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.

 

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!

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.

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.

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.

Stephen Boissoin IS NOT THE LETTER

Context People

Over the last several months, I have taken a lot of time and energy to try to understand Stephen Boissoin. Along the way, I found a Brother in Christ, and made a friend. I first came in contact with THE LETTER through Shakedown, Ezra Levant's book, after Ezra was here in London, Ontario in early May, 2009, with Kathy Shaidle and Salim Mansur.

On May 16, 2009, I posted my first blog entry about IT and him. Since then, I have had countless email contacts with him, back and forth about various things, some of a personal sharing nature. I have written about him or referred to him in over 57 postings to date.

I spent a long time taking apart the Appeal document, to understand where his lawyer was heading with it, to grasp the law involved and to make the people who might read my blog have a better understanding of the legal aspects of the case.

I wrote about the work that Stephen did with youth, and his pastoral care work for all kinds of kids, regardless of religious affiliation, or sexual orientation. I do not presume to KNOW him and his mind, though I have a sense of his heart, and I was trying to share with readers some of that heart, so you could know more of him than THE LETTER.

I also tried to put THE LETTER into context, the dynamic of the feelings that the kids had about what was going on in the schools regarding sexual education or indoctrination as it seems, with an inordinate emphasis on teaching the goodness of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle to impressionable kids who are struggling with their own issues. And there at the center of that teaching was Darren Lund, the Complainant.

From what I have read and my conversations and correspondence with Stephen, I know why he wrote THE LETTER, what he meant when he wrote it, who he wanted to read it, and what he wanted to achieve. If THE LETTER came off as angry, Stephen had every right to be angry at the time. His Kids, those he ministered to, were at risk, and he was trying to help them. Someone had to bite the bullet, so he did it. You didn't, and I didn't. Stephen did. He put it on the line. I think his words could have been better chosen, and if he thought that there would be no debate, that rather than listening or dismissing him, this would have happened, I imagine Stephen might have used different wording, or then again maybe not. Frankly, in a world where Free Speech is enshrined in our Constitution, his choice of wording is just that, his choice of wording.

So, here's an interesting observation. Only a few media outlets have picked up this trial, and here are a few selected headlines:
National Post - Anti-gay pastor fights hate law
Edmonton Journal - Alberta pastor appeals hate law ruling
The Vancouver Sun - Canada's hate-speech laws are being put on trial -- again
Calgary Herald - Former pastor appeals sanctions for letter attacking gays
Calgary Sun - Rights law targeted in gay letter case

Ottawa Citizen - Alberta pastor who condemned gays takes on human rights tribunal

And in the online media world a few more gave it attention.
Anglican Mainstream - Rev. Stephen Boissoin In Court Today Challenging “Hate Speech” Conviction
LifeSiteNews.com - Rev. Stephen Boissoin In Court Today Challenging "Hate Speech" Conviction
inews880.com - Free speech vs. hate speech debated in appeal of Alberta human rights ruling

Bloggers and others have picked up one or more of the above, as I have, some with direct copies.

When THE LETTER was published by the Red Deer Advocate, it was given a headline by Advocate staff, not by Stephen that read "Homosexual Agenda Wicked", which damaged some of the context of THE LETTER.

Looking at the headlines of the online versions of the print media I see a couple that have pejorative tags in them. Let's take a quick look.

National Post calls Stephen "anti-gay". That is incorrect. He is anti-gay agenda, and he will gladly explain to you what he means by the gay agenda, particularly as it relates to education of children.

Calgary Herald uses the term "letter attacking gays". No, the letter was attacking the gay agenda, particularly as it relates to education of children, not gay people as a group.

Ottawa Citizen used the term "pastor who condemned gays". It was not gays he was condemning. He was condemning the yadda, yadda, yadda.

