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".

(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.

Thomas Sowell - Musing on Truth

A Black Man Who Is A Conservative?

Thomas Sowell is a black, conservative columnist in the US. He was born in North Carolina, but was raised in Harlem. Leaving home before graduating from high school, he kicked aroudn until he joined the Marine Corp and became a photographer in the Korean War. When he returned he got accepted to Harvard, where he got his undergraduate economics degree. He graduated magna cum laude in 1958, went on to Columbia for a masters and then got a Ph.D from the U of Chicago in 1968.

He worked as an economist before becoming a teacher at prestigious schools like Rutgers, Amherst College, Brandeis, and UCLA. He had a passion for writing as well and has published several books. He enjoys writing columns though because: "writing for the general public enables him to address the heart of issues without the smoke and mirrors that so often accompany academic writing. "

His writings can often be found on the conservative website townhall.com.

He wrote a piece out today on that site here, about another American conservative, Rush Limbaugh. Football fans will probably be familiar with Rush's bid to purchase a part of the St. Louis Rams recently, along with some other folks. Well, Al Sharpton and others (all liberals, mind you) flooded the media with criticism of the man, especially his racial biases against black people. So, why would Thomas Sowell, who looks pretty black to me, be writing in his defence?

The first clue is in the title of the piece "To Sue or Not". But the article starts thus:

To sue or not to sue? That is the question.

After racist statements were made up out of thin air and then attributed to Rush Limbaugh, these were the options he had.

As Sowell recounts, he knows the position that Limbaugh finds himself in. In his own case, others had been fast and loose with the truth, flipping things he said around, and besmirching his otherwise good name with scurrilous lies. Others have even gone to the extreme of putting columns out into the ether and attributing them to him, though they are not written by him and do not hold to what he believes. But, what is a man or woman to do in that case?

As he then goes on to say, when faced with the sue or not choice, he declined due to his own busyness, in part, but also because the chances of a real victory seemed pretty slim. As he points out, a court case puts the lies out there even more than they were before, and if by chance you lose on a technicality, then the liar is off free and clear, justifying themselves and the lies they told in the first place. To sum him up on the topic, the court process is stacked against the victim of the lie campaign.

But his analysis has a key focus area here:

The question for the media to answer is: Are lies to go unchallenged when they are lies against someone you disagree with? Worse yet, are they to be excused, rationalized or even repeated?

Already there are people on television saying that, although Rush didn't actually say the things that have been attributed to him, he has said other things that they choose to call "racist."

If those other things really are racist, why don't they quote them, instead of something that was made up out of whole cloth?

The Rush Limbaugh show has, after all, been broadcast for many years, three hours a day. There are thousands of hours of those broadcasts that people can go back through to look for things to quote.

If critics can't find anything racist in all that material, why should an outright lie about what the man said be given a pass?

This, of course is not only true of Limbaugh, but of those criticized by lie and innuendo throughout the US and Canada. You may remember how Jennifer Lynch started a campaign of innuendo against her critics this summer, where she misrepresented things that Mark Steyn had said about Pearl Eliadis by a country mile, and misrepresented a death threat she allegedly received, where the so called writer of the threat even got her name wrong, and only said what should be done with her, which was nasty, but hardly threatening. She, of course also misrepresented to the people she preached to, the minor facts of the misbehaviour of her staff when investigating Marc Lemire by joining and posting on Nazi web sites.

Anyway, back to Sowell. In his article he quotes the late Senator Daniel Moynihan who said:

"you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts."

True, but the real meat of his column is in his conclusion:

Ultimately, this is not about Rush Limbaugh or anybody else who is smeared with impunity. It is about the whole climate in which issues are discussed.

Without a range of opposing opinions being available to the public, the basic concept of a self-governing democracy is a mockery. If views that some people don't like can be silenced or discredited by character assassination, the whole country loses.

The courts should not be the only line of defense. Common decency should be the first line of defense, so that people who smear others will pay a price in the outrage that their lies should provoke, even among decent people who do not agree with the target of their smears.

His conclusions are telling, and true in our North American societies. Our Canadian HRCs/HRTs are muzzling opposing opinions with "likely to expose to hatred or contempt" which is such a bogus phrase, but also with many of the so called discrimination cases they take on, in the name of hierarchical rights and privileges being given to special groups.

The problem with the "common decency" that Mr. Sowell calls for as a first line of defence is that it has gone the way of "common sense", neither of which are very common anymore.

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.

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.

Marc Lemire Has Gloves Off

Not Afraid of He Who Will Not Be Named in My Blog

Marc Lemire is savouring his quasi-victory at the Canadian HRC, and quasi is as good as it is likely to get in the short term, so why not. Feeling free as a bird for the first time in several years, he is fighting back, the best way he knows how, over the Internet, and from a blog.

Here is why he thinks HWWNBNIMB in particular and the CHRC were after him briefly from his blog Canadian Human Rights Commission Exposed.

If the CHRC has lost the fear of Section 13 sword of Damocles they have wielded for so many years, then people are free to criticize J Ly and her minions with impunity for their dastardly deeds. Marc Lemire, who as much knowledge as anybody about what it is like to be harassed by the CHRC is most welcome to show a little (likely to be a lot) tit for tat.

Likely is a Dangerous Word Out of Context

The Most Dangerous Word in S.13 Canada HRC and Alberta S.3(1) HRCM Act

There is no doubt that the Lemire case is an important Decision in human rights law here in Canada, but I side with the recent Law Times editorial here. It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

But, I think that there is another approach to this thing that might make a lot of sense, at least to me. I got to thinking more about how the word "likely" in "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" is thrown about in the cases against Marc Lemire and Stephen Boissoin and others over the years.

