misnomer, were prepared by the noted Human Rights advocate Mr. Gerald Chipeur Q.C. of Miller Thomson LLP of Calgary.

Mr. Chipeur is a heavyweight, and is just what the doctor ordered to see justice prevail in this absurd situation. He is a contributing editor for the legal publication Charter and Human Rights Litigation.

Of interest, Darren Lund, the Respondent in this Appeal is represented by Patrick Nugent of Chivers Carpenter of Edmonton.

This morning, I will make only some preliminary comments as I want to really work my way through the document to do Stephen and it justice. I believe that this case is pivotal to the freedom of speech debate in Canada. It is what Ezra Levant is fighting for, what Stephen Boissoin is fighting for (at least in this instance), and what we must all pay attention to. If there are values that we hold as individuals, and if we wish to be able to hold them and express them, even against the opposition of political correctness, then what is happening here in this case matters to us all.

And one other thing. Representation like the quality that Stephen has secured does not come cheap. If you believe in what he is fighting for, I urge you to put your money where your mouth is and donate to this cause here.

On a first review, the brief is a formidable document.

The brief seeks to answer for the court the following questions with the full question and the briefest of summary answer, with details to follow later:
A) Is the constitutionality of Section 3(1) of the HRCM Act properly before the Court in this appeal? - Yes

B) Has the Respondent established a legal or evidentiary basis for the conclusions of the Panel of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission ("Panel") set forth in the decision under Appeal ("Decision")? - No

C) Are the remedies in the Decision authorized in the HRCM Act and are they consistent with the Constitution? - No

D) Does Section 3(1) of the HRCM Act violate section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Charter? - Yes

E) Does the HRCM Act trump the Charter? - No

F) Is Section of the HRCM Act ultra vires the Province of Alberta under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867? - Yes

G) Is the Complaint unsustainable as a result of the operation of Section 3(2) of the HRCM Act? - Yes

H) Should the Respondent pay the costs of Stephen Boissoin on a full-indemnity basis? - But of course.
The Appeal in summary seeks to dismiss the complaint on the following bases:
a) the Decision and Section 3(1) of the HRCM Act violate the rights of the Appellant under section 2 of the Charter;

b) the Decision and Section 3(1) of the HRCM Act are ultra vires the Province of Alberta pursuant to Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867;

c) the Decision is ultra vires the Panel, as it is inconsistent with Section 3(2) and Section 32 of the HRCM Act; and

d) the Decision is not supported by the evidence and must be set aside because the Appellant did not publish the Letter and the Letter did not expose anyone to hatred and contempt.
This summary alone points out some of the absurdity of the entire case against Stephen Boissoin. I am leaving the absurdity of the case against Bishop De Angelis for another day. Stephen wrote a letter to the Editor of a newspaper. The newspaper chose to publish it. Stephen did not choose to publish, only to write it, yet the actual publisher was not a party to the case.

As the brief presents there was no evidence presented that made any sense whatsoever to the kangaroo court, yet Darren Lund, who was not an aggrieved party, since he claimed he was not himself a homosexual had standing to make the claim, and was granted an award, as was some other non party to the claim. More to come dear readers.

Thank you Stephen for sharing this.

The document itself is downloadable from Stephen's own site here.

All You Need is Love Dat DaDa DaDa

Lennon/McCartney Got It. Why Can't CASHRA?
"All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need."
The Beatles recorded "Love is All You Need" in 1967. However, they weren't the first to suggest that love is all you need.

Jesus, you might remember Him, when he was here a couple of millenia ago, (How soon we forget) left us with two commandments, the first was to Love God, and the second was to Love our neighbour as ourselves.

Not too long after that St. Paul, when he was writing his first letter to the Corinthians wrote in Chapter 13 from verses 4-8 to tell us some of the characteristics of love that: “Love is always patient and kind; it is never jealous, love is never boastful or conceited; it is never rude or selfish; it does not take offense, and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people’s sins but delights in the truth; it is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes. Love does not come to an end.”

Yet, our Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals are after us to find instances of discrimination and report them so that miscreants can be brought to justice.

Jim Corcoran is busy winning friends and gaining influence in the Peterborough Diocese of the Catholic Church by doing that. Darren Lunch did it in Red Deer to Stephen Boissoin.

But, I think that Barb Hall and Jennifer Lynch and their ilk are Led Zeppelin fans particularly "Stairway to Heaven" types:
There's a lady who's sure
All that glitters is gold
And she's buying a stairway to heaven.
When she gets there she knows
If the stores are all closed
With a word she can get what she came for.
Or maybe Not. "Ooh, it makes me wonder."

Let's add to the Lexicon

Some New Words for the Blogging Universe

Kathy Shaidle wrote this about Hilary White who was writing about Kathy Shaidle, as she was coining a new verb for the English language, aptly named after Kathy Shaidle:

Hilary White, who is no slouch herself, writes:

Today, when I was having my daily call with my editor, I used the expression "my inner Kathy Shaidle".

