Hiding from Our Convictions

I am a Canadian, and I am proud of my Canadian heritage.  However, I have spent much time in my life in America.  My children are American citizens, Canadian as well, and are direct lineal descendants of one of the passengers on the Mayflower.  As a child, I was raised on Canadian and American history, and of course, the American history was more exciting, as was the American fiction, or at least it was presented as being more exciting.

A number of years ago, my wife and I had the opportunity to become snowbirds, northerners who head to the south of the US (or elsewhere warm) for the winter.  Though we have had occasion to travel to Florida, Texas, and California, we have settled in Southern Arizona and have a "candominium" in an over 55 RV resort there.  A candomium is a humorous epithet for a park model trailer, and these abound in most over 55 RV resorts throughout North America.

Living here for a significant part of each year, I have had the chance to study the people, their attitudes and history, as well as their founding documents, and their understanding of them.  Reading the documents upon which this nation (America) was founded is an inspiration, from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution and its Amendments.

Accordingly, watching how the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch of the government have largely destroyed the intent of the founding fathers particularly in the last 50 years though is particularly disturbing.  Needless to say, seeing how our Canadian politicians abuse our rights and freedoms is also extremely tortuous.

In both of our once great nations of North America, we have moved from standing on the bedrock of our faith in Jesus Christ to sliding around on the sands of political correctness, where what we once knew to be sin has been glorified, tolerated and in fact, encouraged.

For fear of offending others, we have put down the biblical principles of our faith in Jesus Christ, and taken up this mantle of tolerance for our own sins and the sins of others.  Where the Bible tells us to lovingly reprove our brothers and sisters in grave sin, not by judging them, but by confronting them for their own salvation, we instead, have stood idly by, while pornography, abortion, contraception, adultery, and homosexuality have run rampant in our society.

I say this not to judge, since I had a lengthy period of grave sexual sin in my life, and am easily tempted by the rampant, and continually growing list of books, television shows, movies, both mainstream and pornographic, web sites, and other media, to sexual sin.  I know that the proliferation of things alluding to or directly supporting sexual sin in our society create for me the "near occasion of sin", and believe that it is not me alone that faces these temptations.

If we tell someone who is living with her boyfriend, or his girlfriend in a sexual relationship, or is living a homosexual lifestyle, that they are in a state of grave sin, then we are considered haters and intolerant.  The same is true if we confront a man or woman, who is having an extramarital affair.

During the period of my life, when I was in grave sexual sin, not one of my Christian friends confronted me.  All were tolerant and "understanding" of my personal sadness at the time over the general situation of my life, and ignored what else was going on, even though it was pretty obvious.  For my part, I was in a period of emotional turmoil, but I was medicating my emotional distress with sexual license.  A couple of people did talk about me behind my back, and as word of what they said about me filtered its way to me, it was so distorted as to qualify as gossip, and not be corrective nor instructive.

In America, people trumpet the First Amendment to the Constitution as a license to say what they want, and by extension, do what they want, except when they hoist up the Second Amendment, so they can carry a gun, in case someone doing what they want appears, or might appear, physically harmful to them.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That Amendment has been used by pornographers to justify selling smut everywhere, or displaying it on the internet for all to see.  And we, the people, including those of us who are not citizens, have stood silently by.  By the way, in Canada it is the same.

But, interestingly, and more importantly, religious people, who have strong convictions against funding contraception, which is really a form of abortion in many cases, and directly against funding abortion, are having to fight against the government of the day and the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, requiring virtually all employers to provide these facilities in their health care plans.

Corporations like Hobby Lobby are in a fight for their lives literally.  The owners, and principals of dissenting and litigating businesses and institutions are fighting to have the right to have conscience objections to providing these things in their health care plans, while wanting to provide real health care to their employees and members.

So, the government that the people of America have selected to govern their affairs is forcing an ideology of sexual freedom (the apparent right of anyone to have sexual relations with anyone they choose at any time, regardless of sex, religion or race) upon the people of America, with nary a whimper from most, and from rampant bloviating by those who claim that Hobby Lobby and their ilk are mere troglodytes from a dark, evil age that has passed out of fashion.

In Canada, the provision of contraception entered into health care plans, including those of private school boards, and religious institutions, also with nary a whimper, and our Catholic bishops stood by, even fanning the flames of this travesty by issuing the Winnipeg Statement in 1968, after Pope Paul VI had released the seminal, and tragically prophetic encyclical letter Humanae Vitae. In the Winnipeg Statement, our Canadian Catholic bishops basically stated that Humanae Vitae was too harsh, but not in so many words, and told Catholic Canadians to follow their consciences, without providing them with the proper guidance to help them do so, in accord with Catholic teaching.

And, in Canada, we have no laws whatsoever governing abortion.  Nothing.  Nada.  Zero.  Not only that, but our national health care system pays for them, as just one more necessary health care procedure.

In Canada, we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and like the First Amendment to the US Constitution, section two of that charter grants certain rights as follows:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

What is shocking and most frustrating is how the freedom of religion has been scourged in both countries by courts and pseudo courts such as human rights commissions, who, in the interests of political correctness have eroded these rights and supplanted them with artificial rights of individuals to not feel judged, or hurt, or discriminated against.

So, in both our countries, where certain Christians in keeping to their principles, have either refused to perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple, or to photograph such an event, or  to provide flowers or a cake for such a ceremony, they have been taken to task by the preservers of political correctness.  Apparently, if you have a Bed and Breakfast in your home, you cannot exclude a homosexual couple from renting your room either.

What is also shocking is that there seems to be no practical instances of heterosexual couples who are not married being denied accommodation.  It may be easier to draw the conclusions that two people of the same sex are a couple, and therefor assumed to be homosexual, whether that is in fact true or not.  However, since lots of married couples have different last names, and many marrieds do not wear wedding bands, knowing that a couple entering your hotel or B&B are in fact not married would require asking a question of them to confirm their marriage status, and that seems, well, out of the question.

To use discrimination in its non pejorative meaning as merely to differentiate between two things, why would a resort, hotel or other place of accommodation not refuse a room to all couples that are unmarried, in the biblical sense of that word?

Christians have found it all too easy to not really stand on all the principles of our faith. 

Last evening, I watched a movie where a man was forced to figure out if what he believed in was important enough to take a stand on.  The principle of the movie was based on the loss of Christmas in our society, which is rapidly being replaced with "winter holiday", but the issues he faced, including the difficulties of taking a stand are similar.  What was most clear to me was that the right of Christians to express their faith in public has been being eroded for a long time, and we have generally stood by and watched it happen.

I have linked the video below if you wish to see it.  I believe that it is worth your time.

So, I have a closing question, and my question is this.  Have we lost the courage of our convictions, or have we lost our convictions? 
 

