Some Rights Are More Equal Than Others

No Apologies Writes

Over at No Apologies Neil Dykstra has a good synthesis of the goings on with CHRA Section 13.

He cites the two ways that the Federal Law is being examined, the Appeal of the Lemire decision, and the JUST committee meetings and coming recommendations about it.

It is important also to note once again, that Alberta's similar law in Section 3(1) of their human rights legislation is on trial, and now awaiting a decision in the Stephen Boissoin case that was heard at the Alberta Court of Queens Bench in mid September 2009.

The court heard about the egregiousness of the Decision on its face, but also was put to task on the constitutionality of a law limiting free speech in this country, with the words "likely to expose to hatred or contempt".

(Com)Passion and Power

What Are Society's Motivators?

A friend pointed out to me the other day that I was operating with Passion, but not Compassion in a particular discourse. Truth be told, it is easy to drop the Com from Compassion in day to day life. But really, gentle readers, aren't we all called to walk with Compassion for our fellow man?

For my wife and me this has meant that we do our charity locally more than just sending cheques to organisations. We do support our local Church, and charities that we believe are doing good work, but much of what we do is more hands on now. We can do this in part because we have nothing but time on our hands, but also because we realise that it is the right thing for us to do.

Today, we are working on a quilt because a member of one of the quilt guilds that my wife is a participant in, challenged members to make quilts for youngsters who through no fault of their own are forced with a parent to find refuge from abuse in a shelter.

But, what of goverment? Take Human Rights, for example. OK, I will. We have government bureaucracies in charge of ferreting out human rights wrongs, and making them right. That just seems so wrong to me. It is, to me, and example of "Let the government do it." Why? Do they have a passion for this work? Sure doesn't look like it to me, if you take the shenanigans of J Ly and her band of cronies at the CHRC as an example? Ditto, Barb Hall and her folks at the OHRC. And don't get me started on Alberta, or BC for that matter.

While J Ly chases after pretend Nazis, and publishers, she does so at the expense of free speech in this country. Ask Marc Lemire how it feels to have his life put on hold for 6 years, and his back account empty, while the J Ly bunch pillory him and lie about him along the way to get a conviction, which in the end was hollow and opens doors to real freedom of speech in this country.

Ask Stephen Boissoin over in Alberta how it feels to be gagged by the Alberta HRC because what he said was not politically correct? It doesn't matter if he can prove the truth of what he says, because as we have all learned, truth is not a defence at the HRCs.

And in Ontario, the Barb Hallers are chasing after landlords, transit systems, and the like to bring "equality" to us all. Did anybody ask us if we wanted it or believed it was even real? See what George Jonas said about the elusive equality. He called it a Chimera with good reason.

Is there any Compassion in their work? Sure isn't any visible. They are paid to bring people down for discrimination of some sort or other, and are in marketing to make sure they have enough business to justify their sinecures. They even invent new human rights beyond the Charter along the way.

Is there Passion in their work? Maybe, but hard to tell. No, I think it is about Power, political power. I have seen too many cases that have no basis in the fundamental rights and freedoms that our Charter guarantees us.

The Barb Hall's of this world live for power, the ability to enforce made up rights is a good place to have power, because you make it up as you go.

Let's have a revolution, you and me. Let's work at treating our family first, then our neighbours, then the rest of our community with respect and dignity. Let's us stand up for Charter fundamental human rights, not hopey changey ones that are being thrust on us. Some wag said long ago: "Charity begins are home." So, let's try it. Let's make government redundant in areas of helping others. Let's care about one another without regard for religion or political, or other beliefs.

Oh, for this to work, we need a new attitude shift as well. Forget taking offence when someone says something against your beliefs. As one friend said to me more than once: "Suck it up Buttercup." Instead of filing a Form 1 with Barb or whatever the form is in another province or federally, spread love. Why, because "Love Does Not Take Offence."

Stop letting the government do it. Do it yourself. If you want to reduce taxes, get rid of the government meddling in your life at every turn. Make it only some turns, where they can do a better job than we can. They cannot look after our neighbour better than we can. Make them leave, because they are not needed.

Weaning away from government intervention everywhere we look won't be easy. They don't want to shrink, and we are usually too lazy to stop them.