I think "Kathy Shaidle" needs to be coined as a verb. "To Kathy Shaidle" should mean to express oneself without the slightest nod to the accepted niceties of expression; to speak bluntly about topics considered sacrosanct; deliberately to face up to and comment freely upon subjects that are considered taboo by the bien pensants; to blast Goodthinkfulness to smithereens on a daily basis.

Colloquial: "They tried to silence me with lawsuits and visits from Ahmed the killer pimp, but I Shaidled their cringing politically correct butts".

I don't think that only Kathy Shaidle should have her own verb or noun for that matter. Why even adjectives should be spread around the blogosphere. So, here are a few that I offer up for your review and thoughts.

For example:


The inimitable Binks over at Free Canuckistan here is a very good writer, but also points readers to the musings of other bloggers often with no additional commentary, or occasional a brief bon mot. I think we could call that "Binking". There is a particular style to the way that our Binks does it, and so if you are capable of replicating it, then you are "Binking". All else is just providing links.

You can bink a blog, or have your blog binked, and you could be the proud owner of a binked blog. I have been binked and have made a diploma of the binkings which are proudly displayed over my desk.


Many people use their blogs to vent their spleens (what a wierd metaphor that is), and I guess en francais, it could be le venting (sort of), but what I am referring to here is a style of blogging that is taking the HRC world by storm, created by our own beloved Ezra Levant.

At the moment there is only one Ezra Levant, but if you could do what he does I think you would be levanting. So, to write a blog in a pithy (no lithp), humourously bombastic, in your face, take no prisoners, while leaving them rolling in the aisles style, with legal support from court documents to ensure that the truth is not mistaken is to levant.

Only Ezra levants each time out. Some of the rest of us can levant a paragraph or two on a lucky day. Most don't even try, because it is a rather special style. I think that if you were to somehow replicate the style with sincerity, it would be levantish, or levanty, and you would have been levanting.


Blazing Cat Fur, spouse of Five Feet of Fury, which makes me wonder which one of them changed their last name. Did Blazing Cat shorten his, or Five Feet of lengthen hers, or as sometimes happens did Fur marry Fury. It's like the joke about the two Irishmen leaving the pub. It could happen.

Anyway, back to Blazing. Where Ezra Levant shreds ne'er do wells at length and also at breadth, BCF flames them out, or blazes them quickly and points us to the offending documents. So, it's a lot like being Shaidled, but sorta not.


Most of the bloggers that I read are really pretty good in their own right at doing what Scaramouche does best, but I like his style, and so I have labeled it s(cara)mouching. Smouching is a form of hoisting with one's own petard. This seems totally appropriate for someone who models himself after the hero of the Rafael Sabatini novel that opened with the line: "He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad."

Scaramouche smouches his victims by replaying their stupidity for you in his blog, and then skewers them with their own nonsense, thereby hoisting them on their own petard. By the way, a petard was a small bomb for breaching gates and fortifications dating back to the 16th century. The word petard also derives from the french word for the expulsion of natural gas in the human body downward as it were, if you get my meaning. So there's a little graphic for you of smouching.

So smouche away lads and lassies, but Scaramouche does it best.

It's not a slow day really, just a slow day mentally, so nothing profound coming out of the brain pan.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

What are We Here After?

The Hereafter

Arthur DeMoss, founder and president of National Liberty Corporation, used to tell a story before his death in 1979 about a meeting he had with a law school student about his future plans. His son, Mark DeMoss wrote about it in his book "The Little Red Book of Wisdom".

As Mark DeMoss proudly writes, the conversation went something like this:

"Son, tell me about your plans after law school."

"I hope to get a job with a good firm and start making some money.:

"That sounds fine. And then what?"

"Well, at some point, and hopefully not too late, I want to get married."

"I hope you do, son. And then what?"

"I want to get a nice house and start a family."

"Of course, and then?"

"And then I want to raise my kids in good schools and earn enough money to save for a second home."

"Right . . . right. What then?"

"Then I hope to be making enough money to slow down and take vacations with my wife and children."

"And then?"

"Well, I guess I'd like to see my kids get married and start their own families. I'd like to see them become independent and financially secure."

"Good goals, all. What then?"

"If I've taken care of myself, I can hope to live long enough to raise my grandchildren. I hear that's even better than raising children."

"I hear that too. Then what?"

"Well, I hope I'll be healthy enough to enjoy my later years, maybe travel some with my wife and see the world. I want to make the most of retirement and pass along my money to my children so they can benefit as I have."

"And then?"

The young man paused. "I guess, eventually . . . I'll die."

"Yes, you will. And then what?"

Kinda puts HRCs into a different perspective doesn't it. If you take the long view, some of this day to day nonsense is just that, day to day nonsense.

Flim Flamming the Jim Jam

When Will the Dam Break?

Marc Lemire might not be your cup of tea. I don't know him, and really don't know his politics, though I have heard about them, and they sure are not mine. Having looked at his Freedom Site blog, all I have seen is frustration and anger at Human Rights abuses by government agencies against him and others, usually like him.