Revisiting the HRC's from a Commentor

Thank you Brian for your thoughts

I recently received comments to an older post, but really to a series of posts that I made about the Human Rights Commissions her in Canada, both provincially and federally.  We agree on many things, and don't on a few.  Brian agrees that the system currently is producing less than optimal results, but belives that something is needed to properly deal with the real racism that does go on in our Canadian society.

I think we all would agree that prejudice is not a good reason for acting, and should be remedied.  But, "how" is the question.  My answer is to try and build up the small faith of people to help them become better people, who would find racism and purely discriminatory behaviour to be unacceptable.

But, we all discriminate in making the day to day choices that we make, and there has to be some balance between what really is bad behaviour, and the day to day choices that individuals make for their own families, friends, and their own enlightened self interest.

Thank you for your reply. I can appreciate that you have moved past this issue so will no belabour the point. To be honest when I first replied I did not even think to check the date it was written. For this I apologize.


As for being from the HRC, I am not. I can appreciate your scepticism as I did read one of your posts about how someone from the Justice Department was looking into your site for several hours. That is unfortunate that you cannot put forth your views without being viewed as an enemy of the state. And I honestly do believe that there are many from the HRC who would love to have your head.

I think you do have a very good understanding of the HRC, from everything I have read. Definitely a more thorough understanding than I can claim. I do think that you may possibly be slightly jaded by your personal experiences with the failings (really an outright abuse) perpetrated by the HRC.

I cannot fault you or anyone for that. You have every right to look into their decisions and handling of cases with a critical eye. It is good that the HRC is held in check to some degree....even if it is only by oversight from the citizens and not kept in check by the government itself.

The case of your principal friend really is shocking and ridiculous! The treated of the Reverend from Alberta, regardless of my strong personal opposition to his views, was an outright affront to free speech. Plain and simple. I do not want to live in a country where we cannot state our opinions. You really are not exaggerating by saying that your principal friend was a victim of the HRC. In that case, it appears that they were the only ones victimized. Which is shameful!

I could not imagine how terrible it was for your friend to have gone through such a travesty of justice. To be publicly chastised for being discriminatory against minorities is a stain against your friends character that even the truth cannot wash away.

I must also agree with your comment regarding being guilty of being white. As a white male I too see reverse discrimination in everything from hiring practices to being more susceptible to bogus claims of discrimination. Your right. If I was to fire a minority because they were horrible at their job it is far too easy for me to be painted as a racist rather than admitting the truth that the person was just horrible at their job. That is a fact and is a form of discrimination itself.

I think that perhaps we just may differ in how we approach or examine the issue of Human Rights. I feel that you are trying to bring to light the many miscarriages of justice that occur as a result of the HRC from an unchecked power and initiated by many unscrupulous people out for a quick buck at the expense of everyone else.


And this is to be commended. I do appreciate hearing about these cases. If not for your writings one might be inclined to view the HRC as sunshine and lollipops without realizing that it is not always this clear cut and in fact the HRC itself discriminates and victimizes people.

But because of my personal experiences I tend to examine the issue from the perspective of those who truly have been victims of real discrimination. I know it exists and am happy that there is some venue to hold those responsibly accountable. But I cannot say with any certainty that the HRC is definitely the right approach to deal with such issues. It certainly has major short comings which your posts brings to light.

Finally, your call for commonsense to prevail is a good one. Your principal friend was the victim of people acting without commonsense. You frequently say, something to the affect that, once the HRC has a target and tastes blood in the water they are ravenous sharks with tunnel vision set solely on destroying their target. This is unfortunate, unfair and unacceptable.

So we can agree that the HRC has major problems and that unethical people abuse the system and victimizes
innocent people in the process. However, I am still glad that there is an avenue to hold those individuals accountable who do actually discriminate and to protect those who really are victims of discrimination. Which I have personally seen. But perhaps the problems with the HRC are so deep rooted and intertwined within the culture of the HRC as to be beyond repair.

But whether or not it is the HRC or a new organization is developed to protect the Rights of ALL Canadians, I hope we can agree that there is a need to ensure that everyone’s Human Rights are respected EQUALLY, not placing one groups over that of another.

So in conclusion, thank you for your posts on this topic. They have brought many issues to light and helped me examine my own views on the HRC and Human Rights. While I don’t always agree. They are always interesting, well written and informative.
So a sincere Thank You.

There is Evolution

Going Back to Basics

A recent reader of many of my older posts asked me some serious questions these last few days.  However, as I said to him that ship has sailed, and I am no longer in a position to properly address his concerns, thought they are valid.  But, here is the best that I can do

When I started this blog back in May 2009, I did so because I was aware of two particular cases before the Ontario Human Rights Commission, involving a personal friend of mine, where justice was not being served.  In fact, justice was being mocked in the interests of multi-culturalism, and some kind of hierarchical set of human rights that were being made up on the spot.  I started to research cases that I came across, when I found comments somewhere, or read something in the main stream media.  Where many commentators made their statements based on what others had written or on an overview, I chose to explore cases in detail, as there was, in fact, plenty of detail available.

I met Ezra Levant and Cathy Shaidle, two of the noisy prophets who rail against the establishment of the commissions and tribunals, who had the courage to speak out for the real victims of our Canadian attempt to melt us all into some kind of sick homogeneous blob.

I uncovered perfidious attack on common sense after PA on CS.  Nothing seemed sacred when some wounded loon took his hurt feelings to one of the provincial human rights commissions/tribunals or to the Canadian HRC.  In Ontario, the Ontario HRC successfully got the transit systems in every city in the province to implement call outs at all stops, on all routes, because one blind man had filed a complaint.  This cost the taxpayers of the cities humdreds of thousands of dollars for no real gain in service quality.  Because I have been dealing with a brain injury for the last several years, and am susceptible to extraneous noises, I contemplated filing my own human rights claim, but figured that I could cope, imagining the chaos I could have created.  Maybe I still should, hmmm!!

I did become aware that there was, as I noted above a hierarchy of rights that, though not officially documented, was pretty obvious as decisions were reported, and case victories for the little guy were marketed in the media.  It, of course, did not matter that many of the little guys who were victorious had never been "injured" in the first place, other than their foolish pride.

I particularly followed the case of the former Reverend Stephen Boissoin of Red Deer, Alberta.  It was perfidy at its finest, and in fact, is still not finally settled, if you can believe it.  For a letter to the Editor of the weekly rag in Red Deer in 2002, about the gay friendly school curriculum and teaching practices in the local schools, with the exclusion of the traditional Christian viewpoint, he has been punished by "trial" after "trial", and waiting for decisions, while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting to clear his own good name.  I wrote tirelessly about his appeals and original case, spoke with him on the phone, and met him in person.  I noted that when I met him he did not have horns on his head, and had a deep love for all youth, gay or straight, and desired only to help them learn about his best friend, Jesus, and how to survive in this world.  His own personal story would curl your hair.  Since I don't have that much, it just crimped mine.

