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 Bright Spot

I Was Feeling Saddened Until I Read This

If you look at my immediately previous post, you might understand that some of the news today is very distressing to me. I was actually beyond saddened, moving towards depression for a few minutes there.

Then, I started on my email and a comment connected to one post, but probably about my posting yesterday on the Theology of the Body caught my attention, and perked up my drooping spirit.

Anonymous (someone I would like to get to know personally) wrote:

Hi there: This entry proved very thought-provoking for me, and caused me to remember a pivotal moment in my own life.

I went to university during the "hippie-then-disco" years (1969-1977). I participated thoroughly in the excesses of the day on my way to my PhD. At one point (circa 1975), a female friend and I were chatting when we both realized we could not remember the names of some people with whom we'd been intimate. That stopped us both dead since we had been discussing how sexual communion was the "ultimate expression of giving-ness" between two people. How could we have given ourselves - or been had! - by people we could not even name!

I think they call it "a transformative experience". Promiscuity stopped that day for me. Dignity IS what it is all about - your own and the other person's. Nothing in this dimension of life is more precious than this intimacy.

I have gone from thinking of myself as a "lapsed Catholic" to "an agnostic" (though never "atheist"!) Today, every creative manifestation of God that I encounter causes me to embrace Jehovah more closely than ever before.

With the benefit of hindsight, I can see that I have lived a far more "Catholic" life than have my "practising Catholic" friends. Faithful still after almost 30 years of marriage, my wife and I share a more vital relationship than ever. Our children and grandchildren are the treasures we are leaving behind, not inheritances and real estate.

God is wherever you find Him. You can find Him wherever you choose to look. It's not rocket science, really, and I've no idea why it's always been this way for me. It's not as if I've actually spent lots of time praying or anything. I've wondered whether it's because I am a creative person employed in a creative economic sector. You see, I could never have succeeded in doing what I do without some help. I cannot pretend - even/especially to myself - to be a faucet flowing with creative ideas 24/7. I had no recourse BUT to turn to a "higher power" in order to feed my family and not die of stress in the process! So I got into the habit of "working with Jehovah" all the time in my head. And I mean I did this ALL the time. Still do. My "inner creative brainstorming sessions" are with Jehovah (Lord knows I could never really count on "colleagues"!) As I've gotten older and worries over basic survival have become a thing of the past, I silently offer up virtually everything I do to God just because I've received so very much in my time.

It is ironic, really. Now that I am near retirement, I am also reaching my creative peak. I know this peak will extend well into the future, and I'll have no need to "exercise it" anymore (and the industry will dismiss me as "too old" and "yesterday's news"). But I'll have to keep producing because it is what I do, and I now do it for the pleasure it brings others and for God. Maybe those two last things are the SAME thing. I've perhaps always measured my closeness to God by the amount of pleasure I bring others.

I mention all of this because my wife has been ESSENTIAL to all this, including my relationship with Jehovah, it could be argued. Her tireless love and support, her intellect and wit and extraordinary palette of skills and abilities, her loyalty and her strength have helped keep the path well lighted. So I've never lost my way.

I have so many reasons to be thankful because I've not been the most aware of committed Christians, if you follow what I'm saying. But my actions - what I've done in and with my life - never strayed from God's Path (I am somewhat relieved to say!)

My wife has a gift for understatement. She tells me: "You don't deserve any awards or a halo, but you've been a darned GOOD man, husband and father from what I've seen. Of course, I could be wrong..."

Ah! She remains the brightest of lights in my life!

I returned with my own comment:

Come Home, please. We need You.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. May God Bless You, and may you continue your search for Jehovah every day of your life.

The Church needs a few good men, well really all the men and women that will come home to her loving arms.

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.

Salim Mansur - Islam's Predicament

Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim

Salim Mansur, who is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, also spoke with Kathy Shaidle and Ezra Levant at the event in London in April, 2009 about the Canadian HRC's. He has written a book worth reading I think called Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim.

An excerpt is available here on National Post's web site.

Archbishop Burke Stirred Something in Me

Dear Gentle Reader:

Reading the article in Inside Catholic by Archbishop Raymond Burke stirred something in me that I have thought about often, and though I have intended to write it, have put off doing so for reasons that I do not know. Maybe, I am afraid that when you read what I write below, you will consign me to the looney bin, along with the NDP hopeful in Manitoba I wrote about the other day, after you dismiss what I write as pure lunacy. However, what follows is as it relates to my personal life, a very true story. As it relates to Pope Leo XIII, I believe in its veracity because of my own personal story.

First, My Own Story

In brief, I was raised in the Catholic Church, and as a late teenager left, when it was no longer "relevant" to me. As Kathy Shaidle has said for herself, I at a later date became a "relapsed" Catholic, and returned to the Church at about age 31, after I very clearly heard a voice that, to me, was certainly the Voice of God saying only 3 words to me and my wife in our kitchen one afternoon: "Go to Church."

A few years later, I became involved with the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, and fell in love with God. I was becoming active in the Church and learning about my faith, and talking about my faith.

My wife, at the time, and I, along with our 3 young daughters (about 5, 3,and 1 years of age) went to visit her family in Albany New York one summer, with plans to then go on for a few days to Vermont, where we went skiing with the kids in winter.