Likely is a term of measurement. In other words there is a likelihood of something happening. So let's take likelihood or likeliness from the Collins dictionary. It is defined as:

1) noun, the condition of being likely or probable; probability
2) noun, something that is probable
3) noun, statistics the probability of a given sample being randomly drawn regarded as a function of the parameters of the population. The likelihood ratio is the ratio of this to the maximized likelihood.

All right, now we are talking. Probability of something happening. I studied statistics in college, and have used it regularly in my past business life, so part of what has stunk to me about this whole "likely to expose" nonsense is the question of who is measuring it. The answer is that nobody is even paying lip service to measuring it or caring about it, just blowing it off as a given.

I found one instance in one case in British Columbia where their Section 7 has similar wording. In that case the Tribunal at least tried to find some kind of test of "likely to expose".

Canadian Jewish Congress v. North Shore Free Press Ltd. (No. 7) (1997), 30 C.H.R.R. D/5 (B.C.Trib.) [Eng. 46 pp.]

"Looking at the words "likely to expose" the Tribunal finds that human rights legislation is concerned with preventing discriminatory actions against vulnerable groups. Consequently the Tribunal finds that the s.7(1)(b) inquiry should be into whether the impugned communication is likely to increase the risk of manifestation of hateful or contemptuous behaviour. Does the message make it more acceptable and therefore more likely for recipients to express or act upon their feelings of hatred or contempt for members of the target group?

The Tribunal concludes that the assessment of an expression under s. 7(1)(b) requires the application of a two part test:

Does the communication itself express hatred or contempt of a person or group on the basis of one or more of the listed grounds, and would a reasonable person understand this message as expressing hatred or contempt?

Assessed in its context, is the likely effect of the communication to make it more acceptable for others to manifest hatred or contempt against the person or group, and would a reasonable person consider it likely to increase the risk of exposure?

Section 7(1)(b) would be too chilling of fair commentary on sensitive and controversial issues if a message that was not hateful or contemptuous in itself could be caught by this prohibition."

In all the cases I looked at, including the Lemire and Boissoin case, this is the only one that even attempted to find a way to test "likely to expose". I find that it is woefully inadequate. It is a good test of something, but not of "likely to expose".

What does "likely to expose to hatred or contempt" really mean? Were the Complainant(s) targets of hatred prior to the publication of the alleged offending material? Does it mean that at least one new schmoe, who never hated the Complainants is likely to hate them because of the offending publication? Or maybe it means that one or more existing hating schmoes is likely to hate them more.

How do you know somebody has been exposed to hatred and contempt? What are the signs of that exposition? Hatred can be measured in brain waves, by the way. How do you measure it? Do you measure the haters or the hatees? If you can’t or didn’t in the particular case, answer those questions, then you can’t convict somebody of exposing a group to hatred or contempt, in my opinion.

In both Lemire and Boissoin, the HRCs took so long that they could have seen actually if the alleged decadent published materials had in fact had an impact on exposing targeted groups to hatred and contempt, or if in fact, as one would suspect it was same old, same old.

You know what the test was for "likely to expose to hatred or contempt"? Did the judge or Member of the Tribunal think that the material was NICE? At least that was the case until Lemire. Maybe now, more people will look deeper, and see that this is all part of a bigger, politically correct, whitewash.

Boissoin/Lemire Similarities?

Much Ado About Something Really Important - Free Speech

So, as of September 2, 2009 we have the long awaited rambling, fatuous, yet oft times relevant ruling by Member Hadjis of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the Warman/Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Lemire case.

Free Speech supporters jumped for joy because of some false sense of vindication that Marc Lemire had been exonerated, but as I have posted previously here and here and here, that is not really the case. Mr. Lemire, was found to have contravened S.13 of the Canada Human Rights Act, and because of blah, blah, blah, Member Hadjis chose not to issue any remedial order against him. That's not exoneration. That's a guilty verdict, without the hanging at the end.

But the blah, blah, blah is what really matters. The guilty verdict allows J Ly to hang another pelt on her string of undefeated hate crime prosecutions, for whatever good that will do her and the Commission.

The CJC, and the CIC and all other unofficial racists of varying stripes are calling for this Decision to be appealed. But of course. We need clarity on this one. As Ezra calls them, the official Joos, and the Islamists need to know the rules so they can carry on to fight "their" good fight, more on that someday soon, whatever the h?ll that is.

But, clarity of the blah, blah, blah does matter to all those who value free speech here in Canada. The ability to be able to speak one's mind without fear of reprisal is a fundamental freedom in this country, which is necessary for all, not just those who fit the boundaries of today's political correctness, and are in a protected group.

But, this thing is now a political football, and there is money involved in politics, and back room bargaining. And there is looming a Federal election, because we have an alleged Prime Minister in waiting who should have stayed at Harvard, but wants to run the show. Last time a prof came on board to run the country, we got Trudeaupia. I'm not wanting that again, thank you very much. I was young and naive back then, and believed the rhetoric. Heck, I was even invited to contest a riding in Scarborough in the 70's as a Liberal. But the Kool Aid had saccharin in it and I hate artificial sweeteners.

So, no matter how you cut it, this thing won't die as it is. But, it will take years to work its way out to a final conclusion, probably. Parliament could strike down S.13, or amend it. Not soon though. See above.

It has to be appealed to get clarity in a higher court, where real judges make real decisions, or so we are told. That will take years.

But, the good news is that we don't have to wait that long, because S.13 has an ugly fraternal twin sister in Alberta in the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. Although it is not identical, the intent is the same, and there is a key phrase that is the guiding light, if that term can be believed, that links them. Here are the two particular sections of their respective pieces of legislation for you to see what I mean. First the Canadian one on which Member Hadjis had his say for Lemire:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Now the Alberta piece on which Lori Andreachuk opined and hung Reverend Stephen Boissoin out to dry a few years back:

3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.