In my postings my Catholic Christian faith started to surface.  And one particular day, during an exchange with Stephen Boissoin, he told me to make my faith a bigger part of my blog, and let it be my ministry to others.

That started me on a path to where I am now, on the way to God knows where.  I discovered as I prayed about what I was to write, and sought to do God's will, that there were signs for me to move in different directions.  I was losing my objectivity as I dug deeper, and I was becoming an edgy person.  The key sign was that My Dear Wife was none too pleased with what I was doing.

I came to the realisation that the negativity of the HRCs was like a vortex to me, and was slowly sucking me in to itself.  But, how is one to see evil and not be shy to attempt to stop it?

Well, I have chosen to deal with the evil of the HRCs and the evil that I see around us, since it has the same source, through prayer, and through trying to write about things that elevate, not drag down.  The human rights commissions are about punishment and victimization.  The punishment is real, the victimization may be fictitious.

I am in love with the triune God, represented by the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

There is no doubt in my mind that people act inhumanely towards each other.  Frankly, the origin of the HRCs might have been about justice at one time.

We, as people discriminate.  Most of our discrimination is not malicious nor harmful except occasionally to the feelings of a person or group of persons.  We discriminate when we select a spouse from among the many people available.  We discriminate when we select a course of studies over other available options.  Coaches discriminate against athletes who they think will not contribute to the success of their teams, and employers discrminate against people that they feel do not warrant the salary that they are being paid for the corporate rewards that that salary should derive.

This is not to diminish malicious discrimination that occurs to certain ethnic groups, and others as well, but we have laws on the books to deal with these things, and human rights commissions staffed with left wing brain dead spewers of the company line on today's codes of discrimination are not doing a very good job of looking after my human rights, I can tell you.

But, Jesus does look after me.  He does not do the things that will make every day I spend here on earth a picnic.  No, he watches over me, and the better in tune with Him I am, the better able I am to, with His guidance, weather the storms that come my way.

The answer to the inequities of human rights as they are presented in our country, is Jesus.  Whatever the question is, Jesus is the answer.  He, unlike our HRCs does not change from day to day.  Tomorrow, He will be what He was yesterday, and what He is today.  And what He is, is boundless love, not what we call love, where every day is Christmas.  No His boundless love includes the pain and suffering of Good Friday, but also the Resurrected Glory of Easter, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit of Pentecost.

He is the only answer I know that properly addresses man's inhumanity to man.

So, thank you Brian for your questions and for taking me back to my roots.

Finally Some Sanity in Alberta Human Rights

CBC Reports What Lindsay Blackett Minister in Charge has to Say

Stephen Boission has learned that the process is the punishment for 9 years now.  He lost an absurd case at the Alberta Human Rights Commission.  He won at the Alberta Court of Queens Bench.

Now, the Minister in charge of the Alberta HRC speaks out about this insanity.  The gay rights people do not want this to go forward, and refused to support Darren Lund when he asked them to.  They believe, rightly, that a curtailment of Stephen Boissoin's right to speak critically against their lifestyle, will come to haunt them another day.  So, they support free speech, an interesting concept.  Yet, Darren Lund soldiers on like a modern day Don Quixote.  Only Stephen is taking the brunt of the hit, because Lund is standing on a principle, even though he is alone (except for the Alberta HRC) in seeing a principle.

Here is what CBC Calgary said today:

The minister responsible for the Alberta Human Rights Commission says a complaint about an anti-gay letter to a Red Deer newspaper should never have gone before the commission.

"It's not there to mediate hurt feelings caused by some words or not," said Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett.

"If it's hateful, then that's a hate crime. And that's something for the Crown attorneys and the police services to investigate.

"But the goal of the commission is to make sure people are protected against discrimination where they work, or access to accommodation, access to government services."

'It's not there to mediate hurt feelings caused by some words'
—Lindsay Blackett, culture minister

In 2008, the commission ruled that a letter to the Red Deer Advocate in 2002, which compared gay people to pedophiles and drug dealers, broke a provincial law.

The Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act says no one can publish a statement that is likely "to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt" for reasons including sexual orientation.

The commission found that the letter, written by former pastor Stephen Boissoin, may have played a role in the beating of a gay teenager two weeks after it was published.

The commission ordered Boissoin to refrain from making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and to pay the complainant, former Red Deer high school teacher Darren Lund, $5,000 in damages.

But in December 2009 the Court of Queen's Bench overturned the commission's decision, ruling the letter was not a hate crime and is protected by Canada's freedom of speech laws.

Lund is now appealing that ruling. And he says Blackett's suggestion the case should never have gone to the commission is appalling.

"I really think that the point of this is standing on a principle," Lund said. "And that is, there should be some reasonable limits on hate speech in Alberta."

Lund also said the commission works too slowly, often taking years to make decisions, as it did in his case.
Blackett said the province is making improvements, with the addition of more staff and resources for training.

True North strong not free

Mark Steyn Is No Wimp

H/t Flaming Kitty. (Blazing Cat Fur)

That's why he chooses to live in the US, the land of the free and home of the brave, instead of the true north refrained oops, I mean "restrained and civil".  He wrote the following lead in and conclusion as part of the usual Steyn discourse, laced with humour that tickles your funny bone, if you have one, and makes you think, if you are able. 

He lauded the Fiery Feline for his investigative journalism in his latest.  He opened this latest article  which you might enjoy for Macleans as follows:

Well, Ann Coulter is no longer in Canada, but 30 million Canadians are. So, for the sake of argument, let us take as read the frankly rather boring observation of the northern punditocracy that the whole brouhaha worked to her advantage, and consider instead whether the Canada on display during her 96-hour layover actually works to Canadians’ advantage. Which was the claim advanced by the eminent Canadian “feminist” Susan Cole appearing on U.S. TV to support the protesters’ shutdown of Miss Coulter’s Ottawa speech:
“We don’t have a First Amendment, we don’t have a religion of free speech,” she explained patiently. “Students sign off on all kinds of agreements as to how they’ll behave on campus, in order to respect diversity, equity, all of the values that Canadians really care about. Those are the things that drive our political culture. Not freedoms, not rugged individualism, not free speech. It’s different, and for us, it works.”

He proceeded through a lengthy discourse as is his wont, and our pleasure, and concluded with the following witty bons mots:

That seems an appropriately logical reductio for multiculturalism: the subhuman zionazis and the Riot Against Israeli Apartheid executive committee united by their opposition to Ann Coulter. Celebrate diversity! Thus, the new Canada: intolerance is “tolerance”; mob rule is “restraint”; “kike­roaches” is “civility”; law enforcement is optional; jokes are actionable; up is down; black is white; “conflict studies” majors are rioting; Steve Paikin interviewing the Ontario finance minister on public television makes Jerry Springer interviewing transsexuals who date their ex-wives’ dads look like Jack Paar hosting Kitty Carlisle Hart; and sticks and stones may break your bones, but Rocks like Allan will issue a soothing press release. What an Olympic opening ceremony it would make.