As we travelled north on the Vermont interstate in our van, I became aware that my wife and all 3 of the children had suddenly become quiet, and fallen asleep. We had gone from talking and laughing to a dead silence in moments. That unnerved me far less than what happened next.

After noticing that all about me were asleep, suddenly, I heard a voice that I knew to be the Archangel Michael, and what he said is indelibly etched on my mind and heart to this day. He said: "Satan has asked for permission to sift you and your family, and God has granted it to him."

If the car was quiet before that, it was tomb like after, for some miles. To say that I was shaken by the experience would be an understatement. I had no choice but to pray as I drove, and to try and make some sense out of what I had just heard.

Eventually, my wife and daughters awoke, and things returned to normal for them. For me, not so much. We came to the foot of Madonna Mountain in Vermont, where the von Trappe's lived. We found a cabin there, and after dinner bunked in for the night.

When I was taking my two oldest daughters down the hall to their bedroom to read them a story and put them to bed that evening, the oldest stopped in her tracks at the doorway. She pointed at the bed, and said: "Daddy, there's a bad man sitting on the bed." In my spirit, I knew that it was the devil, and I prayed in tongues trusting that it was a prayer to make him leave. A few moments later, she told me that he was gone, and then she was prepared to proceed in to the room. I read them stories, and they went off to the sleep that young children can enter into. Me, a father, after the experience of the day thus far, sleep was not going to be so deep.

After our 1 year old was settled in her crib, my wife and I went to bed. We left a window at the end of the bed open a few inches to let in some fresh air, and settled in to sleep. In the middle of the night, I was startled awake. It was as though the moonlight that had been shining in through the partially opened window was sucked out of the room. There at the end of the bed, was the darkest, most evil presence that I had ever encountered in my life. I have never felt such a presence before or after, and am in no need of feeling it again. For some reason, I was aware of the scripture verse: "Resist the devil and he will flee from you." I sat bolt upright and prayed in tongues. After a few moments, he disappeared, and light returned to the room through the open window. I fell back asleep. Two more times this happened that night, and I responded the same way.

In the ensuing years, my marriage disintegrated, not without help from both me and my wife. The business that we had owned fell apart, again not without our help, as we worked together in it. I have no doubt that the devil had a hand in what occurred, but I had 2 hands, 2 feet, and the rest of my body, and mind in it myself. Is the sifting of my family over? I don't know.

Pope Leo XIII

Pope Leo was Catholic Pope from 1878 to 1903, third longest reign for any pope.

In 1884, or thereabouts he had an experience that has been kept from most people since it occurred. I came across it years ago, and found it again in several places, but picked it up here because of how it was dealt with from a Church teaching standpoint. Here is the nub of the story:

In 1884, after saying mass on the morning of, according to at least one source, October 13th, as he was leaving the Altar, the 74 year old and frail Pope Leo XIII fell to the ground as if dead. One version has it that those around him thought for a few moments that he may have passed away. According to this version, a few minutes later, his breathing returned to normal and he revived.

Another version has it that as he was leaving the altar after a weekday low Mass, he paused as if in a trance for about 10 minutes, turning ashen white. And yet another states that Pope Leo went into this trance while kneeling in attendance of a mass of thanksgiving after his own Mass that morning. See Appendix II for sources of written documentation on this subject.

The Pope, according to the most common and popular version, related that he had experienced a sort of vision, in which he heard two voices, one of which he took to be that of Christ, gentle and kind, and the other that of Satan, guttural and harsh.

Satan said, “I could destroy Your Church if I had the time, and more power over those who give themselves over to my service.” And then Pope Leo heard Christ to answer, “You have the power, you have the time: 100 years.”

Lest you be too troubled by what you have read, gentle reader, I offer you another important bit from the same report as the Pope's vision:

The general rule of the Catholic Church is to flee from unapproved private visions and private prophecies as if from temptation, to paraphrase St. John of the Cross.

However, certain private prophecies or visions from recognized holy persons or saints have been recognized by the Church in one way or another as “worthy of belief.” This does not mean that these private prophecies are binding on anyone’s faith, as are the public revelations which come from the Old Testament and the New Testament up until the death of the Last Apostle, St. John, in 91 A.D.

What happened to me and subsequently to my family, in large part through our own actions and inactions is a personal story. It is not a matter of faith whether you believe it or not. The same is ultimately true about the Pope's reported vision.

But, I have written this piece because I have seen the world we live in through eyes that are somewhat formed through things that have happened to me, and what I reported above is one of the more significant things that has occurred in my life.

It is because I believe that the devil is very active and alive in our times, that I have written this. I believe the words of 1 Peter 5:8: "Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour."

So, when I read the words of Archbishop Burke that I wrote about yesterday, I want to absorb them and understand them and let them form my conscience, so that as more trials come in this world I can respond better to them, and continue to grow as a better example to my wife and children.

HHWNBNIMB Under the Gun Figuratively

Ezra Reports

He Who Will Not Be Named In My Blog is the subject of an investigation by the Canadian HRC for . . . hate speech. This has been going on for 3 years now, at the instigation of Marc Lemire, as Ezra Levant reports here.

