Guess Who's Being Persecuted? and By Whom?

Stephen Boissoin and Fr. Michael Prieur By the Christians

Persecution is a strong word. It might come as a shock to think I am saying that Christians are persecuting Christians. If it is a little too heavy a word for your sensibilities, you can substitute gossiping about for persecuting, and see if that makes it any easier to swallow.

Stephen and Fr. Prieur have something in common. They are being eaten alive by their brothers (and sisters) in Christ. The brethren, who are committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and do not mean harm, are immune to context and details, but are going after their own, in these two situations. Why? Because they can, and besides doing the digging it would take to figure out the truth is too much like work. They are using earthly judgment to move in the heavenly realm.

In this sound bite world we live in, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells like a duck, it is clearly a duck, even if only for a sound bite. But, we all imitate ducks for sound bite sections of our lives. Does that make us all ducks? Does it make any of us ducks?

Although I find this hard to believe from him, Michael Coren is disabusing Stephen Boissoin, and he is not alone. Does he have any idea what Stephen stands for or what has been the result of THE LETTER, or what work Stephen really does? Nope, but that hasn't stopped him.

And Fr. Michael Prieur, a professor of theology at St. Peter's Seminary and revered for his orthodoxy and love of Holy Mother Church, by all who KNOW him, as opposed to those who think they do, is the target of two bloggers professing to be Catholic, and with good Catholic hearts, but leaving doubt as to the universality of their catholicity in this instance.

Stephen Boissoin has been beaten up by the Red Deer Advocate, who really could have ponied up and stood up for him at the beginning of this ridiculous mess, but wimped out. Now, they are opining on, without researching, The LETTER. But, heck they are a newspaper and their job is to sell their product. I am not inclined to pass it off, but I understand where they are coming from at least. As foul as it is, it makes sense to them to pursue this path to increase revenues. We'll see how it works for them over time.

But, XTRA.ca the gay news source supported Stephen and his right to say what he did enough to interview him and to print the interview verbatim. They asked him serious, not softball, questions. How come they get it, and the Advocate doesn't?

Now, as for Michael Coren, where is his head at? Here's what Mr. Coren has to say, as he opines without researching the mind and heart of Stephen Boissoin.




You know, when I read Stephen's letter without a context for it, I didn't like it and I wouldn't say things that way. But that's just me. When he invited me to communicate with him directly, and not just render bald faced opinions, I did, because I was not married to my own self importance and wisdom. I then talked with him and asked about what he did and why he did it, and read what he had written on his own web site. Only then did I come to understand more of his mind and heart. Then I got it. He had a point to make, a particular injustice in education that he was angry about, and it was a good one, that you have to know the political climate in Alberta to understand. It did not call for a namby pamby approach. It called for a get tough attitude in his opinion, and so that's what Stephen wrote.

Michael Coren made some unsupportable assumptions about the letter with no background, and he has never spoken to Stephen about it. So, what we get is a Christian stabbing another Christian in the back, with a smile on his face, not even knowing that he has a knife in his hands. I don't know about you, but it doesn't work for me.

That brings me back to Father Michael Prieur. Two bloggers in Ottawa have taken a run at him for his support of the Winnipeg Statement, a document that the Canadian Bishops wrote back in 1968, over 40 years ago, shortly after and about Humanae Vitae, the important papal encyclical, that is proving to be very prophetic about our current society.

They have a point. Critics of the Winnipeg Statement complain that it is offensive to the encyclical and that it should have been repudiated. Shame on the bishops, they say, for not repudiating it even though they produced a "Statement on the Formation of Conscience" which was what they needed to do, in light of the fact that they urged Catholics to follow their conscience in their life decisions, and then produced in 2008 their pastoral letter "Liberating Potential". And double shame on Fr. Michael Prieur for his orthodoxy in supporting and submitting his personal authority to the bishops who had been appointed by the various popes, as his leaders for the Church in Canada at the time, and even up to the time of the later letter.

Give me a break. 10 people read the Winnipeg Statement. Two are our well meaning blogger friends in the nation's capital. 6 of the others are the Bishops who participated in its writing, and Fr. Prieur, as a theologian, and then me for the 8. There is not a seat in the pew Catholic who gave a rat's tush about the WS, or does now. So, repudiating it would serve what purpose?

Then they say shame on Fr. Prieur for his support and leadership of a policy at St. Joseph's Hospital dealing with difficult and challenging pre-born infants. They are upset hat he has not rolled over and agreed to discuss matters with them, even though they have verbally skewered him repeatedly in their blogs. There is more, but my point is made.

Christians need to learn the Christian use of the various media outlets, TV and blogs to name two. Michael Coren and these two bloggers, committed Christians and men with whom I agree far more than I disagree, are not the source of wisdom, and do us all a disservice and themselves more so for being lured into thinking that they have a lock on the truth, even in the context of the particular issues. It makes for lazy Christianity. Remember "Judge not, lest you be judged."

Give these two good Christian men, Stephen and Father Prieur a break, and the benefit of some doubt. Stephen Boissoin will talk to anybody who asks about THE LETTER. So, ask him. Fr. Michael Prieur is much more tight lipped, for a number of valid reasons, one of which has to do with the sh?t storm that the Ottawa pair have created over not a lot of fact; the other his devoted support of his local bishop and of Canadian Bishops in general.

I would like to be finished writing about Stephen Boissoin because THE LETTER should be laid to rest, and he should be allowed to get on with his day job, his vocation of service to youth, and the raising of his two children.

However, as to Father Prieur, I hope to be meeting with him in January, and will, only with the appropriate local approval, write the required response to the noise that has been created, and which surrounds him at the moment. I assure you that it will be well researched, and will be orthodox, but will not be written if it will bring damage to the Church.

I support these two men of God, because they are doing the best they know how to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the people they encounter. When you, my fellow Christian brothers and sisters have walked a mile, heck a foot, in their shoes, then feel free to criticize them. Until then, think long and hard before you let your jaws and your keyboards flap, and then preferably with an open mind.

I will take the same advice to heart, because many times in my life I have played loose with the truth, thinking I have the answers, only to find when it got down to it, that I was not even sure of the questions.

Prophecy at St. Peter's Basilica Rome 1975

This Particular Prophecy Was in Fr. Sam's Archives

This prophecy can be found at its original site, a new blog I am assisting with called Life In The Spirit,. It is the story of personal journey of Father Sam Johnstone, a retired priest of the Diocese of London, Ontario. It also will include prophecies that were received by folks near to him, and the subject of this article is one of them.

