Finally Some Sanity in Alberta Human Rights

CBC Reports What Lindsay Blackett Minister in Charge has to Say

Stephen Boission has learned that the process is the punishment for 9 years now.  He lost an absurd case at the Alberta Human Rights Commission.  He won at the Alberta Court of Queens Bench.

Now, the Minister in charge of the Alberta HRC speaks out about this insanity.  The gay rights people do not want this to go forward, and refused to support Darren Lund when he asked them to.  They believe, rightly, that a curtailment of Stephen Boissoin's right to speak critically against their lifestyle, will come to haunt them another day.  So, they support free speech, an interesting concept.  Yet, Darren Lund soldiers on like a modern day Don Quixote.  Only Stephen is taking the brunt of the hit, because Lund is standing on a principle, even though he is alone (except for the Alberta HRC) in seeing a principle.

Here is what CBC Calgary said today:

The minister responsible for the Alberta Human Rights Commission says a complaint about an anti-gay letter to a Red Deer newspaper should never have gone before the commission.

"It's not there to mediate hurt feelings caused by some words or not," said Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett.

"If it's hateful, then that's a hate crime. And that's something for the Crown attorneys and the police services to investigate.

"But the goal of the commission is to make sure people are protected against discrimination where they work, or access to accommodation, access to government services."

'It's not there to mediate hurt feelings caused by some words'
—Lindsay Blackett, culture minister

In 2008, the commission ruled that a letter to the Red Deer Advocate in 2002, which compared gay people to pedophiles and drug dealers, broke a provincial law.

The Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act says no one can publish a statement that is likely "to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt" for reasons including sexual orientation.

The commission found that the letter, written by former pastor Stephen Boissoin, may have played a role in the beating of a gay teenager two weeks after it was published.

The commission ordered Boissoin to refrain from making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and to pay the complainant, former Red Deer high school teacher Darren Lund, $5,000 in damages.

But in December 2009 the Court of Queen's Bench overturned the commission's decision, ruling the letter was not a hate crime and is protected by Canada's freedom of speech laws.

Lund is now appealing that ruling. And he says Blackett's suggestion the case should never have gone to the commission is appalling.

"I really think that the point of this is standing on a principle," Lund said. "And that is, there should be some reasonable limits on hate speech in Alberta."

Lund also said the commission works too slowly, often taking years to make decisions, as it did in his case.
Blackett said the province is making improvements, with the addition of more staff and resources for training.

The Devil is in the Details

The Courage of Our Convictions

Maybe you remember some of those old bank heist flicks.  The ones I am thinking of are the ones where the bad guys are cracking the safe, using a stethoscope to hear the tumblers fall on a combination lock.  From time to time, I sometimes hear those tumblers fall into place during the night, not literally, but figuratively, and last night was one of those nights.

The blessing to me of blogging this past year has been not what I have written, but what I have read, and the people I have met, and above all the lessons I have learned.  I have met and encountered people who have the Courage of their Convictions.  I confess that I have also observed people who wouldn't know a conviction if they tripped over it, and for whom stop signs are options.  But, to those who have the Courage of their Convictions, I salute you.

One person I met this past year was Stephen Boissoin.  He was really the first in this experience to show me about Courage of Convictions.  Stephen stood up for what he believed, and what he knew from his own personal experiences, when he wrote a letter to the Red Deer Advocate now almost 8 years ago.  He was focused on an issue that as a youth pastor was seriously affecting the youth he ministered to.  He had the Courage to call it out, and then for most of these past 8 years to stand by what he said, through Alberta HRC investigations, then Kangaroo Court, and finally in appeal at the Alberta Court of Queens Bench.

Now, I never understood "The devil is in the details" before, but this situation of Stephen's helped me get some focus on it.  Readers of this blog know that I wrote more about his situation, probably than anyone else in the blogosphere did last year.  I talked and met with him, and worked through things we disagreed on, and I prayed with him as well.  I am not an expert on Stephen or his situation, but I worked my way through a lot of details trying my best to discern the truth.

But, the devil is in the details means that skipping the details either because they are inconvenient to your own cause, or because you are too lazy to work the details, lets the devil twist in your head those details you did pick up on.  So, in this case, Darren Lund, Lori Andreachuck, then of the Alberta HRC, and others picked and chose among the mine field of the details, only those that supported their purposes, and made assumptions and wild claims to further their support of what they perceived the truth to be.  The details contain the truth, but only if you seek it. So, God too is in the details, to those who seek the truth.

Stephen never wavered from his original statement, and his stated purpose, but the devil used the laziness of others who did not seek the truth in the details, to make this into a monumental case.  Stephen was bloodied but not bowed by the experience, and his faith strengthened.  He never doubted that God was in control and that all would be well in the end.

I have also been touched by Barbara Farlow, the mother of Annie.  Barbara and her husband have been seeking the truth about how their daughter lived 89 days, after what appears a miraculous healing of the effects of fetal anomalies that are almost always fatal, and almost suddenly was dead.  This is a perfect example of the devil being in the details, as the Farlows seek the truth, but are prevented by red tape, and some malice from getting to the details of Annie's death.   But, they are dogged in their determination, and will continue that search until they can do no more.  They have COURAGE, and abundant faith, and I intend to write about their situation this year, as I discern the truth in communication with them.

But, there is one other person, that I think displays the Courage of His Convictions as much as these others, and a submission to the truth that is slightly different.  Father Michael Prieur, professor of moral theology and other things at St. Peter's Seminary in London, Ontario and ethicist for St. Joseph's Hospital there, has for all the years of his priesthood, including 41 of them at the Seminary, been a seeker of the Truth.  He knows that the devil is in the details, and so each and every day, in his work, he seeks out more of the truth, in more of the details.  He knows the process of discernment of God's will and practices it every day.

He supported the Winnipeg Statement in 1968, when the Bishops of Canada presented a Canadian view of Humane Vitae for the faithful, which by the way few read or understood in its time, but which over the last several years has gotten plenty of negative attention.  Why did he support that statement?  His reasons are simple.  First, he is in submission to his own Bishop, and for him as an ethicist for the diocese, his submission is of great importance to him.  Second, the Bishops had submitted that statement to Rome for review, and Rome accepted it as written.  He sleeps the sleep of angels, because he knows that he has done his best.

He also has been criticised for guidelines that St. Joseph's Hospital has for dealing with situations of lethal fetal anomalies, of which he has been a party.  It could be humorous, if it is was not sad, to see bloggers taking off on Father Prieur about those guidelines, because once again the devil is in the details.  Those who have criticised Father Prieur for the guidelines have taken one or two actual facts, some dubious assumed facts, and tried to make whole cloth out of rags.  The guidelines (remember GUIDE LINES), which are modeled after guide lines in other jurisdictions, that have been approved in Rome, are materially as they have been for many years, are not the result of one man sitting alone in a dark room, and saying: "Eureka, I have found it!"  Father Prieur is part of a team of caring professionals, who have tried to provide guidance to the faithful in particularly difficult times for them.  The guide lines have always had the approval of his bishop, and for his part Father traveled the world meeting with other ethicists, to discern and then provide his input on thorny issues.  Because he knows that the devil is in the details, he has made ferreting out the details his life's work.

To those who would criticize Stephen Boissoin, or Father Prieur, and to those who would try to prevent the Farlow's from finding out the truth of their daughter's death, I say The Devil is in the Details, but for those who have the Courage of their Convictions, the truth is there to be found, because God too is in the details.

To those who criticize Stephen or Father Prieur, I also remind you of the words of that famous fictitious philosopher of the cinema, Pollyanna: "If you look for the good in people you will surely find it."  To that I add, "woe to you if you fail to look for and to find Christ in your brothers and sisters."