Ezra's report includes the link to the CHRC preliminary ruling that they will proceed with their investigation, and a link to his own statement of Defence to the suit He Who yadda yadda yadda filed against Ezra, Kathy Shaidle, and the Free Dominion folks some time ago.

Ezra concludes that even though He Who yadda yadda yadda is being hoisted on his own petard, the system stinks and needs to be dismantled.

Stephen Boissoin IS NOT THE LETTER

Context People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

What Might Have Happened in the Chief Commissioners Office Last Thursday

As Herself Gets Word of Ezra's New Book

The following is a work of pure, unadulterated fiction, not impossible, plausible even, maybe, but fiction none the less. This is like the very short joke of the two Irish men who walked out of a pub in that it could have happened, and the probabilities are similar, pretty close to nonexistent. I wrote it for the same reason that I have written a number of things lately, as part of denormalizing something that is odious to me and to many Canadians of good will. With lemons, make lemonade.

This short story involves an imaginary look last Thursday morning inside the office of the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, a look that none of us are ever going to have.

On Thursday morning, August 20, 2009, as the Chief Commissar of the Human Rights Commission strode into her office filled with purpose and arrived at her desk in the fortified quarters of her domain, she pulled her laptop computer out of her shoulder bag and logged on to the network. She pulled out of her briefcase a secret file and started down her list of THE 1,200 to see what misdeeds were being perpetrated in her world by those who would subvert the right of every person in Canada to feel good, and happy 24/7, particularly herself.

On the top of her list was the big three, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Kathy Shaidle, followed by the rest of those mopes, she called the twelve hundred, not the silly list that had been cobbled together and sent to that nosy young blogger from Vancouver Island, Walker Morrow, but the real list, with tables of search data.

She sat back in her chair, looked out her corner office window, at the surrounding parkland, then took a sip of her chai tea, and mused for a moment about how little those folks out there knew about the working of Freedom of Information legislation. With bait and switch, she could protect her own a??, long after they were off on another tangent. She relied on their short attention spans combined with her abilities to drag things out and to hide things well to keep them at bay. That young kid out west had even been looking at her expense reports online. What a joke, she thought. He can't get anything from that. It's all buried too deep for him to figure out anything he can use against me. I'm far too smart for these people to ever get to me. "I am good," she muttered to herself.

She turned back to her computer, and the first thing she brought up was ezralevant.com. She read the following blog post from himself:

"I'm finishing up my next book. The manuscript is due in to my publisher at the end of the month, which is less than two weeks away.

So I'm going to take a short break from blogging... unless there's something just crazy out there that needs a comment, like some new Jennifer Lynch eruption.

See you in September!"

"Holy sh?t," she cried out, "That son of a b?tch is out to get me." She started to fume, her mind working overtime at what his new book might include. He had been on her like "white on rice". What an irritant he had become. Because of him, she had had to grovel with the CASHRA folks in Montreal, and the Canadian Bar Association in Dublin. How humiliating that was.

She hit her intercom button hard, the stress working its way through her body to her finger tips already, and called out frantically to her Administrative Assistant: "Is the Deputy Chief in the office today, or is he at home this week? I can't remember."

Her Admin responded promptly and cheerfully, but not too cheerfully, knowing that that kind of angst in the voice of the Chief Commissioner did not auger well for the rest of the day: "He's in his office Ma'am. Shall I get him for you?" She was pretty good at guessing what her boss wanted and it had stood her in good stead many times before. She hoped it worked this time as well.

"Yes, I need him now," followed by an audible click. That was not a good sound, she thought. Quickly, she stepped over to the Deputy Chief''s office, knocked on his door frame and entered gingerly into his office. He had his head down perusing a report that was in his hand, while sipping on a fresh cup of coffee.

"Yes," he said as he raised his eyes with some measure of diffidence at being disturbed. He did notice the panic in the Admin's eyes, and felt it in the air as well, so did not utter the next words in his mind.

"She wants you in her office immediately," blurted the Admin, with the anxiety that the Deputy Chief had perceived a moment earlier.

He said nothing but arose from his desk immediately and headed hastily for the door and over to the Chief Commissioner's suite.

Within seconds he was at her door, and he knocked on her door frame rather than just entering. She was staring at her computer with a look of astonishment, combined with anger, fear and trepidation all at once on her visage. As she looked up, he noticed that this woman whom he had considered handsome for her age when she had brought him in to this position, looked very haggard at this moment. He wondered if this haggard look was something new or if it had been there for some time and he had been too busy to notice.

"Sit down for a moment, will you?" The Deputy Chief thinks; Okay angst, not directed at me, that's good. This isn't about me. Whew!

"His book. It's about me, isn't it?" (much angst)

"Ma'am, who are you talking about?" he asks quizzically as he is not up to speed with her yet.

"Levant. That's who."

"No, Ma'am. He's over you." He breathes a sigh of relief. He thinks of Ezra Levant as a popinjay, that will go away sometime soon. After all he's not here in Ottawa, so not a real threat.

"No. He just won't quit. What did I ever do to him?" She has stopped hyperventilating now.