Wake Up folks. It's our turn now.

To HRC or Not to HRC

Responding to Comments

I wrote a piece back on May 30, 2009 about an HRC case that did not occur, where a young woman, who is my second cousin, has a rare mildly disabling disease that is visible and causes her discomfort. She was fired from her job as a server in a local restaurant and got on with her life, refusing to get into the HRC schmozzle of process. I lauded her forbearance and determination.

Well, the other day I got a comment to the post that I responded to and another response back from the Anonymous commenter. Because the comments were thoughtful, I felt they warranted being part of another post and here we are.

Here is the first comment:

It is great that this women eventually found a great place to be employed. However, the purpose of a human rights investigation is not limited to that individual (the young women in this case). Instead it involves all members of society, those who have a disability and those who would discriminate against them.

I do believe that each indivdual should do what is best for them but feel the ones that should be applauded are the ones who are willing to go through that grueling human rights investigation process to hold people accountable for discrimination.

This article seems to suggest that rolling over rather than standing up is what is the way to go...to that point I would have to disagree.

But I would still agree with the last line "Good for you, Lizzie"!!

I responded as follows:

There is no gruelling human rights investigation process for the Complainant. It is only gruelling and expensive for the Respondent.

I have a disability. Today, I cannot leave my house because of it. With my disability it is not practical for places of work, or institutions to accommodate me. I don't need them to accommodate me, and I do not need to play victim because they don't or can't. I don't even intend to tell them that I am disabled.

I would rather live my life as free as I can than be a victim.

To think that the government is any "victim's" friend is a fallacy. The HRCs run a sausage making machine, not a justice machine, and it stacks up rights as it makes them up and as it chooses, so that my rights as a disabled person would trump my rights as a Christian. I refuse to give them the chance.

And Anonymous responded back to me again with more thoughts here:

Asserting your rights is a far cry from becoming a victim and I would argue It is empowering. The Duty to Accommodate only extends so far. And if you simply can't work then of course they cannot accommodate you.

I am stunned that you, as a disabled person could be anti-HRC(now HRT) they advocate on behalf of individuals who are routinely discriminated against in all aspects of society, especially employment. I am working with a woman who has a disability and was fired for taking 6 month Medical Leave of Absence to receive treatment and to recuperate...yes fired for being disabled. Instead of rolling and 'living her life' she is standing up for her rights and demanding to be treated fairly. This women works with people with disabilities, and so do I, and find her determination inspiring. She is standing on principle. And this process is gruelling when you have the issues to deal with that she has. The way you talk of it being gruelling for the Respondents makes me think that you were one. I am glad it is exhausting to those who would strip the rights and dignity from the disabled Canadians.
I would think that someone with a disability would condemn the businesses and individuals who rob others of their Human Rights. Keep in mind that HRC stands for Human Rights Commission or as it is now referred to the Human Rights Tribunal. Instead of targeting them for trying to protect Canadians from Human Rights Violations why not call out the people who are continuing to discriminate against the disabled and other groups.

Don’t Shut Up....Stand UP!!!!

Well, I think the thoughts of Anonymous are meaningful and worthy of further thought and comment. So, it being my blog, I get the last say, even if I have to wait out Anonymous (tongue in cheek).

I have contended since I started writing this blog that I am more interested in the TRUTH, than in being right. Hence, I take what Anonymous says seriously.

"A" suggested that I have been a Respondent. To date that is not the case, and I hope it never will be. But, I have seen the process up very close. Two friends of mine have been victimized by the process, one in Ontario and one in Alberta. I have never disclosed the name of the friend in Ontario because her case is ongoing, but my friend in Alberta is Stephen Boissoin. You can read what I have written about both cases, as it is voluminous.

"A" is stunned that as a disabled person I am anti HRT here in Ontario. You bet your sweet ?ss I am anti HRT, and I have made my reasons pretty clear about that for the last several months.

But "A" pointed out the story of a person he/she regards highly who is disabled:

I am working with a woman who has a disability and was fired for taking 6 month Medical Leave of Absence to receive treatment and to recuperate...yes fired for being disabled. Instead of rolling and 'living her life' she is standing up for her rights and demanding to be treated fairly. This women works with people with disabilities, and so do I, and find her determination inspiring. She is standing on principle.