To those who try to hide the truth from the Farlows, their God is bigger than your god, and the truth will come out eventually.

These folks and some others I failed to mention have helped me to build the Courage of My Own Convictions this past year, and I am grateful to them for teaching me these lessons.

May God, in his tender love and mercy continue the good work that He has begun in each one of you as long as you may live.

 

Boissoin Victory in the Light of Day

Stephen Boissoin Is Still Not THE LETTER

As the general silence over Stephen's victory continues to deafen us, the particular commentators who have looked up from their long early winter naps to pick up on it, speak volumes. To put it simply, it appears to me once again, that those, particularly MSM types, and all those with an agenda, which makes all the rest of us, who comment on the Boissoin case do so by defining Stephen as THE LETTER.

Even Justice Wilson felt the need to let fly a negative multi-adjective barrage about THE LETTER in his mostly favourable judgment. It makes me wonder if had Premier Stelmach written the letter, a highly unlikely thing since it must be admitted that it was politically incorrect, if maybe the learned judge might have opined against the constitutionality of the hallowed Section 3 of the Alberta HRCM Act, with appropriate case law references.

I actually wrote a piece back on September 17, at the end of the Appeal Court sitting date for the case, entitled Stephen Boissoin is Not THE LETTER. Since I do not want to rehash it, I urge you to read what I wrote earlier, as nothing has changed really. There is an element here of Richard Thomas forever cast as John Boy, or Ron Howard forever cast as Opie Taylor. The good news is that they are fictional characters and the Good News is bigger than that.

So, Stephen will continue to outlive and outshine THE LETTER, and will use it and the experiences from it all to do what he wants in his heart to do most, which is minister to young people. The real depth of the man is what the youth see, not just THE LETTER, and there is real depth there. Someday we will read his life story, and it will curl your hair, to see how low he fell, and why, and to see how high he has climbed back by the Grace of a loving God.

But there were other things that have struck me over the last 2 days since the announcement of victory arrived in my email from Stephen.

I am reminded that in Mark 9:40 it says:

"whoever is not against us is for us."

So, when I read that a gay online news organisation, Xtra.ca supported the Boissoin judgment, I draw some encouragement, even though other Christians are not so quick to agree. I confess that being on the site and seeing the ads that were there was disturbing to me, and "my" understanding of what might be a "homosexual agenda" challenges me.

But, then I think of another important scripture Ephesians 6:12 which says in the midst of a discussion of spiritual armour:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

So, here is my 2 cents worth and I might be overvaluing what I am about to say.

In talking about those who support the free speech rights of 3 men who spoke about homosexuality from a Christian oriented perspective, Stephen Boissoin and Father Alphonse de Valk, who was investigated by the Canadian HRC, as well as Calgary Bishop Fred Henry, who was under the thumb of the same Alberta HRC that took 7 years of Stephen's life away, those who agree with us that they, and therefor we, have a right to express opinions based on our faith are not our enemies in this instance.

Further as Ephesians 6:12 says, they themselves are not our enemies anyway, and that causes me to want to back away from any vitriol that seeks to surface, and cause deeper wounds, at a time for healing.

When I look at my own sinfulness and think of the opening verses of the 7th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, I am chastened as it says:

¹"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ²For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Much of what I see happening that I think is non productive is judgment of individuals, rather than of sin, and forgetting our own sinfulness in that judgment.

We are called to love one another, and in my discussions with Stephen Boissoin, and communications with him, as well as when he has been quoted correctly, I see evidence of his love for all, and a special love for homosexual individuals. As he says, THE LETTER has brought with it a notoriety that has put him in position to witness to his faith and the love that emanates from that faith for all of God's children. It was not his original plan, nor all his choice, once THE LETTER was published.

But, too many writers have taken his words in THE LETTER out of the context in which he meant them. For Pete's sakes, it was just a letter to the editor, which garnered some responses, both favourable and unfavourable, and would have died as he carried on with his work with at risk youth, having made a point. He might have gotten some support rolling for change in education, which was the issue.

Instead it became a focus of examination for all and sundry, and took on a life of its own, as Dr. Darren Lund pushed his own agenda, and as the Alberta HRC pushed theirs. As Hamlet says: "Ay, there's the rub."

It is helpful to us all to remember that as THE LETTER does not define Stephen Boissoin, calling someone a homosexual, or a Christian or a father or whatever does not define them either. They are in essence inaccurate descriptors that give a very incomplete picture of the individual.

Take for example Homosexual. There are some homosexual individuals who are basically sexual sluts. News flash people. That is no worse than many so called Heterosexuals who swap spouses at sex clubs, cheat on spouses with other people's spouses, or lust after other people but do nothing physical about it. It's just that a heterosexual slut can present himself or herself as righteous by attending the right church or political function on the arm of a spouse and all is well, NOT.

Take our recent ex-hero Tiger Woods, for example. When the manure converges with the fan blades it is not a pretty sight. But, this didn't just happen this week. It is a long standing thing, and he looked pretty good to us all the whole way. But, he had a secret that when it came out has destroyed some of his crafted image. It, of course is sad, and he like every other sinner on the planet, especially the one you see in the mirror every morning, needs our prayerful entreaty on his behalf for healing of the sin in his life.

So, before you judge Stephen Boissoin as THE LETTER, or a man or woman who you believe is a HOMOSEXUAL by that simple moniker, I urge you to remember that he and they are our brothers and sisters, loved by Almighty God every bit as much as you or I, and in that alone worthy of our love, prayers and encouragement, not our condemnation.

If you knew Stephen as I have had a chance to come to, and if you knew some particular homosexual individuals that I know even better, you would see in each case someone who is very kind and considerate of others, who has a heart of service to their fellow man, who seek out truth in their daily lives. In each case, you would see a much loved Child of God, who carries still some woundedness and pain that leads them each to their own sinful areas, just like you and me, and blocks them and us all from seeing the fullness of God's love for each and every one of us.

Will you be an instrument of God's love for all of us, or do you have this deep seated need to judge others for what you believe to be the sin in their lives? If you are still stuck on the latter, I offer you John 8:7 as my final word:

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

What Is A Catholic To Do?

Haggle Over Placement of Deck Chairs?

Yesterday, I reproduced a letter that Bishop Henry had put out and sent Fr. Tim Moyle a copy of, and which he had posted, about euthanasia and urging the demise of Bill C-384. To my immense surprise Catholic Dialogue picked it up and after accepting and acknowledging it, went in another direction about an issue that is mildly related to it, as I am to my fifth cousin.

Now late last night John Pacheco of Socon or Bust picked it up from Catholic Dialogue, and an issue all four of us are surely in agreement on has spun out to something that LifeSiteNews wrote almost a year ago. Frankly, I found that National Post had a more appropriate presentation of the issue.

I have given you the links because I do not want to rehash or hash the issue, because it begets a third far more serious issue. That one I want to make a stand on.

The big problem of putting something out into the ether, is that folks of limited knowledge of what you were thinking at a particular time, now can take that and run with it, linking this to that and that to the other thing until, for me at least, it is one confusing jumble of finger pointing and waving, along with appropriate or inappropriate clucking and tsking.

Another example. My friend Stephen Boissoin, in Alberta wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate about 7 1/2 years ago, that has been beaten to death by everybody with a keyboard, with no context or understanding of the man and his ministry. Nobody seemed interested in him and where he was coming from, but they sure had opinions. He has been praised and pilloried, more pilloried than praised, and had the distinct honour of spending a great amount of money and personal effort, unsuccessfully, in the short term, defending his Christian faith to the kangaroo court of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

Now bloggers I respect, for their yearning for Truth in our mutually beloved Catholic Church, are taking the piss (can't think of a milder way of saying this) out of a Catholic theologian and ethicist, Fr. Michael Prieur, that I highly regard from 30 years of knowing him personally and professionally, with no regard again for context and limited regard for his personal comments on something he agreed with 41 years ago (The Winnipeg Statement) and for a particular ethical position he has taken, very prayerfully, with the support of his current bishop and his predecessor, over 20 years at St. Joseph's Hospital here in London Ontario.