There is a lot of similarity here, but why do I care? I care because on September 16-17 Gerry Chipeur the lawyer for Stephen Boissoin, and for all of us, who value free speech, gets to argue the spanking new Lemire Decision along with his brief, before a real judge in Alberta Court of Queens Bench, and get this ball rolling for us all.

I also note in doing a quick review of the provincial and territorial Human Rights Codes and Acts that British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and the North West Territories have a similar provision in their legislation, while the others do not.

Although there is a lot of similarity to the two sections of the respective pieces of legislation, there is one particular distinction, and that is that Canada's legislation uses the single word I have put in bold "repeatedly", while the Alberta legislation uses the word "any". This will be somewhat significant, but only adds fuel to the existing conflagration.

So, the next thing that I decided to do was make sure that I understood the common usage of the words of this legislation, since the common usage is the starting point for understanding the intent of the law.

Just to get a brief handle on hatred and contempt, I went to Wikipedia, for some answers, and found the following interesting though not exhaustive explanations.

Hatred (or hate) is a word that describes the intense feelings of dislike. It can be used in a wide variety of contexts, from hatred of inanimate objects or animals, to hatred of other people, entire groups of people, or people in general.

Here is a bit of the Psychological view of Hate from the same article:

In psychology, Dr. Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness. In a more contemporary definition, the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines hate as a "deep, enduring, intense emotion expressing animosity, anger, and hostility towards a person, group, or object." Because hatred is believed to be long-lasting, many psychologists consider it to be more of an attitude or disposition than a (temporary) emotional state.

So, if as it has been described, it is a deep and long lasting attitude and disposition, I wonder how an inanimate object like an article or several on the Internet or even a particular book or many can expose a person or group or persons to hatred, that does not already exist, and is not condoned by society, and allowed to fester for other reasons. But more on that another day.

Even more interesting is the neurological science of hatred. Here is the excerpt about that from the same article:

The neural correlates of hate have been investigated with an fMRI procedure. In this experiment, people had their brains scanned while viewing pictures of people they hated. The results showed increased activity in the medial frontal gyrus, right putamen, bilaterally in the premotor cortex, in the frontal pole, and bilaterally in the medial insula of the human brain. The researchers concluded that there is a distinct pattern of brain activity that occurs when people are experiencing hatred.

So, the experiencing of hatred has a physiological component to it as well.

Contempt is an intense feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless—it is similar to scorn. Contempt is also defined as the state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace, and an open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body.

Here was an interesting comparative about contempt:

Robert C. Solomon (a now deceased psychology professor from Texas) places contempt on the same continuum as resentment and anger, and he argues that the differences between the three emotions are that resentment is directed toward a higher status individual; anger is directed toward an equal status individual; and contempt is directed toward a lower status individual. Contempt is often brought about by a combination of anger and disgust.

Likely means "probable: likely but not certain to be or become true or real." This comes from Wordnet web a Princeton publication.

So, likely does not mean the same as certain, just probable. So, it's not a fact jack, just a probability.

Expose means "to subject or allow to be subjected to an action, influence, or condition."

Discriminatory means "containing or implying a slight or showing prejudice."

So, S.13/S.3 purports to define as a practice which contains or implies a slight or shows prejudice, a repeated/any something that is probably (though not scientifically determined), ie. more likely to happen than not, but not certainly, going to subject or allow a person of a defined protected group to be subjected to an action, influence or condition of intense feeling of dislike, or of being despised or dishonored.

So, my question is how do they propose to know that for a fact, since what I have just stated is not factual in the first place? Oh, I forgot, they only need to know, or think they know, probably.

This whole section of legislation in whatever National, Provincial or Territorial version you prefer (I prefer none of them) has the ring of being specious to me. In other words, using the definition of the word specious, I would say that this section of legislation has "the ring of truth or plausibility but is actually fallacious", when broken down, and examined.

In fact, as I look at the Boissoin case particularly, with the Alberta legislation, it gets more absurd by the minute.

For, example, if I go to my dentist's office and get an x-ray on my teeth, I know that I have been exposed to x-rays by the evidence before my eyes - the picture of my teeth.

However, if I (or Stephen Boissoin in this case) wrote a letter to the Editor of the Red Deer Advocate about the Homosexual Agenda in education, and people at the Alberta HRC believed that it exposed (likely) homosexuals to hatred and contempt, how would they know? First off, they don't care, as they didn't care in Lemire either, and I'll come back to that. But, they could attempt to look objectively at the Red Deer homosexual community and see if 5 years after the fact of the letter, which was about the time the Decision came down, they were more or less exposed to hatred than they had been before THE LETTER.

In the case of Lemire, where Member Hadjis found that Lemire had contravened the legislation by publishing the Aids article, which was likely to bring hatred and contempt to blacks and homosexuals, since they took about 6 years to come to trial and a Decision, they could have objectively looked to see if blacks and homosexuals were more hated and held in contempt than previously or not. Of course, they didn't.

In Boissoin, EGALE, a gay rights group refused to be a party to Lund's Complaint, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, although disagreeing with Stephen's content, supported his right to freedom of speech in the matter. So, anybody who could have said, "I feel more hated today and more contemned than yesterday" did not come forward."

In Lemire, the Official Joos lined up, but sadly they always do. They cried wolf once again, but offered no substantive proof of any harm, just sabre rattling, as usual. But, of course there is no responsibility to offer any proof of harm.

The Lemire case bogged down on all the shenanigans of the Canadian HRC entrapment methods. They made the Keystone Kops look smart, and Marc Lemire announced the other day that he has a book coming out soon, that should shed more light on this. It should be interesting reading.