I know nothing about the case so cannot comment on specifics. However, if there are grounds for fighting the dismissal, the HRT is not the place to go. There are good laws in this province to protect us against illegal hiring and firing practices. "Demanding to be treated fairly" is an interesting perspective, because it is only in the eyes of the one who thinks he/she is not being treated fairly.

You may recall my posting on ADGA, back in May 2009 where a new employee lied when being hired about his disability, on which basis he would not have qualified for the job he applied for. He went over the wall, was fired and the Ontario HRC/HRT gave him a bucket full of money for being a disabled liar. That to me was not principle, but lying to get what you want. I could do that to get a job, knowing that I would get an HRT tax free pay check in the end, but that is immoral and I cannot participate in something like that.

ADGA is one example of many cases I have reviewed where the liberals at the HRT beat the stuffings out of Respondents, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of their cause, do not use any meaningful evidentiary procedures to come to their determinations and then find in favour of the Claimant if the Claimant fits into one of their discriminatory boxes. I do not want to be a party to that.

But, I am not saying I am rolling over and playing dead either. My employer did not fire me, and has not fired me after almost 6 years of disability, because they are a good company. I also receive benefits from an insurance company that supplement my very reduced wages, and my wife and I are living within our means. We have a court claim in against the driver that hit me, and it has not settled in the almost 6 years, and may take another year or 2 to be finished as well. My lawyer has been in touch with my employer as needed, and if they had terminated me, I would not have laid down, but on legal grounds not on grounds of some cooked up discrimination.

But A's concluding comments are important ones to think on and to respond to:

I would think that someone with a disability would condemn the businesses and individuals who rob others of their Human Rights. Keep in mind that HRC stands for Human Rights Commission or as it is now referred to the Human Rights Tribunal. Instead of targeting them for trying to protect Canadians from Human Rights Violations why not call out the people who are continuing to discriminate against the disabled and other groups.

Don’t Shut Up....Stand UP!!!!

Well, A, I have now about 300 posts on my blog, most of which are about HRC/HRT incompetence, and meddling into our society. So, I am standing up, not shutting up, just not agreeing with you.

I do not see businesses and individuals robbing others of their Human Rights. I see people that make mistakes innocently, or sometimes at the behest of, or behind the guise of a corporate veil. We have courts to protect us from illegal activities, and abuse of others.

But mainly I see HRCs/HRTs redefining human rights far beyond our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and denying me my rights so you can have yours, not you particularly, but the collective you that is politically correct for the moment.

I do not trust the government to protect my interests. I accept that they will operate to their own agenda, which is self protection and then expansion.

When it comes to dealing with government directly I agree with author P.J. O'Rourke:

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

Calgary Herald Holds Axe Over S 13

Says: Stop The Rot To Our Right For Free Speech

This morning the Calgary Herald comes out firmly once again in favour of free speech. They have called previously on Stelmach to drop S. 3(1) of the Alberta HRCM Act, the ugly fraternal twin of S. 13. so this is not unexpected, in either tone or strength.

The Editorial piece starts with:

The mills of Parliament grind slowly, but we urge that they eventually also grindsmall-- and once and for all, get the Canadian Human Rights Commission out of the business of policing your opinions.

They noted that Jack and Jill went up the hill (I mean Ezra and Mark), and made a point or two while they were there:

Unlike the code, with its rigorous standards of evidence and procedure, the federal commission system had by its lack of those same attributes become "corrupted and diseased beyond salvation," they declared.

I think the use of the terms "corrupted and diseased beyond salvation," were fairly tame for our two intrepid freedom fighters, who are never, and who were not at this juncture at a loss for words, just maybe being a little polite in the present company.

As the Herald heralds:

We agree. What else would one call it? People accused of simply sticking up for their passionately held beliefs may be convicted and fined without even the usual defences afforded by the law, in tribunals where hearsay and conjecture may be admitted as damaging evidence. How much more diseased can it get, than this self-same government agency actively trying to entrap people whose views offend them?

The same may be said of the federal body's provincial clones, Alberta's human rights commission among them, thanks to egregious decisions that, by persecuting those whose views no longer fit the wandering mainstream of public opinion, effectively closed off debate on matters of current concern.