My friends over at Socon and Catholic Dialogue are showing signs of apoplexy, with John Pacheco at Socon even denying himself access to the most sacred of our traditions, sharing in the Paschal Mystery of the Eucharist. There are other issues that are troublesome to them both, so it is not about this one thing.

I fully support and agree with them about questioning things going on in our Church that seem out of whack. The People of God must ask questions, and must be free to ask questions, and deserve to have answers to those questions. John and Steve are asking tough questions, and making people in the hierarchy take notice, though there has been great angst among some in the hierarchy over some of the tougher questions asked.

BUT, this is our Church no more than in this particular instance it is Father Michael Prieur's Church and Bishop Henry's Church. Unlike us, they have the benefit of years of study of the writings of the Doctors of the Church and others, and have lived lives totally committed to the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church.

Who are we to question their leadership in areas of faith and teaching? We are equal members in the Body of Christ and duty bound to work out our individual salvation.

Who are we to judge their motives, their thoughts and their collective wisdom? Get behind me Satan!

Why Do We Do The Things We Do?

Stephen Boissoin Tells His Why

Stephen has a page on his web site where he answers the Why questions?

Why Do I Bother? How many times has he heard that one?

There are other whys attached to that question:

"Why do I make such a big deal out of homosexuality when there are so many other biblical wrongs prevalent in our society, even among us Christians?" And, "Why would I invest (waste, some say) almost eight years of my life battling a human rights complaint?"

To answer those questions, you have to go back to put them in context. Ah, context again. With the context of his work in youth ministry, you get to here:

Over the years, my experience has shown me that any passionate youth worker will desire to enhance their knowledge about youth issues while endeavouring to maintain a relevant understanding of the youth culture they hope to affect. The high level of youth crisis that I regularly experienced made me especially passionate. I studied youth related psychology, physiology and peer socialization dynamics with a goal to better understand the young people I was in contact with. I researched current trends and sought out effective means of reaching and positively impacting youth. Along the way, I had a hobby of submitting numerous letters to the Red Deer Advocate on a variety of heartfelt socio-political issues. Many of them were published and on one occasion I received an award for a letter that had generated a lot of positive feedback.

What led up to the letter in question? You know, THE LETTER.

Again context is key:

By 2002, I had become more and more aware of the social engineering that is promulgated by our secular humanist society. Young people are encouraged to dismiss traditional Christian values and replace them with an atheistic/agnostic foundation or one that at best aims to shape God around human experience. Unfortunately, this state of thinking is already deeply rooted among young people.

While embedding myself in youth culture, I personally witnessed the psychological and physical damage that is occurring both within the normative and extreme (fringe) segments. I have witnessed young people weep while sharing regret, fear and a deep sense of hopelessness. I have witnessed countless beautiful young girls diminished to great depths of insecurity and promiscuity because they live in a society that breeds discontentment. I have prayed over teens on life support, barely alive due to drug overdoses and other substance induced tragedies. I have prayed hand in hand with countless abused and drug addicted young girls who prostitute themselves out for the next high. I have struggled to hold myself together while helpless parents wept over their drug addicted, disease infected children.

I have performed funerals for some of these precious young people.

You can feel his sorrow for these young people he encountered, and loved like a father loves his own children. But, along the way, he encountered burn out, as many do who feel overwhelmed by this good work they are doing, and incapable of going on. Then it happened:

I recall a vision that I had during this time and it was similar to an experience that I had before my own radical salvation experience. While lying face down on the floor feeling defeated and thinking that I just couldn't manage another day of youth work, I envisioned (unintentionally) that I was at the feet of Christ, my hands touching his feet. I began to weep and sensed His deep love and compassion for me and for the circumstances I was facing. It was now apparent that I had neglected the true power and sustainability that comes from a continuous dependence on Christ as a primary and illimitable resource. I also realized that this was exactly what was required in order to meet the foundational needs of those I was reaching out to. The real impediment to their wholeness was the deep privation within us all that only God's presence can fill. I had mistakenly placed equal dependence on secular psychology and psychiatry and had become satisfied with superficial outcomes. My own witness and trust in the power of God had been politically corralled and dumbed down and I had been completely blind to it.

I came away from that vision realizing that I needed to be true to God's calling and purpose for my life. I was to obey Him and be who He called me to be without compromise. From that point on I made a decision to speak what the Bible speaks whenever the opportunity arose. After all, it was God's Word and Spirit that had reached into and restored my own broken life. Since doing so, I have truly experienced God's involvement and faithfulness in every facet of my life.

Here is the experience that he had with homosexuality from His Kids:

Fact: Homosexuality is championed in Canada today and forced upon those who disagree with this sexually immoral and aberrant behaviour. Those, like me, who voice their opposition are persecuted and prosecuted in an attempt to silence the opposition.

Society is led to believe that homosexual behaviour is predetermined. A scientifically baseless claim (see here). The truth is that the deadly and well known facts about the homosexual lifestyle are being misrepresented and intentionally avoided by most secular educators, the media and the entertainment industry. The result -socially engineered youth who think that it is a completely acceptable alternative behaviour. Due to this, they suffer an increase in homosexual experimentation and entrapment. For example, bisexual behaviour is rampant among young girls, they being further influenced (even encouraged) by misguided teenage boys who are culturally conditioned to think that female bisexuality is attractive.

So Why Did I (Stephen) Write This Letter? Well, that's the $64,000 question, though anticlimactic if you can see where his experiences had led him.

Here is his reasoning:

I wrote the letter because I was in the midst of the crisis and could no longer remain silent.

I wrote the letter because I care about young people. I chose to enter the battle between right and wrong, to oppose the lie, endeavouring to save some.

It was a statement. An unequivocal drawing of the line. It was a call for those who knew better to get involved and voice their opposition.

I wrote the letter because I believe in the Word of God. I believe that there is one God and one Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe in what He can and wants to do through all who call upon and trust in His name. I can testify that God's power to effect change in a broken life is real.

I am willing to look the fool and to risk further (unwanted) persecution for my beliefs.

God has used the Human Rights complaint against me to build up my faith and to reach people. The complaint has created hundreds of opportunities for me to share the wisdom of God and salvation through Christ Jesus. In response to invitations, I have travelled across Canada and into the United States. I have shared the TRUTH in newspapers, on the radio and on television and in every instance I do my best to give glory to God.

So, what did he conclude from all that? That's my question>

Here's his answer:

I wouldn't change a thing about the journey if I could.

And the final why is found in this Bible verse at the end of the page:“

...God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
1 Timothy 2:3-4

You and I are free to disagree with him, though it might be best to talk to him first and understand why you are in disagreement. In fact, you are even free to persecute him for speaking words you do not like, or don't want to hear. You will not stop him, and he in turn will do good towards you, out of the immense love that God has given him to share with you because of his belief that:

"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."

Should you choose to make Stephen your enemy, because of what he says or even what he does, at some time you might feel that burning sensation around your head.

Some Rights Are More Equal Than Others

No Apologies Writes

Over at No Apologies Neil Dykstra has a good synthesis of the goings on with CHRA Section 13.

He cites the two ways that the Federal Law is being examined, the Appeal of the Lemire decision, and the JUST committee meetings and coming recommendations about it.