But what I do admire is his dogged determination to get under the covers of the Canadian HRC particularly, and their shenanigans against him in trying to convict him of hate speech. It is Marc Lemire that caught the CHRC spooks for posting hate speech themselves on various sites to lure haters out where they could prosecute them, even if Jennifer Lynch tries to deny it.

Walker, over at the Lynch Mob has cross posted the results of Mr. Lemire's Freedom of Information Request and blog entry here about what the RCMP provided him. Fortunately, Mr.Lemire has seen enough of Canadian winters to know when he is being snowed, and has lived through the deceit long enough to know the truth or at least most of it to be able to interpret large sections of blackened out text for us. Even with what he was able to get, it does not agree with what Ms. Lynch said lately about it.

As a Canadian citizen, I am disgusted at the deceit that agencies in this country that are supposed to be protecting HUMAN RIGHTS are prepared to undertake. But, it gets even sicker when there appears to be collusion from policing agencies and others who we have always trusted to serve and protect us. However, in fairness to them, I think they have been deluded just like the rest of us by the CHRC juggernaut.

Our fear in this country should not be about the Marc Lemire's and neo nazis spouting their particular brand of filth. It should be about the kind of suppression of free speech that is occurring in our country now that will make a day come when, having had our freedoms taken from us bit by bit, that that garbage looks more attractive to those who feel oppressed by the "establishment machine."

Monday, July 20, 2009

The Persecution of Bishop De Angelis

Here We Go Again - Ontario's Version of Stephen Boissoin

It dawned on me some time ago, that as I blog about Human Rights victimization, I was giving time to the wrong guy in the case I have written about recently. The victim is Bishop De Angelis, not the other guy, making claims against him and the 12 so called bad guys.

Anyway, Walker over at the Lynch Mob has come to much the same conclusion, so I will not steal his thunder. You can read what he has to say here, then I will add my own 10 cents worth.

Walker posts a section from the Complainant's blog, and I have already told you that I can empathise with Mr. Corcoran, and his feelings, and I can. But there is more, much more.

Walker spoke of his life in the Anglican and Lutheran churches, and though probably somewhat similar, not the same. I have seen life in the Catholic Church, and have seen established parishes and parishioners when a new priest upsets the apple cart, so a little background is in order.

St. Michael's Parish in Cobourg is the site of the excommunication of Fr. Ed Cachia in early 2006 over his insistence to keep to his teaching on the ordination of women, which is contrary to Catholic Church teaching. You think that might have upset the parishioners a bit, in stable, relatively peaceful Cobourg, Ontario.

2 1/2 years later, Fr. Alan Hood KCHS arrives on the scene. It may surprise some readers to know that within a Catholic Parish, the parish council serves at the behest of the parish priest. It basically does his bidding. Some priests take this seriously, and rule. Some are more collegial.

In a parish that I attended here in London, Ontario a parish priest arrived and immediately started to dictate to the music ministers what mass parts they would sing. It happened that the one choir director and I had written mass parts particularly for the choir we were involved with and the parishioners at that particular mass. The people enjoyed them and felt a part of the mass, as they captured the mood and sentiment of that part of the congregation. No, he wanted a certain American writer's mass parts and he bullied all music directors to adopt them, using a particular excuse that when followed up proved false. As well, other things went like this. It was his fiefdom, and eventually people left for other churches if they chose to. It happens. Priests are people too, and can be as petty as any of their parishioners.

One of the things that the Catholic Church does not do well is recognise the pain that its people are in from time to time. When a child dies at school, like Tori Stafford so tragically in Woodstock this year, grief counsellors descend on the school to comfort and counsel the students and teachers. When Fr. Ed Cachia was excommunicated and the parishioners of St. Michael's lost their friend and pastor, who counselled them on their grief, and who has counselled them yet?

So, it sounds like Fr. Hood comes in 2 1/2 years later makes some changes, good or bad, and runs into resistance. You think? Could have seen that one coming.

You know there are two sides to every story. The big problem with a Human Rights complaint though is they only care about one.

So, if Jim Corcoran is a Gay activist who happens to think of himself as a Catholic, no one will ever get to hear the whole story.

But, if Jim Corcoran is a man of deep Catholic Faith, who also happens to be gay, we might. I hope he is.

But, I am hedging my bets, and I am going to tell you some more of the story tomorrow.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

And That's The Way It Was

A REAL American Hero Is Dead

Not a Pop music icon, whatever that is, this time. No, a man of integrity, Walter Cronkite has passed away.

60 minutes paid tribute to him tonight in a show that was a moving monument to a fine journalist who valued the truth, not as an inconvenience, but as the objective. Not too much of that going on any more.

Considered by many the most respected man in America, he will be missed.

Unfortunately, most people will remember Michael Jackson more than Walter Cronkite for all the wrong reasons.

But Walter Cronkite was a real man of the American people.