The Herald also opines as follows:

When Ottawa gave the commissions extraordinary powers to adjudicate speech and publication, hoping thereby to combat discrimination, the end sought was praiseworthy.

Interesting statement, but a throwaway line that slips off the tongue or keys easily but has no depth to it. Think about it for a bit and see if in the light of day the sentence has any veracity, and whether the end it has come to could have been predicted. If you are having difficulty, remember George Orwell and 1984.

However, it is all in all a very good editorial piece and concludes well:

Canadians who exercise the right of free speech that is this country's heritage, may have to face the scorn of their neighbours if their ideas are strange, marginal, rude or iconoclastic.

They should not, however, have to fear the wrath of a government agency.

It is Ottawa's moment to restore an old liberty: The system, rotten for years, has conceded its own decay.

How true. One of our intrepid freedom fighters brought up Gille Marchildon for a time, the head of EGALE, the gay rights lobby group, who had 3 reasons for not wanting to ban speech, 1) it let you know who your enemies were, 2) it provided teachable moments, and most importantly 3) it then required of individuals that they exercise their civic duty when offended by something going on in society by telling someone, or writing a letter to the editor or some other form of action.

Of course, we all know what happened to Stephen Boissoin when he exercised his civic duty over 7 years ago, by sending a letter to the editor about something that offended his sensibilities as well as his Christian beliefs. That's why S. 13 needs to go.

Jan Buterman to the Alberta HRC

Why Not - Every Other Lefty Chases Down the Church There

When I first read about the case of Jan Buterman in places like the Globe, I laid off for a number of reasons. Most articles had the following paragraph:

Jan Buterman is praised in a letter of dismissal for his teaching abilities, but told his gender change from woman to man is not aligned with the teachings of the Catholic church or its values.

So, one reason I laid off was that I was unsure of what Church teaching or value that Jan Buterman was offending specifically at first, and did not have the time or energy to chase it up, due to the arrival of our grandchildren.

Jan Buterman would not have been hired in Ontario where I live at all by the Catholic boards likely, because he/she is a Lutheran, so the problem never would have existed here, except for a Complaint that has gone to the Ontario HRC recently from Wellington County, that I reported on previously. But, that's not a criticism of Jan Buterman, not meant to be.

Egale Canada said this about the board decision:

Helen Kennedy, executive director of Egale Canada, called the board's decision sad, but not surprising. She noted that Catholic church doctrine staunchly opposes gender reassignment surgery. Ms. Kennedy said Mr. Buterman's “crime” was not related to his performance in the classroom, but to the fact that “he” began life as a “she.”

The Church teaches that we are born into a gender, that God created us man and woman. It is very biblical. But, the Church does not deal in CRIME, so Jan Buterman did not commit a crime, as Kennedy purports. Kennedy's most significant statement is that the decision is SAD. I suspect that the board and the diocese of Edmonton would call the decision sad, but it was the best that they could do with what they know, and it is within their mandate to decide accordingly. Jan Buterman's story is sad.

The Church does not move with every wind of change in the world, and should not, because most of these winds change course many times, over time. That, of course does not make the Church up to date in world terms, all of the time, nor does it need to be. It is the duty of the Faithful to be faithful to Church teaching and to help the Church to grow as the Body of Christ.

Jan Buterman is not Catholic and so he/she moves to a different drummer as to taking this to an HRC. A faithful Catholic should have dealt with this inside the Church, however that worked out, and accepted the challenges that arose. Jim Corcoran chose not to take that approach in Ontario, so he is taking his Bishop to the Ontario HRC. Seems a pretty popular thing to do when the Church won't roll over and play dead to your whims.

I have empathy for where Jan Buterman is in his/her life, because I have a friend who is now a female, who was raised as a male, and is transgendered, but is not a male anymore, I guess, and maybe never really totally was. I don't begin to understand even the last sentence, let alone the hell my friend has lived, or is now living, nor to judge my friend, nor Jan Buterman. I also don't begin to understand the hell my friend's wife is going through. She had a husband, and now she has a wife. Is this real? And what about their adult children and little grandson, who had a Dad and grampa, and now have two moms and two grammas. What's with that?

