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.

A New Friend Comes Calling Again

I Love It When People Think Deep Thoughts

So, yesterday, I responded to a delightful comment from Anonymous. I wish that I knew who Anonymous was, not necessarily his real name, but a better moniker than Anonymous. It just sounds so ... how shall I say it ... Anonymous. But as you will read, I am learning more about the good person that he is, and the deep thoughts that he has.

Originally, he responded to a post the other day on "The Theology of the Body", though his comment was at another post. It was so good, I thought, that I made a new posting about his comment and my thoughts in response here.

In my response, I concluded with the following:

It is a good thing to find out that God/Jehovah/Yahweh exists and loves us, but my new friend was able to do so, I believe, because of the faith that his parents had many years ago, when they baptised him in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In many ways, his Baptism took, as that sacramental grace that was imparted to him worked its way into his heart over the years.

I too, was a lapsed Catholic for many years, and then became as Kathy Shaidle calls it a Relapsed Catholic. The Body of Christ needs us all to come home, and so I invite my Commenter above to "Come Home Please." Give the Church a try again. Use your heart, not your head to give her a chance. We all miss you, and are the worse for your absence.

Well, my new friend responded a short while ago with very meaningful input as I published in the comments to the "Bright Spot" post:

Hello, it's me again. I had no idea that my little commentary would have such an impact. My wife observed that it is harder to talk about Christianity than it is to live it - but that's the kind of pithy insight my wife makes.

Well, "A", I used to think it was harder to talk about Christianity, than to live it. But, I have since learned that it is the other way around. Talk is cheap. Following Jesus, even in the tough circumstances of our lives, that's harder because of our conditioning to not trust Him with the details, but I am getting ahead of myself. "A" continues:

On returning to the Church: The last time I attended a Catholic service was when my younger brother married over a decade ago. I have long ago come to terms with the sexual abuse I suffered as an adolescent at the hands of the Christian Brothers, a lay denomination of educators that held many teaching positions when I was a child.

I can relate to the being away part in the first sentence. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. But, the second sentence is a stopper, if only briefly. Not been there, nor done that, and I wouldn't want the t-shirt if there was one. I always wonder if when a person says "I have long ago come to terms" with anything if that is really true.

I long ago came to terms with the fact that my mother had abused us emotionally when I was a child, or so I thought I had. But at about 58, I started therapy that allowed me to not come to deeper terms with what what I had "come to terms with" earlier, but to accept what had happened, its impact on my life and my responsibilities for my life going forward.

I have a dear friend, a woman who was sexually abused for many years by her father, who has come to a deep acceptance as I wrote here:

Many years ago, a woman who was a friend of mine had a father dying in hospital from cancer. She was about 50 at the time, and her father has sexually abused her repeatedly when she was young, which she had spent many years learning to deal with. She was a woman of great faith and her faith and her actions at the time of her father's death inspired me greatly, as to her character and as to the character of God. While her father lay dying, her only concern was for his immortal soul and eternal rest. She received permission from her parish priest to take him communion. She visited with him and took him communion regularly. She arranged for her pastor to hear her father's last confession. On her birthday that year, he passed away, peacefully. She knew that he went into the loving arms of God.

She knew something that I often forget. "God's justice is mercy." She prayed and worked fervently in those final weeks and days, while all the others around her watched and many of them scoffed at her actions. I am sure that God answered her prayers and the dedication of her choice to love her father, not for what he had done, but because of who he was.

Now, my heart saddens every time, I hear the story of someone who had their childhood stolen from them, particularly by sexual abuse. It is such a distortion of the trust that kids should be able to have for adults, particularly for those who have authority over their lives. But, "A" goes on to talk about something else in his life that challenges his faith and which in my anecdotal experience actually follows from the sexual abuse of his childhood. He says:

What I continue to have difficulties with are the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality. You see, my middle son Jude (31 years old) is homosexual. Jude informed us of this when he was 18 years old. We worked hard to accept this and support him in his endeavours to become a mature adult. That meant accepting his partner Eric into our family almost a decade ago, which we did.

Jude and Eric are - like Jude's brothers and their spouses - completely committed to one another and building their marriages. Jude and Eric brought us two grandchildren so far - both adopted (one at birth, the other at 2 years old). Seth and Rachel are. like our other grandchildren, the most wonderful treasures in our lives. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church would not embrace my son the way he is as my family and I have. I would gladly offer my life up to save my son's life. With that in mind, please try to understand my reluctance to embrace the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church.

I doubt that "A" knows what the Church stance is on homosexuality actually, just what he has seen, and that is not the Church stance on homosexuality. I have studied the Church stance on homosexuality, because a young woman that I love as much as my own daughters and her partner who I love equally are homosexual. Like "A's" son and partner, they are kind, loving people, who have been particularly kind and loving to my wife and me in our disabilities, when we have needed their kindness and support.

So, I have studied what I can to understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches about homosexuality and how to deal with it. I wrote some of it here in this posting on Bishop De Angelis in his challenges with Jim Corcoran. In summary, the church teaches:

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

But, there is also a summary statement that is very important:

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).

I don't see where there is any thought that the Church would not embrace Jude and Eric as they are. I have lived in sexual sin, every bit as great as anything Jude and Eric and my young friends could have done, if they have even sinned, which I am not in any position to judge, even if I were so inclined. The Church accepted me back, and I am grateful to be back in Her loving arms.

"A" says that he would "gladly offer my life up to save my son's life. " If that is true "A" come home, and bring them with you. That would be offering up your life. Otherwise, as Mary Poppins says, that would be a pie crust promise, easily made and easily broken.

Of course that is not all, for "A" has his dear love of his life to consider:

Finally, my wife is a "red diaper baby" who has been known to observe that she was 15 years old before she realized that Christmas had nothing to do with Teamsters' events. She became a theist because "...without some kind of God nothing would make any sense whatsoever and would be very depressing and I just couldn't handle it thinking that Humankind was the "bestest most wonderfulest thing ever". You perhaps are beginning to get my drift ...

I had never heard of a "red diaper baby", only brown diaper babies, as in soiled, and after changing a few of my grandson's recently, I know from brown. But, I am not actually beginning to get "A's" drift as it were. I see why "A" drifted away from the Catholic Church if that is what he means. I just don't see why he won't put his heart and soul into coming Home.

But, he goes on respectfully:

What incited me to respond to you originally was simply a wish to point out to you what I had noticed about my own life when I look back. I am thankful for my Catholic upbringing (by a grandmother who converted to Catholicism at age 25). It provided me the kind of grounding that permitted me to release my misgivings and apply what limited intellectual resources and talents I was born with to the task of developing myself as an autonomous, responsible and reasonably fulfilled human being. "Reasonably fulfilled" because it took an intimate, committed bond with another to help me reach my full potential as a human being. It took my wife. When the kids came along, "fulfillment" just got larger and larger.