Irreverence is probably against the law here in Canada, or appears to be so, since the HRCs decide unilaterally and daily on what is in their purview.  But, I am all for Mark Steyn spouting off whenever he chooses.  It's not like you are forced to read it.

Boissoin Victory in the Light of Day

Stephen Boissoin Is Still Not THE LETTER

As the general silence over Stephen's victory continues to deafen us, the particular commentators who have looked up from their long early winter naps to pick up on it, speak volumes. To put it simply, it appears to me once again, that those, particularly MSM types, and all those with an agenda, which makes all the rest of us, who comment on the Boissoin case do so by defining Stephen as THE LETTER.

Even Justice Wilson felt the need to let fly a negative multi-adjective barrage about THE LETTER in his mostly favourable judgment. It makes me wonder if had Premier Stelmach written the letter, a highly unlikely thing since it must be admitted that it was politically incorrect, if maybe the learned judge might have opined against the constitutionality of the hallowed Section 3 of the Alberta HRCM Act, with appropriate case law references.

I actually wrote a piece back on September 17, at the end of the Appeal Court sitting date for the case, entitled Stephen Boissoin is Not THE LETTER. Since I do not want to rehash it, I urge you to read what I wrote earlier, as nothing has changed really. There is an element here of Richard Thomas forever cast as John Boy, or Ron Howard forever cast as Opie Taylor. The good news is that they are fictional characters and the Good News is bigger than that.

So, Stephen will continue to outlive and outshine THE LETTER, and will use it and the experiences from it all to do what he wants in his heart to do most, which is minister to young people. The real depth of the man is what the youth see, not just THE LETTER, and there is real depth there. Someday we will read his life story, and it will curl your hair, to see how low he fell, and why, and to see how high he has climbed back by the Grace of a loving God.

But there were other things that have struck me over the last 2 days since the announcement of victory arrived in my email from Stephen.

I am reminded that in Mark 9:40 it says:

"whoever is not against us is for us."

So, when I read that a gay online news organisation, Xtra.ca supported the Boissoin judgment, I draw some encouragement, even though other Christians are not so quick to agree. I confess that being on the site and seeing the ads that were there was disturbing to me, and "my" understanding of what might be a "homosexual agenda" challenges me.

But, then I think of another important scripture Ephesians 6:12 which says in the midst of a discussion of spiritual armour:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

So, here is my 2 cents worth and I might be overvaluing what I am about to say.

In talking about those who support the free speech rights of 3 men who spoke about homosexuality from a Christian oriented perspective, Stephen Boissoin and Father Alphonse de Valk, who was investigated by the Canadian HRC, as well as Calgary Bishop Fred Henry, who was under the thumb of the same Alberta HRC that took 7 years of Stephen's life away, those who agree with us that they, and therefor we, have a right to express opinions based on our faith are not our enemies in this instance.

Further as Ephesians 6:12 says, they themselves are not our enemies anyway, and that causes me to want to back away from any vitriol that seeks to surface, and cause deeper wounds, at a time for healing.

When I look at my own sinfulness and think of the opening verses of the 7th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, I am chastened as it says:

¹"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ²For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Much of what I see happening that I think is non productive is judgment of individuals, rather than of sin, and forgetting our own sinfulness in that judgment.

We are called to love one another, and in my discussions with Stephen Boissoin, and communications with him, as well as when he has been quoted correctly, I see evidence of his love for all, and a special love for homosexual individuals. As he says, THE LETTER has brought with it a notoriety that has put him in position to witness to his faith and the love that emanates from that faith for all of God's children. It was not his original plan, nor all his choice, once THE LETTER was published.

But, too many writers have taken his words in THE LETTER out of the context in which he meant them. For Pete's sakes, it was just a letter to the editor, which garnered some responses, both favourable and unfavourable, and would have died as he carried on with his work with at risk youth, having made a point. He might have gotten some support rolling for change in education, which was the issue.

Instead it became a focus of examination for all and sundry, and took on a life of its own, as Dr. Darren Lund pushed his own agenda, and as the Alberta HRC pushed theirs. As Hamlet says: "Ay, there's the rub."

It is helpful to us all to remember that as THE LETTER does not define Stephen Boissoin, calling someone a homosexual, or a Christian or a father or whatever does not define them either. They are in essence inaccurate descriptors that give a very incomplete picture of the individual.

Take for example Homosexual. There are some homosexual individuals who are basically sexual sluts. News flash people. That is no worse than many so called Heterosexuals who swap spouses at sex clubs, cheat on spouses with other people's spouses, or lust after other people but do nothing physical about it. It's just that a heterosexual slut can present himself or herself as righteous by attending the right church or political function on the arm of a spouse and all is well, NOT.

Take our recent ex-hero Tiger Woods, for example. When the manure converges with the fan blades it is not a pretty sight. But, this didn't just happen this week. It is a long standing thing, and he looked pretty good to us all the whole way. But, he had a secret that when it came out has destroyed some of his crafted image. It, of course is sad, and he like every other sinner on the planet, especially the one you see in the mirror every morning, needs our prayerful entreaty on his behalf for healing of the sin in his life.

So, before you judge Stephen Boissoin as THE LETTER, or a man or woman who you believe is a HOMOSEXUAL by that simple moniker, I urge you to remember that he and they are our brothers and sisters, loved by Almighty God every bit as much as you or I, and in that alone worthy of our love, prayers and encouragement, not our condemnation.

If you knew Stephen as I have had a chance to come to, and if you knew some particular homosexual individuals that I know even better, you would see in each case someone who is very kind and considerate of others, who has a heart of service to their fellow man, who seek out truth in their daily lives. In each case, you would see a much loved Child of God, who carries still some woundedness and pain that leads them each to their own sinful areas, just like you and me, and blocks them and us all from seeing the fullness of God's love for each and every one of us.

Will you be an instrument of God's love for all of us, or do you have this deep seated need to judge others for what you believe to be the sin in their lives? If you are still stuck on the latter, I offer you John 8:7 as my final word:

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Freedom

Socon - Set Me Free

This is an excellent posting by John Pacheco at Socon or Bust. It requires no further comment:

The great and noble effort by Canadians during the past couple of years to remove the shackles of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions cannot end in a simple legal fiction which treats freedom as an end itself. Freedom – true freedom – is not an end but a means. It is a valid instrument exercised by a free people for the pursuit of the truth. But, as with all instruments, it can be abused to such an extent that its abuse can become the precursor towards enslavement in almost every area of human existence – spiritual, psychological, moral, and material.