Father Sam presented me with a file of prophecies dating back to the early 1970's, most of which came through a particular person I will introduce later. But this one came from a Charismatic Conference held in Rome in 1975, and was delivered during the Closing Eucharist on Pentecost Monday of that year.

Because I love you, I want to show you what I am doing in the world today. I want to prepare you for what is to come. Days of darkness are coming on the world, days of tribulation. . . . Buildings that are now standing will not be standing. Supports that are there for my people now will not be there. I want you to be prepared, my people, to know only me and to cleave to me and to have me in a way deeper than ever before. I will lead you into the desert. . . . I will strip you of everything that you are depending on now, so you depend just on me. A time of darkness is coming on the world, but a time of glory is coming for my church, a time of glory is coming for my people. I will pour out on you all the gifts of my Spirit. I will prepare you for spiritual combat; I will prepare you for a time of evangelism that the world has never seen. . . . And when you have nothing but me, you will have everything: land, fields, homes, and brothers and sisters and love and joy and peace more than ever before. Be ready, my people, I want to prepare you .

I speak to you of the dawn of a 'new age' for my church. I speak to you of a day that has not been seen before. . . . Prepare yourselves for the action that I begin now, because things that you see around you will change; the combat that you must enter now is different; it is new. You need wisdom from me that you do not yet have.

You need the power of my Holy Spirit in a way that you have not possessed it; you need an understanding of my will and of the ways that I work that you do not yet have. Open your eyes, open your hearts to prepare yourselves for me and for the day that I have now begun. My church will be different; my people will be different; difficulties and trials will come upon you. The comfort that you know now will be far from you, but the comfort that you will have is the comfort of my Holy Spirit. They will send for you, to take your life, but I will support you. Come to me. Band yourselves together, around me. Prepare, for I proclaim a new day, a day of victory and of triumph for your God. Behold, it is begun.

I will renew my church. I will renew my people. I will make my people one. I am calling you to turn away from the pleasures of the world. I am calling you to turn away from the desires of the world. I am calling you to turn away from seeking the approval of the world in your lives. I want to transform your lives . . . . I have a word for my church. I am sounding my call. I am forming a mighty army. . . . My power is upon them. They will follow my chosen shepherd(s). . .

Be the shepherds I have called you to be. . . I am renewing my people. I will renew my church. I will free the world.

Know that I, your God, brought Peter and Paul to Rome to witness to my glory. I have chosen you also and have brought you to Rome to bear witness to my glory, confirmed now by your shepherd. Go forth to the healing of the nations. Know that I am with you, and though you may pass through tribulations and trial, I will be with you even to the end. I am preparing a place for you in glory. Look to me and I will deliver you from the power of the evil one. Behold I am with you now, all days, even till the end of time.

. . . You have known the truth these days. You have experienced the truth these days. It is clear to you at this moment what the truth is. It is the truth of my kingdom, my kingdom that will prevail. . . I want you to take that truth, to rest in that truth, to believe in that truth, not to compromise it, not to lose it in confusion, not to be timid about it, but to stand simply, in love, but to stand simply, firmly rooted in the truth as foundation stones upon which my church can have new life and new power.

It is now over 34 years since this prophecy was delivered, and what it says is slowly coming to fruition. Prophecies are not necessarily meant to happen overnight. The biblical prophecies of the birth and death of Jesus took what seemed like forever to come true. The same is with these prophecies. Timing is not our problem.

Of Elephants and Christmas

Binks Writes

In a section of Steynian 399, the Reverend Binks writes of his faith in Jesus Christ, a faith that I share, and as he has done it so well, I have reproduced it for you, and thank him for saying it so well:

~ ITEM: APOLOGETICS 101: How to defend Christian exclusivism from the challenge of religious pluralism

There are hundreds of paths up the mountain,
all leading in the same direction,
so it doesn’t matter which path you take.
The only one wasting time is the one
who runs around and around the mountain,
telling everyone that his or her path is wrong.

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Hindu teacher

~ ITEM: God is an Elephant? Examining the Blind Men and the Elephant philosophic argument in philosophy of religion

~ ITEM: Elephant in the room – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~ A VERY OLD STRAND of anti-Christian apologetic goes thus: there are many paths up the mountain to god, the gods, or the divine– how can you say yours is the best, or the only way? Surely that is very arrogant. Another version of this is the old elephant in the living-room analogy, where each blind man feels something different, and assumes it’s a snake, a wall, a tree-trunk, whatever. Gotcha.

Since it’s coming onto Advent and the Christmas, it’s worth revisiting these objections to Christian claims.

First, the pagan mistakes the order of revelation, and the nature of religion, in assuming the assertion of Jesus Christ that he was God’s only begotten Son, Indeed, the human soul aspires for the divine (or substitutes thereof), and many world religions can be seen as fulfilment of human aspiration. The Christian says, rather, that God has let down a ladder to the mountain-top, by revealing himself to humanity in his Son, that all who believe in him might be saved. It’s a earth-ward motion from God, not another human motion towards heaven (the many paths). For the problem is not mountain-tops, but getting up to heaven: and for that you need love, and a living wind from heaven.

God has revealed himself: so the Christian cannot be arrogant in refusing to pass on the word about the Word made flesh, who dwelt amongst us. It’s not arrogance, but humility to share what God has done, however frail or proud some Christians are or have been in doing so. Indeed, Christianity understands itself as the proper and true fulfilment of every religion, and all human hope, fear, need, and aspiration– and philosophy.

“…according to Plato the truly just man must be misunderstood and persecuted in this world; indeed, Plato goes so far as to write: ‘They will say that our just man will be scourged, racked, fettered, will have his eyes burned out, and at last, after all manner of suffering will be crucified.’ This passage, written four hundred years before Christ, is always bound to move a Christian deeply.”

~ (Ratzinger, 353) ~

As for the elephant, well– it’s an elephant. Even if the describe it wrongly, it’s still an elephant and not some other object or animal. Indeed, unless the blind men were raised in some far country where they’d never met or learnt of such, they’d figure it out.. or ask a local, preferable one with eyesight. Or notice it breathing and farting and getting impatient with being prodded. Never met a blind [person that clueless before, and no-- some of my best friends aren't blind people, sorry.