And what my wife and I know about "how things work" is what we've taught our kids. Maybe we were lucky, but all our kids seemed to "get it". And we include our homosexual son Jude and his partner Eric in that equation. The Catholic Church wouldn't, and there's the rub.

"A" is thankful for his Catholic upbringing, for the grandmother who was a convert at 25, and for the grounding that it provided. As he says, he is "reasonably fulfilled". Of course, the grace of the sacraments he received and the prayers of that Grandmother, who is still praying for his soul and that of his family now.

As he says, he and his wife include their gay son and partner, but he believes erroneously that "The Catholic Church wouldn't, and there's the rub." No rub there, "A". You are mistaken. There are Catholics who do not understand what the Church teaches, who will not accept your son and partner. But, look around you, do you think that the world accepts them now? Don't lay that one on the Church or on Christianity at all. That is a throw away line, with no substance to it. It needs to be looked at deeper. It just comes off as an excuse.

As he says:

I cannot choose to be blind to the commitment, loyalty and devotion between my son and his partner. I cannot be blind to the fact that their children are happy kids who know they are loved and respected at home - are every bit as precious to me as my wife as our other grandchildren are. We simply cannot condemn ANYTHING about our son Jude, including his life as a committed parent and partner in a monogamous relationship. I'm afraid that bringing the Catholic Church into my family and home would destroy both.

I shall continue to live my life as I always have - keeping up a running exchange with Jehovah and doing whatever it is I am supposed to do. Right now, I'm working on a "storyteller" program for children with Down's Syndrome om collaboration with a young teacher-friend of mine. I love working with kids and am indulging myself as retirement approaches. There's a light in their eyes that simply inspires me and I just know I'm supposed to act on it.

All love comes from God. We love one another, because He loved us first, and showed us the way. Here's another throw away, lazy line "I'm afraid that bringing the Catholic Church into my family and home would destroy both." I know it is both throw away and lazy, because I said it myself many years ago. In my case, God spoke to me directly, which showed me how throw away the lines were. He has saved my life, not just here on the earth, but I hope for eternity, because if you care about the hereafter at all, that is what we are here after, to get there.

New friend "A" leaves his best throw away line for his conclusion:

" Remember, if God is in the details, then the details are better left to God."

What a lazy, crock that line is. God gave us a brain to use to discover His love and immense goodness to us, especially the gift of His only begotten Son, who died for "A" and his family, and their loved ones, ALL OF THEM.

"A", I invited you to come Home. We need you to make Home better, to make us all one. You have a free will to choose, but don't choose based on misdirections and lazy platitudes. Explore and think for yourself. Continue to use the intellect that was given to you by the One who loves you more than your wife can possibly do, but gave her to you as a help mate as an example of His Undying, and Dying Love for you. If you would like to move from "reasonably fulfilled" in earthly terms to "joyful beyond measure", come Home.

God Bless You, and your family "A". We love you, and want you to come home. Bring the wife and kids. We are dreadfully sorry that we hurt you in the past. We were ignorant and unkind. Please forgive us.

We miss you, and will pray for you.

A Touch of Irony

But Will Jim Corcoran Get It?

Dear Readers:

You may recall that I have published a number of posts on Jim Corcoran going after the Bishop of Peterborough, Bishop De Angelis, and the "12" from Cobourg over his being asked to step down from serving on the altar at St. Michael's Cobourg. I started here and went on after that.

Mr. Corcoran and partner are in England and Spain on vacation. All was well except this item he noted in his blog:

The only depressing event has been a rather poor review posted on Ste. Anne´s by a recent guest on TripAdvisor. If you are a true fan, please take a minute and post something positive for me. After 20 years of investing love and sweat into a business, it really hurts when someone takes their best shot at ruining your reputation. Why don´t they just call me when they aren´t happy? Oh well.

He got a bad review and read it if you must, it was a bad review, and also unusual for the spa, as far as I can tell. Surprisingly scathing, I think.

But, to paraphrase Mr. Corcoran, after Bishop De Angelis has invested so many years in his priesthood, and in nurturing and caring for people in his charge, it really hurts when someone takes their best shot at ruining his reputation. Why didn't Jim Corcoran just call when he wasn't happy? Oh Well! There's always the HRT.

You see, the person who complained against Jim's spa isn't from a protected group, so can't go to the HRT to complain and ask for $260,000 for pain and suffering, and of course a public apology. A call would have been nice, or an email first and then a call.

This is why I hate the HRCs/HRTs. They like to help victims with hurt feelings. They are in the victim mollification business, not in the healing business. Now Bishop De Angelis is in the healing business. Mr. C. you knocked on the wrong door. Try door number 2.

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.

Jim Corcoran Comes Calling

I See That Jim Corcoran is Coming to Visit

This IP pops up from time to time in my Log.

Ste Anne's Country Inn And Spa (204.101.39.10) Jim Corcoran
freethroughtruth.blogspot.com/2009/08/latest-word-on-corcorande-angelis-case.html
www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GFRC_enCA210CA211&q=corcoran deangelis&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

My objective is not to offend Mr. Corcoran, but I sure wish he could see the damage that he is doing to the Catholic Church by his churlish behaviour in Cobourg. It's one thing to have discord in your local parish with your neighbours of many years. Mr. C. just dropped in last August and drives 60 km each week to add insult to his injury; this, to people who were hurt enough over the last few years with the loss of their beloved Fr. Cachia, his friend and co-worker. They don't need the additional trauma in their lives. I can't imagine he needs the stress of this either.

Usually these things only go badly for the condemned. But, in this case, the bloggers and the media are not letting Mr. C. off the hook, which is coming as quite a surprise to him. Since "Shakedown" more eyes are focused on more of these cases and the hinkiest ones are going to get watched more closely and reported on every time someone breaks wind or squeaks.

I wonder what color Mr. C's wind is, which reminds me of lyrics from the song Color of the Wind:

You think the only people who are people
Are the people who look and think like you
But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger
You'll learn things you never knew you never knew.

Try to walk in Bishop De Angelis' footsteps, Mr. C. It's very lonely there, and believe it or not, he needs you. You have a lot to offer to the Church. This just isn't it.

How Do I Know That Bishop De Angelis Is Not Discriminating Against Jim Corcoran

Because Bishop De Angelis knows the Church Teachings on Homosexuality and Follows Them

From Catholic Answers here is some of the Catholic teaching on Homosexuality summarised starting with the introduction:

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

Although there is much more worth reading, the conclusion is important:The Catholic Church thus teaches:

"Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).

Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).

Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.

Courage,
Church of St. John the Baptist
210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001

(212) 268–1010
Web: http://couragerc.net

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Note that there is the presence of the Nihil Obstat, meaning "attestation by a church censor that the above contains nothing damaging to faith or morals." The Imprimatur attached means that it "is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Roman Catholics.