The great danger of modern times is to either suppress freedom for some purported good, or to treat its exercise in an absolute way as if it has no legitimate moral boundaries. In the end, both philosophies end up in the grips of tyranny. The human rights thug wishes to impose an arbitrary system of “human rights” which tyrannizes the population by the very system he operates within, while the “free speech absolutist” tears down the boundaries of authentic freedom by eskewing the moral virtues of justice and decency. He may even have little regard for the truth. In the end, both systems end up in the tyrannical gutter. The latter system simply takes a little longer to ripen.

For those of us who have fought the thuggery of the HRCs, we must be wary that any mere legal victory will not keep the totalitarians at bay unless we all recognize that freedom without the truth is a cheap, legal fiction. It will not survive unless it is at the service, and not the master, of the truth.

Genuine freedom is found in truth. And truth is only found in God. That’s why Jesus says, “the truth will set you free“. No human government or even human philosophy sets us free. Only God can truly set us free because He is the author of authentic freedom.

True freedom always has a moral component, while the false freedom that the world offers can only bound us to a moral tyranny. It seeks to enslave us, first, in substance and then later “on paper”. Our ultimate goal is to be set free from the corruption within so that this genuine freedom then becomes reflected in the culture at large. It’s inside-out, not outside-in.

Walker Morrow Is A Standup Kid/Guy

So Why is Will Not After Him

Quite some time ago, I decided that I would not name He Who Will Not Be Named In My Blog (Will Not - for short) in my blog. I am not interested in giving him publicity, nor of particularly catching his eye, though I imagine that like all free speech advocates in the press and blogosphere I have at some time or another.

But, I do know Walker Morrow quite well. Like many others in the blogosphere, I have come to know him by his writing and also by his direct communication with me, and his republishing of many of my ramblings.

Walker Morrow is a kid chronologically. He is 17 years old. Chronology aside, he is a good young man, with good values developed from a loving home. Besides that, he is an example of how good our kids can be. It's pretty hard to figure that he is young from reading what he writes. Unlike many, he does not write screed. He thinks first, and backs up what he says with truth, you know hard facts. He has opinions, and you are free to disagree with them, but more often than not, he states facts. He researches what he writes. Wow!!

Walker hit a bump in the road. He wrote an article that was published by the Cowichan Valley Citizen on October 8, 2009. Free Dominion is possibly the only place that you can find it at the moment, though I expect it could go viral. I read it, and can't see why anyone in particular would get their knickers in a twist about it, but Will Not did, and threatened to sue over it.

Anyway, it has been a tug of war with Walker Morrow as the rope, and Walker has come out last evening with these thoughts on the bumpiness here and here thus far.

Scary Fundamentalist, in his latest blog posting describes the approach to Libel Chill that someone can take to silence critics, and then gives examples from someone he calls "B" who sure sounds a lot like Will Not to me. Anyway, here is a link to SF Scary Fundamentalist: Writing the Textbook on Libel Chill

It really is time for this kind of nonsense to stop. Take it viral folks.

It's A Human Right - Doncha Know

The Right to Hang Your Laundry Anywhere You Want To

I have a new windmill for our HRCs to tilt at. Read this piece from Yahoo News.

As the article starts:

Carin Froehlich pegs her laundry to three clotheslines strung between trees outside her 18th-century farmhouse, knowing that her actions annoy local officials who have asked her to stop.

Froehlich is among the growing number of people across America fighting for the right to dry their laundry outside against a rising tide of housing associations who oppose the practice despite its energy-saving green appeal.

You go girl.

Froehlich says she hangs her underwear inside. The effervescent 54-year-old is one of a growing number of Americans demanding the right to dry laundry on clotheslines despite local rules and a culture that frowns on it.

Their interests are represented by Project Laundry List, a group that argues people can save money and reduce carbon emissions by not using their electric or gas dryers, according to the group's executive director, Alexander Lee.

Widespread adoption of clotheslines could significantly reduce U.S. energy consumption, argued Lee, who said dryer use accounts for about 6 percent of U.S. residential electricity use.

I am not sure what effervescent has to do with it, since I think that has to do with the amount of CO2 she has in her system, which could cause green house gases. Good news though about the underwear. Inside is good.

But the right to Hang - laundry that is, not to be confused with other hanging:

For Froehlich, the "right to hang" is the embodiment of the American tradition of freedom.

"If my husband has a right to have guns in the house, I have a right to hang laundry," said Froehlich, who is writing a book on the subject.

Besides, it saves money. Line-drying laundry for a family of five saves $83 a month in electric bills, she said.

Kevin Firth, who owns a two-bedroom condominium in a Dublin, Pennsylvania housing association, said he was fined $100 by the association for putting up a clothesline in a common area.

"It made me angry and upset," said Firth, a 27-year-old carpenter. "I like having the laundry drying in the sun. It's something I have always done since I was a little kid."

Well, her husband has the right to bear arms. That's an American right. Here in Ontario, we have the right to bear breasts. Gotta love this place.

She also has a right to write a book about hanging laundry outside. Seems to me if its an Idiots Guide to hanging laundry, it ought to be pretty short. If it is about the philosophy of hanging laundry outside, it could be a best seller, for a short story.

Wonks Need Apply

Then They Need to Be Shot Down Figuratively

Letters to the Editor of The Daily Observer, paper of the Ottawa Valley.

It seems Mr. Sampson objects to the existence of a cross in the Pembroke Marina, poor boy. There is a limit to how smart you can be, but there is no limit to how dumb you can be. Here is his letter:

In today's society, religion is a more private issue than it has ever been. Due to western multiculturalism, governments keep private beliefs away from the public sphere so as not to foster any 'in' group, 'out' group mentality. Having progressed as a society, it is surprising that a public boardwalk at the Pembroke Marina prominently displays a Christian cross. The most recognized symbol of the world's second largest religion is on display in an area that should be free of such symbols.

When talking to public officials about this glaring middle-finger aimed at multiculturalism, I was told it is my interpretation of the symbol that is at fault. "It is just two pieces of wood nailed together," I was told. The same would be true of a giant swastika, but in that case no one would be hypocritical enough to quibble about "interpretation."

I am not comparing the Christian religion to Nazism, but how am I supposed to interpret the symbol?

I think it is inconsiderate for a mainstream religion to be posting its symbols along public boardwalks. The marina boardwalk is a beautiful scenic area, so why should only one group get to see its symbol while everyone else's is neglected? This is a public area - is Pembroke that far behind the times?

Eric Sampson

Pembroke, ON

Who was the wonk that called it just two pieces of wood nailed together. Call it what it is. Be honest about it, for Pete's sake. Fortunately, Gilles Lacaille spoke up:

Editor:

Re:Writer disagrees with the use of a Christian symbol at the boardwalk.