It is important also to note once again, that Alberta's similar law in Section 3(1) of their human rights legislation is on trial, and now awaiting a decision in the Stephen Boissoin case that was heard at the Alberta Court of Queens Bench in mid September 2009.

The court heard about the egregiousness of the Decision on its face, but also was put to task on the constitutionality of a law limiting free speech in this country, with the words "likely to expose to hatred or contempt".

Australia Considers Bill To Criminalize Free Speech By Christians

It is Still in the Consideration Stage

Excerpt from The Australian:

Australians who wear a crucifix to work or offer to pray for a patient in hospital could run foul of a charter of rights, according to a British legal expert who says its introduction in this country would trigger an attack on religious expression.

Barrister Paul Diamond said equivalent laws in Britain had intensified religious resentment and introduced a degree of uncertainty into the rule of law.

He cited the example of a workplace dispute at British Airways in which the company had tried to prevent an employee from wearing a crucifix while permitting other workers to carry Sikh ceremonial knives and wear turbans and Muslim head scarfs.

Mr Diamond said the secular ideology of the British Human Rights Act was being used to politicise the judiciary and eradicate “unacceptable religious viewpoints on same-sex, on women, on a whole range of moral issues”.

Mr Diamond, who is visiting Australia as a guest of the Ambrose Centre for Religious Liberty, criticised the report of Jesuit priest Frank Brennan's consultative committee on human rights, which has called for a human rights act, a charter of rights and changes to the way courts interpret legislation.

Mr Diamond's concerns are in line with those of 20 church leaders who were part of a delegation to Canberra last week that urged Attorney-General Robert McClelland to reject a charter.

Catholic Cardinal George Pell said there was no doubt a charter would be used against religious schools, hospitals and charities by those who did not like religious freedom and thought it should not be a human right.

[...]Mr Diamond said the ideology of the British Human Rights Act had contributed to a widespread attack on religious freedom since it gave effect in Britain to the European Convention on Human Rights.

[...]He said one of his most frightening cases concerned a man known as David Booker who was threatened with dismissal for telling a co-worker that Christians opposed pre-marital sex and same-sex relations.

“She had asked him about his Christian faith. She complained and he was suspended and would have been sacked had we not intervened. It was a private sector employer interpreting their diversity policy to eliminate offensive Christian viewpoints from the culture.”

In the 10 years of its existence, the British Human Rights Act had intensified racial and religious tensions, caused widespread community resentment, introduced a degree of uncertainty to the rule of law and been associated with an influx of young, politicised judges, he said.

He rejected the charter lobby's argument that Australia was out of step with comparable western democracies in not having a bill or charter of rights.

"I hope this doesn't sound patronising, but it is good to be 10 years behind. I've seen the future and it doesn't work. You can avoid it," Mr Diamond said.

Further excerpt from Wintery Knight who has cited some of the tip of the ice berg of particular cases in the UK, Canada and the USA where putting down Christian thought and action has become sport:

Not only has this caught on in the UK with the British Human Rights Act.

• Woman gets police visit after writing letter protesting gay pride parade
• Another nurse faces termination for being a Christian in public
• UK stewardess fired for refusing to dress as a Muslim
• Couple arrested for answering Muslim’s questions about Christianity

Canada has similar infringements on religious expression because of the anti-Christian Canadian Human Rights Act.

• Pro-life debater shouted down at McGill University
• Pro-life debater shouted down at St. Mary’s University
• The persecution of a Catholic Bishop (at Blazing Cat Fur)
• The persecution of Rev. Stephen Boissoin (at Ezra Levant)
• The persecution of Catholic Insight magazine (at Ezra Levant)
• The persecution of Christian businessman Scott Brockie (at The Interim)

And bad things are already happening the United States.

• Feminists suppress free speech at East Georgia College
  
• ACLU instigates arrest of two Christians for praying in a church
• New Mexico Human Rights Commissions fines couple $6000 for being Christians
• Obama forces Catholic school to cover abortion on health care plan

People of Good Will, this is not going away. It will only continue to get worse, unless you/we stand against it. You want a real pandemic. Here is a real pandemic. It is viral. The hatred behind this is highly contagious. There are Christians ministering throughout the world, who are being killed for their faith currently, as always, and the numbers far exceed H1N1. This particular strain of the Christian Persecution flu makes a slow death.

(Com)Passion and Power

What Are Society's Motivators?

A friend pointed out to me the other day that I was operating with Passion, but not Compassion in a particular discourse. Truth be told, it is easy to drop the Com from Compassion in day to day life. But really, gentle readers, aren't we all called to walk with Compassion for our fellow man?

For my wife and me this has meant that we do our charity locally more than just sending cheques to organisations. We do support our local Church, and charities that we believe are doing good work, but much of what we do is more hands on now. We can do this in part because we have nothing but time on our hands, but also because we realise that it is the right thing for us to do.

Today, we are working on a quilt because a member of one of the quilt guilds that my wife is a participant in, challenged members to make quilts for youngsters who through no fault of their own are forced with a parent to find refuge from abuse in a shelter.

But, what of goverment? Take Human Rights, for example. OK, I will. We have government bureaucracies in charge of ferreting out human rights wrongs, and making them right. That just seems so wrong to me. It is, to me, and example of "Let the government do it." Why? Do they have a passion for this work? Sure doesn't look like it to me, if you take the shenanigans of J Ly and her band of cronies at the CHRC as an example? Ditto, Barb Hall and her folks at the OHRC. And don't get me started on Alberta, or BC for that matter.

While J Ly chases after pretend Nazis, and publishers, she does so at the expense of free speech in this country. Ask Marc Lemire how it feels to have his life put on hold for 6 years, and his back account empty, while the J Ly bunch pillory him and lie about him along the way to get a conviction, which in the end was hollow and opens doors to real freedom of speech in this country.

Ask Stephen Boissoin over in Alberta how it feels to be gagged by the Alberta HRC because what he said was not politically correct? It doesn't matter if he can prove the truth of what he says, because as we have all learned, truth is not a defence at the HRCs.

And in Ontario, the Barb Hallers are chasing after landlords, transit systems, and the like to bring "equality" to us all. Did anybody ask us if we wanted it or believed it was even real? See what George Jonas said about the elusive equality. He called it a Chimera with good reason.

Is there any Compassion in their work? Sure isn't any visible. They are paid to bring people down for discrimination of some sort or other, and are in marketing to make sure they have enough business to justify their sinecures. They even invent new human rights beyond the Charter along the way.

Is there Passion in their work? Maybe, but hard to tell. No, I think it is about Power, political power. I have seen too many cases that have no basis in the fundamental rights and freedoms that our Charter guarantees us.

The Barb Hall's of this world live for power, the ability to enforce made up rights is a good place to have power, because you make it up as you go.

Let's have a revolution, you and me. Let's work at treating our family first, then our neighbours, then the rest of our community with respect and dignity. Let's us stand up for Charter fundamental human rights, not hopey changey ones that are being thrust on us. Some wag said long ago: "Charity begins are home." So, let's try it. Let's make government redundant in areas of helping others. Let's care about one another without regard for religion or political, or other beliefs.

Oh, for this to work, we need a new attitude shift as well. Forget taking offence when someone says something against your beliefs. As one friend said to me more than once: "Suck it up Buttercup." Instead of filing a Form 1 with Barb or whatever the form is in another province or federally, spread love. Why, because "Love Does Not Take Offence."

Stop letting the government do it. Do it yourself. If you want to reduce taxes, get rid of the government meddling in your life at every turn. Make it only some turns, where they can do a better job than we can. They cannot look after our neighbour better than we can. Make them leave, because they are not needed.