This plus what I omitted is what Bishop De Angelis believes and it does not in any way discriminate against Jim Corcoran. The Bishop was asking Jim Corcoran to step down to not put a stumbling block in front of the other parishioners because of their faith not his, as I wrote here. But, of course, the man appears too thick to think that it is not all about him, and so on and on and on we go.

Bishop De Angelis loves Jim Corcoran as a son in Christ, and respects his choice of a life of celibacy, knowing how difficult it is for him to make that choice. He too has made that choice. He probably has a little more difficulty with his stubbornness and recalcitrance with his running off to the Ontario HRC. However, this too shall pass.

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.

What are You Thinking, Jimmy Boy?

Corcorans's Fantasy Unraveling

As Scary Fundamentalist revealed this morning over on the left coast, Jim Corcoran is feeling stressed because Bishop De Angelis used the powers of his spiritual office to respond to the many inquiries that his administrative office has been receiving about the scurrilous charges that Mr. Corcoran has leveled against the Bishop and the "12". Seems they, the Bishop in particular, did not roll over and play dead.

Here's what Mr. Corcoran said on his blog:

This past week was a little stressful as one of the respondents to the HRC case decided to use his office and all of the Catholic Churches in the Peterborough diocese to establish his authority, and my guilt, and to spread his version of recent events that is substantially different than what I perceive the facts to be (sound familiar?).

SF has a well thought out description of what happened at the Inquisitions lo these many years ago, a lot like HRCs they were.

The problem for Jim Corcoran is that his version of the truth is not standing up to scrutiny, and it is part of the battle against the HRCs that must continue. The HRCs are not truth seekers. They are discrimination seekers. When all you have in your toolbox is a hammer, then the whole world is a nail.

First off, Mr. Corcoran got it right when he said "his version of recent events that is substantially different than what I PERCEIVE the facts to be." For people who live in a dream world, perception is reality. But over here in the real world, where people interact as real human beings, the truth is reality.

But, anyway back to the HRC. So, along comes a homosexual man to them. Check Box 1. The HRC has a group that it supports Claims from. Do we have a target? Yes we have a target, a Bishop and 12 parishioners. Check Box 2. Until a few years ago, that's all it took to get a conviction. Some facts, real or made up would help, to fill up the paper work, don't you know.

But, the media are no longer on side with this kind of Kargaroo Justice, nor are the bloggers out here, and the public are getting along side as well. So, it is no longer a skate in the park for the folks like Jim Corcoran who cry wolf whenever their feelings are hurt by the vagaries of life. Perception as reality doesn't cut it anymore. We are interested in the truth, and Jim Corcoran's made up version doesn't cut it, and if it did it's not worth a dime, let alone $260,000. Hurt feelings are a freebie.

If Jim Corcoran had been married outside the church to a woman, and they attended mass at St. Michael's and he wanted to serve on the altar, he would not be allowed to. Would that be discrimination? Nope, just the rules of the Catholic Church, and because he is a white guy, and if he were married to a white woman, he could not complain to Barb's HRC. However, he shouldn't anyway. If you want to join the club, play by the rules, and the referee is the Bishop not the head of the local HRC.

Wake up Jim Corcoran and stop trying to twist the truth to fit your desired outcome. It doesn't work.

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.

No Wonder Catholics Are Such a Peckish Lot

St. Peter is our Model, Our First Leader

Today was one of those cool Gospel readings that makes me realize something about the Catholic Church that I appreciate. There's room for a jerk like me in it. How do I know that? Because Jesus appointed the first jerk, St. Peter to be the first head of the Church. Here's much of today's gospel reading from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops site. It is taken from Mark's Gospel Chapter 8 verses 27-35, and I have omitted the last 2 verses:

Jesus and his disciples set out
for the villages of Caesarea Philippi.
Along the way he asked his disciples,
“Who do people say that I am?”
They said in reply,
“John the Baptist, others Elijah,
still others one of the prophets.”
And he asked them,
“But who do you say that I am?”
Peter said to him in reply,
“You are the Christ.”
Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.

He began to teach them
that the Son of Man must suffer greatly
and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed, and rise after three days.
He spoke this openly.
Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
At this he turned around and, looking at his disciples,
rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan.
You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

Peter in one breath raises his hand in class, like an anxious school kid who has to pee, going "Pick me, Pick me," and when Jesus calls on him, he is able to proclaim that Jesus is the Christ of God, the anointed, the Messiah.

But, then Peter proves that he is so much like the rest of us, smart one minute, and dumb as a post the next. After Jesus tells the disciples what it's going to be like in the next while, Peter gets his knickers in a knot, and pulls Jesus aside. He says something along the lines of: "Hey, look JC (He can call him JC now, since he figured out the "C" part), this is not cool. We got a shot of taking over the whole shebang here. None of this dying stuff. You gotta trust me on this. That would not be a good thing."

But, what does Jesus say to Peter? Woe, rebuke of rebukes. "Get behind me, Satan." How small do you think Peter felt right about then? "You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

Isn't that the problem for us all? Ted Kennedy thought like man, not like God, thinking abortion "rights" whatever those are, would make the world a better place for who? It sure doesn't do it for the dead babies.

Jim Corcoran thinks that holding Bishop De Angelis and the "12" accountable is better for who? And to whom does he want them to be accountable? Certainly not to God. God doesn't have an HRC. He is His own GRC, and you only have to get on your knees to appeal to it, and wait and wait and maybe wait some more for the answer.

And those who stand by while these poltroons wreak their havoc on the Church, and say nothing or throw lavish funerals in their honour, or kiss their rosy red ???, because they don't want to offend them, we have room for them too. Why? Because Jesus came for sinners, like you and me, and every other you and me.

We are all sinaholics, in need of the Saviour's healing touch, and the best place to get it is in a faith community. In a faith community, the Word of God can heal the broken hearts, minds, souls and spirits. So, welcome one and all. Take a seat, the meeting's starting soon.

Bishop De Angelis Pastoral Letter

You Really Don't Get it Corcoran

Bishop De Angelis wrote a beautiful, thoughtful pastoral letter here to try and smooth the waters after all the tension that has been going on at St. Michael's Parish in Cobourg. Life Site News has a good report of it here, including some interviewing of Jim Corcoran.

Meanwhile, Barb Hall has turned the Ontario HRC from an integrated sausage machining machine into the auto industry model, and we can only hope that it fails like the North American industry has done recently, with no disrespect to that industry. Here's what I mean. Barb has separated the Legal Support Centre which pays all the bills for you and helps you file your claim from the Human Rights Commission, which investigates the claim, and processes the offending parties, and from the Human Rights Tribunal which then slams the door shut on the poor sucker to seal the deal.

So, the only change is that the once integrated sausage making machine is now a dis-integrated sausage making machine, where the left hand doesn't necessarily co-ordinate with the middle hand, which then doesn't necessarily co-ordinate with the right hand.

Here's just a couple of lines from the OHRC web site about the Legal Support Centre:

The Human Rights Legal Support Centre offers legal services to individuals throughout Ontario, who believe they have experienced discrimination. The Centre can be contacted at 416-314-6266 or 1-866-625-5179.