Eric Sampson believes Pembroke is behind the times and believes that the cross wags an impudent finger at multiculturalism. This is typical relativistic tripe, the same mentality which insists "Merry Christmas" be replaced with "Season's Greetings" to avoid offending anyone's religious feelings.

This is part of the same battle being fought against the Canadian Human Rights Commission's Section 13, which squashes and eliminates the very symbols of the founding morals of our society and calls it a preservation of free speech.

This is not about one ideology getting preferential treatment over another, or about neglecting others. This is about recognizing the existing cultural inheritance of the founding members of the Ottawa Valley. The method in which Mr. Sampson whines about the cross is endemic of the Human Rights Commission supporters and their culture of entitlement.

Nobody cares if Mr. Sampson is offended at the "inconsiderate" display of a religious symbol, nobody except for those who believe the citizens of Canada have a right not to be offended.

And if the latter truly comes into law, we'll lose our freedom, which in Canada came from attitudes cultured by people who grew up under the shadow of that very symbol, and for which many have died for and are remembered every November 11.

Will Mr. Sampson also take offence to the overt display of religion during the laying of wreaths and the prayer during Remembrance Day ceremonies?

Gilles Lacaille,

Pembroke, ON

The best way to deal with the lunacy that has galloped into our society is to speak against it. Thank you and Bravo, Mr. Lacaille.

Young Muslim Writer Defends Crucifixes in Italy

A Voice Cries Out In The Wilderness

Most Muslims in the world are peace loving, and gentle humans, like most Christians, most Jews, and most others on this earth. This delightful young woman has more faith than most of us on this planet. God/Allah, bless her abundantly. She is a voice in the wilderness.

Catholic News Agency has an article about Randa Ghazy, who at 22 years of age, has more wisdom than anyone in any HRC/HRT in the world. Here is the article that appeared:

A young Muslim writer named Randa Ghazy has written an article entitled, “I, a Muslim, Defend the Crucifix,” in which she expresses her opposition to a ruling by the EU Human Rights Court that ordered all crucifixes be taken down in classrooms across Italy. The article will appear in the December edition of the magazine Mondo e Missione, a publication of the Pontifical Institute Missioni Estere.

“One of the most beautiful memories of my childhood and adolescence was of Father Bruno,” she writes. “I would often go to the oratory with my little brother and the sisters would treat us with great kindness and care.”

Ghazy recalls as well that “Father Bruno made us truly laugh. When it was time for Mass, my brother and I would run off to play ping pong and eat candy. Every day Father Bruno would ask us to stay with the other kids who were there in the church, which we embarrassingly declined to do.”

“One day, Father said to us, ‘Why don’t you come and say your prayers?’ And so we did. During Mass my brother and I slowly recited prayers from the Koran. So the crucifix, all the different kinds that I remember (from grade school to college) was always a symbol of security for me, a projection of the greatness of the heart of Christ, and in some way, of Father Bruno.”

For this reason, Ghazy says, “I support and encourage every possible debate between Muslim and Christian citizens, all discussion about the secularity of the State, but with respect for the great models of humility that each one can find in his past and his experiences.”

“I turn off the television so I don’t see the continuous verbal assaults, I remember Father Bruno and I smile, thinking about those two little Muslims who looked at each other in that beautiful church. I almost feel nostalgia for the 90s,” she writes.

The young Muslim writer was born in 1987 in the Italian region of Lombardy to Egyptian parents. She has written three books, the first when she was only 15, entitled, “Dreaming of Palestine.” The book is about the friendship shared by a group of young people in the occupied territories.

Her second book, “Bloody Trial,” was published in 2005. In 2007 she wrote, “Today I'm Not Going to Kill Anyone: Short Stories of a Young Muslim Who is Not a Terrorist.”

I would really like to read what she has written.

Double Standards - Fort Hood As An Example

Fr. Raymond de Souza Speaks Volumes

I first came upon Fr. de Souza's words of wisdom via Catholic Dialogue and the conclusion that its editor produced here:

It's the paradox of political correctness. A Muslim man kills 13 innocent people in a shooting rampage in Fort Hood (he started shouting "God is great!" in Arabic as he opened fire) and now the media are treating Muslims as victims. That's not a typo. The media seem more worried about potential violence that might be committed against Muslims in retaliation for the shooting, than about the 13 real dead people.

Father de Souza had even more to say about it. His piece at National Post starts as follows:

Add Fort Hood to the list. It's getting longer: New York, Washington, Jerusalem, Bali, Madrid, London, Bombay. It's the list of places where, we are told, it is important to be vigilant about anti-Muslim activity.

The phenomenon is by now well-established. An apparent jihadist visits death and destruction upon innocents, motivated in part by a violent brand of Islamic extremism, and soon the violence becomes an apt occasion to raise awareness about the danger of anti-Muslim thoughts, words and deeds. Violence by Muslims has a unique ability to spur a Canadian prime minister, British royal, or, as was the case this time, the American secretary of homeland security, to sound the alarm about violence against Muslims.

"The tragic shootings at the Fort Hood U.S. Army Base raise the spectres of hostility against Muslims within the United States, and of Islamic hostility toward the U.S.," editorialized Toronto's Globe and Mail. That's a strange symmetry. On one hand there may be a "spectre," but on the other there is the reality of 13 dead victims.

As Fr. de Souza rightly notes, most of the victims of fundamentalist Muslim acts of violence are Muslims themselves, you know the gentle peace loving ones who form the very large majority of all Muslims.

But, Father de Souza is on to the double standard that is applied to Christian crumbs, while we let Muslims off for stealing the whole loaf.

As Father de Souza comments:

On Tuesday, for example, my colleague Colby Cosh argued that we should be wary about putting too much emphasis on religion as the "evidence of the specifically Islamic nature of Hasan's mania emerges." After all, there were no doubt other factors at play. It would be "pretty stupid," he argued, to draw a straight, simple line between jihadist beliefs and the Fort Hood massacre.

But back in June, when George Tiller, America's most enthusiastic practitioner of partial-birth abortion, was murdered, Mr. Cosh took to these pages to argue that the killer was the logical extension of the pro-life movement, and that pro-life activists who denounced the abortionist's murder were no better than Pontius Pilate, washing their hands of something in which they were deeply complicit.

Mr. Cosh generally is more careful and rigorous than most, so that even he can use double standards on this issue indicates how widely they are accepted.

Mr. Cosh is just a symptom of a malaise that is not an epidemic, with no apparent man made antidote. Father highlights some other instances of the double standard, and then concludes:

It's a matter of basic honesty to look at all factors, and a matter of basic justice not to attribute to the whole the actions of the one. But it would be more honest and more just if that standard were applied to all.

Bravo Father.

Smoking As A Disability

I Can't Believe I Wrote that Title

An article that I read a little bit ago about the cause and effect of smoking on campus from The Manitoban got me to digging a bit.