Whoa there, Nelly-- again, the untested assertion behind the blind men and elephant analogy is that we are all spiritually blind, and can only go by our best guesses, because-- you guessed it-- all religions ar fundamentally equal and all say the same thing and we should be nice and recycle and all that.. except, they don't. Just ask Major Hasan, or the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, or the Dalai Lama, or Pope Benedict XVI, or even sub-sects within each religion.

To claim we are all blind is in fact to beg the question, and arrogantly presume to have answered the question beforehand... it's a fancy version of "So, are you still beating your wife?" It's a sly cheat, however 'holy' the source. It's to say "The only true religion is that which says there's no true religion." Thus, it's also a contradiction, as in: It's absolutely true that there are no absolute truths. Busted!

The question of Christianity is a who, not a what, nor a philosophical puzzle: love him or hate him or in between him, Jesus of Nazareth is the central personage of the last 2000 years of human history, and still confronts those who encounter him with the same question he asked St. Peter: "Who do you say that I am?" And if-- as Christians claim-- that unlike any other religious leader ever, he is eternally and divinely alive despite death and the grave, he actually asks each soul sooner or later, and will not let us go unless we finally and ultimately insist.

That's the big deal behind the wrappings, the converted paganism, the holly jolly music and feasting and all that-- God born as a baby, that we might become gods through him, and partake of his divine nature.

So ring the bells of Christmas, bring the figgy pudding, and joyfully sound the carols, for joy to the world, the Lord has come. Ask any convert, any suffering Christian in Hindu or Moslem or Communist lands, anyone who is spiritually alive and more than a sleepy cultural Christian, and they will tell you... as I just tried to do, in my own poor and inadequate way. Because he lives, I live also-- and that has made all the difference. ~

Binks

"If You Look for the Bad In People

You're sure to Find it.

So look for the good in them instead." The title, subtitle and this last sentence are a direct quote from that great paragon of Christian missionary thought, Polyanna, who was actually quoting one A. Lincoln at the time. Polyanna said these words to the reverend, played by Karl Malden. The reverend character was a fire breathing preacher, who under Polyanna's tutelage saw the light.

There are days that I am ashamed to be a blogger. Today is one of those days. But, sometimes shame can be useful. I hope that today is one of those days.

The other day, I innocently posted a copy of a letter from Bishop Henry that Fr. Tim Moyle of Where the Rubber Hits The Road had reprinted on his blog. What happened after was sickening to me. Catholic Dialogue picked up on it, and then went on a rant about an issue about fatal euthanasia at St. Joseph's Hospital in London, Ontario. John Pacheco at Socon or Bust picked up on it later that day, and the crucifixion began. Socon and CD were able to quote articles in LifeSiteNews to support their position, and as ardent and diligent pro-life workers went to town. They rehashed all the information that was available to them about the matter. There was one problem, however.

Actually, they acted just like the Karl Malden character in Polyanna, before his sort of conversion at the hands of Polyanna, after her quote above.

By way of conjecture and with a distinct inability to dig up the real facts they, and in particular Socon have as of yesterday slammed St. Peter's Seminary, St. Joseph's Hospital, Fr. Michael Prieur, Bishop elect McGrattan, Bishop Henry, and Save a Family Plan, a Catholic charity that has its offices at the seminary in London. However, until now, they have forgotten to attack Bishop Tom Collins, who was active with Save a Family Plan, when he was at the seminary as well. Heck, even Fr.Tim Moyle did volunteer work there while at the seminary, as many of his fellow seminarians did.

Part of the problem is that when LifeSiteNews did its pieces on the St. Joseph "scandal", they did not get access to Bishop Fabbro, because he refused to speak to them. As his communications officer told them, he would only speak to real news agencies. I see his wisdom, which brings me to my own shame in this thing.

I have lived in London, Ontario for almost 50 of my fast approaching 60 years on this planet. I was born at St. Joseph's Hospital in 1950, and we still have reason to use their services for my health issues and those of my wife. I have also known Fr. Prieur, as well as the former Bishop of London, John Michael Sherlock, and many of the other fine priests, some now bishops, who made St. Peter's Seminary their home over the years. On numerous occasions, I met or consulted with then fathers, but now Bishop Henry, Bishop Tom Collins, Bishop elect McGrattan, and many other fine members of the ministerial priesthood, who were there at times when I did my work with both the diocesan offices and Save a Family Plan.

So, when Socon or CD take aim with a long gun at one or more of them, they are firing upon My Church, not so much in the broad sense, but in the local sense. These are people I care about. My shame in this whole thing is that in my own blogging, I fear I have done the same. In fact, I am pretty sure I have done the same. So, the pain that I feel when someone takes shots at people I value in my faith life is similar to the pain that my own words have inflicted on others. God, be merciful to me a sinner.

Up until yesterday, there was one issue on the table, and that was what they were calling fetal euthanasia at St. Joseph's Hospital. I wanted to know more, and so I did something unusual for bloggers. I picked up the phone and called someone who knew, and would speak to me. I called Fr. Michael Prieur. We chatted for a minute about the last time we met, a few weeks earlier at my local parish, and then I asked him about this issue. We spoke for about half an hour about the topic.

London, being a small town, I found that I not only knew these players, but also a mother who was quoted in one of the LifeSiteNews articles. I have known her family since she was a young child. She did subsequently meet with the Bishop to discuss what she was alleged by LifeSiteNews to have said. That meeting adds clarity to why the Bishop refuses to speak to LifeSiteNews. The Bishop was seeking to understand the issues, while working with Father Prieur to clarify and ensure that their methods were consistent with Church teaching. It has been a consultative process that has taken much of this year.

The fundamental conclusion of the consulting is somewhat as follows. Although bloggers have made much about the American Bishops stand on such matters, the procedure that is being finalised is modeled after the similar one from the Diocese of Anchorage, Alaska. This policy will be going to Rome for review shortly. It, in fact, is similar in all aspects to what has been done for the last 20 years.

As Fr. Prieur told me, he serves with fidelity to and at the behest of his Bishop, who serves Rome. At no time, has he or have they been, to the best of their knowledge, operating outside the will of the Magisterium of the Church. That has been clarified further in this process, and after the policy is reviewed in Rome, in theory everyone goes away happy.

As to the new issue that Socon has decided to attack on, Save a Family Plan, I am sad to see such a fine organisation called on the carpet, by a blogger. I have known Save a Family Plan for about 25 years, having been involved with their information systems, and been a personal friend of the founder Monsignor Augustine Kandathil, who Socon might want to slam next, though he is deceased. After him, Socon should take a run at the next head of SAFP Bishop Sebastian Adayanthrath.