In Boissoin, Lund trotted out a retired constable from Calgary, not Red Deer, and a psychologist both of whom were qualified as expert witnesses on gay and lesbians for their work in and around them. Since they were qualified by the Complainant, they of course testified to the harm done by the letter. Boissoin always considered this political commentary and so his expert witness was a political scientist who said THE LETTER was a political statement, which would have been excluded from S.3.

Both of these cases look like a bunch of blind guys getting together for a circle jerk to me. You can't measure if someone is probably going to be exposed to hatred and contempt from an article or THE LETTER. You can only guess, and if you guess at probably, that lowers your odds, and gives you maybe, where the legislation says probably.

In both of these cases, and a number of other decisions that I have seen, and I am thinking of the Constable Michael Shaw case in Toronto recently in particular, the use of the word probably, or it as a concept is thrown around like it is a gospel word.

Yes is Yes, and No is No, but probably is not a strong enough word to destroy several years of some one's life for. Stephen Boissoin had been in this mess for over 7 years, and Marc Lemire much the same. Tell me folks. Did they deserve this?

Ezra Levant Breaks Silence, CHRC Breaks Wind

He's Back, On His Game, But I Don't Totally Agree with All His Conclusions

Much of my introduction to the Human Rights Holocaust in Canada came at the hands of Ezra Levant. I started to get interested because, as I have written before, a friend of mine was being hounded here in Ontario, and I thought there was something wrong. Ezra and Kathy Shaidle came to London and along with Salim Mansur discussed the insanity that is the human rights racket in this fair land. I bought both "Shakedown" and Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere's book "The Tyrrany of Nice", and read them cover to cover in no time, and then got going on my own, looking into this nonsense. And here I am.

Ezra came out of seclusion from writing his next book yesterday to go on the radio (would like to hear that, but missed it) and to write this piece on his blog.

It carries with it Ezra's knowledge of the history and nuance of the battle and I recommend you read it before you go further with anything I have to say.

But, what Ezra had said earlier in December about Section 13 and the Supreme Court take on it in Taylor in 1990 bears repeating:

Section 13 -- the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act -- has been before the Supreme Court of Canada already. In 1990, John Ross Taylor, then 80 years old, appealed his section 13 conviction all the way to the SCC. The seven judges split, four saying the law was constitutional, three (including Beverly McLachlin, now the Chief Justice of the SCC) saying it was unconstitutional.

But the four who let section 13 slide were strict about its application. Here's what they wrote in their judgment (I've bolded a few key words):

In sum, the language employed in s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act extends only to that expression giving rise to the evil sought to be eradicated and provides a standard of conduct sufficiently precise to prevent the unacceptable chilling of expressive activity. Moreover, as long as the Human Rights Tribunal continues to be well aware of the purpose of s. 13(1) and pays heed to the ardent and extreme nature of feeling described in the phrase "hatred or contempt", there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning of the section.

Take a look a that just for a moment.

Three judges said the law was illegal. Four said it was legal, but only if it remained focused on truly evil hatred, that was ardent and extreme. Subjective opinions about offensiveness weren't permitted -- and, said those four judges confidently, there was little danger of that happening.

But, here is how I commented on Ezra's blog to his piece:
"Actually Ezra, the way I read this Decision J Ly won this one by a nose, or as they say in Hockey parlance, in a shootout, in what was the longest match in history.

Hadjis did find Lemire guilty of posting the Aids piece, though he had no part in its authorship, or I think in its actual publication, just being the webmaster. That much of it happens to be true, and that the intention was to provide information was no defence, as he himself had reported Fothergill had testified a year ago at trial in his own blog. How you decide that something subjects people you don't know to hatred is beyond me.

Hadjis did fail to award the Gold to J Ly and to Warman which is some solace to us all, but leaves the game far from over.

I believe that you were the prime reporter a few months back the the Queen of Censors was pushing for more teeth to S.13. That should have been the "tell" that this decision was coming as it did.

Hadjis also forgot to admonish those who stole Ms. Hechme's internet services and the other fake, pretend nazis, as opposed to the real pretend nazis who were on Stormfront before the government pretenders went lurking. Oh, forgot to admonish. He forgot to even mention them.

In my book, Mr. Hadjis did a very good CYA under difficult circumstances. He still managed to pull an HRC rabbit out of the hat. It is tiny, though and might not live very long, but he still pulled it out, fortunately on the slowest news day in the slowest news time of the year. What a coincidence."

The political nuance of this move is slowly dawning on me. It appears to me that J Ly gave a sneak preview of this months ago when she was talking about more power in S.13 to stamp out hate. It did not make particular sense to me at the time, but with this decision, it now makes perfectly good sense to me. The ink just didn't dry on Tuesday evening. The ink was dry on this Decision months ago, folks. What better time to slip this ugly thing past the people than the week before back to school, when everybody is getting in the last gasp of summer holidays, and getting kids ready for school.

As Ezra pointed out, there are choices that the AG, Rob Nicholson has in front of him. If not him, then his boss the PM. Ezra said:

Will Rob Nicholson, the Justice Minister, send his lawyers to appeal? If he does so, he risks a backlash within his own party’s base, on the eve of an election. But it is not acceptable for him to stand back, while his lackey, Jennifer Lynch, sends her CHRC lawyers in for the appeal. It’s essential that Nicholson – or the PMO, if Nicholson lacks the political judgment – orders Jennifer Lynch to stand down. (Frankly, it’s staggering that she hasn’t yet been ordered to just shut up and get on with her job as a bureaucrat. Seriously, as Peter O’Neil reported the other day, Lynch flew all the way to Dublin, Ireland, to beg for political help, admitting that her campaign to demonize her opponents, collect names on her enemies list and save her censorship powers “monopolizes our energy”. Why is she not fired yet?)