There have been some wonky screeches around, presumably from smokers. At least, I would hope so, but I might have heard Barb Hall's voice in the background. She is always looking for the Big Discrimination, you know the systemic one, so she can hop on Roxinante and go tilt at another windmill. Problem of course is that Dalton Dolittle is standing behind her nudging her on to glory. We need a Premier with stones. Too bad its so hard to topple a monopoly, at least for now.

But, in BC they are way ahead of her, so she's going to have to pick up her game. I kid you not, that over on the left coast there is a case before the BC HRT (Big Crazy High fallutin' Rootin' tootin' Tribunal) of a woman who believes that she was refused a job because she is a smoker, saying that her smoking "disability" was the reason.

The Vancouver Sun picked it up last February here. Roxanne Stevenson has taken the City of Kelowna to Kangaroo Court over her disability and their failure to accommodate her by giving her a job that someone else was qualified for, and got ahead of her. I mean, it's all about her right! Or, I mean it's all about her rights.

Lest you think that I jest or that I have made this stuff up, I assure you fact has once again proven itself weirder than fiction. Enid Marion, the tribunal member who heard the first whiffs of this case has rendered a Preliminary Decision on the Application to Dismiss by the City of Kelowna here, and says "On with the show."

I am less concerned about what they do on the left coast where we on the right side of the mountains have those majestic peaks for protection from their political and legal meanderings on the wild side.

What I am more concerned about is that our globe trotting head of the Canada HRC (Her Royal Censorness), J Ly Lynch might catch wind of this, and make a cause celebre out of it. Or, she might give a nudge to her fellow left wing nut, Barbara Hall with our delightful Ontario HRT (Herd of Rabid Toadies).

I hear that Barb is still miffed that she lost a chance to advance new rights for transgendered females in the Fulton case, when the transgenderee in this case, bailed on her. You can read the case decision on that one here, and my pearls of whatever on it here.

Have you not all had enough of this insanity. Kill Political Correctness, and bring back the Truth. I never read "You shall know how to be politically correct, and political correctness will set you free." No, I'm sure it goes: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

Truth Is Trouble - A Pregnant Pause

Jessica Maciel and Fashion Coiffures Ltd. and Crystal Coiffures Ltd.

I saw an ad for a show called The Foundation TV Show recently, and that is all I know about the show. In the ad one actor says: "Truth is trouble", and it stuck with me.

A young girl applying for her first job after completing a diploma course from Metropolitan College, got hired as a receptionist for 2 beauty salons in Erin Mills Town Centre about August 1, 2008. Miraculously, on August 9, 2008 her first day of work, she turned up for work and was 4 months pregnant. She told her new employer that she was pregnant when she started work, and was summarily dismissed.

She lied by omission, which she was allowed to do by law, as I understand. The employers tale of what happened was not believed by the Ontario HRT. It was unable to hold water, though Ms. Maciel would have been unable to hold her own water a few months into her job.

The HRT says that the salons discriminated against Ms. Maciel on the basis of sex. Clearly she had engaged in sex, resulting in the baby on the way. That was very much in evidence and getting more so.

The salons had presumably bypassed other qualified applicants, since there is really no qualification requirement for a receptionist job at a salon, to hire Ms. Maciel. And by law, you are allowed to dismiss without cause in Ontario, new employees who have not completed a probation period, which is currently legally 3 months, again as I understand.

However, you can't dismiss a protected one like a pregnant one, a disabled one, or a gay one, or a black or yellow skinned one, not a Muslim one, or a Jew, though you can turf a Christian.

Truth is trouble, isn't it? She omits to tell her employer an important detail about her short term availability to work, which means that they will have to train another person to do the work while she is away on maternity leave, while having to protect her job for her return, which is a more difficult task to fill. They then play loose with the truth about why she was let go, because the real truth won't fly in kangaroo court.

The result: $35,000 for one hour's work. I wonder if Jessica Maciel can hold her head up. She can certainly afford to.

We are a society so used to stretching the truth, that the truth has become troublesome.

The case decision is here.

Knights of Columbus In Action

Victory in Pledge of Allegiance Case

Some buffoon had filed a lawsuit first in California, and then in New Hampshire to have the words "under God" removed from the pledge of allegiance, as unconstitutional. Although it appears to be an incredible waste of time and resources to even have this crap come to open court, the cases must be fought diligently to prevent further erosion of our society, and we must put effort to take back what has been lost as this kind of liberal BS has taken over our countries of North America, and others in the world. Here was the K of C press release a while back on a real human rights victory:

(MANCHESTER, NH) - The Knights of Columbus scored an important victory in federal court in New Hampshire on Wednesday, September 30, when U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe upheld the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Atheist Michael Newdow had filed the lawsuit against the school system in Hanover, New Hampshire on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in a case that mirrored his earlier lawsuit against schools in and near Sacramento, California.

As with the California case, the Knights of Columbus sought and received permission from the court to become a "defendant intervenor," allowing attorneys representing the Order (from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty) to participate directly in the court proceedings.

The California case, argued before a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2007, has still not been decided. Read the New Hampshire court decision.

Read the Knights of Columbus Fact Sheet about the Pledge of Allegiance and recent litigation.

Vivat Jesus.

The Voice of Canadian Martyrs

Persecution of Christians - IN CANADA

Lest we think that the faith is not being persecuted, read on. I picked this up earlier in the week, but failed to write about it. This case has gone on for some time, and is sickening to Christians.

Scary Fundamentalist: The Voice of Canadian Martyrs

Fellow free speech and Christian bloggers Scary Fundamentals and Deborah Gyapong both have jumped on this. When I read SF's take, I could not just quote from his piece, so I have quoted it all here:

The Voice of the Martyrs is an international Christian organization in several Western nations that raises awareness of worldwide persecution of Christians and provides relief or legal aid when possible can. They routinely highlight cases in which Christians are killed, tortured, jailed, or otherwise persecuted by their government for their beliefs.

One of the cases of persecution that they have recently identified is in the backwards, third-world despotic hellhole of - wait for it - Canada.

The persecution of Canadian Christians by the government's Human Rights apparatuses is reaching proportions not seen in many non-Christian nations. India's government, for example did not foist such incredulous conditions on Mother Theresa's aid organization as we have seen in Canada with Christian Horizons, which provides care and education to thousands of mentally disabled in Ontario.

This has nothing to do with the fact that CH is partly funded by tax dollars, but rather everything to do with employment contracts. As a Christian organization that sees to the spiritual development of its patients as part of the service, each employee at CH was required to sign an explicitly Christian morality code before being hired. After one employee, Connie Heintz, revealed she was in a lesbian relationship, she claims she faced harassment and pressure for her to resign, which she did in 2000.

Christian Horizons has been through this before. It was taken before the apparatchiks in 1991 for firing two employees who were in common-law relationships.