God Bless You, Walter. May you rest in Peace.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Where Has the Humility Gone?

Thinking and Praying about and For Stephen Boissoin and Jim Corcoran

In the evenings, before bed, my wife and I read from Living Faith, a Daily Catholic Devotions book that comes out 4 times a year. It has a reading from the day based on the scriptures for the day in the daily mass, and some prayers for evening. As the prayers change every quarter, it takes me a few weeks in a new quarter to really start to get them.

Over this past week, as I have read and followed the case of Jim Corcoran, and juxtaposed it with my friend Stephen Boissoin, it has made me sick.

But last night as we prepared for bed, things started to click in for me. Yesterday's meditation was based on Matthew 11:29 "I am meek and humble of heart." When I communicate with Stephen and read what has happened to him over the last several years, I am struck by his humility, not stupid lay down and die, and let them run over me fake humility, but I will do God's will in the face of my enemies, humility. When I read about Jim Corcoran and also what he himself has to say, I don't see it. But then, what of my own humility?

The writer of the meditation Fr. James Stephen Behrens says in part:
We are asked by Jesus to be like him, and in prayer, as we listen to the loved stillness of our lives, the peace that kind of prayer brings becomes a part of us. We should rest a bit every day and take that time to hear what is good and gentle around us. The more we listen, the more humble we become - and the more we become what we are longing to hear.
I had to read it several times last evening and again this morning, before the Ah Ha moment hit me.

Among the Evening Prayers and Blessings for this quarter is one For Confidence in Prayer as follows:
O Jesus, your disciples often found you in prayer, and so they asked you to teach them how to do it. Help me to pray in confidence to the Father, just as you did. When I am facing my own agony of doubt and fear, pray with me so that I find courage and hope. When my life leads me to the cross, take my hand so that my heart stays strong. Most of all, strengthen my resolve to pray: Not my will, but yours be done. Amen
There was also a Prayer for Inner Healing that goes like this:
Merciful Creator, send your healing Spirit into the recesses of my heart and remove every trace of bitterness, anger and resentment. I know I cling to these attitudes and unresolved grudges, but I want to be set free of them. I know they steal my energy and peace of mind, and I want to let them go. Help me to forgive where I need to and to pray for those who have offended me. Show me where I need to ask forgiveness of others so that I might experience the healing mercy that has its source in you. Amen
And finally, at the back of the book is an excerpt from a new book called Open the Door: A Journey to the True Self by Joyce Rupp. Joyce Rupp writes books that can open up your heart to growth and change if it is the right time and place. In the excerpt she says:
While we are urged repeatedly to swing open the doors to growth, it takes both intention and awareness to do so. We develop and hone this alertness through brief or extended periods of silence, focused prayer, meaningful worship, deliberate reflection and trust filled dialogue with spiritual companions. Any time we slow down, decrease our hurrying, or deliberately choose to stop and consider what is happening (or not happening) in our life, we are preparing ourselves to open the door of our heart. The divine visitor is waiting at the door. We need only to open it wide with our welcome . . .
As I read what I was writing, it finally started to make sense to me on a deeper level. This is our anniversary weekend, and so I will be with my favourite spiritual companion, and we will focus on being together, and loving each other.

I will set this all aside, and just be.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Let's Play Jeopardy

I Dreamt a Game of Jeopardy in Calgary One Night

I dreamt the other night that Jennifer Lynch was the host of an episode of Jeopardy. Come to think about it, she does look a little like Alex Trebek around the eyes.

In my dream, she came on stage and got right to it. That's how dreams go usually. No preamble. No introductions. Stuff just happens wierdly. Sorta like at the HRCs.

Right away she got into the game. No commercials. No nothing. But it was an audience participation game unlike on the real show. Remember it was a dream sequence.

Very Trebekishly Jennifer stands up there and says: "Here's the first question. The Category is Alberta HRC for $400.

He was a Pastor in Red Deer Alberta, who ministered to the youth of the town, excluding none regardless of colour, religion, or sexual persuasion. I hear a few buzzers already. He wrote a letter criticizing the Homosexual Agenda in the schools of Red Deer to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate. Stop the buzzing already, and let me finish. Some poor chap took offence and filed a complaint against him with the Alberta HRC. After 6 years of haranguing by the Alberta HRC, they found him guilty of hating and sentenced him to pay out $7,000, and to never speak, write, think or even pretend to think disparagingly about homosexuals again.

OK. You in the front row. Yes you there."

The participant, a bald, reverential looking, young man in a dark suit, looked her in the eye and replied: "Who is Stephen Boissoin?"

"Correct for $400." She replied. "OK. You get to choose the next category."

"Alberta HRC for $800," he said in a firm voice.

Jennifer started in again: "She was the commissioner in the case involving Pastor Boissoin. She is a divorce attorney from Lethbridge AB, a political appointee, with no meaningful experience in human rights matters, a hack as it were. However, that has not stopped her this far. I hear the buzzer.

"You there."