The Legal Support Centre cannot assist employers, landlords, service providers or business operators who have questions about how the Human Rights Code applies to them.

Maybe you'd like to call them up and give them some free advice back. They won't take your call unless you believe you have experienced discrimination, and believe me you are gonna experience discrimination before they are done with you.

So, Corcoran got his advice to proceed from the Legal Support Centre, and unable to think for himself, he took it. Why not, it was free, and worth every penny he paid. About as good as the free advice he gets from Ed Cachia, probably.

So, his response to the wonderful pastoral letter that His Bishop wrote: "The bishop may be subjecting himself to the possibility of a lawsuit."

Corcoran is so busy listening to his own voice that he can't hear anyone else's.

My prayer for Jim Corcoran is that one day he will awaken to the realisation that it is not all about him, and maybe somebody will send him a copy of Max Lucado's book "It's Not About Me".

Here's just one little excerpt:

What would happen if we accepted our place as Son reflectors.

Such a shift comes stubbornly, however. We've been demanding our way and stamping our feet since infancy. Aren't we all born with a default drive set on selfishness? I want a spouse who makes me happy, co-workers who always ask my opinion. I want weather that suits me and traffic that helps me and a government that serves me. It is all about me.

Jim Corcoran's life and the lives of the other members and now former members of St. Michael's Parish are too valuable to throw away on such nonsense, which is the crux of the Pastoral Letter from Bishop De Angelis.

Jim Corcoran is now treading on ground where he is prepared to risk the eternal salvation of himself and of fellow and former co-parishioners by his prideful actions. When he meets Jesus at that final moment, how will he answer for his treatment of his brothers and sisters, because Jesus will not ask him how they treated him, but how he treated them? He'll ask them about their treatment of him. That's for them to make account of themselves.

Barbara Hall will not be standing beside him then, nor his advisers from the Legal Support Centre. But, Bishop De Angelis will have prayed for him as his pastoral leader. It will not be enough though without a change of his heart.

Corcoran Is Making An ?ss of Himself

That He Is A Homosexual Is Beside the Point

Blazing Cat Fur was the first to pick up on it here. He caught wind of the Northumberland Today article that was at the centre of the latest wave of DeAngelis v. Corcoran noise. In fact, it was the first salvo from Bishop De Angelis.

Before I could get my own piece done though, Scary Fundamentalist had dropped his own bomb on the thing and it is a worthy read here.

Seems the good Bishop has had enough and sent a pastoral letter out to the parishioners in the Diocese. As SF points out, we, the blogging universe have said this already, but we are all happy to hear the good Bishop defend himself as well.

He said in part:

"I fail to understand how secular powers and government agencies should think they are in a position to tell the Church that she is wrong in her internal rules and regulations, even though these have directed and shaped the life of the church during the last 2,000 years. However, this is what we face today."

You may recall that the kafuffle resulted from letters to the Bishop by parishioners of St. Michael's Parish in Cobourg, Ontario, complaining about their priest, and mentioning that the head altar server was leading an openly gay lifestyle, and questioning if it was consistent with Church teaching. The Bishop chose to ask Fr. Hood to have him step aside from his voluntary position.

I previously blogged on this travesty here, and here, and here, and here, and here. I highlighted the case a number of times as well in other postings, in total over 15 times.

Northumberland Today also reports about the letter as follows:

In his Sept. 10 letter, De Angelis says it is not a "right" to serve as a volunteer on any parish committee: "Rather, it is an invitation from the pastor or bishop which can also be terminated at any time; particularly when the voluntary service gives rise to tension , animosity, discord or division in the life of the parish. It is for the bishop to regulate, in view of the common good, the exercise of rights proper to Christ's faithful."

The bishop says he had instructed parish priest Father Allan Hood "to kindly invite" volunteers who were objects of disagreement and tension "to step aside and give the chance to other volunteers to serve."

The bishop says "a number of volunteers graciously resigned" in "humility and obedience to the Bishop".

The letter then states, "The only exception was one adult altar server who made the decision to report the Bishop and Diocese to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation".

Jim Corcoran had his say about the Bishop's letter as well in the paper's report:

"The bishop asked me to step aside," Corcoran says, after the bishop was sent a petition signed by 12 parishioners asking for his removal. "I stepped aside -- but I challenged the version of why I was asked to step aside.

"I am not being disloyal to the bishop. I did what was asked -- but I am asking for accountability for the decision. I'm simply asking why I was asked to step down. The only possible answer is because I'm gay."

Actually, a really good reason for asking you to step down is that Father Hood had no right to give you a position of authority in the Parish, without determining if you had sufficient spiritual maturity to be able to handle it.

The paper also reported the following including Corcoran's further comments:

Corcoran does not expect the bishop's Thursday letter is going to alter existing viewpoints within the parish: "There's a group that think I'm right and it was high time the Church was held accountable and another group who don't like homosexuals, do what the bishop says and don't like Father Hood. I don't think (the letter) is going to change opinions of these two groups very much.

"However, there are tens of thousands of people in the diocese who are not aware of this case," Corcoran says. "By putting this document in their hands, it's firstly bringing the attention to me once again and, secondly, identifying me as an abhorrent, disobedient Catholic. It's going to start it all up again within the diocese.

"The bishop may be subjecting himself to the possibility of a lawsuit," Corcoran says.

Corcoran, you really don't get it. The most homophobic person involved in entire thing is YOU, buddy boy.

Here's what Scary Fundamentalist had to say about the held accountable crack of Corcoran's:

Held accountable to whom?

Any honest Christian will confess that the Church is accountable only to Jesus Christ its head, not busybody government agencies. Individual congregations or denominations derive their authority from their voluntary members, and not the state. It's about the same as using the OHRT to force a bunch of guys playing poker to include someone they don't like.

The other group, Corcoran says, "don't like homosexuals and do what the bishop wants". If he's talking about practicing homosexuals, then that is a crude representation of Biblical teaching.

Father Hood, do you have the spine to send Corcoran packing, or are you just a namby, pamby? You started this thing by appointing a man who clearly lacks the spiritual maturity to handle an important, but voluntary position in your church. That alone is a serious indicator that the "12" had a good sense of your competence. Stand up and act like a man.

And you, Barb Hall, back away. You have no business being involved in this issue. This is internal to the Catholic Church. You should give Jim Corcoran the back of your hand for wasting your time with matters that are not your purview. Bet that doesn't happen.

Jim Corcoran said it all when he said "The bishop may be subjecting himself to the possibility of a lawsuit." You sir, are an arrogant ?ss.