So, I can empathise with Buterman, but I have to rely on the Church in times like these, rather than on the perfidy of man, for my guidance. I do not for one instant trust any Human Rights Commission in this country to give a hoot about the Human Rights of the general populace. They are only interested in some left leaning form of rights for special interest groups that make enough noise to get their attention, and Christians of all stripes are not into making noise to be heard, usually, and more's the pity.

I got a note from Stephen Boissoin, who I regard highly, about this case and posted it in my original posting on this case. Frankly, I was wishy washy about the whole thing, for personal reasons, and Stephen took me to task, which I appreciate. Still, my verbal approach might be gentler than his, but my beliefs are in line with his. I have not been through 7 years of HRC hell like he has along the way, so he can surely be pardoned, should anyone be offended by what he says. Frankly, if you are offended by him, take a pill, and think about what he is saying instead of putting your energy to the offense. I doubt he cares if you are offended by his words, and I agree that being offended is irrelevant. The truth is more important, and I get it.

Here is the bottom line for me. I would like to know a good reason why the Catholic Church should not be allowed to decide who can teach in a Catholic school, or serve on a Catholic altar for that matter. And who has the right to tell a Christian, like Stephen that he cannot speak biblical truth by way of a tribunal order? These are signs of a sick and dying society.

I don't want that old chestnut, that schools are funded by tax dollars, thus publicly funded and the public can tell them what to do. That is such crap, and I am sick of it. It is illogical. Catholics are taxpayers as much as any other members of society, so having a say in the education of their children in a world where we have no say on any of our other tax dollars is some minor solace.

Consider that my rant. Sorry for the delay.

Calgary Herald Calls Stelmach to Cut S. 3 of HRCM Act

Asks: "Is the Tide of Canadian censorship finally starting to turn?"

The Calgary Herald notes that the Alberta HRC is back on its heals at the moment (my choice of word), due to recent court cases on free speech and backed off on the Herald/ Edmonton Journal Complaints for a 2002 editorial on the Middle East.

The article here cited the following:

The case involving the Herald and the Journal arose from an editorial published in April 2002, which catalogued several allegations of duplicity, manipulation, atrocity and hypocrisy on the part of Palestinian leaders in their dealings with Israel.

At the time, reports of terrorist activity came almost daily, interspersed with the late Yasser Arafat's protestations that all he wanted was peace: The matter was top of mind, and ripe for public examination. However, Muslim advocates complained that it was "likely to expose to hatred or contempt Palestinian Arabs and Muslims," though there was no proof of that whatsoever and it was certainly not the intent.

My bold. Telling statement that last one, and where the abuse of power of the HRCs is most profound. As I have stated in another piece, here, there are no boundaries or terms of reference for how one decides on "Likely to expose to hatred or contempt." It is all in the minds of the Complainant, and some bureaucrat with the appropriate HRC who takes up his cause.

If I tell you that something is likely to expose me to hatred and contempt, and you Mr. HRC employee believe me, we have a quorum of two, and it is now a fact, even if we are the only two people in the world who believe it. In these cases, that drag on forever, there is no effort to see if the particular offending materiel actually did expose anyone to hatred or contempt, where time is on the side of being able to categorically prove that it did or did not. At least, it would be if the whole phrase "likely to expose to hatred or contempt" were not just a throw away phrase with no possibility of being factually verified. People are having their lives turned upside down by this phrase in our country and have been for years. We didn't care when they were basement Nazi sympathisers, because they too were throw away members of our society, whose rights of free speech, even if they spoke stupidity and mindless hateful drivel, that no one but a few of their friends ever heard, were being denied.

Frankly, the HRCs got used to the taste of blood on "likely to expose to hatred and contempt", and as there was no real, fake Nazi blood around anymore, they had to get the blood lust slaked somewhere. So, what did you expect to happen? None of the cases that have happened in the last several years should come as a surprise to anyone in Canada.

Bad things happen, because good men say nothing. Edmund Burke did not say it, but he meant it.