Here is the lesson for me, and I hope that I learn it and apply it. It is easy to slam others for their faith or lack of it, based on my limited understanding of it. It is far more work to build up the Body of Christ than to tear it down.

I fully expect to be attacked for writing this, maybe if I'm lucky, attackers will only call me a Polyanna. So, here it is.

A Nation Founded on Principles

What Were The First Americans Thinking?

A friend indirectly guided me to this, and I hope to explore it further. Listed below are 28 Principles of Liberty for government in the US, based on the history and focus of the Founding Fathers of that once, and potentially yet again, great nation.

As Canadians, there is much we can learn from this, since most of the 28 Principles below are pertinent to our once, and potentially yet again, great nation. At the moment, I leave them with you without comment.


The Founders'
Unchanging Principles of Liberty
NOTE: The following is from the July 2004 newsletter of the National Center for Constitutional Studies, www.nccs.net, an excellent website that I highly commend for your review.

---

As we celebrate the Declaration of Independence in July and the Constitution in September, let us once again reflect on the marvelous principles underlying these two documents. The following is a review of these principles together with a comment or a quote by the Founders. The Five Thousand Year Leap devotes 1 chapter to each of these 28 principles.

Principle 1 - The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.

Natural law is God's law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are "the laws of nature and of nature's God."

Principle 2 - A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

Principle 3 - The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who ... will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man." - Samuel Adams

Principle 4 - Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." – George Washington

Principle 5 - All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible .

The American Founding Fathers considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying all self-evident truth. They felt a person who boasted he or she was an atheist had just simply failed to apply his or her divine capacity for reason and observation.

Principle 6 - All mankind were created equal.

The Founders knew that in these three ways, all mankind are theoretically treated as:

1. Equal before God.
2. Equal before the law.
3. Equal in their rights.

Principle 7 - The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.

The Founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government any power except that which they have the lawful right to exercise themselves.

Principle 8 - Mankind are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights.

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." – William Blackstone

Principle 9 - To protect human rights, God has revealed a code of divine law.

"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found by comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity." – William Blackstone

Principle 10 - The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.

"The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legislative authority." - Alexander Hamilton

Principle 11 - The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ... but when a long train of abuses and usurpations ... evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." - Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence

Principle 12 - The United States of America shall be a republic.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands...."

Principle 13 – A Constitution should protect the people from the frailties of their rulers.

"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.... [But lacking these] you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." – James Madison

Principle 14 - Life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure .

John Locke reasoned that God gave the earth and everything in it to the whole human family as a gift. Therefore the land, the sea, the acorns in the forest, the deer feeding in the meadow belong to everyone "in common." However, the moment someone takes the trouble to change something from its original state of nature, that person has added his ingenuity or labor to make that change. Herein lies the secret to the origin of "property rights."

Principle 15 - The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.

Prosperity depends upon a climate of wholesome stimulation with four basic freedoms in operation:

1. The Freedom to try.
2. The Freedom to buy.
3. The Freedom to sell.
4. The Freedom to fail.

Principle 16 - The government should be separated into three branches .

"I call you to witness that I was the first member of the Congress who ventured to come out in public, as I did in January 1776, in my Thoughts on Government ... in favor of a government with three branches and an independent judiciary. This pamphlet, you know, was very unpopular. No man appeared in public to support it but yourself." - John Adams

Principle 17 - A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power by the different branches of government.

"It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it." - James Madison

Principle 18 - The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written Constitution.

The structure of the American system is set forth in the Constitution of the United States and the only weaknesses which have appeared are those which were allowed to creep in despite the Constitution.

Principle 19 - Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment is the most widely violated provision of the bill of rights. If it had been respected and enforced America would be an amazingly different country than it is today. This amendment provides:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Principle 20 - Efficiency and dispatch require that the government operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.

"Every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded [bound] by it." – John Locke

Principle 21 - Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.

"The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent [to perform best]. - Thomas Jefferson

Principle 22 - A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.

"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence of others, which cannot be where there is no law." – John Locke

Principle 23 - A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.

"They made an early provision by law that every town consisting of so many families should be always furnished with a grammar school. They made it a crime for such a town to be destitute of a grammar schoolmaster for a few months, and subjected it to a heavy penalty. So that the education of all ranks of people was made the care and expense of the public, in a manner that I believe has been unknown to any other people, ancient or modern. The consequences of these establishments we see and feel every day [written in 1765]. A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare ... as a comet or an earthquake.” John Adams

Principle 24 - A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." – George Washington

Principle 25 - "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."- Thomas Jefferson, given in his first inaugural address.

Principle 26 - The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity.

"There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated.” Alexis de Tocqueville

Principle 27 - The burden of debt is as destructive to human freedom as subjugation by conquest.

"We are bound to defray expenses [of the war] within our own time, and are unauthorized to burden posterity with them.... We shall all consider ourselves morally bound to pay them ourselves and consequently within the life [expectancy] of the majority." – Thomas Jefferson

Principle 28 - The United States has a manifest destiny to eventually become a glorious example of God's law under a restored Constitution that will inspire the entire human race.

The Founders sensed from the very beginning that they were on a divine mission. Their great disappointment was that it didn't all come to pass in their day, but they knew that someday it would. John Adams wrote:

"I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."

I once again commend these to you. Freedom-loving citizens, young and older, find that memorizing these principles proves to be a valuable asset in their defense of our liberty.

Sincerely,

Earl Taylor, Jr.
National Center for Constitutional Studies
www.nccs.net

Contraception

The Catholic Church Has An Interesting Stand With Good Reason

If wags and pundits from the late 60's are to be believed, then Catholic birth regulation, since Catholics should not be practicing birth control, was limited to being like the CNR (that's VIA Rail for you young folks), and pulling out on time. That was the limit of most people's knowledge of Catholic teaching on the Regulation of Birth. Humorous, maybe, accurate not so much. Besides that was back in the day when trains running on time was to be expected.

On the 25th of July 1968, then Pope Paul VI delivered his famous, at least among Catholics, encyclical letter entitled Humanae Vitae, and subtitled On the Regulation of Birth. It was a monumental document, and it is available here.