C. S. Lewis

Moral Busybodies - Courtesy of Just Right blog

I have always respected C. S. Lewis as a Christian with an interesting perspective. He was born in 1898, and died in 1963. Along the way, he was a fallen away Christian, who returned to the faith about age 30, somewhat under the influence of his friend J.R.R. Tolkien. Although he wore many hats, he is best known as an author, a Christian lay theologian and apologist. I came across the following quote of his courtesy of the Just Right blog here, which I found particularly descriptive of the workings of our human rights commissions/tribunals at this time, and so I am sharing it with you.

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." -- C. S. Lewis, from God in the Dock, Page 292

The HRCs and their leaders in our midst are Omnipotent Moral Busybodies. They are frightening in their exercise of a power that they should not have, and yet, they are so sure of the rightness of their cause, whatever the heck that might be, that they carry on regardless, and view those who stand in their way, as nothing more than chaff to be discarded.

What will it take for Canadians of good will to awaken to the evil that is being perpetrated in our midst in the name of Human Rights protection, by people appointed and authorized by our governments Federal and Provincial? If I ever figure that our I will do it, and let you know. Until then, I will not remain silent, while people like the following are sacrificed to whatever god is the god of made up human rights:

Stephen Boissoin
Constable Michael Shaw
Bishop De Angelis
My friend the forced to retire grade school principal
Gator Ted Kindos
John Fulton
Violet Landry
and the countless thousands of others who have had to keep secret their humiliation at the hands of the HRCs and HRTs of this country.

Quago - A New Term for our HRCs/HRTs

New Vocabulary as Part of Denormalization

Frankly, I don't know how some of the bloggers out there come across the more absurd things in our world, but they do. Blazing Cat Fur picked up on this today. It was basically an article from the UK Times Online about the most absurd thing I have heard in at least the last 24 hours, maybe.

The article was about the Quasi Non Government Organisations (quangos for short and for quaint) banning certain words in common parlance because they might be politically incorrect, such clearly offensive words as gentleman's agreement, blacklist, black sheep, black mark, right hand man. These all clearly have racist or other discriminatory overtones, don't they, at least to idiots with nothing better to do with their time.

Aha, methinks. Brain engaged. BCF headlined his post with "Jennifer Lynch will be on this". That reminds me of other Organisations where idiots are employed with nothing better to do with their time than to try and make us all politically correct. We do it somewhat differently in Canader, eh, what! Our HRCs/HRTs are Government Organisations, not Non Government Organisations, but they are Quasi, in the sense that they are fake courts using fake processes to make real pain for real people, but not following real proper procedures. So they are really Quasi Government Organisations, or we could call them Quagos for short.

Quago works for me as part of denormalisation. They are Quasi - not real. But, with Quago, I am reminded of quagmire, and dealing with them is like falling into a quagmire. When you have been summoned to an HRC/HRT, you have been quagoed. So quago is a noun that stands for the HRC/HRT organisations themselves and also for the process of being complained about and the process of resolving at great pain to yourself the complaint, as in, "I've been quagoed."

So, Constable Michael Shaw was quagoed recently, as has Stephen Boissoin been, though he is appealing his quago. Ontario is trying to quago Bishop DeAngelis and the 12 from St. Michael's in Cobourg. They tried to do a triple quago on Ezra levant, but he saw their quago and raised them, so they dequagoed him. They also unquagoed Mark Steyn. Unquago and dequago mean the same thing essentially.

My friend the grade school principal was double quagoed by Ontario, but then they unquagoed her on the one case, because they said it had no merit. Now, they have requagoed the dropped case, making it a double dip quago.

When you put it this way, you can see that quagoing is both fun and profitable, at least for quagos. J Ly is the head of a quago, or Quagojefe. Quago employees, like baristas at Starbucks could be quagoistas.

I see that my spellchecker went yellow bananas on me with quago and derivatives. Obviously, my new words are not part of the accepted lexicon yet, but since they just came out of my imagination a few minutes ago, I'm okay with that.

Anyway, quago works for me. Whadda ya think?

Queen Babs Latest Annual Report

Premier McGuinty Raves About Her

I have been waiting with some trepidation for the latest Annual Report for the Ontario Human Rights Commission to see what new super powers, she who I wish could not be named, had taken unto herself and her minions.

My trepidation was actually unwarranted. Abject fear, and horror would have been more appropriate as she unveiled in her annual report what had been policy for some time, that now personally unburdened by the screwing up of individual lives for the alleged public good, having delegated that to the new/old Tribunal, which still seems to report to the Ontario HRC, she could go after larger groups.

This is the Barb Hall, who declared a victory for the small percentage of visually impaired people, like the Chair of the Tribunal Mr. Michael Gottheil, in our population when she miraculously enforced a system of call outs for each and every stop on every route on every transit system in Ontario, with a few laggards being roundly beaten into submission. By the way, she did this without leaping a single building. She hasn't declared or even acknowledged any form of defeat for the equivalent percentage of acquired brain injury and otherwise mentally challenged members of our population, like myself, who now find it harder to take public transit, because of the increased confusion caused by this unnecessary noise, and the fear and paranoia it causes for us. Law of Unintended Consequences, anybody?

Wait until she releases her policy on Housing and goes after landlords who are reticent to put their homes, buildings and life savings at risk to low income, and less desirable tenants.

Next up, police and RACIAL PROFILING. That's gonna be a big one. If you want to see where she is heading next, watch the Tribunal cases, and see when she ups the ante. First, she went after Metro Toronto Constable Shaw. Now, it's the Chief, William Blair. Then watch as it shifts from the tribunal back to Barb's Commission for policy for all the police forces of Ontario. There's a pattern here, and if the Police Chiefs of Ontario don't jump on this hard, they will be screwed royally by the time this is all said and done.

But, my abject fear and horror quickly turned to nausea and revulsion when I read the following:

Premier Dalton McGuinty praised the work of the commission and took a shot at new Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, who has been critical of human rights bureaucracy and called for the tribunal to be scrapped.

"I think that the Conservatives are bringing kind of a small view to what we're doing here," McGuinty said. "We are participating in a remarkable adventure largely without precedent in the annals of human history. We're inviting people to come here from the four corners of the world. It's only natural and predictable that in those circumstances from time to time there will be a little bit of friction ... we need a place in a civilized society to address those kinds of concerns," he said.

The Conservatives are bringing a small view, says he. If voicing concern about how the Ontario HRC rides roughshod over the lives of individuals, and silences those whom they have destroyed with gag agreements is a small view, give me some more of the small view, please. Premier McGuinty calling the actions of the Ontario HRC "a little bit of friction" is like saying that World War II was a minor family squabble.

The biggest problem currently is that the truth about the abuses of the Commission are so hard to get at because of the gag agreements, and the shame that those who have been abused feel, not unlike that felt by battered spouses.

So, midst all of this zaniness, I wrote this little poem to calm my frazzled nerves. It didn't work particularly well, but it was fun doing it.

Barb Hall Ontario's Queen of Censors

Barb Hall's annual report came down from on high
Full of promise of peace, love and pie in the sky.
It sounded so good, that Premier McGuinty did say
"Our Barb walks on water each and every day."