This battle is not over. Here is the Herald conclusion:

It seems much has been won by the determined resistance of free-speech advocates, like this newspaper, to nationwide commission encroachments on a right to criticize people, organizations and governments that goes back in Canada at least to 1835, when Joseph Howe took on a corrupt provincial government, and won.

We salute them all, if not for their opinions in every case, at least in their tenacious defence of their right to publish them--a right that has cost so many of our best and brightest their very lives.

Premier Stelmach, when even your own human rights commission has changed its mind, you must act: Tear down the offensive section of Alberta's human rights law.

While the Herald is busy patting itself on the back for fighting the good fight, their role has been nominal. Those really fighting the good fight are those who can ill afford to fight it, the Stephen Boissoin's, Ezra Levant's, Alphonse De Valk's, Marc Lemire's, but must for their own sanity and for their beliefs, and the need to tell the truth that they know in their hearts.

The fat lady is far from singing on this issue.

Let's Revisit Alberta Getting It Right

Do You Remember The Concept of Doing the Right Thing But For the Wrong Reasons?

From the Calgary Herald article yesterday when the notice that the 9 charges against the Southam newspapers over a 2002 editorial critical of certain events in the world, and the ideology behind them, there was a gem from the report of the AHRC that I missed at the time.

Here is what it said:

In a seven-page decision dated Sept. 21, commission director Marie Riddle dismissed all the complaints.

"Although in my opinion statements made in the editorial . . . were offensive, based on the recent case law, I can find no basis to forward the complaint for a human-rights panel, and I hereby dismiss the complaint," Riddle wrote.

That says to me that Marie Riddle would have continued this case if she could have. In other words, with all the namby pamby free speechers getting in the way and messing up my gig, I have to let this one go. And that Lemire decision is still al bit of an inconvenience.

Read the editorial that caused these 9 complaints for yourself here. I wonder who the 9 complainants were.

The article appears to have rendered 3 opinion statements, in my opinion. That is what editorials do, and part of freedom of the press.

The first opinion statement was:

The Organization of the Islamic Conference is meeting this week in Malaysia for a summit on terrorism. But delegates are still squabbling over definitions, and many are torturing several different languages in a bid to excuse the suicide bombers who attack "Zionist targets" -- such as, say, families at a Passover seder. Israel, which is waging a military campaign against terrorists, will likely be smeared as a "terrorist state."

The conference will no doubt be a farce -- the predictable fate of any and all such dialogues about terrorism. Thankfully, weak Canadian foreign policy won't be on embarrassing display yet again -- Canada doesn't officially attend OIC gatherings.

Here was a main opinion rendered:

Part of the problem lies with Muslim civilization itself. As Samuel P. Huntington writes in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order: "Wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbours ... The conflicts within Islam (have also been) more numerous than those in any other civilization, including tribal conflicts in Africa."

This was the opinion of Samuel P. Huntington, who passed away last year. Dr. Huntington was a teacher in the department of government at Harvard for over 50 years, and was highly respected. It was a quote from his book, but then they tried to slam Macleans magazine for quoting sections of Mark Steyn's book a few years back, so this was fair game for them.

Here was the third opinion they rendered:

It is disgusting to hear Arafat mention Rabin, a man killed for his peaceful convictions, in the same breath as himself. Like his terrorist underlings, Arafat sees the lives of children -- Palestinian and Israeli both -- as fodder for the Arab ambition to ignite a regional war that will destroy Israel. He and his supporters must be isolated internationally, beaten down militarily and made to understand that Palestinians can never hope to have a country so long as they embrace the apocalyptic creed under which suicide bombers -- and Palestinians who cheer them on - explode themselves.

The editorial was rendering opinions on things going on in the middle east, including providing information in the article to support the opinions being rendered, and a human rights commission is basically letting them off on a technicality, rather than charging them with "exposing a person or group to hatred or contempt".

How I read this is that the Boissoin decision is going to be an important one, because Premier Stelmach does not have the guts to put an end to this farce he calls the Alberta Human Rights Commission, or at least the hate provisions of the HRCM Act.

Alberta HRC gets one right right

Dismiss 9 Complaints Over 2002 Editorial

The Calgary Herald and Edmonton Journal, two Southam Newspapers ran a corporate editorial on April 2, 2002. The editorial was titled "Apocalyptic Creed", and was summed up in an article yesterday in the Journal as follows:

The 670-word editorial used strong language in condemning the use of suicide bombers, and in suggesting the death of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy might have been used in a propaganda campaign urging children to martyrdom.