What makes the Catholic Church so hard to fathom is that from its teachings, it swims upstream. But so many of its adherents (and I use that term loosely), go with the flow. Many years ago, while in Newfoundland, my wife and I witnessed salmon fighting against a raging waterfall to get upstream to spawn, because they had to. Humanae Vitae is like the salmon. The Pope wrote it because he had to. But most Catholics that I know, and myself for many of the early years of Humanae Vitae are/were just in a boat going along for the ride, and that boat was heading downstream.

First off, some people know that the Pope may speak ex cathedra, that is "from the chair of Peter", at which time he is believed by the faithful to be speaking infallibly. This has only been done once since 1870, and Humanae Vitae was not it. So, Humanae Vitae was a teaching document but carried with it great authority within the Church for its followers as explained here. Turns out that did not carry a lot of weight with most of us back then, and now, look at ads on TV for birth control and see if it has any weight now.

When the document was written, the Pope was ridiculed for it, by most people who were aware of it, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The world was in the throes of a contraception, free love revolution, and contraception was the panacea that would solve poverty, pollution, war, crime and marital difficulties. Artificial means of birth control were living proof, well not living per se, that medical science had licked the "fertility problem."

In that none of those difficulties have been solved in the 41 years since Humanae Vitae, there is some evidence to support that maybe there was truth in the document.

The Pope was calling for the faithful to eschew the use of artificial means of birth regulation. In his document, he made 4 predictions or prophesies about what would happen if birth control became habitual among mankind.

He first predicted a rise in marital infidelity and moral decline. Bingo on that one. Anyone want to disagree?

Second, he predicted lost respect for women. Our culture does not respect the gifts that women have as women, but values them more as sexual objects. Watch any TV last night?

Next, he predicted abuse of power. The power over reproduction is a heady power. With it you can rule nations. China has abused reproductive power significantly, and the abuses of family planning in third world countries, in the name of helping them are legendary.

Finally, he predicted that mankind would think he had unlimited dominion over his own body. We see sterilization, wide use of body disfigurement, test tube babies, and stem cell research requiring the fertilization of eggs, essentially killing pre-born infants, among other things.

One other thing that gets missed with many of the birth control pills is that they are abortifacient. Because they allow an egg to be fertilized, but prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the womb. In other words, if there is sex causing conception, the pill causes an abortion in very short order.

Here is what Janet Smith from the University of Dallas said about his predictions.

But, Humanae Vitae was not all doom and gloom. In fact, Pope Paul had high hopes for the Body of Christ, and in Section 21 he spoke of the value of self discipline, and as Janet Smith says:

In Humanae Vitae Pope Paul made some positive predictions as well. He acknowledged that spouses might have difficulty in acquiring the self-discipline necessary to practice the methods of family planning that require periodic abstinence. But he taught that self-discipline was possible, especially with the help of sacramental grace. In Section 21, he remarked:

....the discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace; and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love, and deepens their sense of responsibility.

What Pope Paul was preaching was for the faithful to use the gift of their sexuality to enrich their relationships, to build a family, and to grow in their faith, not just to tickle their genitals.

However, the Pope does not have the marketing department that the drug companies have, and so artificial means of birth control have flourished in the last 41 years, and society is no better off for it.

Artificial birth control does not require a lot of communication. "You on the pill?" "You got a condom?" Of course, liberated women carry condoms with them, and maybe liberated men have a morning after pill in their wallet too, I guess. "Let's do the horizontal mambo. What was your name again?"

I remember one morning before I was married, a buddy that I lived with who was a hound dog, called me at home to ask me the name of the girl he had gone home with the previous night. He didn't want to keep calling her "Hey, You" anymore. Back to the earlier prophesy about lost respect for women.

The Church teaches Natural Family Planning, and Wikipedia has a small article on it here. A well known method of NFP is the Billings Method, and here is some information about it. I know that is works, having practiced it with my wife for several years, to not get pregnant, and then to get pregnant. It worked both ways.

Natural Family Planning requires that a husband and wife communicate with each other regularly about their sexual desires, needs and the realities of their lives. Birth Control not so much.

Natural Family Planning is not something you do in a one night stand. Oh, one other thing. You don't need a prescription, and you don't have to pay anybody for it.

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."

Love Described

A Perspective on Love

I met a Jewish Psychologist in London, Ontario today, Doctor Peter Cobrin. That he is Jewish, or a Psychologist specifically is neither here nor there, though both have had an influence on the wisdom that he carries with him on his daily walk.

He told me in our discussion that he has been writing a book on Love, which I hope he publishes, because I would like to read it from what he said to me about it.

He spoke of love in terms of a delicate balance between power and vulnerability, akin to gravity, which does not so much pull the earth to the sun, but holds it in place where it has found its appropriate home. So, loving oneself, is about balancing one's own power and one' own vulnerability, while loving others is about balancing one's own power and vulnerability with that of another. I pondered that in relation to the ebb and flow of my own relationship with my wife and thought that it was a relevant metaphor, and that it could be built upon to better understand loving relationships.

One, of course does not write a book about one's life's work without going deeper than a paragraph, and in fact Dr. Cobrin synthesized it into two sentences for me at the time. Our time was short and we had other matters to discuss, so I did not get the opportunity to delve deeper with him into the mystery of love as he understood it. I am sure that it would have been an interesting discussion. I cannot even guarantee that what I wrote above is correct.

But, here is what is interesting to me most of all. Human beings are designed to love one another. Dr. Cobrin has discovered an aspect of that loving that is interesting to understand. Love is about free choices. Using Dr. Cobrin's balance of power and vulnerability, how I choose to use them both is up to me, using free will.

The government cannot regulate that, no matter how hard they try to so do. In fact, the government with its meddling ways gives us new forms of power that we can exert if we choose. For example, if my feelings are hurt, and I qualify as part of a special interest group, I can choose to file a human rights complaint against the alleged source of my hurt feelings. That's exerting power. On the other hand, I can allow myself to feel my hurt, and be vulnerable to it, and do nothing, or even stretch myself, and share my vulnerability, if I feel safe enough, with what I think is the source of my hurt feelings. Both of these alternatives of course deny that I am the source of my own feelings, and I have chosen to have them, which was not in fact a requirement in the circumstance.

It seems to me that filing a human rights complaint might more often be an act of powerful violence to oneself and to the Respondent, than an act of vulnerability to oneself. In all likelihood, at least in the cases that I have read, it is not a case of self love.

I think to the Jim Corcoran Form 1 for example. If he had looked through his hurt feelings, and thought of what he was about to do next in response to his hurt feelings, as an ultimate act of love, how would he have balanced power and vulnerability?