"Well, you know what you did to him. You had him investigated over those dog gone cartoons for the longest time, and he didn't really take it very well."

"But, but, but, it wasn't personal." She's starting to make excuses for herself, finding that lawyers rhythm.

"He seemed to think it was."

"He's going to spread more misinformation, I can just tell. Him and those bloggers. Why won't they just believe me when I tell them that they have it all wrong? They just don't get it, how we are working for the greater good, and they are just in the way, all those . . . little people."

"You need a break and you need to calm down. Maybe you should take a trip back to Nairobi, or Geneva and drum up some more support. You love picking up frequent flyer miles."

"Thank you, Deputy Chief. I'll do that. You understand me. I'm not a bad person. I'm just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."

As the Deputy Chief leaves her office he swears that he hears the band The Animals singing in the background, "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood" from their 1965 Animal Tracks album.

Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood
                          from 1965 'Animal Tracks'

Baby, do you understand me now,
Sometimes I feel a little mad.
But, don't you know that no one alive can always be an angel.
When things go wrong I feel real bad.

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

Baby, sometimes I'm so carefree,
With a joy that's hard to hide.
And sometimes it seems that, all I have to do is worry
And then you're bound to see my other side.

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

If I seem edgy,
I want you to know,
That I never mean to take it out on you.

Life has its problems,
And I get my share,
And that's one thing I never mean to do,

'Cause I love you,
Oh,

Oh, oh, oh, baby - don't you know I'm human.
I have thoughts like any other one.
Sometimes I find myself, Lord, regretting,
Some foolish thing - some little simple thing I've done.

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.
(repeat)
(repeat)

Stephen Boissoin Appeal Document - Part 6

The Experience of Other Countries with Silencing Freedom of Speech

Because of Stephen Boissoin's Appeal, we have the benefit of seeing how the United Kingdom, Sweden, and our nearest neighbour, the USA have dealt with the issue of freedom of speech through the eyes of his lawyer Mr. Gerald Chipeur.

Though it is not exhaustive, this being a brief to an appeals court, it is significant, and meaningful to us, and to those of us who care about Human Rights, and in this instance, the right of free speech, both in the Province of Alberta and on a National level. This is my penultimate report on the brief, prepared by Mr. Chipeur on Stephen's behalf. For those of you who have not seen the brief, it is available here.

This is ground breaking litigation, frankly, and it is expensive ground breaking legislation, that Stephen is having to fund by himself. He has proven to be no less immune to the HRC finance mess than any one of us would we. Complainant, free. Respondent, costs up the wazoo. By my estimation, he is well on the way to a debt exceeding $50,000 before this debacle is over, one that had no valid reason to have begun in the first place. I urge you to help him, as you have helped others like Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle et al, or if you have not yet helped anyone, to open your hearts and pocket books and help him, because he needs your help, and your prayers. If you can donate to his cause, you can do so here.

United Kingdom

We begin with the United Kingdom, from whence a great deal, the majority really, of our originating jurisprudence stems.

In 2005, the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill was before the House of Commons. The member for Manchester, Mr. David Davis in debate quoted the Australia experience with "hate" legislation that had been brought in. They had discovered an unintended consequence (big surprise there) that a complaint against Christians by Muslims led to Christians watching over the Muslims looking for things to complain about, creating an even more undesirable climate. It caused Amir Butler, an original proponent of the laws in Australia to become an opponent and to opine:

"The real key to social cohesion is honest dialogue. A dialogue, unfettered by political correctness, that is based on recognition that we have different ideas."

Mr. Davis had done his homework, and obviously cared about the outcome as he also quoted Mr. Soli Sorabjee the Attorney General of India who had spoken on incitement to religious hatred thus:

"experience shows that criminal laws prohibiting hate speech and expression will encourage intolerance . . . we need not more repressive laws but more free speech to combat bigotry and promote tolerance."

The law was defeated in its then form, but succeeded the following year, though it did not include the concept of "abusive and insulting" and the act required proof of "intention", not just the airy fairy concept of possibility, that is so popular here.

Mr. Chipeur put in a quotation from the House of Lords on the Appeal for Reynolds V. Times Newspapers Ltd. [2001] case. This was a real case before real judges and juries, not judge Lori and her kangaroo court over a Letter to an editor. This case was about the former Prime Minister of Ireland and reporting of events in the UK over the change of office that occurred, and political maneuverings of the time. The former Prime Minister (Reynolds) had sued the newspapers for slander.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead spoke of the need to value freedom of speech, and its foundations, and that:

"any curtailment of freedom of expression must be convincingly established by a compelling countervailing consideration, and the means employed must be proportionate to the end sought to be achieved."

I am sure that Lori Andreachuk took that all into careful consideration, then tossed it aside like she tossed aside the recommendation of her investigator Ms. McGovern to not prosecute Stephen Boissoin in the first place.