Weaning away from government intervention everywhere we look won't be easy. They don't want to shrink, and we are usually too lazy to stop them.

Wake Up folks. It's our turn now.

Stephen Boissoin - The Real Deal

4 1/2 Hours of Being Real

If you encountered someone that the Alberta HRC considered a purveyor of hate speech, particularly towards homosexuals, and who they had forbidden to ever again speak anything disparaging against homosexuals, what would your expectations be?

I didn't have any, and our encounter met them.

Stephen Boissoin is a mild mannered man, with an incredible story to tell. His life story with many twists and turns, and I don't mean dipsy doodles, I mean TWISTS and TURNS is fascinating. How he became a Christian will blow your socks off. How he lived his life before he became a Christian was fortunately not fatal, but it could have been, and almost blew his socks off, had they been on his head at the time.

Over 4 1/2 hours, we spoke of many things, and I mean many things. I wish that I had taped the conversation to remember it in detail. Fortunately, Stephen documented the story he told me about himself a long time ago, and promised to send it to me electronically. Then it will all come back to me. Then I can savour the victory he told me of again, and I hope some time in the future to share that story with you readers.

But one thing stands out. With all that has been thrown at him, and frankly the Alberta HRC is nothing more than a mosquito bite in his life, he has a big smile on his face, because he lives by faith, in the God who has protected him all along the way. His God is not a God of candy land and fairy tales, but the God of majesty and wonder, who has a plan for all of our lives, and Stephen is doing his best to be tapped into that plan.

He had no trouble admitting the sinfulness in his life. It's pretty hard to look at his life with objective eyes, as he does pretty well, and not see it. But, he knows that the God who created the universe, and who sent His Son to be born on this earth, and then die to redeem him from his sins, loves him with a love that has no bounds.

Does he hate homosexuals? Not on your life, and certainly not on his. He just does not want to lie to them, or others who are unhappy with their lives. He knows that kind of unhappiness personally, and knows the despair that comes with it. He also knows the peace and joy that comes with coming home. He is not arrogant about his faith either, because he knows how close he was to disaster, and the miracles that saved him from death. He knows that he has been saved from where he was at by the immense love and grace of a God who's justice is mercy.

If I were a homosexual and was not happy with my life, I would listen to him, because he has a message for me. If I was a homosexual and happy as a clam with where I was at, I would keep my mouth shut, and go on about my life, and give him a wide berth. But, if I were a homosexual and angry at the world of all those homophobes (whatever that word really means), I'd kick and scream because what he has to say won't sit well with me. Find the lie in what he has to say, if you can. But, if with an open heart, you can't, then maybe you could listen for a while before you judge. Unless, of course you are a politically correct, and motivated HRC. Then you can try to squelch his right to speak out about the truth as he understands it to be. Good luck with that one.

Along the way in our discussion, we disagreed about a few things. I am Catholic, and committed to my faith. Stephen is committed to his expression of faith. Love does not take offence, and so neither of us did. We listened. We prayed. We enjoyed the fellowship.

To HRC or Not to HRC

Responding to Comments

I wrote a piece back on May 30, 2009 about an HRC case that did not occur, where a young woman, who is my second cousin, has a rare mildly disabling disease that is visible and causes her discomfort. She was fired from her job as a server in a local restaurant and got on with her life, refusing to get into the HRC schmozzle of process. I lauded her forbearance and determination.

Well, the other day I got a comment to the post that I responded to and another response back from the Anonymous commenter. Because the comments were thoughtful, I felt they warranted being part of another post and here we are.

Here is the first comment:

It is great that this women eventually found a great place to be employed. However, the purpose of a human rights investigation is not limited to that individual (the young women in this case). Instead it involves all members of society, those who have a disability and those who would discriminate against them.

I do believe that each indivdual should do what is best for them but feel the ones that should be applauded are the ones who are willing to go through that grueling human rights investigation process to hold people accountable for discrimination.

This article seems to suggest that rolling over rather than standing up is what is the way to go...to that point I would have to disagree.

But I would still agree with the last line "Good for you, Lizzie"!!

I responded as follows:

There is no gruelling human rights investigation process for the Complainant. It is only gruelling and expensive for the Respondent.

I have a disability. Today, I cannot leave my house because of it. With my disability it is not practical for places of work, or institutions to accommodate me. I don't need them to accommodate me, and I do not need to play victim because they don't or can't. I don't even intend to tell them that I am disabled.

I would rather live my life as free as I can than be a victim.

To think that the government is any "victim's" friend is a fallacy. The HRCs run a sausage making machine, not a justice machine, and it stacks up rights as it makes them up and as it chooses, so that my rights as a disabled person would trump my rights as a Christian. I refuse to give them the chance.

And Anonymous responded back to me again with more thoughts here:

Asserting your rights is a far cry from becoming a victim and I would argue It is empowering. The Duty to Accommodate only extends so far. And if you simply can't work then of course they cannot accommodate you.

I am stunned that you, as a disabled person could be anti-HRC(now HRT) they advocate on behalf of individuals who are routinely discriminated against in all aspects of society, especially employment. I am working with a woman who has a disability and was fired for taking 6 month Medical Leave of Absence to receive treatment and to recuperate...yes fired for being disabled. Instead of rolling and 'living her life' she is standing up for her rights and demanding to be treated fairly. This women works with people with disabilities, and so do I, and find her determination inspiring. She is standing on principle. And this process is gruelling when you have the issues to deal with that she has. The way you talk of it being gruelling for the Respondents makes me think that you were one. I am glad it is exhausting to those who would strip the rights and dignity from the disabled Canadians.
I would think that someone with a disability would condemn the businesses and individuals who rob others of their Human Rights. Keep in mind that HRC stands for Human Rights Commission or as it is now referred to the Human Rights Tribunal. Instead of targeting them for trying to protect Canadians from Human Rights Violations why not call out the people who are continuing to discriminate against the disabled and other groups.

Don’t Shut Up....Stand UP!!!!

Well, I think the thoughts of Anonymous are meaningful and worthy of further thought and comment. So, it being my blog, I get the last say, even if I have to wait out Anonymous (tongue in cheek).

I have contended since I started writing this blog that I am more interested in the TRUTH, than in being right. Hence, I take what Anonymous says seriously.

"A" suggested that I have been a Respondent. To date that is not the case, and I hope it never will be. But, I have seen the process up very close. Two friends of mine have been victimized by the process, one in Ontario and one in Alberta. I have never disclosed the name of the friend in Ontario because her case is ongoing, but my friend in Alberta is Stephen Boissoin. You can read what I have written about both cases, as it is voluminous.

"A" is stunned that as a disabled person I am anti HRT here in Ontario. You bet your sweet ?ss I am anti HRT, and I have made my reasons pretty clear about that for the last several months.

But "A" pointed out the story of a person he/she regards highly who is disabled:

I am working with a woman who has a disability and was fired for taking 6 month Medical Leave of Absence to receive treatment and to recuperate...yes fired for being disabled. Instead of rolling and 'living her life' she is standing up for her rights and demanding to be treated fairly. This women works with people with disabilities, and so do I, and find her determination inspiring. She is standing on principle.

I know nothing about the case so cannot comment on specifics. However, if there are grounds for fighting the dismissal, the HRT is not the place to go. There are good laws in this province to protect us against illegal hiring and firing practices. "Demanding to be treated fairly" is an interesting perspective, because it is only in the eyes of the one who thinks he/she is not being treated fairly.

You may recall my posting on ADGA, back in May 2009 where a new employee lied when being hired about his disability, on which basis he would not have qualified for the job he applied for. He went over the wall, was fired and the Ontario HRC/HRT gave him a bucket full of money for being a disabled liar. That to me was not principle, but lying to get what you want. I could do that to get a job, knowing that I would get an HRT tax free pay check in the end, but that is immoral and I cannot participate in something like that.