Jim Corcoran connected with Bishop De Angelis one day,
When the Bishop asked him to leave the altar and pray.
Gay Jim didn't like it and swore he'd been had,
So he went to Pope Barb, who could feel for the lad.

He asked for some cash, $260k if you could,
then for De Angelis to change church gay teaching if he would.
It ain't gonna happen, a fight's on the rise,
And Jimmy and Barb don't have God on their sides.

This is only one dustup, but Barb doesn't care,
She'll pick fights with anyone, any time anywhere.
Her record has been solid, but the reason is clear,
Her opponents are usually quaking with fear.

So, we'll see how she does when the party is over,
Who's standing, who's sitting and who just fell over.
If she wins this one, I quit. I am leaving.
I'll be heading to somewhere warm to do my grieving.

She's going after Housing, her next port of call
Cheap housing, nay free for one and for all.
Landlords are a nuisance. They're such greedy folk.
Complain about costs, mortgages, debt load, what a joke.

Choose their own tenants, pick one over the other.
What about that broke underage mother?
She's got no money. What's that matter to you?
If Barb's Policy says your stuck, then her word is true.

Now Policing's the big one that she's out to get.
To her it's all 'bout racial profiling, the works you bet.
They ground Constable Shaw. Next up is Chief Blair.
When all's said and done, not a cop safe nowhere.

She'll own every badge, while the bad guys go free,
You won't even be safe in your house, you'll see.
When all's said and done, I'll say I told you so,
But I'll be outta here. We'll just get up and go.

If you want it to differ, here's what you must do
Get up off your duff, and help us out of this stew.
Read "Shakedown". Don't breakdown, there's more of the same.
The only way to stop this is to get in the game.

Write letters. Send emails. Phone friends. Do whatever.
But quit, we must not. Not Now. Not ever.
Barb's dastardly plan must be put to an end
Or, you'll never be sure who's up next, my friend.

Windmill Tilting in Canada Where There Aren't Any Real Windmills

Don Quixote Prophesies the Birth and Death of the HRC Industry in Canada (sorta maybe)

The Bishop De Angelis (Ontario HRC) and Stephen Boissoin (Ontario HRC) cases are perfect examples of what is wrong in the Human Rights industry in this country. Call it much ado over nothing.

You know, Don Quixote had a windmill to tilt at, at least. He didn't have to use his own investigators to go out and build one from scratch, so he could hop onto Rocinante and joust with it.

But methinks that maybe there is more to the Don Quixote/HRC mental link than just one little verbal jab. Let's see.

Don Quixote - farce, lots of play on words, quick wit, and humour. HRCs - definitely got the farce part down. They play with words, rather than on them. Wit yes, but quick does not come to mind, more likely half, dim, nit. Humour, not in the occurrence like in Don Quixote, but in the retelling, but then it's more a theater of the absurd. Still, there is some comparative there.

OK, let's see if The Ingenious Hidalgo Don Quixote of La Mancha as written by Miguel de Cervantes in Spain in 1605 might possibly have been a prophetic work written about the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Since the author took great poetic licence in his marvellous work, I shall give myself similar liberty as well. For a source of unparalleled wisdom, I have selected an article in Wikipedia about the book as a jumping off point here.

First of all, the story of Don Quixote is the story of a man who "has become obsessed with books of chivalry, and believes their every word to be true, despite the fact that many of the events in them are clearly impossible." As we know, he then sets out in his delusion on quests for adventure. Along the way he "tilts at windmills" in one case, that aren't really the evil giants that he thinks them to be. His episodes of misadventure are ridiculous in his misinterpretation of reality.

Let's stop for a moment to catch our breath. Pop quiz. Does this remind you, gentle reader of any person or persons, or government institutions who shall remain nameless, but who work on behalf of the Human Rights juggernaut in our country, and its provinces? If so, how many names come to mind?

The big difference of course is that the misadventures at the HRCs are happening to real people, and the people on the horses leading the charge are also real people, thinking they are doing a good job ridding the country of some form of malice, but not unlike Quixote really.

Of course, there is another comparison of which I was not aware, and that is some of the wit of Cervantes in his naming of the never seen Dulcinea, which means an allusion to illusion, and of the Don's horse Rocinante, which means reversal.

Methinks that the name Dulcinea might make a good nick name for first female HRC leader that gets the sack, since it seems that more than one of them appears fond of alluding to illusion, though currently they are living in a state of delusion of grandeur. And, of course for the second HRC sackee, we can reserve the nick name Rocinante, for the reversal of fortune that has come.

As I have read many case decisions from the HRCs of this once but no longer so fair land, I have become familiar with their literary attributes and so thought a comparison to those self same attributes from Quixote to be appropriate. Sort of farce meets farce. May the farce be with you.

The writer of the Wikipedia piece begins with the title of the book, and starts with the word "ingenious", reminding us that it means inventive, and is a hint of what is to come in the novel. It makes me wonder if maybe the Case Decisions I have read should be prefaced with "The Ingenious Case of such and so" since they too seem most inventive, a kind word. Ezra Levant is a little more blunt and colourful in his description, but inventive it is.

Don Quixote is a farce, but in its farce as it works towards conclusion, the eyes of Quixote are opened and he sees that what he thought was chivalry was silliness. In the end, he dies in his melancholy. Well, the eye opening part is not likely to happen for our leaders of HRCs. It is more likely to be a "Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya" experience that wakes them up, as the fickle finger of fate turns the dial of history away from them some day in the future. After all this is real life, not a fairy story.

The book left us with a couple of phrases and words that are part of our lexicon which are relevant to discussions about our beloved HRCs.

One such word is "quixotism". Of course, we don't use that one every day, but in talking about our HRCs we sure could. It means: "engaging in foolish impracticality in pursuit of ideals ; especially those ideals manifested by rash, lofty and romantic ideas; or extravagantly chivalrous action. It also serves to describe an idealism without regard to practicality." Except for the chivalrous action bit, and the romantic ideas, it fits the HRCs to a "t". Idealism without practicality kind of fits, as does foolish impracticality.

The poet John Cleveland had already put this word to use in 1644 in his book "The Character of a London Diurnall". In it he wrote: "The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads." Boy, does that sound familiar. Reminds me particularly of the Ontario HRC need to get call outs on all transit companies in Ontario so the few blind people who occasionally ride can hear every stop on every bus in Ontario, whether they are there or not. That phrase hits the nail right on the windmill of my mind.

As an aside. I hadn't known what a diurnall was. It's not a 2 holer in a men's room, as I might have guessed, but a daily newspaper in the old days.

Quixote also left us with "tilting at windmills" as an idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting unwinnable or futile battles. Of course, the question is all about time and space. One might have thought that Ezra Levant was tilting at windmills a couple of years ago, and Stephen Boissoin as well. Today, it seems that if they can afford to stay the course, and the truth is allowed to see the light of day, that the real windmill tilters will be exposed. One can only hope.