Mr. Chipeur adds a very "chilling" quote from the case of Prolife Alliance V. British Broadcasting Corp., [2002] EWCA Civ 297, where Lord Justice Laws quoted the dissenting opinion of Lord Bridge of Harwich in a particular case that was later substantiated, as follows:

"Freedom of speech is always the first casualty under a totalitarian regime. Such a regime cannot afford to allow the free circulation of information and ideas among its citizens. Censorship is the indespensable tool to regulate what the public may and what they may not know. The present attempt to insulate the public in this country from information which is freely available elsewhere is a significant step down that very dangerous road."

How very true. The form of totalitarianism and homogeneity that our HRCs and HRTs are trying to promote in Canada is very worrisome.

But, of course, like any good writer, Mr. Chipeur left his best quote of the UK experience for last when he referenced the R. v. Central Independent Television plc [1994] 3 All ER 641 case and the comments of Hoffman LJ as follows:

"The motives which impel judges to assume a power to balance freedom of speech against other interests are almost always understandable and humane on the facts of the particular case before them . . . [P]ublication may cause needless pain, distress, and damage to individuals and harm to other aspects of the public interest. But a freedom which is restricted to what judges think to be responsible or in the public interest is no freedom. Freedom means the right to publish things which governments and judges, however well motivated, think should not be published. It means the right to say things which 'right-thinking people' regard as dangerous or irresponsible."

Boy, oh boy, Lori Andreachuk sure never read this bit of jurisprudence, or if she did, she skipped over it pretty quickly. After all, it came from a real court.

So much for Mr. Chipeur's brief legal travelogue of the UK. Let's move on to Sweden.

Sweden

In Sweden, where life is freer allegedly, and blond moments are commonplace, literally if not figuratively, you could get jail time for hate speech or maybe not.

At his church in Sweden, Pentecostal Pastor, Ake Green delivered a sermon on July 20, 2003 in which he described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." He also said that a person cannot be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time. At the end of his sermon, Green said: "We cannot condemn these people — Jesus never did that either. He showed everyone He met deep respect for the person they were (...) Jesus never belittled anyone."

The sermon was reported to the police and the controversy began. Pastor Green was sentenced to 1 month in the pokey for hate speech. Sounds like Canada in a few years doesn't it?

Needless to say, the conviction and sentence were appealed, and well, the Attorney General must be a blond, because he or she tried to uphold the conviction. What ultimately prevailed was not Swedish law, but Article 1o of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ultimately what the Swedish Supreme Court found was that the hate law could not be insensitive to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The bottom line was that you can't just call something someone says hate speech because you disagree with it, or it hurts your feelings like you can here in Canada, but the judge said it better so I will reproduce what he said and Mr. Chipeur quoted here:

" All statements of a degrading or derogatory nature are not, however, covered. Statements that cannot be regarded as exceeding the bounds of objective criticism of certain groups fall outside the criminal area. To be punishable it is required that it is completely clear that the statement exceeds the boundaries of a factual and responsible discussion concerning the group in question.

The criminal area shall not ... extend as far as to ... include a factual discussion of, or criticism of homosexuality. Criminalisation shall not constitute an obstacle to freedom of opinion or a threat to the formation of opinion. Moreover, the freedom of science shall be preserved. The statements made also imply that such assertions as are best met or set right in a free and open debate shall not be covered by the criminalisation."

In the end, they found for Pastor Green, believing that the European Court of Human Rights would overturn any other verdict regardless.

Unfortunately, we do not live in Europe, but in this Trudeaupia, where the foregone conclusion that sanity will prevail is not valid. It will take a lot of hot hard work, and cold hard cash to come to this conclusion here.

Now coming closer to home, what has been happening just south of us, or north if you live in Southern Ontario.

The United States of America

The US experience is pretty straight forward to date, and I emphasize TO DATE. Kathy Shaidle warned in her book that things look to be changing, and as a part time resident of the southern US, I see bad news on the rise for free speech. However, the constitution and courts have supported pornographers, flag burners, and the like, supporting individual rights of self expression over group rights.

Any look back to the McCarthy era views the time as odious, and not a shining moment in American history.

Americans, who love their flag, have been particularly unsuccessful in prosecuting flag burners, as horrendous an act as that seems to them corporately. And so, to today, freedom of speech remains enshrined in the psyche of the American people. But, the Democratic government seems determined to quell opinion that differs from their own, and is pushing through legislation that will calm the firestorm of opinion against them. This legislation has not met the light of day yet, nor the test of courts either, where it will come up against the American Constitution, and stiff opposition.

Thus ends a brief look at 3 other countries and their take on free speech as viewed mainly through the eyes of counsel to Stephen Boissoin. We continue to pray for his success in the case, and for the finances to pay for the success. One more installment to come.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister

Letter to the Prime Minister

Dear Readers:

I have had enough and so today will be sending this letter to the Prime Minister. Although some parts of it are personal, it is one that I hope encapsulates the thoughts and feelings of many Canadians of good will. I support our Prime Minister, as the leader of our country, regardless of my own personal politics. However, this situation with the Canadian HRC is beyond untenable. We can blog about it until the cows come home, and we can also sing Kumbaya at the end of each day. I intend to start communicating with elected leaders, not because I think it will immediately do any good, but because we elected them to do good, and I intend to press them to so do.