Ezra says "Today is definitely a day to celebrate." Me, I'm not so sure. I don't yet see anything to hang my hat on. I do know that this day would not have come without the hard work of Marc Lemire on the front line, and Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, and the bloggers and others out there stirring the pot to keep this this alive, but I will repeat like a broken record, this has not been tested in a real court, so I am waiting on Boissoin v. Lund at Alberta Court of Queens Bench before I get into a celebratory mood.

I wonder if Marc Lemire has any money left to celebrate, and if after reading this Decision, he is really in the mood YET.

Update:

Okay, I was looking at a few blogs and picked up on GenX40 who is a legal beagle with a good eye on this Decision, and I refer you to his post here. He implies that I am being too tight in my britches, and maybe I am. He says: "it is a good day to admire your country and your constitution. Enjoy it."

Lemire - A Narrow Hate Crime Win for the Canadian HRC

Longest Game in Hate Crime History Decided in a Shootout

Okay, I really was excited to get up this morning and read about how Athanasios Hadjis, writing on behalf of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, that august independent protector of our human rights had descended from the mount, or wherever they keep the Kool Aid, with his tablets of stone and had come down hard on the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its employees and associates.

But, then I awoke and actually got up, had a coffee, and went to my computer. And, as it always is, truth is stranger than fiction. I tried to work my way through the over 100 pages of the Decision, much of which was a regurgitation of what happened at trial, except that it was a sanitization of what happened. There was no mention of some of the very special testimony where some of the people under oath made such famous statements as :

"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value … It's not my job to give value to an American concept."

That would be Dean Steacy, the Canadian HRC investigator. Forgotten was the wardriving use of a neighbours internet connection without her consent, and of course the postings on Stormfront to try and entrap both of the alleged Nazi supporters in Canada, who pose such a threat to our great nation.

What was not forgotten of course was testimony by Mr. Fothergill of the Attorney General of Canada where he said:

“It’s very difficult to construct an entirely truthful statement that constitutes hate, but there might be a context. Truth is not a defence and intent is not a defence, but they are irrelevant to the effects and effects are what matters in human rights legislation."

Marc Lemire had documented this on his blog at the time of the testimony, and it surprises me that it almost made it in lock, stock and barrel into the Decision. Way to go Mr. Fothergill. You and J. Ly both have Hadjis in your pocket, sorta.

So, in the end, and it's not really the end, just the end of the beginning, the Canadian HRC won in a shoot out. Member Hadjis found Marc Lemire guilty of one count of contravention of S. 13 for the publication of the Aids Secrets article. It doesn't matter that a lot of the information in that article may be true. It apparently subjects blacks and gays to hate. It also doesn't matter that Lemire didn't post it himself. He was the webmaster. It also doesn't matter that the offending article was taken off the website in reasonably short order when there was a complaint. It also didn't matter that some of the material that had been subject of the complaint was still available on over 300 other web sites world wide, mostly in Canada, when it was no longer on Mr. Lemire's site.

But, in the end Member Hadjis refused to award the trophy to Complainant Warman and the CHRC, as he then:

concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter.

This sounds fine, but Member Hadjis is off the reservation making this call, since his responsibility is the Canadian Human Rights Act. That call about the constitutionality of some or all of it is for a real court to make.

Worse still, are things noted by Scary Fundamentalist here:

But Hadjis’s decision includes affirmation for some of the ugliest aspects of section 13. Line [239] bastardizes Section 15 of the Charter (equality before the law) to justify controlling everyday speech in the name of equality. Line [247] maintains that Section 13, while contravening the Charter, is still a proportionate tool for an appropriate objective. In line [291], it is upheld that truth is not a defence. Line [290] argues that lack of intent is not a defence, unless the respondent immediately kowtows to the demands of the complainant.

Bottom line is Marc Lemire got off with a light tap on the wrist, in what should have been a shutout for him. He was robbed, and so were we all. This is far from over.

On September 16-17, 2009 a real court in Alberta hears a real case, the Appeal of the Boissoin Decision from the Alberta HRC on the sister law Alberta S. 3(1). Maybe something good will happen there.

Flim Flamming the Jim Jam

When Will the Dam Break?

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

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

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

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

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

How "Chilling" is it Really?

Jennifer and CASHRA Have Chilled The Rest Of Us

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

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

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

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

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

But, I digress, mainly for fun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small Epiphany about the Truth

I Really Can't Do This

Dear Reader (or readers if there are more than one of you out there):

I really cannot do this. Since my auto accident over 5 years ago, I have from time to time attempted to find ways to jump start my brain, in hopes that I could return to work, or be able to find some new area I could work productively in. Each time one thing or another has stopped me. I either missed important details, because my brain gets swiss cheesy under stress and too much detail, or in one case I quickly lost a lot of money due to bad judgement on my part, or I put undue strain on my relationships due to being unable to be attentive to them while overcommitting my brain cycles to what I was attempting to do.

I figured it would be different when I got started with this blog because of the case of a friend that I thought was a one off mistake going on here at the Ontario HRC. Also, at the time, I was once again trying to find something useful to do with what I have left of my mind. My wife was visiting our children and grandchildren in Alberta for a month, and I was left alone to my own devices. I had time, and no commitments of my limited store of mental energy. I also figured that this would be no stress, blog when I want, what I felt inspired about. When my wife returned home, this became increasingly difficult, as the realities of a flooded basement, and our life together became more evident, and it is now almost impossible for me to devote energy to blogging.

As I have read about Human Rights, I have developed a real affection and deeper respect for Human Rights beyond what I knew previously. As I tried to bring my brief history of Human Rights forward to Canada, I was stopped by my inability to figure my way through the provincial and Canadian Codes and Acts to the point that I cannot even figure out where to start. Up to the United Nations UDHR I was feeling like I was getting it. Now, I am confused, not by Human Rights, but overwhelmed by content that I cannot get through.