ADGA is one example of many cases I have reviewed where the liberals at the HRT beat the stuffings out of Respondents, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of their cause, do not use any meaningful evidentiary procedures to come to their determinations and then find in favour of the Claimant if the Claimant fits into one of their discriminatory boxes. I do not want to be a party to that.

But, I am not saying I am rolling over and playing dead either. My employer did not fire me, and has not fired me after almost 6 years of disability, because they are a good company. I also receive benefits from an insurance company that supplement my very reduced wages, and my wife and I are living within our means. We have a court claim in against the driver that hit me, and it has not settled in the almost 6 years, and may take another year or 2 to be finished as well. My lawyer has been in touch with my employer as needed, and if they had terminated me, I would not have laid down, but on legal grounds not on grounds of some cooked up discrimination.

But A's concluding comments are important ones to think on and to respond to:

I would think that someone with a disability would condemn the businesses and individuals who rob others of their Human Rights. Keep in mind that HRC stands for Human Rights Commission or as it is now referred to the Human Rights Tribunal. Instead of targeting them for trying to protect Canadians from Human Rights Violations why not call out the people who are continuing to discriminate against the disabled and other groups.

Don’t Shut Up....Stand UP!!!!

Well, A, I have now about 300 posts on my blog, most of which are about HRC/HRT incompetence, and meddling into our society. So, I am standing up, not shutting up, just not agreeing with you.

I do not see businesses and individuals robbing others of their Human Rights. I see people that make mistakes innocently, or sometimes at the behest of, or behind the guise of a corporate veil. We have courts to protect us from illegal activities, and abuse of others.

But mainly I see HRCs/HRTs redefining human rights far beyond our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and denying me my rights so you can have yours, not you particularly, but the collective you that is politically correct for the moment.

I do not trust the government to protect my interests. I accept that they will operate to their own agenda, which is self protection and then expansion.

When it comes to dealing with government directly I agree with author P.J. O'Rourke:

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

Calgary Herald Holds Axe Over S 13

Says: Stop The Rot To Our Right For Free Speech

This morning the Calgary Herald comes out firmly once again in favour of free speech. They have called previously on Stelmach to drop S. 3(1) of the Alberta HRCM Act, the ugly fraternal twin of S. 13. so this is not unexpected, in either tone or strength.

The Editorial piece starts with:

The mills of Parliament grind slowly, but we urge that they eventually also grindsmall-- and once and for all, get the Canadian Human Rights Commission out of the business of policing your opinions.

They noted that Jack and Jill went up the hill (I mean Ezra and Mark), and made a point or two while they were there:

Unlike the code, with its rigorous standards of evidence and procedure, the federal commission system had by its lack of those same attributes become "corrupted and diseased beyond salvation," they declared.

I think the use of the terms "corrupted and diseased beyond salvation," were fairly tame for our two intrepid freedom fighters, who are never, and who were not at this juncture at a loss for words, just maybe being a little polite in the present company.

As the Herald heralds:

We agree. What else would one call it? People accused of simply sticking up for their passionately held beliefs may be convicted and fined without even the usual defences afforded by the law, in tribunals where hearsay and conjecture may be admitted as damaging evidence. How much more diseased can it get, than this self-same government agency actively trying to entrap people whose views offend them?

The same may be said of the federal body's provincial clones, Alberta's human rights commission among them, thanks to egregious decisions that, by persecuting those whose views no longer fit the wandering mainstream of public opinion, effectively closed off debate on matters of current concern.

The Herald also opines as follows:

When Ottawa gave the commissions extraordinary powers to adjudicate speech and publication, hoping thereby to combat discrimination, the end sought was praiseworthy.

Interesting statement, but a throwaway line that slips off the tongue or keys easily but has no depth to it. Think about it for a bit and see if in the light of day the sentence has any veracity, and whether the end it has come to could have been predicted. If you are having difficulty, remember George Orwell and 1984.

However, it is all in all a very good editorial piece and concludes well:

Canadians who exercise the right of free speech that is this country's heritage, may have to face the scorn of their neighbours if their ideas are strange, marginal, rude or iconoclastic.

They should not, however, have to fear the wrath of a government agency.

It is Ottawa's moment to restore an old liberty: The system, rotten for years, has conceded its own decay.

How true. One of our intrepid freedom fighters brought up Gille Marchildon for a time, the head of EGALE, the gay rights lobby group, who had 3 reasons for not wanting to ban speech, 1) it let you know who your enemies were, 2) it provided teachable moments, and most importantly 3) it then required of individuals that they exercise their civic duty when offended by something going on in society by telling someone, or writing a letter to the editor or some other form of action.

Of course, we all know what happened to Stephen Boissoin when he exercised his civic duty over 7 years ago, by sending a letter to the editor about something that offended his sensibilities as well as his Christian beliefs. That's why S. 13 needs to go.

Stephen Boissoin Speaks

On The Jan Buterman Case in Alberta

Stephen boissoin wrote this and it was part of a thread in the No Apologies Blog recently:

Catholics have a right to have individuals working for them who are in line with their religious doctrine even if they take government money. Catholics pay millions in taxes.

My children go to a Christian School that is part of our local public school system. It is considered a Christian Alternative Program and there is no doubt that Jesus and scripture are part of the daily culture at that school.

I do not want gays of any sort teaching my children...no transsexuals, transvestites, transgendereds etc. and I would fight tooth and nail to ensure that this did not happen. My tax dollars fund my children's education PLUS there is an additional tuition charged.

Following is an excerpt from the school profile:

In June of 1999 the Red Deer Christian School Society formulated an agreement with Red Deer Public School District # 104 whereby the Red Deer Christian School became a Christian Alternative Program under its direction and as a result this rich tradition continues. In June 2004 Red Deer Christian Alternative Program along with a group of parents, staff and RDPSD board members changed its name to Gateway Christian School. Christian parents still search for schools that will teach their children that the world belongs to God. They want schools that will lead students to understand and heed God’s call to bring justice and restoration to a fallen world. They acknowledge that God calls their children to the research lab, the law office, the political arena, the university, the school board, and the family farm as well as the pulpit and the mission field.

These parents seek schools that look beyond the classroom to the world. They will not settle for Christian schools that retreat from culture or simply add prayer and Bible reading to a public school curriculum. Nothing short of scripture guiding all of life and learning will do. Gateway Christian School seeks to be such a school within the Red Deer Public System, as an Alternative Program School.

What is occurring that is causing so much damage is the social engineering that is confusing Christians and even Christian leaders en masse. Christians are being duped into believing that a person is born gay and cannot change and this is causing them great confusion. They don't know what to believe because church leadership at large is also confused and brushes the issue off as just another one of many issues. It is not just another issue. It is a major attack against Christianity in our day. The gay lobby and those that sympathize with them are doing more damage to the very foundation and security of the Christian institution than any other social moral issue. All others can be dealt with without interference i.e a minister can choose not to perform a marriage if he feels that the couple is not prepared or in line with scripture BUT he risks much by not performing a marriage due to sexual orientation or gender related issues. Imagine this scenario shoved on a minister: a female who was a male but has since had a sex change operation and wants to marry another man. If that minister says no....bang..they can take him to the Commission or Court. This must be aggressively fought against for the sake of the institutionalized church and society. The Church needs to get its head out of the sand, get united and get prepared. Not doing so IS causing the deterioration of the churches foundation in our society.

Sure the church can go underground....remain behind closed doors...solemnize marriages that are not recognized by the government etc. BUT we have come too far to go back to this and anyone who thinks that we should or must is completely ignorant and bordering on being a fool.