"Who is Lori Andreachuk."

Good answer. Choose our next topic.

Alberta HRC for $1,200.

"Alright then. We are rolling along here. He was a school teacher in Red Deer Alberta. He filed the complaint against Pastor Boissoin."

"OK, you waving your arms. Is that my good friend Ezra Levant? (It was a dream, remember). Yes, you for $1,200."

"Who is the Village Scold?"

"Ezra, good answer. You've said that before, but the judge says that is not only the wrong answer, but is not a very sensitive answer. I was looking for his proper name, not a descriptor."

"Someone else for $1,200."

"Who is Darren Lund?"

"Ok. Choose our next topic."

"Alberta HRC for $1,600."

Queen Jennifer reads from her cue card: "They are a Death Metal Rock Band. They have sold over 475,000 records, and one of their titles is Kill the Christian, which describes hatefully killing Christians. Their music which is vile and disgusting in its content, and includes such other delightful songs as Crucifixation, Lunatic of God's Creation, Carnage in the Temple of the Damned, and Oblivious to Evil, a somewhat signature piece formed the basis of a complaint against HMV music in 1997 by Quinton Johnson a Christian and himself an artist."

Nobody. I expected so. The answer for $1,600 was Who is Deicide?

OK. Alberta HRC for $2,000.

Once again, Ms. Lynch goes to her cue card, and reads: "She is a QC (hint, hint). She was panel chair in the Johnson Deicide decision, and therefor was responsible for these momorable words: "It is the decision of this panel that the message, which includes its content, tone and surrounding circumstances, is highly unlikely to affect the target group. It is further the decision of the panel that the medium lacks credibility and circulation and is quite unlikely to have any affect on the target group. Further, the context of the songs must be considered as lacking in credibility or reality. The vulnerability of the target group would be extremely limited, if at all and the audience, including the exposed, would be limited in nature and would only come into possession of these particular CD’s in an overt act of volition on their own behalf."

"You there."

"Who is Lori Andreachuk?"

"Correct for $2,000."

At that, I awoke with a start, realising that it was not a dream at all but a nightmare, and it was more real than not.

In fact, it's all a game of jeopardy, and we are the losers, no matter who walks away with the cash.

No wonder I don't sleep well at nights.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Jim Corcoran - Your 15 Minutes Are Up

Let's Give it a Rest

It probably sucks to be Jim Corcoran right at this moment. I bet he didn't see this coming.

I said that I could empathize with him. I spent much of my life not feeling accepted, and when I did not feel accepted, there was a time when I felt OK at least in the church. I worked as hard as I could in my business, and to raise my kids, but I never felt good enough or accepted, or acceptable.

One of the things that was working for me at church, was that I had rediscovered a gift I had for music. I played piano and guitar in a folk style group at one of the masses at our local church. At one of the masses, we had played a particularly joyous song to end the mass, and I had been playing the keyboard that day. I ended the song with a slide on the keyboard, where I slid my hands up and down the keyboard. It was a cool ending to a neat song. As I packed up my gear and headed to the parking lot, the pastoral minister followed me to my car, and told me never, ever to do that again. I was crushed. It started a slow slide of a different sort for me in that parish.

I was the music leader for the Charismatic prayer group at the church at the time, and was struggling with a bad marriage. Some gossip started that at the time was unfounded, and what little security I thought I had, eroded. I made many bad choices along the way, for which I am accountable, but the skids were greased by gossip. It took me most of the years since then to recover spiritually from what happened then, to feel accepted, and above all to feel acceptable.

When I read about Jim Corcoran, this is what comes to mind, and it is painful for me to think about it again. So, I am praying for Jim Corcoran, and for Bishop De Angelis and Father Hood and their parishioners. My prayer for Jim Corcoran is that his next 13 years will not be as painful for him as mine were. My prayer for those who have spread gossip about him is that they should heed not only the words of Jesus, but also the words of Longfellow: "If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."

The issues that I read about that come before the Human Rights Commissions are not about rights generally, but about wounded humans, who need comfort and succor. How sad that they feel that they have to turn to the government for that. What a sad commentary on our society when we think we will get emotional support from the government.

And that is all I intend to say about that.

The End.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

A Sad Day for Jim Corcoran and the Catholic Church

I Empathize with Jim Corcoran

After finding out about Jim Corcoran's complaint against the Diocese of Peterborough on Friday from Blazing Cat Fur's Blog, I did some of my own reading, and wrote my own post. But others dug deeper, and I picked up a pointer or two from Walker Morrow's The Lynch Mob Blog, did some more reading and updated my Friday post and reposted it on Monday, with a link to Mr. Corcoran's own blog at that time.

Last evening, I came across the real factual meat of the matter here at They also posted the Ontario HRT Form 1 that Jim Corcoran filed here.

Jim Corcoran did not create the situation that exists today. But, his response to it has made it untenable in man's eyes. The Good News is that God is bigger than all of that.