In the end, Don Quixote regains his sanity and renounces his attempts at chivalry for the ridiculousness that they were. Seeing the truth though, he slips into a serious melancholy that eats away at him. He eventually dies a broken man.

Here is what I predict will happen with our HRCs and their leadership and followership, as the winds of politics shift. If I am correct, the tides will change, and the politicians who are now in power, will claim outrage at the misconduct that they have effectively condoned with blind eye for so many years. They will sack all those who drank the Kool Aid, as though they were the problem, not just the symptom, maybe get a Royal Commission or two or an Inquiry or three.

The politicians will claim that their predecessors did it, and we fixed it. What good boys and girls we are. With impunity, they will destroy the careers of the HRC czars and czarinas, who may or may not land on their feet in some other party sinecure, depending on their party affiliation.

When might this happen? Not soon enough, but hopefully before too much more damage is done.

What's stopping it from happening? Too few voices in the wilderness crying out about the injustice, and too many victims silenced by settlement secrecy contracts. We need more voices dear reader. When the critical mass gets too big to ignore, something will be done.

The Secret World of the HRCs

Not So Secret Anymore

Each of us operates in two worlds, the one where we are in the public eye, and the one in private. Typically, we are on our best behaviour when we are in the public eye, because that is where our reputation with man is made or lost. Not always, of course, and not everybody, but usually. But, in private where nobody is watching, that's something a little bit different isn't it? When nobody is watching over my shoulder, the real me steps out of the shadows, and the real me is a sinful blighter, not about to burn buildings or rape and pillage, but it is in secret where my worst thoughts and vilest plans are hatched, and fortunately it is where they generally stay. Whew!!!

But, I know God. Personally, I have a relationship with him. I know He sees me in my secret places. In other words, there are no secret places from Him. Does that keep me from thinking evil thoughts? No sirree, Bob. I may be redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, but I am still a sinaholic, and daily I have to work to walk that path He sets before me. Some days I manage to stay on it longer, if I sleep in.

But, what happens if what you do in public is actually able to be kept a secret, at least in your own mind, and your own mind is the only mind you really care about? And what happens if the heady aroma of that power seduces you into thinking that You are your own God, you, the one in the mirror?

What would that look like? Well, until recently it looked like your local HRC. It has puzzled me these last few months why the Barbara Hall's and Jennifer Lynch's of this world, in particular these two apparently intelligent women, who are well educated, have striven to be where they are, and why they are seemingly prepared to do whatever it takes to remain there, particularly when whatever it takes is being unmasked as fictitious, to put it gently. Ezra Levant has called Ms. Lynch a damned liar in the blogosphere, and worse as well. He used some pretty cool words. Tsk, tsk, Ezra. You are a little intemperate with your words, dear fellow. Let's just say she appears to be creative with the truth. But in her defence, we have heard in HRC case testimony that the truth is not an appropriate defence, so maybe she thinks she is testifying in her own star chamber and the truth is just another option.

But things keep keep getting uglier. Just the other day, it made a bit more sense for me when I was reading about a key weapon in their arsenal, SILENCE, here at No Apologies. Neil Dykstra wrote:

Imagine the following scenario. You are accused of a petty crime of which you are innocent. Without any more than a cursory investigation, you are compelled to meet with your accuser and a mediator. There, they tell you that you can either give them five thousand dollars in a settlement, or they will haul you into court and prosecute you for the crime. Even though you would most likely be proved innocent in a court of law, you are not eligible for legal aid and would be on the hook for over twenty thousand dollars in legal fees.

Trapped, you accept their demands. As they push the settlement document forward for your signature, there is a condition on the bottom stating that you are forbidden to talk about any aspect of this agreement. Nobody would ever know about the wrongs you have suffered. It’s the cherry on the top of a sundae of injustice.

Say it ain't so, Joe. Fiction? Maybe in that it is not a real incident. However, the methods are real. As Mr. Dykstra goes on to state, every HRC in Canada has a mediation procedure like the one described here. This mediation procedure doesn't come after there has been some investigation of the complaint. In fact, the only thing that has happened to date is that the complaint has been screened to see if the HRC thinks it is within its purview to deal with it. By the way, that does not mean it is within its jurisdiction legally, just that they think that they can get away with dealing with it. If they deal with it, and you pay up and sign the little keep your yap shut clause, we'll never know, will we?

The existing Ontario HRC case of Bishop De Angelis and the "12" St. Michael's Cobourg parishioners is a case in point. To date, Jim Corcoran has only filed his complaint. The HRC has vetted it to conclude that they can deal with it, and the "12" and the Bishop have responded, mainly to say that the Ontario HRC has no jurisdiction, as well, of course that the complaint is baseless.

So now, the case comes before a mediator. As Mr. Dykstra goes on to say, that's when the fish or cut bait decisions come in. Here, the real victim, and it's not the Complainant, has to decide whether to settle, or let it go forward, whatever that means. Sort of, but I will come back to that later.

Well, whatever that means is this. If the complaint goes forward, the Complainant doesn't pay a nickel, just stands back and lets the investigators for the HRC do their thing. These investigators are not interested in using criminal investigative processes, like digging for all the evidence, or even testing the veracity of testimony from witnesses. Heresay works just fine for them, the more the better. Truth, who cares really? Truer words were never spoken. No, true words might not even get spoken.

The legal fees of the Complainant are paid for, since the lawyers are HRC lawyers. In the event that the case gets to the kangaroo court, it goes to an independent court though, the Human Rights Tribunal. Sure, they're independent. I am able to leap over tall buildings too. It's a sausage machine, folks.

But, the real victims, in the Corcoran case, Bishop De Angelis and the "12" have to hire their own lawyers, 2 sets by the way, since their interests are somewhat different, and the dollars mount up.

So, given a chance, most Respondents (Defendants really) choose to settle if they possibly can, even if they have done nothing wrong. To choose between paying $5,000 in settlement of a bogus claim, or spend 3 years fighting a losing battle where the cards are stacked against you, and the truth is not a valid defence, mainly because nobody is looking for it, listening to it, or would get it if it bit them on the nose, seems like a no brainer, particularly when you factor in the cash cost of legal fees, and the personal humiliation of being there, unless your skin is made of teflon or stainless steel.

But, then you could have the worst of all situations that my friend the school principal found herself in, where the parent who filed the bogus claim is so determined to make a noise that she refused to settle, even when encouraged by the HRC staff member, and so off you go into the sausage machine. My friend would have gladly paid off this woman just to shut her up, and to stop this hateful noise going on all around her over nothing. But the woman was under no compulsion to accept mediation.

Of course, the Corcoran case won't settle in mediation since Corcoran has asked for the sun, moon and the stars, $265,000 and a bunch of grovelling by the Bishop. He's so far off the planet, that he will have to take a space shuttle just to get to the mediation hearing.