Should any of you wish to write to him directly, his email address is as follows. I am sure that a deluge of mail would help guide him in deliberating on the fate of the CHRC and Ms. Lynch.

pm@pm.gc.ca

August 18, 2008

Subject: Canadian Human Rights Commission - Jennifer Lynch

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

In the nearly 6 decades of my life, I have been proud to call Canada my "home and native land." Although my wife and I choose to go south for the winter lately, primarily for health reasons, we have happily returned to what we believe to be the "true north strong and free", or so we have supposed.

I am one of the many millions of Canadians who thought of the words Human Rights and Commission as words that fit well together. I thought that the combination made Canada a better place for us all. I had no idea that they were an oxymoron. Like most of us in Canada, I have been deluded.

About 3 years ago, a close friend of mine, a grade school principal, had a complaint filed against her with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (HRC) in what I figured was a mistake that would go away in due course.

As I saw the Ontario HRC wreak havoc on her health and force her into early retirement with no resolution in sight, I realised that I needed to do more to support her.

Early on, I met Ezra Levant, and Kathy Shaidle and read their books. Though what they wrote about human rights and the commissions and tribunals in Canada seemed plausible, I found it hard to believe. After all, this is Canada, sir. This could not be happening here. They simply had to be exaggerating. As I very sadly discovered later through my own research, they only touched on the nature and scope of the problem. It was far too big to be written about in 2 books.

I set out to understand the history of Human Rights in Canada and how we got to a place where a mistake like what happened to my friend could happen. You see, I still thought that it was part of a few isolated mistakes, not a calculated strategy. That was part of the delusion. In my own digging, I had moments of Canadian pride in our early leadership in human rights, followed by immense shame at our current track record here at home.

I read with pride of our contribution to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, how John Peters Humphries, from McGill University was the first Director of the Human Rights Division in the United Nations Secretariat and was instrumental in its drafting.

I was also proud to read our own enshrined Charter fundamental freedoms, the freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association. Little did I know that these were just concepts, and as one of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) employees said in testimony, under oath "American concepts", belittled by the CHRC itself in pursuit of its own aims.

I have been following the activities of all the human rights commissions, but particularly the one under your direct jurisdiction, The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) for some time now. To that end I have been studying case transcripts, case decisions and reporting by official media and by bloggers. Although the media and bloggers have been hard on the CHRC, they have been far softer than its antics, and the antics of its leader, Jennifer Lynch deserve. The unequal layering of human rights for people in this country has become a sick joke and one that is way past being tolerable.

The alleged defence of Human Rights by members of the CHRC, while perpetrating breeches of those self same rights of individual defendants, while in pursuit of them is well documented. The attempts by the current leader of the CHRC, Jennifer Lynch to defend such actions, by outright lies and deception of the Canadian public and by calling into question those who have carefully researched this treachery is disgusting behaviour.

This past weekend, she spent considerable of our tax dollars to fly to Dublin to entreat members of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) meeting there to "write letters to correct misinformation", none of which misinformation she has ever mentioned, documented or brought forward. She also confessed to the CBA that: “For the moment the obligation to defend our existence monopolizes our energy.” This so called leader of an important bureaucratic area of your government is wasting her energy and that of her staff defending an existence that has proven to be unsupportable.

I urge you to bring an end to this hypocrisy and put Jennifer Lynch out of our misery, Sir. We, as Canadians of good will, can no longer tolerate having an organisation that has the potential to do useful work for the people of Canada, be run as a personal fiefdom, with limitless powers to hound citizens for invented breaches of invented human rights by improperly trained staff members, who have no proper work standards or ethics.

The people of Canada deserve nothing less than a full judicial review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, after termination of its Chief Commissioner and her deputies. Their activities and those of members of their staff should be investigated criminally for human rights violations, and for fiscal improprieties, and other malfeasance. This, Sir is going on today, on your watch, and as it continues cannot help but reflect badly on you and your government. I urge you to act bravely and boldly to stop the "chill" that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is bringing to our fundamental rights and freedoms in this fair land of ours. Please ensure that we do not have to amend our national anthem and seek a new word to conclude the phrase "true north strong and ?".

Your Sincerely

Jennifer Lynch T-Shirts On Sale

Get 'Em While They're Hot

So, the long awaited winning t-shirt in the Jennifer Lynch slogan contest has arrived, and is available for purchase. It sports the catchy winning slogan:

This T-shirt exposes Jennifer Lynch to hatred and contempt

It is available from Blazing Cat Fur's site here, with black letters on a white shirt, yellow letters on black, and for those really out there hot pink lettering on black. $5 of the proceeds goes to the legal defence funds of Ezra Levant, 5 Feet of Fury, Small Dead Animals and Free Dominion. Shop early and often.

Just a question, but is anyone going to do anything to support Stephen Boissoin? It's not that I don't think that those being supported by the t-shirt fund and other activities aren't freedom fighters, but Stephen's case is the defining case at this point in time. The way I look at the numbers he is about $50,000 in the hole and on the way to a deeper debt after his trial next month. You can also donate to him at his site here.

All these folks can use our support.