Come on people!!!

There was a second part to this, which was a note sent by Stephen to leaders at the school, and I will reproduce this later, as it too is pertinent.

Jan Buterman to the Alberta HRC

Why Not - Every Other Lefty Chases Down the Church There

When I first read about the case of Jan Buterman in places like the Globe, I laid off for a number of reasons. Most articles had the following paragraph:

Jan Buterman is praised in a letter of dismissal for his teaching abilities, but told his gender change from woman to man is not aligned with the teachings of the Catholic church or its values.

So, one reason I laid off was that I was unsure of what Church teaching or value that Jan Buterman was offending specifically at first, and did not have the time or energy to chase it up, due to the arrival of our grandchildren.

Jan Buterman would not have been hired in Ontario where I live at all by the Catholic boards likely, because he/she is a Lutheran, so the problem never would have existed here, except for a Complaint that has gone to the Ontario HRC recently from Wellington County, that I reported on previously. But, that's not a criticism of Jan Buterman, not meant to be.

Egale Canada said this about the board decision:

Helen Kennedy, executive director of Egale Canada, called the board's decision sad, but not surprising. She noted that Catholic church doctrine staunchly opposes gender reassignment surgery. Ms. Kennedy said Mr. Buterman's “crime” was not related to his performance in the classroom, but to the fact that “he” began life as a “she.”

The Church teaches that we are born into a gender, that God created us man and woman. It is very biblical. But, the Church does not deal in CRIME, so Jan Buterman did not commit a crime, as Kennedy purports. Kennedy's most significant statement is that the decision is SAD. I suspect that the board and the diocese of Edmonton would call the decision sad, but it was the best that they could do with what they know, and it is within their mandate to decide accordingly. Jan Buterman's story is sad.

The Church does not move with every wind of change in the world, and should not, because most of these winds change course many times, over time. That, of course does not make the Church up to date in world terms, all of the time, nor does it need to be. It is the duty of the Faithful to be faithful to Church teaching and to help the Church to grow as the Body of Christ.

Jan Buterman is not Catholic and so he/she moves to a different drummer as to taking this to an HRC. A faithful Catholic should have dealt with this inside the Church, however that worked out, and accepted the challenges that arose. Jim Corcoran chose not to take that approach in Ontario, so he is taking his Bishop to the Ontario HRC. Seems a pretty popular thing to do when the Church won't roll over and play dead to your whims.

I have empathy for where Jan Buterman is in his/her life, because I have a friend who is now a female, who was raised as a male, and is transgendered, but is not a male anymore, I guess, and maybe never really totally was. I don't begin to understand even the last sentence, let alone the hell my friend has lived, or is now living, nor to judge my friend, nor Jan Buterman. I also don't begin to understand the hell my friend's wife is going through. She had a husband, and now she has a wife. Is this real? And what about their adult children and little grandson, who had a Dad and grampa, and now have two moms and two grammas. What's with that?

So, I can empathise with Buterman, but I have to rely on the Church in times like these, rather than on the perfidy of man, for my guidance. I do not for one instant trust any Human Rights Commission in this country to give a hoot about the Human Rights of the general populace. They are only interested in some left leaning form of rights for special interest groups that make enough noise to get their attention, and Christians of all stripes are not into making noise to be heard, usually, and more's the pity.

I got a note from Stephen Boissoin, who I regard highly, about this case and posted it in my original posting on this case. Frankly, I was wishy washy about the whole thing, for personal reasons, and Stephen took me to task, which I appreciate. Still, my verbal approach might be gentler than his, but my beliefs are in line with his. I have not been through 7 years of HRC hell like he has along the way, so he can surely be pardoned, should anyone be offended by what he says. Frankly, if you are offended by him, take a pill, and think about what he is saying instead of putting your energy to the offense. I doubt he cares if you are offended by his words, and I agree that being offended is irrelevant. The truth is more important, and I get it.

Here is the bottom line for me. I would like to know a good reason why the Catholic Church should not be allowed to decide who can teach in a Catholic school, or serve on a Catholic altar for that matter. And who has the right to tell a Christian, like Stephen that he cannot speak biblical truth by way of a tribunal order? These are signs of a sick and dying society.

I don't want that old chestnut, that schools are funded by tax dollars, thus publicly funded and the public can tell them what to do. That is such crap, and I am sick of it. It is illogical. Catholics are taxpayers as much as any other members of society, so having a say in the education of their children in a world where we have no say on any of our other tax dollars is some minor solace.

Consider that my rant. Sorry for the delay.

Had on Offline Day with Stephen Boissoin

Agreed to Agree After Much Sharing

Yesterday, I did something I rarely do anymore when blogging, and that is speak out about something I know little about. But, speak out I did, when I received a note from Stephen Boissoin about the Jan Buterman case against the Catholic School Board in Edmonton. I was still suffering from fatigue due to joyous grandchild overload, and did not do my own research, which is why I had not blogged on the case earlier.

So, I put up a post, saying a bit of this and that, included Stephen's note, which I did not fully understand at the time, and made it about Free Speech as well, opining that Stephen was welcome to his opinion, whether I agreed with it or not. Having cautioned Walker Morrow, a fine young man with plenty of smarts and common sense, about using throw away lines indiscriminately, I went him several better. I used a throw away blog that was worth either more effort, or worth, as was better for me at the time, no effort, rather than a poor effort.

So today, I spent my time, writing back and forth with Stephen to understand where he was coming from, since he called me on my blog entry, and I also pulled the blog entry itself, since I was clearly not satisfied with what I had said and concluded.

In the end, I gathered some valuable research from him, found some on my own, and concluded that we are in fact in agreement on the topics we were discussing, and that I was out of line with my approach. Although I am still fatigued, I learned a lot today, and it was worthwhile. I think that I could get much further much faster in understanding things that Stephen has come to know through his experiences in face to face meeting, rather than email, but that is not the case as yet, so we make do.

I felt that Buterman was out of line going after the Board one year later after being dropped from a supply list, and now that I know some of what Stephen knew that I didn't I feel even stronger about it. The bad news is that the Alberta HRC does not care about the truth of the matter, because they have their agenda, and truth is not only not a defence against Section 3(1) the hate section, but it is largely irrelevant in the Kangaroo Court at any time. All they care about is what is politically correct, and the sheeple that work for the AHRC are all inclined the same way. This is not an AHRC phenomenon. It is consistent in the HRC industry. If you want to see political correctness pushed to the max, watch what happens with this case and many of the others that I and other bloggers have brought to your attention.

If that is bothersome to you, then step up to the plate and register your displeasure with MPs. MPPs, and others.

S. 13 Up for Judicial Review

What's the Surprise?

OK. S. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is lousy law. So are its ugly fraternal sisters in Alberta (S. 3(1) Alberta HRCM Act) and other provinces. Who in their right mind thought this thing was just going to go away?

Anyway Jay Currie has words of wisdom for starters.

I clearly get the logic of using the Taylor decision against the actions of the CHRC and their manipulation of the law over the years, especially considering the very valid dissenting opinion penned by the now Chief Justice of the Supremes. That dissenting opinion was a nice piece in the Boissoin Appeal, which I wrote about a while back.

What I don't understand is why nobody has attacked the subjective "likely to expose to hatred or contempt" phrase. In all the cases I have seen, I have never found any reference to an objective test of "likely to expose to hatred or contempt", which means that the phrase is whimsical. There is no test, because there can be no test. If you can't test it you can't prove it. To paraphrase Johnny Cochrane, "If the test don't fit, you must acquit."

Follow that up with testimony that we have all heard and read that the truth is not a valid defence in Section 13 cases, and I have to shake my head in amazement.