For his ordination as Bishop of London, Bishop Ronald Fabbro penned this prayer which I recite daily and offer up for Bishop De Angelis and Father Hood and the priests of the Peterborough Diocese, as well as their parishioners: "Merciful God, you care for your people with kindness, and govern them with love. Give Your Spirit of Wisdom to those you have called to lead your Church. May the growth of Your people in holiness be the eternal joy of your Shepherds."

Many years ago, I had a small computer software company, and one of my most important clients was the Diocese of London. It was 2 recessions ago, and we were struggling to keep afloat. In the midst of this, the Diocese hired away my key employee, without as much as a "by your leave". I felt that we had given everything we had to serve our Diocese. At the time, we lived next door to our Church, and the Vicar General was our own Pastor, and made the hiring decision.

I asked to meet with the Bishop, who at the time was Bishop John Michael Sherlock, who has since retired, and who I held and hold in very high regard. He listened to me, which I appreciated, since I probably did not make a lot of sense. I was probably pretty fear driven at the time. After all, this was my key employee, and we were in deep trouble at the time. We came to an understanding over the next short while. It did not resolve to my personal satisfaction, but I did have to trust in God, and there was no way that I was going to go outside the Church on this matter. In another matter years previously, with another Christian organisation, I had used lawyers to resolve an issue, and regret it to this day.

In the end, it took a few years, my business collapsed, my marriage ended, and life took turns I could never have predicted. Sometimes in my life I have been patient, trusted that God was in charge and it worked out. Sometimes I have been impatient, forgot to trust in God, and it was even more painful as it worked out, and I failed to see the lesson in it as it was working out.

Recently, I had dinner with two young women that I love very dearly, who are a Gay couple. We had a lovely time together, and at one time one of them said to me: "Do you think I would choose to be Gay?" There was a sadness like she was living out a cruel joke or something, or maybe I read more into it than was there. But, the emotion was very intense for her, and I felt it deeply.

I sensed it again in reading Jim Corcoran's Form 1 to the Ontario HRC. In reading the LifesiteNews article, there is a sense of Jim Corcoran as a man of deep faith, trying to live it out in accordance with the Church's teachings, and to find his vocation in the Church.

How many times in his life has Jim Corcoran felt shame for being who he is in a world that does not understand who he is, and sends him conflicting messages about who he MUST be? The Church is that one place where you can be accepted as you are. That's what Jesus taught us, right? Yes, but unfortunately, the Church is populated by human beings who are less human than he was when he was with us on the earth. Too often, we fail to love, and are driven by our fears.

I think that Jim Corcoran has a vocation within the Church. I really do. A man who knows his own sexuality, and is able to live it out in accordance with Church teaching can do a lot of good for young people who are struggling as he did when he was young, and as he does on a day to day basis.

It is sad that people have used a letter writing campaign to judge him to the Bishop, rather than spending time with him to get to know him and understand him. To them I say: "Judge not, lest you be judged."

It is sadder still that Jim Corcoran is now taking his hurt feelings to the Ontario HRC for redress.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Keep Barb Hall out of the Catholic Church

Jim Corcoran - The Way of Life is Paved with Good Intentions

I wrote and published this blog entry on Friday based on what I knew at the time, and discovered this morning, that there was a very important side to this story without which this Blog entry is inaccurate and maligns Jim Corcoran, though I find I had actually guessed it somewhat correctly on what I had read prevously. I have revised it and republished it on Monday with more accuracy, but my primary point still stands.

Jim Corcoran has a spat with the Diocese of Peterborough here. The crux of it is that Jim claims that he is a homosexual man, and lives a celibate life with another homosexual man. He had been invited to serve on the altar of his local Catholic Church by the pastor. Apparently a dozen of the local parishioners complained to the Bishop about it. The Bishop in his wisdom (as a successor to the Apostles, as per church teaching to which Mr. Corcoran claims to adhere) refused Mr. Corcoran permission to continue to serve on the altar, to avoid public scandal. But, and here was the part that was missing, the issue with Jim Corcoran's sexuality was tiny in the scale of disruptive behaviour on behalf of the dozen or so parishioners, and Jim Corcoran was on the side of the angels, as you can read from his own blog here.

Let me first of all say that I have a great deal of respect for a person, in this case Jim Corcoran and his partner, who understanding their own personal sexuality, choose to live that sexuality in a way that is also honouring to the Church. As any people in our day and age today will tell you, living celibately in our sexually charged world is extremely difficult.

Mr. Corcoran then sought legal advice to combat, not primarily his dismissal from the altar, but also the other shenanigans that were going on in his parish, in no small part because of his devotion to his Church and his pastor. His lawyer advised him of various courses of action, one of them being to file a complaint with the Ontario HRC.

Unbeknownst to him, and probably still unclear to him from his own well intentioned comments on his blog, when he complained to Barbara Hall, he set the wheels in motion that effectively made her the new Head of the Catholic Church in Canada, Popessa Barbara I, and asked her to use her self anointed power over the faithful to suck monetary damages out of the Bishop in the amount of $25,000 and $20,000 from each of the 12 parishioners who so offended the poor man, when that was not his intention at all. Now that the wheels are in motion, his intention no longer matters. Watch and see. The ball is out of your court now, Jim.