Here is my point about journalists. Journalists operate under deadlines, and more and more tighter deadlines all the time, just like everybody else. They are being pushed to produce results, and their results need to sell papers. They don't have or don't take the time to work their way through all the details of a case like this, and so limit themselves to throw away headlines that will grab attention, like the above, most of which were accurate. But the inaccurate ones "expose people to hatred or contempt" as much as anything else that is communicated, certainly as much as THE LETTER.

So, how does that point work to Stephen. If journalists can mangle this case in their reporting, and they have only grasped about 1% of it, why should Stephen in a letter to the editor have to be word perfect, with every dot and tittle in place to not be gonged by a Kangaroo Kourt?

Free Speech on Trial in Alberta

Free Speech on Trial in Preacher's Appeal

I received this by email from the Canadian Constitution Foundation and am passing it along as it also appeared in the Vancouver Sun.

By Karen Selick

Calgary Herald, September 16, 2009

Remember Voltaire? He's the 18th-century French philosopher who is famous for coining the phrase, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

No doubt he will be in the minds of several lawyers appearing this week starting today a Calgary courtroom. They don't necessarily agree with what Stephen Boissoin wrote in a letter to the Red Deer Advocate in July, 2002 but they'll be there defending his right to have written it.

Boissoin is the pastor who made headlines across Canada when he was hauled before Alberta's Human Rights Commission for having expressed in fire-and-brimstone language his opposition to what he considered homosexual "brainwashing" in school curricula. He was charged under Alberta's Human Rights, Multiculturalism and Citizenship Act (HRMCA) with publishing a statement that was likely to expose a class of persons to hatred or contempt. Almost six years later, he was found guilty and ordered to pay damages of $7,000. As well, he was handed a lifetime prohibition on publishing "disparaging remarks" about homosexuals and about several non-homosexuals who had participated in his prosecution. Finally, he was ordered to provide a written apology for his opinions.

This week, Boissoin's appeal goes before the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. But there will be more on trial than the pastor and his words. The law itself will also be on trial.

Boissoin's prosecution was conducted under so-called "human rights" legislation enacted by the province of Alberta. Canada's Criminal Code also contains provisions outlawing "hate speech" but Boissoin was never charged criminally. No wonder--it's much tougher to convict someone of a genuine criminal offence than a so-called human rights breach.

This difference will form part of the argument before the court. Under Canada's Constitution, only the federal government has the power to make criminal law. The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), an intervener in the case, will contend that Alberta's legislature has wrongly attempted to encroach on exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The CCF will also argue, based on many decades of jurisprudence, that there is no section of the constitution permitting a province to outlaw speech. Without constitutional authority, a province cannot just merrily legislate on any subject it chooses.

Indeed, while every Canadian province has antidiscrimination laws that resemble Alberta's HRMCA insofar as they outlaw prejudice in employment, housing and services, no province east of Manitoba has emulated Alberta's attempt to slip wide-ranging restrictions on free speech in among those very different types of prohibitions. Had Boissoin written his letter in Ontario or further east, he could not even have been charged, let alone punished.

If the Alberta law survives this week's constitutional challenge, it will mean that Alberta residents have narrower rights to free speech than their eastern counterparts.

Of course, all Canadians are guaranteed the right to freedom of expression by Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, another intervener in the case, will be arguing that Alberta's law is unconstitutional because it unjustifiably violates this Charter guarantee.

Those who advocate laws outlawing offensive speech demonstrate a dangerous short-sightedness. They support the construction of a huge state apparatus devoted to ferreting out and eliminating forms of expression they deem offensive. But their underlying assumption is that the machinery of state will always remain in the hands of the good guys--people they can trust to prosecute only genuine bad guys.

They never seem to learn from history that things change, sometimes suddenly and in unexpected directions.

If the bad guys ever get into power, the last thing anyone should want them to have is a ready-made state censorship machine. The power of censorship in the hands of a tyrant is a far more fearsome evil than any number of petty bigots writing contemptible letters to newspapers.

Fortunately, Canadians' complacency towards censorship seems to have been routed recently, thanks to the untiring efforts of a few individuals like former magazine publisher Ezra Levant and writer Mark Steyn.