I looked back at some of my earlier blog entries for inspiration, and now have no recollection of ever writing them. I have no doubt that I did; it is my blog after all. I just can't put it together.

Worst of all, for me, my chronic fatigue is getting worse, as I am trying to balance doing some blogging and spending time with my spouse, and attempting to deal with our home as it requres.

The final straw for me was the online visit from IP address 199.212.215.11 at the Department of Justice yesterday that began at 10:20:34 and lasted for 6 hours and 14 minutes and 35 seconds. I know that I am not doing anything wrong here. But there are numerous cases of people out there who have said the same thing. I also know that almost nobody on the planet has read my blog either, though I do have the stats by IP address for the few who have, so the only person I have been likely to offend is myself. I am a disabled person, but I don't think I have said anything that a disabled person could take offense at so I don't plan to take me to an HRC any time soon.

The end result is that something that was initially a challenge and stimulating has become stressful for me. It may not be so for many of the others out there who do it regularly, but whatever the secret is to make it that way has eluded me.

As well, I do not like some of what is going on in the blogosphere. There is, in my opinion, baiting and demeaning of Jennifer Lynch particularly and some other HRC officials as well, that is not appropriate. It has gone past humourous comment, and critical analysis and exposure of actual cases, policies and procedures, and I do not want to participate in that.

So, I have a simple choice really. I can keep doing this at the risk to my own health, and my relationships or I can pretty much stop, including deciding whether to pull back some or all of my previous posts, based on my personal need to reduce stress.

I set out to find the truth, and to an extent have done so. Human Rights are important. I have great respect for the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I also respect the attempts to bring about equality in Human Rights in this country, though I see fragmentation in it due to different Codes in each province, and different application in each as well.

I do not think that people should be discriminated against because of their religion, sexual orientation, politics, colour or any of the other ways that we can identify them. On the other hand, I do not think that an individual or organisation should be forced to accommodate into their organisation or place of business someone whose life and beliefs are counter to their own. That is a form of reverse discrimination.

I think that many people have been treated unfairly by the HRCs in this land. I think particularly of Reverend Stephen Boissoin, and pray for his success at the Alberta Court of Queens Bench this September. He has spent an inordinate amount of money to try and protect his right to free speech. I think also of Fr. Alphone de Valk, a Catholic priest and writer, who was investigated and spent several thousand dollars to defend a case that never went to a hearing, but which tied him and his organisation up for several months. I think also of Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Macleans, Kathy Shaidle, Marc Lemire and others who are also fighting back, and I hope and pray for all of them that a new understanding of the meaning of FREE speech comes about.

Free Speech is critical to the growth of a society. Its suppression results in totaliarianism, and suppression of other freedoms as well. They are all voices in the wilderness, even if we do not agree with the particular words they speak. Free speech is not about agreeing with everybody's words. It is about being challenged to think about them ourselves, and decide for each of us what is true and important. In the Catholic Church this is called "Formation of Conscience" and is critical to human development.

Do you want the Truth Suppressed?

If You want to see the Truth Laid Waste Stand By and Watch - Otherwise Speak Out

Unless you have been asleep lately, you have seen Ezra Levant making a fool of attempts by the Canadian HRC to suppress the truth, and make it inconvenient. Boy does the concept of Canadian Warming and Inconvenient Truth bring up other images to me.

You have seen how the lawyers of the Canadian HRC have said that the truth is less important than how people feel as Simon Fothergill expressed in the Lemire case last Fall, and how Free Speech is an American Concept as mouthed by Dean Steacy of the Canadian HRC. Now, their noble leader has put her own spin on things by making ridiculous statements into whole cloth for you to believe that she and her minions are protecting you from something that you need protecting from that mystifies me and many others - THE TRUTH.

She wants to be able to criminalise the TRUTH, if she does not like it. I can't believe I even wrote that here in Canada and that it is a factual statement. How absurd does it get?

While I was in the USA for the winter (why did I come home?) I participated in a Red Envelope Campaign that saw over 2 million red envelopes arrive at the white house protesting abortion in a gentle way. I have in mind a similar white envelope campaign to send to our Prime Minister in the Fall (whoever he might be at that time) to try and draw more attention to this mess we call the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

I do not want to prevent Gay people from having their say, but I do not want Christians or Jews to have their right to free speech hampered either, just because what they have to say is in disagreement with what Gays have to say. Let me tell you, a lot of what I have heard from Gay activists hurts my sensitivities. But some of what sensitive Gay people have to say touches my heart and sparks dialogue. What Marc Lemire has to say does not inspire me a lot of the time, but sometimes he strikes a nerve, and I believe he has a right to speak even if I disagree with him. This hierarchy of free speech that is going on in this country sucks big time, when a pastor in Red Deer (Stephen Boissoin) is supposed to apologize to the town scold, who is not even an aggrieved party for having spoken out about his concerns about a homosexual activits agenda in his town.

How long are the people of Canada going to be "running helter skelter to destruction with their fingers in their ears" as singer songwriter Don Francisco wrote some time ago.

Stephen Boissoin - Redux

Thoughts from the Stephen Boissoin Case and at Random

I am somewhat in a state of shock from testimony that I read the other day from the Lemire case Summations of September 2008.

There is no piece of scripture in the bible more fundamentally important to me at this stage of my life than John, Chapter 8, verse 32: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." I cannot even think of anything more straight forward, simple and above all true. It is the basis for this blog "Freedom Through Truth."

And how do you get to know the truth? First, you have to make yourself open to it, and desire it above all else. For me as a Christian, it comes first through prayer. But for all of us, regardless of our faith background, knowing the truth comes from listening actively and discerning what we listen to, and filtering out that which is not for our own edification, and that of our loved ones.