I hear the death rattle, but it is still very faint.

Calgary Herald Calls Stelmach to Cut S. 3 of HRCM Act

Asks: "Is the Tide of Canadian censorship finally starting to turn?"

The Calgary Herald notes that the Alberta HRC is back on its heals at the moment (my choice of word), due to recent court cases on free speech and backed off on the Herald/ Edmonton Journal Complaints for a 2002 editorial on the Middle East.

The article here cited the following:

The case involving the Herald and the Journal arose from an editorial published in April 2002, which catalogued several allegations of duplicity, manipulation, atrocity and hypocrisy on the part of Palestinian leaders in their dealings with Israel.

At the time, reports of terrorist activity came almost daily, interspersed with the late Yasser Arafat's protestations that all he wanted was peace: The matter was top of mind, and ripe for public examination. However, Muslim advocates complained that it was "likely to expose to hatred or contempt Palestinian Arabs and Muslims," though there was no proof of that whatsoever and it was certainly not the intent.

My bold. Telling statement that last one, and where the abuse of power of the HRCs is most profound. As I have stated in another piece, here, there are no boundaries or terms of reference for how one decides on "Likely to expose to hatred or contempt." It is all in the minds of the Complainant, and some bureaucrat with the appropriate HRC who takes up his cause.

If I tell you that something is likely to expose me to hatred and contempt, and you Mr. HRC employee believe me, we have a quorum of two, and it is now a fact, even if we are the only two people in the world who believe it. In these cases, that drag on forever, there is no effort to see if the particular offending materiel actually did expose anyone to hatred or contempt, where time is on the side of being able to categorically prove that it did or did not. At least, it would be if the whole phrase "likely to expose to hatred or contempt" were not just a throw away phrase with no possibility of being factually verified. People are having their lives turned upside down by this phrase in our country and have been for years. We didn't care when they were basement Nazi sympathisers, because they too were throw away members of our society, whose rights of free speech, even if they spoke stupidity and mindless hateful drivel, that no one but a few of their friends ever heard, were being denied.

Frankly, the HRCs got used to the taste of blood on "likely to expose to hatred and contempt", and as there was no real, fake Nazi blood around anymore, they had to get the blood lust slaked somewhere. So, what did you expect to happen? None of the cases that have happened in the last several years should come as a surprise to anyone in Canada.

Bad things happen, because good men say nothing. Edmund Burke did not say it, but he meant it.

This battle is not over. Here is the Herald conclusion:

It seems much has been won by the determined resistance of free-speech advocates, like this newspaper, to nationwide commission encroachments on a right to criticize people, organizations and governments that goes back in Canada at least to 1835, when Joseph Howe took on a corrupt provincial government, and won.

We salute them all, if not for their opinions in every case, at least in their tenacious defence of their right to publish them--a right that has cost so many of our best and brightest their very lives.

Premier Stelmach, when even your own human rights commission has changed its mind, you must act: Tear down the offensive section of Alberta's human rights law.

While the Herald is busy patting itself on the back for fighting the good fight, their role has been nominal. Those really fighting the good fight are those who can ill afford to fight it, the Stephen Boissoin's, Ezra Levant's, Alphonse De Valk's, Marc Lemire's, but must for their own sanity and for their beliefs, and the need to tell the truth that they know in their hearts.

The fat lady is far from singing on this issue.

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

First Cracks Appear in 'Human Rights' Machine

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

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

They started the article with an interesting quote from C. S. Lewis' The Witch and The Wardrobe:

“Come and see! This is a nasty knock for the Witch! It looks as if her power is already crumbling.”

For one thing, it is the first time I have seen the Boissoin case boiled down into one sentence that nailed it:

Seven years ago, Rev. Stephen Boissoin wrote a letter to his local newspaper in Alberta, metaphorically declaring war on homosexual activism and blasting the provincial government’s policy of using public education to promote the homosexual lifestyle.

They had previously done an article on Boissoin and Alphonse de Valk which was also worthy of reading.

They also summarised succinctly the essence of Gerry Chipeur's presentation on Stephen's behalf to the Court of Queens Bench:

Rev. Boissoin’s lawyer, Gerry Chipeur, argued that the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission exceeded its authority by trying “to limit public debate … and public criticism of government policy.” He also argued that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the hate speech/thought crime provision, is flagrantly unconstitutional.

(In the original hearing at the Alberta HRT) “They did not just ask for an apology,” Rev. Boissoin said. “They actually asked me to change my view. I think the judge made it quite clear that he considered it ludicrous.”

It has not ever been about homosexuality, but about public policy, which EGALE understood from the start. Darren Lunch, who was actually operating on the public policy, using it to define his materials for teaching, was offended, and so he used a government policing agency to do what he refused to allow public forum to do. Why Darren?

AB Law Blog Doesn't Get It Much Either

Blah Blah Blah from AB Law

Potentially interesting piece from ABlawg.ca the blog of the University of Calgary Faculty of Law, this one written by Jennifer Koshan of the faculty entitled "Alberta's Hate Speech Law Under Challenge". Frankly, I expected better, and not a political pronouncement. It was a disappointment to read it.

Ms. Koshan seems to have spent all of her time teaching and doing government work, so with sue respect does not appear to have much sense of the real world, and certainly not any sense of the Boissoin case.

She concludes her treatise with the following:

If the hate speech provisions in human rights legislation are struck down, the issues in Keegstra surrounding the constitutionality of the criminal provisions against hate speech may be revisited as well. And even if the criminal provisions are upheld, the elimination of human rights protections against hate speech would deprive governments of more conciliatory and less draconian ways of dealing with this social problem.

Her last phrase leaves me to wonder where she has been the last several years. It says that she has been on faculty since 2000, having left the NWT before that. But, if she believes this sentence maybe she teaches at an off site campus near the North Pole.

If Ms. Koshan believes that the Alberta Government was conciliatory and not draconian in dealing with Stephen Boissoin, she was clearly not anywhere near southern Alberta for the last several years. And the social problem of hate speech is in the minds of a very few people. Most of what is called hate speech is political commentary that does not agree with the current politically correct viewpoint, and hence has every right to be spoken. The other real hate speech, such as holocaust denial, is spoken and written by such losers as to have no real merit with anyone of any good will or intelligence.

Ezra Speaks Out

HWHNBNIMB Has Killed His Golden Goose

Ezra Levant has been too busy with his books to write about the schnooks that deceive us all in the name of protection of our Canadian Human Rights. But he raised his head enough to drop a few on He Who Will Not Be Named In My Blog, for his Maximum Disruption strategy, which as Ezra points out appears to have killed the goose that laid his golden eggs here.

As we await some official word on the Boissoin case at Alberta Court of Queen's Bench last week, which could put a more formal stake into the heart of Section 13, and its ugly fraternal twins in Alberta and a few of our other provinces, we should all remain vigilant. Abuse of our right to Free Speech is not the only Human Rights abuse being perpetrated on most of the population of this fair land by the HRCs/HRTs in the name of the few, with the special way they have of making these rights hierarchical, as well as mythical.

Catholic Leaders Applaud Lemire Decision

Deborah Gyapong Writes Another Fine Article

Deborah wrote an incisive article that is available on Canadian Christianity at their website canadianchristianity.com here.

She weaves in the Lemire decision, but also cases against other Christians particularly that have been targets of the HRCs and their concept of "likely to expose . . . to hatred or contempt".

If there is a real point to what is now being seen and heard, it is that awareness is happening, and as more people are becoming aware of the power that has been in the hands of our HRCs/HRTs, a level of warranted disgust is arising.

You must read the article to get the flavour of her writing, and the points she is making. It is worthy of your time.