I wonder what his response would have been.

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

Barbara Hall or Howard Levitt - Who Ya Gonna Believe?

My Money is On Howard Levitt

Some of you might recall a blog entry from Pete Vere over at Northern Tequila in June, called Lynching the Context. Just in case you don't, here it is linked again for your review. He spoke about how Jennifer Lynch and Pearl Eliadis, in the particular instance he referenced, failed to deal with things in context, and so missed the real point, of life, really, but of HRCs in particular.

Well, I think I figured out why the Jennifer Lynch's. Barbara Hall's and the like are undoubtedly going to miss the context of things. They have no foundation for it. Follow along with me here, and I will see if I can make my point.

The other day, July 29, Howard Levitt wrote about Employee's rights, and a policy that the Ontario HRC had put forward as gospel. Barbara Hall rebutted him, and he then rebutted her, but I am getting ahead of myself, but really just trying to set the stage.

When they both speak up about an employee's rights who is likely to be believable, and who is right? And as a sidebar, who is likely to be able to deal with it in proper context?

You all know who Barbara Hall is. She is in charge of our Ontario HRC, having been given this sinecure, more sin, but quite secure, for pandering to the Liberal party for the last few years. She does have her own wikipedia page here, where you can read about her less than glorious past, because I really don't find it interesting enough to write about. Frankly, she has never done anything in the real world, and that is why I believe that she is so out of touch with context.

But who is Howard Levitt? Howard Levitt is counsel to Lang Michener, one of the pre-eminent law firms in this country, and it says this among other things about him on their site as to his qualifications: "Howard Levitt is possibly Canada's best known and most quoted authority on employment law. He is the author of Canada's leading dismissal text book, The Law of Dismissal in Canada and the recently published The Law of Dismissal for Human Resources Professionals. He is also Editor-In-Chief of the national law report, The Dismissal and Employment Law Digest, which covers every dismissal and employment law case across Canada. The text and accompanying law report is cited in more decisions across Canada than is any other text . It is used by practitioners, law schools and judges across Canada." Mr. Levitt has the context of years of expertise in the field, as well as years of the business of being a for fee consultative lawyer, where you essentially eat what you kill.

To put it mildly, when it comes to labour law, this man is top drawer, among the sharpest knives there is. He is an expert. Barbara Hall and the Ontario HRC are not expert in this area, but want you to believe they are. In fact, they carry a big stick that they use to prove that they are, even when they aren't, and therein lies the problem. She has no context for pushing forward an agenda of imaginings and rules for labour law in the province of Ontario, yet she feels comfortable to so do.

There are people who know what they know, and better people who also know what they do not know. But the really dangerous people are those who do not know what they do not know, because they can pretend to know everything.

The Barbara Hall missionaries for imaginary rights have invented the concept of Family Status
as a codified right. However, as Mr. Levitt, almost certainly notes, it doesn't happen to agree with the law, but that doesn't usually stop Barbara Hall, anyway.

Here is the fake Family Status policy:

The Ontario Human Rights Code protects specific familial relationships from discrimination through the grounds of marital and family status. The Code defines “family status” as “being in a parent and child relationship.” This can also mean a parent and child “type” of relationship, embracing a range of circumstances without blood or adoptive ties but with similar relationships of care, responsibility and commitment. Examples include parents caring for children (also by adoption, fostering and step parenting), adults caring for aging parents or relatives with disabilities, and families headed by lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered persons.

And here is the part of the policy as it relates to employment situations:

Persons in a parent-child type relationship have a right to equal treatment in the workplace. Employers cannot discriminate in hiring, promotion, training, benefits, workplace conditions or termination because a person is caring for a family member.

Employment decisions should not be influenced by stereotypes about caregivers. Those who provide family care, or are perceived to, may wrongly be considered less competent, committed or ambitious than others – often due to gender stereotypes – and may be passed over for promotions, learning opportunities and recognition.

Where workplace structures, policies, procedures or culture exclude or disadvantage persons with caregiving responsibilities, employers have a duty to consider adjustments to reflect such needs. This may involve, for example:

• providing flexible scheduling
• permitting employees to take leaves of absence to care for family members who are aging, ill or have a disability or
• allowing alternative work arrangements.

Creating a flexible and inclusive workplace benefits all employees, and advantages employers in hiring, retaining and getting the best possible performance from employees.

But Mr. Levitt took her to task for this policy in the National Post a few days back here. The Headline said "Human rights policy not the same as law", and the skewer was in from there. Mr. Levitt explains that this so-called policy of the Ontario HRC is not law, but a misrepresentation of the law, for purposes of political and business gain. Strong words, but par for the course for the folks at the Ontario HRC. Business as usual, as it were.

Essentially, the policy proves once again that the Ontario HRC is out of touch with the reality of business in Ontario, and the people of Ontario. As Mr. Levitt states:

But the Commission's policy is not the law. Employment law requires employees to perform their workplace functions notwithstanding their parental or other personal obligations. Employees are required to organize their childcare responsibilities to permit them to reliably attend work and competently perform their job functions. It provides no dispensation for the verisimilitudes of normal parental responsibilities.

I wonder how Ms. Hall and her employees missed that part of the law when they drafted their policy, or if they even cared.

Mr. Levitt cites examples where it is appropriate for an employer to attempt to accommodate an employee, and areas where it is not necessary. However, he also recommends dealing with accommodation informally, stating accurately that it is not the employer's job to solve the employee's individual day care issues. He also provides advice for when escalation occurs for problems that do not resolve easily to minimize disruption and conflict, all very logically, with no Form 1 complaint required.

Of course, that kind of resolving of conflict would not be good for Barb's burgeoning business, and so she shot back with a sort of rebuttal on July 31, entitled "HRC policies and the law" here.

She starts by saying: "Howard Levitt is mostly correct." Then a bunch of blah, blah, blah. But her conclusion is both telling and chilling. Here it is:

To suggest, however, as Mr. Levitt does, that our policies don't "actually reflect the law," is plain wrong. OHRC policies are firmly based on the protections of the code, other relevant legislation and current case law. They are updated as the state of the law changes. Commission policies are applied and their validity tested on an ongoing basis, at the Human Rights Tribunal and in the courts. Writing and publicizing such policies is part of our job, under the Human Rights Code.