But, when it gets down to an actual mediated settlement if you are lucky enough, there are standard forms of documents that are used as a template and this clause is (no surprise here) part of the Ontario template:

The parties agree that these Minutes of Settlement and Release are confidential as between them and will not be disclosed to any third party save as may be required by law or in order to implement the terms of settlement contained herein. It is understood by the parties that the Commission is not so bound. It is understood that the complainant may disclose the terms herein to her/his immediate family members, legal and/or financial advisers.

So, the fact that the funds extorted, are actually called special damages or general damages in the documentation, as opposed to blood money, where in all probability it has never been proven that anyone was damaged is not lost on me. I don't know about you, but this puts noxious fumes up against my BS filter.

And now I get it. I see why people I would take under normal circumstances (of which these of course are not good examples) to be probably sane people are doing what appear to be insane things, why well educated people are behaving like, well children who have been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Thus said Lord Action in 1887 in a letter to Mandell Creighton when he was Editor of the English Historical Review. Rev. Creighton later became Bishop of Peterborough, and then Bishop of London England, and hopefully used these words wisely for counsel. But long before him, Lord William Pitt, British Prime Minister back in 1770, in a speech to the United Kingdom House of Lords said: "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it."

Truer words were never spoken, and they give pause to the situation of our HRCs and the mood we find ourselves in, with barbarians at the gate, like Ezra Levant, clamoring for accountability and more ("Fire. Them. All."), and the inmates manning the bulwarks and shouting down the opposition as mere drivel from malcontents, naysayers and meanies. How dare we question their methods, intentions, and their . . . well right to do what they do.

But, as more troops join the siege, I wonder how long the battlements will stand the onslaught before something is done, before parliamentarians finally say "Enough is enough" or mount a charge of their own to secure their own power bases. Tim Hudak made reform of the Ontario HRC part of his platform to become head of the Ontario Conservative Party. That got my attention, as well as the attention of many others. What will he have to say when session re-opens in Toronto in the Fall? I hope it will be a lot.

And when Ottawa comes back into session, will anyone be on the bandwagon that Ezra Levant and others have started in motion?

How many more people will have their Human Rights trampled by the Human Rights Commissions czars and czarinas with their unlimited powers before this is all over?

And another question. Will anyone find the way to instigate class action suits on behalf of all those who have had their rights taken away by these frivolous settlements, and promises to be silent?

Oh, and one more question. Will Walker Morrow be able to figure out how to get Ontario Freedom of Information access so we can find out what the real story was on these cases that the Ontario HRC is trying to hide from us?

Latest Word on the Corcoran/De Angelis Case in Ontario

Scary Fundamentalist Comments on Corcoran Attempts at Secrecy

As Scary Fundamentalist reports:

[Corcoran] said that it was never his intention for the matter to become public and that someone leaked it to the Catholic Registrar who wrote an item

He has some other choice things to say as well about it all, but read what I have to say tomorrow about power and The Secret World of the HRCs.

These attempts to extort the people of Ontario and the rest of Canada are now seeing the light of day, and as their ugliness comes forward, people of goodwill are stepping out and saying that enough is enough.

Can I Really Feel Your Pain?

Empathy - What's That All About?

I have been giving some thought to empathy and how we come by it, and what it means in our society. First, I was wondering if I have any of it, and if so when and where I got it. After some thought, I realised that I do have some, then I started asking why and for what purpose, and of course what does it have to do with Canada's HRC industry.

Looking at my own personal history with empathy, I concluded that I wasn't born with it. After all, when I was born I was cold, wet, hungry, and my butt hurt from that first slap on it. Empathy was not big on my list of things to do or be right then. For the next 2 years and 9 months, I don't think it was a big thing for me either. I had 2 adults all to myself, and even though the female one was getting fat towards the end of that time period, it was all about me, and I don't imagine empathy was on my mind.

Then, my little sister was born. My amount of attention dropped off, but I learned that I got attention if I was good to her, and also if I was bad to her. The attention when I was bad to her hurt. The attention when I was good to her was much nicer, so I leaned towards good to her. No empathy in that, more about self preservation.

Then I started school. I didn't learn about empathy there either. Can't say that there was a lot of opportunity to learn about empathy in the business world as I studied to become a chartered accountant, and then went into public practice and industry over the years.

No, for me it started to happen when my wife became ill and I was in a car accident several years ago, and not immediately. Being disabled gives you two choices, deal with it or let it deal with you. It took years to get past it dealing with us, to where we could deal with it and then with each other properly, but we are there much of the time, and it includes a lot of empathy for me now in my life.

For me, it took personal losses, deeply felt to be able to empathize with others and their losses at a level beneath the most surface of emotions and words.

For others, like Craig Kielburger (along with his brother Marc) who started a Child Rights advocacy group when he was 12 years old and now runs the successful worldwide organisation Me to We, empathy came at a very early age and seemingly out of the blue. A friend of mine, who is their Chief Operations Director at Me to We, Renee Hodgkinson had her own path to a life of empathy towards others. but, they achieved their empathy by reaching out to others, and meeting them in their own surroundings and could not help but be touched by living with them and hearing their stories.

Meanwhile, most people never achieve any real empathy, because they/we are too busy about our days doing the chores of life, including unfortunately in our society of today, parenting as a duty.

Empathy is defined as "Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives" in the American Heritage Dictionary. I don't know, but it seems like empathy would be a good thing to bring to a Human Rights organisation, and if so, then to the investigation of and dealing with human rights complaints.

Take for example the De Angelis/Corcoran case before the Ontario HRC. Not that one again. My latest post on it was here. Now, Corcoran filed a Form 1, and the parishioners and Bishop have filed their response by the deadlines, and there will be a mediation hearing in 4-6 months or so. Doesn't sound too empathetic to me, or likely to bring any healing to the situation either.

What would happen if the Ontario HRC investigator interviewed all the parties separately empathetically (with empathy for all parties, not just the complainant) trying to understand their situation, feelings and motives? I imagine he/she would get an earful, and if he/she was a good listener would have a really good opportunity to do some good in this situation. It would require an open mind, and an open heart. I wonder if they have any of those types among the troops over there. It would be nice. To dream the impossible dream.

If not, then what use is the Ontario HRC or any of the other HRCs really? If not, then they are just glorified sausage making making machines. Put a complaint in at the front end, chew up the Respondent for a lengthy period of time, declare a victory for Human Rights, and move on the next complaint and unlucky schmoe.

I like my concept better, enough to suggest that they either change what they are doing or stop doing it altogether, because it is harmful to our society, not helpful.

The people that I like most on this planet are not those with a cause, but those with empathy for those who are disadvantaged. Empathetic people are more about "We" and less about "Me".

I don't see a whole lot of that in the Human Rights industry. The cause of the Rightists has gotten so distorted as to have lost all focus on its original mission, but that's for another time. Even they deserve some empathy, because they have lost their way, and with the power that they have been given, wouldn't we have done the same under similar circumstances?