Ethical Debate About Human Rights - Part Deux

A Little Dialogue Between Scary Fundamentalist and Myself - He Said/He Said

After yesterday's entry on Ethical Debate based on the Keeping article in the Star Phoenix, Scary Fundamentalist, who is probably more of the latter than the former, and maybe less of both and I dialogued a bit through comments, which I wanted to share this morning. It went like this:

Scary Fundamentalist said...

To me, Keeping's argument sounds like the shrill demands from the fanatical left to give five-star hotel treatment to Taliban prisoners. Ms. Keeping has undoubtedly never been in the crosshairs of the HRC, and maybe cannot see this happening in her lifetime, so she can opine about civility. For those of us who live in fear of when the HRCs will come and figuratively (or even literally) break down our door, offense is a legal and legitimate means to get the attention of the oblivious public. As long as it doesn't extend into outright libel, Ezra and the rest of us have nothing to be ashamed of.

mbrandon8026 said...

I think my own conclusion is that some prudence is in order. If you wouldn't tell your Mom what you are saying in a Blog in these words, maybe they are not the right words to use.

However, a little righteous indignation has its place and time.

Also, there is an important place for the High Road.

Above all Follow Your Own Conscience, which presupposes that you have formed one.

Scary Fundamentalist said...

Each and every person is accountable before their God or conscience as to the means employed to this end, but far be it from me to expend precious energy to nitpick at the incivility of my allies. Images of deck chairs moving on a really big ocean liner come to mind.

The High Road is a necessary perspective when one is considering the same tactics of the enemy. In this case, taking the "Low Road" would be demanding the creation of jackboot Stalinesque bureaucratic agency to enforce speech freedoms.

Part of what we're fighting for is the freedom to be offensive. We may find it morally objectionable to offend in the manner of Levant and others (Shaidle comes to mind) but we must defend their right to do it.

mbrandon8026 said...

Again, we fundamentally agree. I understand the frustration of Ezra and Kathy as best I can, and choose to speak in my own terms because of my beliefs and style.

I just don't have a personal need to be offensive in the same manner. For me it can be offensive enough just putting the truth out there, without embellishment.

My Blog. I get the last word.

So here is the last word. Actually, I am not fighting for the freedom to be offensive, though that is a potential by product of speaking one's mind. But I keep being reminded of 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 "Love does not take offence", and realise that it is not about being offensive at all.

If for example, something happens around our house, and my wife says to me: "You are a real jerk." I can be offended and respond with some retributive comment. I can be non judgmental and try to understand what she was meaning, and maybe even acknowledge after I understand that I, did in fact act like a real jerk. I have choices.

Here is a question, actually a few to ponder. Is something offensive because I FEEL offended, or is it inherently, in fact offensive? The same goes for discrimination. Is something you did discriminatory because I FEEL discriminated against, or because you, in fact discriminated against me? Oh, and who determines the "in fact" part?

Let's add to the Lexicon

Some New Words for the Blogging Universe

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

Hilary White, who is no slouch herself, writes:

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

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

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

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

For example:

Binking

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

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

Levanting

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

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

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

Blazing

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

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

Smouched

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

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

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

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

Human Rights for All Humans

Conception to Natural Death

I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, took a sabbatical for a decade, and returned to find that it didn't catch up to me. I caught up to it kinda. Kathy Shaidle calls herself a relapsed Catholic. She has a way with words, that girl. I find that if you take the personalities out of it, and research the teachings of the church, by reading and listening, there is a marvelous tapestry there, but only if you are open to it. Otherwise, you can just call it noise from a bunch of old men, and then not have to engage your brain to think about what the bunch of old men might be saying.

Anyway, the Catholic Church teaches that life is sacred from Conception to Natural Death. That makes the Catholic Church and all others who support the front end of this teaching in opposition with the world that we live in today, particularly with our North American culture of death for the unborn.

Jennifer Lynch, Barbara Hall and the other members of CASHRA are quick to jump on the bandwagon to have us protect the rights of people of different races, colours, creeds, yada, yada, yada.

Heck, we are so afraid of offending Gays, that we invite them to prance around naked on Yonge Street and make complete fools of themselves with police protection while they break the laws of the land. When they are allowed to break the laws of the land in their senseless frivolity, they are denying me my rights. But that is not my real point here.

Human Rights are meant to allow us as human beings to have the possibility of enjoying life, liberty and happiness.

Show me an aborted child who got that, and explain to me why the rights of the mother, who in most cases chose to do what she did, (along with some male who was equally responsibile for the situation), are more important than the child's rights.

My grandson died last year because of the lies that have been told by too many people for too many years about the rights to abortion that women have, and because there are too few people who can stand up and speak for the unborn children of the world.

Big Blue Wave does. read what she has to say here.

Apology and A Lesson Learned

Blogging is Not for The Faint of Heart and Can Get Lonely

On Canada Day, I was sitting at my computer minding my own business, as if blogging about what Jennifer and her horde are doing to the huddled masses is really minding my own business, or at least I started out that way. Then I had a sudden brain wave, or so I thought. Come to think of it, it was accompanied by a little rumbling sound. Turns out some thought it was a collective brain f?rt. Though it might have been a collaborative brain f?rt. At age 59, it seems I have more of the latter than the former, but with diminishing mental capacity I seem to be challenged to recognize the latter from the former in time to stop them.