The OHRC got involved in the Heintz case, and got the Tribunal to slap CH with a generous dallop of Human Rights "remedy"(hereafter referred to as "sentence") which will gut the entire Christian culture of the organization. The same fate is in store for any religious organization that hires anyone. The Ontario Human Rights Code's s.24(1) contains very little protection for religious organizations, government funded or not. Essentially, churches are only allowed to specify a religious requirement for pastors, but as for everyone else they hire, no specifications on faith or morality are allowed. I wouldn't be surprised if Barbara Hall, commissioner of the OHRC, will go one step further and advise Christian ministers to include the promotion of the state's version of "human rights" in their sermons, as they did in Britain.

Part of the sentence is a requirement that all of CH's employees take Human Rights reprogramming training, to abolish the "poisoned" (i.e. Christian) environment in the workplace. The organization was also punitively fined $10,000 for creating that Christian environment. So much for the "remedial" nature of the Code.

It is a sad state of affairs when Canada is now internationally recognized for its persecution of Christians.

It is more than time to stand up for the freedom to proclaim and live our faith as Christians. We must stand together against that which would prevent us from telling the truth. This is one example.

Did Focus On The Family Cave In? or Not?

Editing Radio Shows to Adapt To Hate Crime Laws

Wintery Knight was the first I think, to pick up on The LifesiteNews article on Focus on The Family's approach to Canada's hate crime laws. WK put it in the US context as an example of how they and others will probably have to adapt to the new US thought crimes legislation that is now law.

Here in Canada, The Lynch Mob was first off the mark with some comments, later linked by Blazing Cat Fur, where the sharp young author of the blog picked up on the Chill factor. Reminding us of J Ly's moaning about reverse chill in the summer, which might have explained the cool summer we had in the east if it were true, he showed us the example with Focus on the Family that the chill of the HRCs is being felt across this land, and that explains the cool summer better, methinks.

BCF got a comment from one of his readers "rabbit":

I can see two responses to this item.

The first is that hate-crime laws are having the desired effect and people are behaving more civilly to each other. The second is that only in oppressive states do people fear to speak their minds, and the fact that people feel freer in the U.S. than in Canada is shameful for us.

Progressive versus classic liberalism. Which way to go?

But, a comment from Revnant Dream to The Lynch Mob was also telling:

Christians are to be the salt of the Earth. Not the cowardly mice. Silent & almost invisible.
Time people stopped following Churchianity.
JMO

I do not know the minds of the folks at Focus, but can see a point they might have. IF they are able to get their message across by toning the rhetoric without diluting the message, is that more effective than spending the time that some Christians have spent in kangaroo court these last few years? Can you tone the rhetoric without diluting the message?

Jesse Ferreras also weighed in a bit with an interesting piece. His point is we don't really know what Focus was saying in the original LifeSiteNews piece. Without specifics it is hard to know.

But, my question that I will work on later is do we have the wrong message?

What a Wacky World

UK Grandmother Has Audacity to Speak Out Against Gay Pride Parade

Daily Mail online reported the situation of Mrs. Pauline Howe, a 67 year old pensioner in Norwich, England who was offended by the Gay Rights Parade in her town last summer.

The article started:

After witnessing a gay pride march, committed Christian Pauline Howe wrote to the council to complain that the event had been allowed to go ahead.

But instead of a simple acknowledgement, she received a letter warning her she might be guilty of a hate crime and that the matter had been passed to police.

Two officers later turned up at the frightened grandmother's home and lectured her about her choice of words before telling her she would not be prosecuted.

After Mrs. Howe had been distributing Christian leaflets at the parade, she was verbally bashed by some of the participants. So, she wrote a letter to City Council in no uncertain terms about her views as a Christian. She did not mince words.

The outcome of her letter was as follows:

But Mrs Howe told the Sunday Telegraph her comments were an expression of her beliefs, not homophobia. She received a response from the council's deputy chief executive, Bridget Buttinger, who said it was the local authority's 'duty... to eliminate discrimination of all kinds'.

She went on: 'The content of your letter has been assessed as potentially being hate related because of the views you expressed towards people of a certain sexual orientation.

'Your details and details of the contents of your letter have been recorded as such and passed to the police.'

How do you eliminate discrimination of all kinds? When people disagree about things, they display discrimination towards things they disagree with. You can only eliminate discrimination by a person or group by discriminating against that person or group. How's that work for ya?

One interesting note was this:

And homosexual equality pressure group Stonewall has branded the authorities' response ' disproportionate'.

To paraphrase Satchmo:

I hear lefties cry, I watch them crow
They think they know more than I'll ever know
And I say to myself what a wacky world.

Still searching for scary Nazis....

Blazing Cat Fur

Definitely ablaze on this one. BCF minces no words on the CJC and their take on hate speech. It should be good enough to get the fur flying, or frying.

Blazing Cat Fur: Still searching for scary Nazis....

When EX-CHRC Gas Bags Deflate

Blazing Cat Fur

Max Yalden is out of touch with real society, as one would expect from a former CHRC Chief Commissar, certainly if the current leader of that band is any indication of out of touchness, and also plain old touchiness.

The Star gave him a place to vent his spleen this morning, in a piece that made me bilious. Can't wait to burn his new book.

Quoting from the piece:

Sometimes it is useful to return to a contentious topic long after it has disappeared from the headlines, public passions have subsided and minds are perhaps more open to sober second thought.

One such subject is free speech vs. freedom from hate. A debate on it raged for months, triggered by complaints by a group of Muslims against Maclean's magazine for being allegedly anti-Islamic. But the issue was never fully resolved. Understandable, given that there's no easy answer.

"Clearly both are desirable in any civilized society but they are often seen as being in conflict. Need this necessarily be so? Except as between unrepentant hate-mongers, on the one hand, and over-committed freedom of speech freaks, on the other, I do not see why they should be."

What moron thinks that free speech has disappeared from the headlines. As long as those in favour of a right to take away our right to free speech keep blathering on, those who believe that the Right to Free Speech is a fundamental right and freedom in Canada will not let this rest. It may not be in the press every single day, but it will be there on a regular basis.

So, free speech and freedom from hate are both desirable in a civilized society, eh! Give me a break. Hatred is an emotional response to something that a person does not like. Hating some things is a good thing. Hating others not so much. So, by denying those who hate something or someone the right to speak their piece is going to make it better, NOT! It will go underground for a time, like it did just before Hitler arose to power, largely resulting in his rise to power.

As I looked around, I was not the only one disturbed by this piece, and so rather than rehash this, I will recommend that you follow the link below over to Blazing Cat Fur's comment and links. Make sure that you take the first link to Scaramouche for a dissection of the Star piece.

Blazing Cat Fur: When EX-CHRC Gas Bags Deflate