It does not come from the government filtering things out before we get to do that for ourselves. That is Big Brother censorship. It is not so much about taking away our right of free speech, as denying us our responsibility to train our minds to discern what we see and hear.

Compare that to what Simon Fothergill, a lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada had to say about the truth in the Lemire case in the fall of 2008: “It’s very difficult to construct an entirely truthful statement that constitutes hate, but there might be a context. Truth is not a defence and intent is not a defence, but they are irrelevant to the effects and effects are what matters in human rights legislation." Give me a fricking break.

As Marc Lemire blogged on his Freedom Site, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member hearing the Lemire Case, Athanasios Hadjis then asked Mr. Fothergill: “So, I’m to judge a truthful statement on the basis of who made it” and as Mr. Lemire comments "to decide whether it’s likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt?" Unfortunately, as absurd as it sounds when you put it out there Mr.Lemire, I think you got it.

So, we have human beings deciding whether something will expose someone to hatred and contempt to convict a person of hate speech, based solely on their own feelings or the perceived feelings of some other group of people. Facts are irrelevant.

Here's the real bottom line. If what is said is the truth, but is said by someone not from a distinguishable endangered group from an artificial discrimination standpoint, about one of the endangered, it's hate speech. Put the blighter through years of investigation, and hearings. Turn his life upside down, then penalize him, and get him to retract his hateful speech, and mend his ways, even if what he said was true or he had reason to believe it was true.

Stephen Boissoin wrote "1" (that's ONE count it ONE) letter to the Editor of the Red Deer Advocate, which you can find in one of my other blog entries, about activists bringing in a biased homosexual mandate to teach children from an early age about the homosexual lifestyle. He had young kids in the Red Deer school system, and he did not like what was being taught about homosexuality to his kids.

He was in his letter to the editor declaring an ideological socio-political war. He wanted to stand out. He is a committed Bible believing Christian. He speaks a different language than non Christians. When he talks war, the weapons of his warfare are the spiritual weapons from Ephesians in the Bible, not physical weapons. His weapons are teachings of truth from the word of God and science, that reveal that promiscuity is a dangerous lifestyle. That is what he wanted to have people understand to counter what was creeping into the school system. That is a father who loves his children, and the other children in the school system as well.

What he saw from his viewpoint was a homosexual machine that was moving into the schools with a mandate to teach and impress children. He believed that it was just as immoral as allowing a pedophile or drug dealer in the schools to influence young children. But, his letter was not about gay people, but about the gay politics of some hard line groups and there is a big distinction. His position was that most North Americans are not aware of what is going on in the public school systems.

The complainant against him, Darren Lund, was a high school teacher in Reed Deer. He invited a pro-gay minister into the public high school to teach what he called the pro-gay interpretation of the Bible. Stephen Boissoin was part of his local ministerial association and none of them were invited to ensure that the young minds were offered fair opportunity to consider and choose a view. No, as Stephen told me in an email, instead they were manipulated or corralled and guilted into believing lies, without hearing the truth.

Stephen himself has a long history of helping youth, and going that extra mile for them. In Red Deer, he has given his life savings to youth ministry and a group home for teens, including kids who were homosexuals, with no exclusions.

The organization Stephen worked with which ministered to teens still functions in Alberta, except for Red Deer. Where it was difficult before, the Human Rights complaint magnified the difficulties. They had 100 teens a week that they ministered to, and had good rapport with the local churches. The complaint and the unsavoury profile that the complainant Darren Lund was able to generate from the hate speech case over Stephen's letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate limited the access to funds.

Here is my hope and prayer for Darren Lund. I hope and pray that one day Darren Lund will see the damage that he did to Stephen Boissoin and the youth of Red Deer, both the street kids that Stephen ministered to and the students that Darren taught. When that moment comes, I pray that God's mercy will open his eyes, and that his heart will be softened.

Basically, in Stephen's opinion, left alone, the letter would have sparked debate, and then faded away. The letter was meant to be a sounding of the alarm. By it, Stephen was asking parents to wake up, and ask some questions about what was being taught in schools.

Stephen Boissoin saw something that he believed fervently was harmful to his children and other children, and he spoke up about it. It was either true or he had reason to believe that it was true.

TRUE does not cut it with the HRCs. They care about feelings, hurt feelings, or potentially hurt feelings some time in the future for one of their endangered groups.

Oh, by the way, Stephen Boissoin received death threats on his computer during the whole process but he just carried on. Who would have listened to him anyway?

If you want to hear an interesting interview with a thoughtful, calm and peaceful man, who was only trying to do the right thing, and will do so again, you can hear it on Catholic Light here.

If I have to choose between Stephen Boissoin and the Simon Fothergill's of this world, give me Stephen Boissoin every time. He will do his best to tell me the truth every time out. With the Simon Fothergills of this world, the truth is an inconvenience, unless it feels good.

Are HRCs Useful?

An Answer for My Stepdaughter and Wife

Yesterday afternoon, my stepdaughter who has followed a bit of my blog asked me why it was so negative, and if in fact the HRCs did not do good as well as the bad that I was portraying. Her mother, my lovely wife asked me the same question later on in the evening.

I was unable to answer them at the time, not because I do not know the answer, but because of the brain fatigue and headaches that I feel when I have exerted my brain on any given day. And over the last several weeks, I have (for me at least) worked as hard as I can to understand what is going on with the HRCs. Granted I only spend a few hours a day on a few areas, but it wipes me out. With trying to figure this out, my headaches have increased disproportionately, and I have to figure a way to balance a meaningful objective with my own health. Well, enough of that.

Anyway, this morning I do know what I want to say to them both about a very good question that they asked.