Well, if what Mr. Levitt said was mostly correct, then the first statement could hardly come to the conclusion that the policies not actually reflecting the law is plain wrong, unless the mostly correct part was in his grammar only. But, the scary part is that the "policies are applied and their validity tested on an ongoing basis, at the Human Rights Tribunal". The HRT and the HRC that investigates them in the first place is all part of the HRC sausage making machine, and is not a real court system, using real rules of evidence to come to real decisions.

But, Mr. Levitt hardly needs my help to hoist Madame Hall on her own petard. In fact yesterday, he was really on his game and did a twofer, skewering the current mayor David Miller for his mishandling of the Toronto strike recently, and then put one through the uprights on the former mayor, now Ontario HRC queen, Ms. Hall. The Toronto strike issue is tragedy, and I would really rather comment on comedy, so I will leave it to others and concentrate on the disembowelment of Frau Hall.

Ms. Hall implied that she had done due diligence in coming to her policy and that it was up to date with current law, blah, blah, blah. Not so, says Mr. Levitt. Decidedly not so. For example, he checked to see if she had had any contact with the experts in the field, all acquaintances of his, and all within a stone's throw of Ms. Hall's offices in Toronto. Nary a peep, they all said. So, seems she consulted the mirror on the wall, or as Mr. Levitt suggested "the broad range from the uninformed to the politically motivated." Ooh, that truth's gotta hurt.

In taking her to task further, Mr. Levitt concluded with the following paragraphs:

Responding to her point, the commission's policy states that employers can be forced to change "inflexible, excessive or unpredictable work hours," citing a 1993 (hardly current) Human Rights Tribunal decision, Brown v. MNR.

Notably, the policy does not go on to tell readers that this very tribunal decision was rejected by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 2004 (more current), which stated that "in the vast majority of situations in which there is a conflict between a work requirement and a family obligation" there is no discrimination.

The commission's policy is misleading and, more dangerously, its half-truths are certain to chill any Ontario business owner or manager who reads it. I suggest that employers largely ignore such internal policies and adhere instead to the actual rulings of applicable tribunals and courts. I appreciate that obtaining legal opinions costs more than reading free government reports, but following the politically motivated publications of left-wing bodies will cost your business far more yet.

It is interesting to me to see how knowledgeable people are now speaking up about the abuses of power going on at the HRCs of this country. It is, of course, about time and desperately needed. These people, like Mr. Levitt can put things into proper perspective, or context, as it were.

It needs to be noted that the HRCs and HRTs are not real courts, and that evidence rules do not apply, so that when their decisions are appealed to higher courts, the higher courts have to look at the case as though it were a brand new case, because it's pretty hard to tell how or why they decided what they did. In other words, their decisions are not like real decisions. They are for sh?t. It is time for a change.

Keep Barb Hall out of the Catholic Church

Jim Corcoran - The Way of Life is Paved with Good Intentions

I wrote and published this blog entry on Friday based on what I knew at the time, and discovered this morning, that there was a very important side to this story without which this Blog entry is inaccurate and maligns Jim Corcoran, though I find I had actually guessed it somewhat correctly on what I had read prevously. I have revised it and republished it on Monday with more accuracy, but my primary point still stands.

Jim Corcoran has a spat with the Diocese of Peterborough here. The crux of it is that Jim claims that he is a homosexual man, and lives a celibate life with another homosexual man. He had been invited to serve on the altar of his local Catholic Church by the pastor. Apparently a dozen of the local parishioners complained to the Bishop about it. The Bishop in his wisdom (as a successor to the Apostles, as per church teaching to which Mr. Corcoran claims to adhere) refused Mr. Corcoran permission to continue to serve on the altar, to avoid public scandal. But, and here was the part that was missing, the issue with Jim Corcoran's sexuality was tiny in the scale of disruptive behaviour on behalf of the dozen or so parishioners, and Jim Corcoran was on the side of the angels, as you can read from his own blog here.

Let me first of all say that I have a great deal of respect for a person, in this case Jim Corcoran and his partner, who understanding their own personal sexuality, choose to live that sexuality in a way that is also honouring to the Church. As any people in our day and age today will tell you, living celibately in our sexually charged world is extremely difficult.

Mr. Corcoran then sought legal advice to combat, not primarily his dismissal from the altar, but also the other shenanigans that were going on in his parish, in no small part because of his devotion to his Church and his pastor. His lawyer advised him of various courses of action, one of them being to file a complaint with the Ontario HRC.

Unbeknownst to him, and probably still unclear to him from his own well intentioned comments on his blog, when he complained to Barbara Hall, he set the wheels in motion that effectively made her the new Head of the Catholic Church in Canada, Popessa Barbara I, and asked her to use her self anointed power over the faithful to suck monetary damages out of the Bishop in the amount of $25,000 and $20,000 from each of the 12 parishioners who so offended the poor man, when that was not his intention at all. Now that the wheels are in motion, his intention no longer matters. Watch and see. The ball is out of your court now, Jim.

I quote directly from Mr. Corcoran's blog: "The Human Rights Commission is a by product of democracy in Ontario. It is an organization that, through mediation, makes best efforts to bring the parties together for discussion and resolution. In this case, I think there is a role for the Human Rights Commission to play in helping to resolve the issues that have been brought out into a public forum by this group of people, especially as they have affected my rights as a human being."

Reading your blog entry, Mr. Corcoran, I have no doubt about your personal bona fides, and your faith, but sir, if you believe what I just reprinted in the above sentences you are sadly deluded. The Human Rights Commission is a by product of democracy in Ontario, like the atom bomb was a by product of democracy in the USA, with similar but slower destructive powers. Read this or this or this or this if you are not convinced. These people's lives are being destroyed by the mediation (what a joke) process. It is a kangaroo court, and you have now opened the cage.

So, Mr. Corcoran, you claim to live a celibate lifestyle according to Church teaching. But, some of the rest of Church teaching is apparently not quite so important to you.

Barbara Hall might allow you to get what you wish, Mr. Corcoran, and she might get you some blood money to donate back to charity, but will it make you happy? Will you like the Catholic Church that she leaves you with? I cringe to think that the Church that I love will be changed by this in a seriously negative way.

Maybe you remember St. Paul. He was imprisoned for doing nothing more than preaching the Gospel, and what did he say in his trials, which were a little tougher than being refused to serve on the altar, and even than the trials of your Pastor. He said: "Consider all these trials Joy."