I have become aware that there are a number of the Bloggers out there whom I respect for their opinions, meaning that I agree with them, not that they are right or that I am either. To me their writings seem to be catholic, though many are also Catholic. Anyway, I thought of something of a Group Think (as one tiny blogger would later say) nature, or so I thought. A late respondent's take is much more subtle. He gently distinguished between collaboration and collectivism. So, I communicated it to them in an email. What the heck! It was a stat holiday. Who's going to be reading email on a stat holiday for one thing, and who's going to do more than hit the delete button on an email from mbrandon8026 anyway? Wrong and Wrong. Some folks, like Kathy Shaidle, work for a living by blogging, and writing for publication by others, and so Canada Day was not really a holiday for her or for them.

I left my computer for a while to tend to some other things, it being a holiday and all. When I returned about 90 minutes later, there had been a storm of emails from around the galaxy, some sparking a little incremental dialogue, and a couple from a blogger, short in stature, under five feet she says, but tall in verbal acuity, who proceeded to verbally rend me asunder, so to speak, kinda, but not really.

I learned a little blogging etiquette, I think. I mistakenly thought that because a bunch of people were saying similar things about the same institutions, in this case the HRCs in this country, that they/we were of a common mind and purpose, sort of collaborativish. That theory works in Corporate America where I learned it, even though I personally spent some of my own time swimming upstream against the corporate flow. You know. Common Goals. Corporate Logo on Company T Shirts. Go Team. I guess that sounds more like a collective doesn't it.

When I saw the news about the dry T-Shirt slam Jen contest, and the denunciation of the winner, with the slogan "This T-Shirt exposes Jennifer Lynch to hatred and contempt", my mind moved on to Company T-shirt and we're in this together stuff. Forgive me, folks. It was a conditioned response. I mean, I have a closet full of old corporate t-shirts, caps, jackets and even underwear. You should see my tattoo. It's right here on my ... Well, you get the picture, or maybe you don't. Anybody want to sing Kum Bay Ya.

But, I meant it in a small "c" collaborate way, like sharing recipes, not trade secrets. Not meeting in the boardroom every Monday morning at 8 am with Blackberry at the ready to brainstorm strategy, so we hit the decks running for the week. I don't miss those days. Heck, I don't even remember those days. In fact, I probably meant it more in the "can the new kid (old man) come over for a play date once in a while to see your new toys?" When I was 9 years old, I was too little to hang out with the cool kids. Now at 59, I still can't hang out with the cool kids. Maybe it's my e-breath.

So, after the storm subsided, I returned to tapping away at my keys, metaphorically bloodied, but not bowed, somewhat chastened, humbled once again in the inexorable journey of life. I mean, I just used 3 big words in one sentence, so I can't be that bloodied.

So, I apologize to the group of bloggers I sent my email out to in the first place if I offended you, and particularly the diminutive one. I shall temper my enthusiasm somewhat or maybe I won't, and use my blog to communicate my thoughts. After all, that is why I am writing it, and shall use email to communicate directly with those I have cause to communicate directly with, individually. Call it a lesson learned by a relative newby even if I am personally older than dirt.

There. I feel better.

Pray for Your Persecuters

I don't know for sure what the Question is but Prayer is the Answer

A friend suggested that regularly I remember to pray in this endeavour, or maybe I suggested it and my friend agreed, or maybe we came to the conclusion coincidentally.

Kenneth Copeland, a Charismatic preacher who I listened to early after I had a serious conversion many years ago often says: "The success of any Christian endeavour is a prayer success. The failure of any Christian endeavour is a prayer failure." I believe that to be true, though the definition of success in God's eyes and mine has often been different as has the timing.

Most of you who read my blog do so because you, like me are concerned that the HRCs are not enhancing the Human Rights of the people of Canada but damaging them. The are doing so by working at limiting free speech and by creating rights that are not real that are harmful to the rights of others, and thereby creating a hierarchy of rights within this country. This is of course an over simplification of the problem.

But the people from the HRCs are actively engaging in a rhetorical battle, as well as in their kangaroo courts against targets like Ezra Levant, Stephen Boissoin, Kathy Shaidle, other bloggers and others as well. They have money, political power, and a strong will to win cultivated over many years of winning. They have been in the driver's seat for many, many years, and are not likely to relinquish it to a bunch of malcontents over a silly palace coup or series of them.

Ezra's release of Shakedown has galvanized some of the opposition to the HRCs and the difficulties that exist with their modus operandi, but this is just the start.

If you, Dear Reader believe that this battle is an important one for our country and its future, then I say this to you. As a Christian I agree with Kenneth Copeland. As a human being, I would like to broaden the perspective. "The success of ANY endeavour is a Prayer Success. The failure of ANY endeavour is a prayer failure." However, you believe in God, I urge you then to pray in particular for the following prayer requests at the moment, with more to come as they are revealed to me by readers and others:

1) for Ezra Levant that he will continue to have wisdom to uncover and speak the truth as it is revealed to him.
2) for Stephen Boissoin that he will prevail this Fall at the Alberta Court of Queens Bench in his appeal of his conviction by the Alberta HRC.

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.