The Nazis did not come to power in Germany because the people of Germany were bad. They came into power because the people were dissatisfied with the current political and international climate. With the Nazis, they got order from the chaos. The trains ran on time, and the streets were clean. Oh, by the way they persecuted anyone who disagreed with them, killing a few of them along the way, like 6 million Jews, plus lots of others. So, at what cost did the German people get trains on time and clean streets. At the cost of their dignity.

Our Human Rights Commissions do not run on time and have not cleaned up our streets. What good comes from a decision that on average takes over a year to reach, and often several to get to?

If you are a complainant and file a grievance that takes 14 months to resolve, over an apartment or a job that you were denied, is there really justice in that for you?

If you were the Defendant of the complaint, and have to pay legal fees for a complaint, often out of the blue, that drags on and on and on and on, where you are considered by the system to be guilty from the get go, and have no recourse to really prove yourself innocent, and it will cost you almost as much to win as to lose, is there really justice in it for you?

I reviewed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights this morning while preparing this, and think that we in Canada ought to look into trying to adopt it, instead of inventing most of the human rights we are doing on our own.

Article 18 says Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Tell that to Stephen Boissoin.

Article 19 say Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Tell that to Mark Steyn, Macleans and Ezra Levant.

The problem as I see it is not the objective, it is the system. I love this country, and want to see all people who are here treated with respect and dignity. I want to live in a country where when I disagree with you because of my religious or personal beliefs that that is not considered to be discrimination, but differences of opinion, and I do not have to go before a kangaroo court to try and defend myself.

I want to live in a country where the truth matters because it is objectively the truth, not just because it doesn't hurt somebody's feelings this time. Read my posting on Lemire/Levant yesterday for how the Canadian HRC has spoken about the truth.

I want to live in a country where when there is an instance where it appears that there has been an act of discrimination among people that there is an unbiased forum for resolution of that discrimination, not a star chamber.

So, simply, I think HRCs could be very useful, but not as they are currently configured.

Lemire and Levant on the same side?

What would put an alleged white supremacist from Ontario and a Jew from Alberta on the same side of any question?

Wake up Canada. If Ezra Levant and Marc Lemire agree on something, there might be something to it.

Ezra Levant comes across to me in person, like a cocker spaniel, pit bull cross. He looks harmless until he bares his teeth. He is a product of his own Calgary Jewish upbringing, his legal education, his time in Ottawa, and above all, his recent trials at the hands of the HRCs and their minions and hangers on. He is a good guy to have on your side. He is opinionated, loud and carries a sharp bite. However, his opinions are researched not just shot from the lip. His being loud is also a good thing, so maybe he can be heard above the deafening white noise of the HRCs and their ilk. And, he is doing his best to sink his teeth firmly into the ?sses of the HRCs and bring them to justice, not the frontier, kangaroo court type that they mete out, but real justice. You know, bring it out into the light of day where we can all see it and be disgusted by it. In my mind, Ezra Levant is a freedom fighter.

Merc Lemire is a different kind of freedom fighter. He is reported to be a white supremacist, and may well still be. He was raised in Toronto and now lives in Hamilton, Ontario. He reportedly was President of the Heritage Front, from 2001 until it disbanded in 2005. That organisation was a neo-Nazi white supremacist group founded in 1989. But, he too is dogged in is determination, more like a Doberman. He does not seem to be cute and cuddly, more dogmatic, yet well researched, and with technical skills to ferret out meaningful information, that is embarrassing to his enemies.

But, these two have a common enemy, Canada's Human Rights Commissions, and in particular the Hate Speech sections of the law in each jurisdiction.

Marc Lemire challenged the consititutionality of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, resulting in many days of hearings over seveal years and which culminated in 3 final days of summation in September 2008.

At the summation, he documented what Simon Fothergill, a lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada had to say about the truth: “It’s very difficult to construct an entirely truthful statement that constitutes hate, but there might be a context. Truth is not a defence and intent is not a defence, but they are irrelevant to the effects and effects are what matters in human rights legislation."

I have 3 young adult daughters, and in recent years have expended considerable energy trying to get them to understand the concept that "It is more important to figure out what the truth is then it is to be right." Little did I know that I was preaching sedition to them.

As Marc Lemire blogged on his Freedom Site, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member hearing the Lemire Case, Athanasios Hadjis then asked Mr. Fothergill: “So, I’m to judge a truthful statement on the basis of who made it” and as Mr. Lemire comments "to decide whether it’s likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt?"

In one of the earlier days of hearings Dean Steacy, an investigator for the CHRC was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?" — to which he replied "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value … It's not my job to give value to an American concept."

This guy is allowed to investigate free speech based discrimination on behalf of his employer the CHRC, but seems to have misplaced his copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or at least Section 2 thereof. I did not make this up.

But, back to Fothergill, and the Summation hearings. Mr. Fothergill had the audacity to state the following, which Mr. Lemire detailed in his blog: “There are excerpts from the Bible that can expose people to hatred or contempt and the Tribunal has dealt with that,” Mr. Fothergill stated.

It appears from Mr. Lemire's notes that Fothergill was apparently defending Tribunal Vice Chairman Hadjis’ previous ruling in the Warman v. Jessica Beaumont case where she was condemned for citing two passages from Leviticus in support of her critique of same sex marriage. For those of you who care, Leviticus is also the 3rd book of the Hebrew Torah, and is sacred to the Jews as well.

I don't know about you, but I believe as do Christians and Jews throughout the world that the Book of Leviticus in the Bible and Torah is the undisputed word of God. To discredit the Word of God is foolhardy at best. I have not yet reviewed the Jessica Beaumont case, but think I will in the future.

The more I read and try to understand what is going on here, the more I conclude that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

As Ezra Levant says, and I am sure Marc Lemire would agree: Fire. Them. All.