I quote directly from Mr. Corcoran's blog: "The Human Rights Commission is a by product of democracy in Ontario. It is an organization that, through mediation, makes best efforts to bring the parties together for discussion and resolution. In this case, I think there is a role for the Human Rights Commission to play in helping to resolve the issues that have been brought out into a public forum by this group of people, especially as they have affected my rights as a human being."

Reading your blog entry, Mr. Corcoran, I have no doubt about your personal bona fides, and your faith, but sir, if you believe what I just reprinted in the above sentences you are sadly deluded. The Human Rights Commission is a by product of democracy in Ontario, like the atom bomb was a by product of democracy in the USA, with similar but slower destructive powers. Read this or this or this or this if you are not convinced. These people's lives are being destroyed by the mediation (what a joke) process. It is a kangaroo court, and you have now opened the cage.

So, Mr. Corcoran, you claim to live a celibate lifestyle according to Church teaching. But, some of the rest of Church teaching is apparently not quite so important to you.

Barbara Hall might allow you to get what you wish, Mr. Corcoran, and she might get you some blood money to donate back to charity, but will it make you happy? Will you like the Catholic Church that she leaves you with? I cringe to think that the Church that I love will be changed by this in a seriously negative way.

Maybe you remember St. Paul. He was imprisoned for doing nothing more than preaching the Gospel, and what did he say in his trials, which were a little tougher than being refused to serve on the altar, and even than the trials of your Pastor. He said: "Consider all these trials Joy."

The Bishop acted wisely in asking you to honour his request, so as to avoid scandal in the Church, not because of you so much, as because of the weakness of the 12 who criticized you. Remember, it is their church too. If they have sinned against you, their sin will find them out in due season.

Jesus gave us two commandments, Love God, and Love your neighbour as you love yourself. St. Paul said Love never takes offense.

If I were in your shoes, Mr. Corcoran, I would stop this thing with the HRC right now while you can, and fast and pray as hard and long as I could for resolution to this matter. I would also enlist the aid of all parishioners of good will in your parish to seek an end to this distressing behaviour on the part of the self appointed judges and jury that are running amok in your parish.

In my blog entry recently, Pray for Your Persecuters, I quoted Kenneth Copeland a well known preacher in the US who says: "The success of any Christian endeavour is a prayer success. The failure of any Christian endeavour is a prayer failure."

As of now, you have chosen to take this matter out of God's hands and put it in Barbara Hall's hands. Are you daft, man?

Stephen Boissoin Appeals to a Higher Power - But Not That High

A Letter From Stephen Boissoin to Our Prime Minister

On many occasions I have written about Stephen Boissoin, and on several have included his own words in my blog posts. What happens to him matters to me, because it is symptomatic of what will happen to the rest of us when we express opinions that are not comfortable for others to hear. The other day, Stephen wrote a letter to our Prime Minister, which he shared with me and some others. He gave me permission to share it with my readers. I believe that we all should be expressing out thoughts to Our Prime Minister about the state of Human Rights and Freedom of Speech in our country, and I plan to draft and post my recommended letter sometime soon for you to use if you wish.

But, in this particular instance Stephen has done it in a heartfelt and obviously very personal way. Please find a way to show him encouragement and support as his Alberta Queens Bench Appeal draws near. You can donate to his defense Fund on his Blog site here.

July 10, 2009
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Prime Minister of Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A3
Dear Prime Minister:
I am sure that you are somewhat aware of the injustice done to me here in Alberta through the Alberta Human Rights Commission. I am disheartened that you have not stood up to defend me. I was born and raised a Canadian citizen. It is true that my understanding of what you can and possibly are doing is limited, thus the opportunity for you to respond to this letter.
As a Canadian citizen, I pay my taxes and I have invested well over a decade working with at-risk youth. I have invested countless hours and tens of thousands of my own dollars into youth who needed help to 'make it.' I have directed three full-time HRDC funded life and employability skills programs for at-risk youth that had great success and have directed youth centres that saw over 300 youth per week in attendance. I have not based my investment on whether a teen was homo or heterosexual, I have and continue to invest equally into all youth.
What was my crime? I simply wrote a letter to the editor in my local newspaper right in the middle of the gay marriage debate. Plus the many topics surrounding the specific rights of homosexuals were hot to debate at that time. My intent nor the context of my 2002 letter was to be hateful of any individual but instead it was against the propagation of homosexuality to young people. I am not some right wing radical. I was simply involved in a community debate that many other locals where participating in. For writing this letter I am brought before an AHRC tribunal and eventually found guilty through a process that I could not believe was even legal. Truly, it was ridiculous and almost laughable. In the end, I am fined $7000.00 and a ruling is laid down that is so absurd it makes it hard to believe that I am living in Canada a place where aside from her obvious beauty, I now find it hard to remain proud to live in. Yes, there are worse places for sure but Canada does not even protect the freedoms that came with my birthright.
Year after year, you allow people to walk naked down a public street at the Toronto Gay Pride Parade right in front of the police and children. BUT I am the one persecuted and prosecuted for a letter to the editor in my local newspaper.
Over seven years have passed since a complaint was filed against me by a pro-gay activist. A complaint that has cost me dearly.
I voted for you Stephen Harper. As my leader, what have you done to defend me against this obvious injustice? Why have you remained silent?
Stephen D. Boissoin

Friday, July 10, 2009

How "Chilling" is it Really?