The Bishop acted wisely in asking you to honour his request, so as to avoid scandal in the Church, not because of you so much, as because of the weakness of the 12 who criticized you. Remember, it is their church too. If they have sinned against you, their sin will find them out in due season.

Jesus gave us two commandments, Love God, and Love your neighbour as you love yourself. St. Paul said Love never takes offense.

If I were in your shoes, Mr. Corcoran, I would stop this thing with the HRC right now while you can, and fast and pray as hard and long as I could for resolution to this matter. I would also enlist the aid of all parishioners of good will in your parish to seek an end to this distressing behaviour on the part of the self appointed judges and jury that are running amok in your parish.

In my blog entry recently, Pray for Your Persecuters, I quoted Kenneth Copeland a well known preacher in the US who says: "The success of any Christian endeavour is a prayer success. The failure of any Christian endeavour is a prayer failure."

As of now, you have chosen to take this matter out of God's hands and put it in Barbara Hall's hands. Are you daft, man?

Context not Content

Why the HRCs get it Wrong so Often

I don't think that the people that work in our HRCs are bad people. I don't think they get it either. I have read too many bad or near bad decisions, or decisions that I thought could have been good to think that they get it. Bottom line is I think they are all too human, and focused on the wrong things.

I think I wrote in another Post that I believe that they are too interested in being right to seek the truth, which I now realise is a bit esoteric, though it sounded good to me. But last night I had an epiphany moment, not because of my own intelligence, but because of Pete Vere's. I was reading Kathy Shaidle's 5 feet of fury, and she referenced Northern Tequila, where Pete, her co-author on Tyranny of Nice drops pearls of wisdom from time to time, and there it was, and here it is. Please read it.

CONTEXT. You really must read what Pete wrote. It ... well puts things into context Cudos to the Canadian HRCs own Commisar in Chief Jennifer Lynch who gets credit for bringing it into the light with the Pearl Eliadis "hate mongerers", Mark Steyn "pedophile" out of context comments in her report to parliament the other day.

Let me put a couple of cases I have looked at into context.

Stephen Boissoin

A pastor, father of young children, who spent time on the streets as a young person himself, and dragged himself up by his bootstraps, due to finding an abiding faith in Jesus Christ. He ministers to and gives all of his personal financial resources to street kids, including without exception gay kids, including a home for them.

As a member of the local Red Deer pastor's association, he sees a high school teacher inviting an openly gay minister to speak about the homosexual lifestyle as an alternative with no balanced presentation of the heterosexual lifestyle. As a parent and also as a pastor himself, he believes the unbalanced nature of this to be wrong, leaving impressionable children with only one side of the story.

He writes a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate telling parents to wake up, and that he is not going to take this lying down. By the way, he wrote a letter to the editor. He did not publish anything. The newspaper chose to publish the letter, which forms part of his defence to the Court of Appeal this September. I hope to write more on his appeal later on as I understand it better, becasue there are several meaningful points where the Alberta HRC broke with the law of the land in their decision.

One more bit of context. EGALE a rights group for gays and lesbians would have nothing to do with slamming Stephen's rights to free speech here because they believed if he did not have the right to speak his mind, then it would only be a matter of time before they lost their right to speak theirs.

That's context for you. The Alberta HRC was not interested in context.

My Principal Friend in Ontario

A mother, a wife, a special education teacher who later became a primary principal in the Catholic school system made a good background for this woman of faith and high moral character, but did not prepare her for the battle she had to wage with one dark skinned parent over claims of racial discrimination and her own health.

The mother of the child made life at the school a living hell for the teacher of the child, with daily unnanounced interruptions to the classroom, until the principal stepped in. After salvos from the parent in language one would hope not to hear from a parent in a Catholic school setting, the Superintendent, with ears burning, required the principal to get an order of trespass to keep the mother off school property. This did not keep her from burning up the phone and fax lines. Contextually, we would say that this woman is overbearing, and controlling, if we were kind. If not, we would say she was nuts.

So, the woman's son stole money off the principal's desk when she was out of her office on one occasion, to which he alone confessed in writing, even though there was another white boy in the room at the time. The principal spoke to both children, accepted their stories and punished the black child with one day of detention in her office with work to be supplied by the home room teacher.

The mother wanted the school also to have a nebulizer for asthma in the school for the boy, to which request the principal provided her with the appropriate forms for signature by a medical practitioner. This would allow the school to meet their standards for administrative and insurance purposes. The mother never complied with this request.

Finally, to top it off, the mother claimed that the principal was allowing the son to be bullied. In context, the boy was part of a group of 4 boys, the white boy from the principal's office, 2 filipino boys, and himself, who as the principal says all gave as good as they got, and tested each other's boundaries from time to time. 10 year old testosterone. My comment - Big Deal.

The mother called the failure to allow the nebulizer on site, failure to punish the white child who had not stolen the money from the principal's desk, and the school yard non bullying all examples of racial discrimination, and the Ontario HRC took on her case. She is going to win this, and the reality of it is she will win because the Ontario HRC does not understand CONTEXT. That and the fact that they do not understand the school system, and the professionalism of those in positions of authority, and are meddling where they have no expertise.

But that's context for you. The Ontario HRC was not interested in context.

Ezra Levant and Western Standard

The Muslim cartoons were a news item. Ezra Levant chose to publish them in the midst of a news story to say this is what the kafuffle is all about, folks. Some Imam got his knickers in a twist, and filed a complaint with the Alberta HRC.

Of course, as anyone reading this blog would know unless you are too busy with your own "Shakedown" to lift your head up, Ezra did not take this lying down. He even wrote a book about it, though the title escapes me at the moment.

With Ezra and the HRCs, it has gotten personal. He has his own personal litigation team at the Canadian HRC, I understand, slobbering over themselves to get at him. But, even if he were alone, he would have them out numbered. He is one determined guy, and my money is on him in the end. Support him. Buy his book. Put your money on him too. Read his blog.

In this particular case (or should I say now ream of cases) context has been lost, but the exception proves the rule as well.

I could go on, but it would get to be more of the same, and too much of a muchness, I fear.

I am reminded of an old saying I heard in years gone by that seems applicable to our HRCs as they now operate. "If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, then the whole world is a nail."

There is good in the intention of our HRCs, for which I laud them. There is a weakness in execution that is putting Human Rights for us all at risk, and making the claim of Jennifer Lynch that Human Rights is a matrix, a false claim. It has become a floating hierarchy in its operation, though context might help bring it back to being a matrix, methinks.