Earlier this month, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a surprise decision in the Mark Lemire case, holding that the sections of the federal human rights law prohibiting publication of offensive words on the Internet are an unconstitutional violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Let's hope the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench sees the Boissoin case similarly.

Karen Selick Is The Litigation Director For The Canadian Constitution Foundation.

First Words From Boissoin Appeal Case

Montreal Gazette First Off The Mark

See What the Montreal Gazette has to say about the first day of the Boissoin Appeal Case in Calgary. Unfortunately not much, but at least some coverage, and with some minor commentary from Professor Moon, J Ly's good friend.

Stephen Boissoin Appeal Document - Part 1 Redux

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

Today is the start of the two days of hearings in Calgary on the Appeal of the absurd Decision in the case of Darren Lund V. Stephen Boissoin at the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. We can only hope that justice is served, and that the Decision is overturned first. Secondly, it is an opportunity for a real court to second or expand upon the Decision of Athanasios Hadjis in the Lemire Decision at the Canada Human Rights Tribunal recently.

So, recognizing that, I have brought forward the summary that I wrote about the (anything but) brief that Gerry Chipeur, Stephen's attorney had filed on his behalf. It was excellent work, that seeks to strike down the Decision and also hammers at the legality of Section 3 of the Alberta HRCM Act, which parallels Section 13 (1) of the Canada Human Rights Act.


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.

Another Link Boissoin/De Angelis

Bishop Fred Henry In Calgary Links the Two

Bishop De Angelis has a brother Bishop in Calgary who knows what it means to be harassed by a Human Rights Commission for speaking the truth. In particular, he knows what it means to be harassed over gay rights, or what can be termed as gay rights by gay rights activists.

Bishop Fred Henry was for a number of years a teacher at St. Peter's Seminary in London, Ontario, where I originally met him. Over time, he became Auxiliary Bishop of London, then Bishop of Thunder Bay, and then Bishop of Calgary, where he has been since March, 1998.

Bishop Fred is no shrinking violet and you are welcome to his opinion, and that makes him endearing. You know what you get with him, because he is also as sharp as a tack. He may not always be right, but he is seldom in doubt. If it has to do with Church teaching, he's going to be right on the money. But, you have to listen to ALL the words, and then think about them before you take offence, not just jump in and take offence first.

Well, Bishop Henry, wrote a pastoral letter against same sex marriage on May 2, 2005. He has strong views on homosexual practices, and on other things that he sees as a theologian that are harmful to leading a Christian life, and he touched on them in his letter.

But, unlike friend Stephen Boissoin, Bishop Henry got not one, but two Alberta HRC complaints at the time. Also, unlike Stephen Boissoin, for some reason, the charges against Bishop Henry disappeared for some reason after lots of noise and wasted money defending against them.

But, as I said Bishop Henry did not let it drop with him. He went on the offensive as LifeSite News reported back in June of 2008 here:

Bishop Fred Henry has asked Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach to repeal Section 3(1)(b) of the Alberta Human Rights Act in order to protect the rights of religious freedom and freedom of speech.

In a letter to Premier Stelmach, Bishop Henry points out that in the past 18 months he has raised the issue of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) several times with the Premier. "On each of those occasions, you said that you understood the issues and shared my concerns."

"However," he continues, "the situation is continuing to deteriorate across our country and the various levels of governments are seemingly non-responsive."

In particular, the recent ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) against Christian youth pastor Stephen Boissoin has convinced the Bishop that decisive measures must be undertaken to curtail the powers of Canada HRCs.

"Each judgment emanating out of our various human right commissions," writes Bishop Henry, "seems to be more brazen and bizarre than the one that preceded it. However, for inane stupidity and gross miscarriage of justice our own Alberta Human Rights Tribunal deserves to take first prize for its treatment of Stephen Boissoin."

I wonder what Bishop Henry thinks about this nonsense in Ontario, his old stomping grounds with his Brother Bishop De Angelis.