Jennifer and CASHRA Have Chilled The Rest Of Us

When I read Queen Jennifer's Speech recently at CASHRA, I was touched by her commentary of the emotional trauma felt by those who were being interviewed for what might be an upcoming blockbuster bestseller where she sets the record straight after our own white knight, Ezra Levant, picked her and them to pieces with his own best seller "Shakedown".

She spoke of the following: "As personal attacks were made against anyone who tried to correct the record, the number of people willing to make the effort dwindled. There is tangible proof of this: 50% of interviewees for an upcoming book on human rights have stated that they feel “chilled” about speaking up."

Aside from the fact that she misspelled the word "correct" in the first line of this quote, where she meant to spell it "manipulate", I am also curious about the 50% "chill" factor she posits.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if any of these interviews took place on May 11, 2007. On that day Mr. Giacomo Vigna, who works for the Queen (Jennifer not Elizabeth) testified that he was not feeling serene in the Marc Lemire case, and was unable to proceed. She might have also interviewed Mr. Lemire who after this nonsense from Mr. Vigna might have been a little less serene himself. I imagine, his lawyer Ms. Kulaszka, and Alicia Davies for the Attorney General, Paul Fromm for the Canadian Association for Free Expression, and Doug Christie for the Canadian Free Speech League were a little "chilled" too in reverse.

On that day, Mr. Vigna gave this sparkling testimony, probably not his most stellar moment, as he said: "Sorry. Mr. Chair, I don't have the flu but I don't feel in a serene state of mind to proceed with the file today. I don't feel very well. I feel dizzy, I feel anxiety, and I am not in a serene state of mind to proceed with this file today. I have a lot of things worrying me right now and I don't want to elaborate, but my colleague said, Mr. Fine, there are some certain incidents that have occurred which I don't feel at liberty to elaborate right now, which have had an impact on my ability to proceed in a professional way on this file, at least for today, because I wouldn't be rendering the Commission a just service by proceeding in this condition. I am not dying, Mr. Chair, I don't have the flu, but I am not mentally capable of proceeding under these circumstances."

But, I digress, mainly for fun.

Jennifer has this to say also: "Ironically, those who are claiming that human rights commission’s jurisdiction over hate speech is “chilling” to freedom of expression, have successfully created their own reverse chill....

Critics of the human rights system are manipulating and misrepresenting information to further a new agenda: one that posits that human rights commissions and tribunals no longer serve a useful purpose."

Let me be clear about my thoughts here. Not only do I think that the CASHRA members are "chilling" hate speech, they are chilling speech and people standing up for their rights. I came to this realisation this morning as I completed my blog post here. Here is government "chill" in full unadorned glory.

We all know how they have beaten up on Stephen Boissoin, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Marc Lemire, and the only one they have a chance of getting away with final victory on is Stephen Boissoin, and their chances are getting slimmer day by day. This does not mean they haven't put them all through the wringer financially and emotionally. That's pretty "chilling" and in itself makes this so called "reverse chill" petty at best.

But when I spoke to my friend the former primary school principal recently, and she told me that with the reinstatement of the recently dismissed claim against her by one of her wacky protaganists, she was just going to bow out, it dawned on me that the "chill" Queen Jennifer was talking about was alive and well. Also, any fake sympathy that I could have mustered for the reverse "chill" her buddies were feeling when she wanted to interview them for her soon to be blockbuster novel went out the window or formed into cubes for a cool beverage.

Just so you understand how the CASHRA chill works, I have been very careful to protect the identity of my "friend", including the community she lives in, any names of people involved, how I know her etc. Why? She does not want to jeopardize her case further in this ongoing insanity. Really, would you want to rattle the cage of someone as power hungry as Barbara Hall and her wandering band of minstrels? The same goes for Gator Ted, and John Fulton, also victims of Barb's Boys. I tried to communicate with them when I was reviewing their cases, and they chose probably wisely not to respond to me. I don't blame them.

I wonder what kind of a parallel universe that Queen Jennifer lives in where she thinks her critics have to manipulate and misrepresent information about the shenanigans that go on with the CASHRA members. Truth is far more ridiculous than fiction could be. You can't make this stuff up.

But I will posit this for her so there is no mistaking my intention. "Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals as they are currently configured and governed do not serve a useful purpose."