The Edmonton Chapter of the World Lebanese Cultural Union reprinted the article on their web site here.

It is a hard hitting read, but makes no mention of any person or persons in Canada or who are Canadian. It is therefor considered by the newspapers to be a world news opinion piece. However, it received considerable response from readers, and 9 complaints to the AHRC.

There was also a complaint to the Alberta Press Council sent my Mr. Nizar Ali, on behalf of the Coalition for Media Fairness, of Edmonton. The response of the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal is here, also from the WLCU Edmonton site. As no surprise, the Coalition for Media Fairness is composed of various Muslim groups.

The Journal's Lawyer, Fred Kozak had some reasoned comments to make about the decision, and about free speech:

(He) said the editorial expressed the opinion that delegates attending a meeting in Malaysia should condemn the use of suicide bombers as an inappropriate way of bringing about political change.

"Free expression must always include the right to criticize people, organizations and governments," Kozak said. "It should also include the right to publish a wide variety of views and opinions and perspectives, especially concerning political events in the international community.

"(This decision) recognizes that language is, and will always be, an imperfect way of communicating, and that the expression of opinion will always provoke other expressions of opinion — but that is highly valued in a democracy."

He said the editorial sparked a huge debate and the Journal's decision to publish two dozen highly critical letters to the editor is evidence that the system of democratic discourse is working.

"That is the whole reason we cherish free expression," he said.

But the most telling comment was from Mr. Kozak here:

"Political speech can't be the subject of provincial human-rights legislation," he said. "This was political speech, and the Supreme Court of Canada settled that issue many years ago with the Alberta Press Bill case."

What influence the Lemire case had on this decision that comes 7 1/2 years after the fact is hard to tell, but timing is everything.

AB Law Blog Doesn't Get It Much Either

Blah Blah Blah from AB Law

Potentially interesting piece from ABlawg.ca the blog of the University of Calgary Faculty of Law, this one written by Jennifer Koshan of the faculty entitled "Alberta's Hate Speech Law Under Challenge". Frankly, I expected better, and not a political pronouncement. It was a disappointment to read it.

Ms. Koshan seems to have spent all of her time teaching and doing government work, so with sue respect does not appear to have much sense of the real world, and certainly not any sense of the Boissoin case.

She concludes her treatise with the following:

If the hate speech provisions in human rights legislation are struck down, the issues in Keegstra surrounding the constitutionality of the criminal provisions against hate speech may be revisited as well. And even if the criminal provisions are upheld, the elimination of human rights protections against hate speech would deprive governments of more conciliatory and less draconian ways of dealing with this social problem.

Her last phrase leaves me to wonder where she has been the last several years. It says that she has been on faculty since 2000, having left the NWT before that. But, if she believes this sentence maybe she teaches at an off site campus near the North Pole.

If Ms. Koshan believes that the Alberta Government was conciliatory and not draconian in dealing with Stephen Boissoin, she was clearly not anywhere near southern Alberta for the last several years. And the social problem of hate speech is in the minds of a very few people. Most of what is called hate speech is political commentary that does not agree with the current politically correct viewpoint, and hence has every right to be spoken. The other real hate speech, such as holocaust denial, is spoken and written by such losers as to have no real merit with anyone of any good will or intelligence.

Stephen Boissoin IS NOT THE LETTER

Context People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free Speech on Trial in Alberta

Free Speech on Trial in Preacher's Appeal

I received this by email from the Canadian Constitution Foundation and am passing it along as it also appeared in the Vancouver Sun.

By Karen Selick

Calgary Herald, September 16, 2009

Remember Voltaire? He's the 18th-century French philosopher who is famous for coining the phrase, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

No doubt he will be in the minds of several lawyers appearing this week starting today a Calgary courtroom. They don't necessarily agree with what Stephen Boissoin wrote in a letter to the Red Deer Advocate in July, 2002 but they'll be there defending his right to have written it.

Boissoin is the pastor who made headlines across Canada when he was hauled before Alberta's Human Rights Commission for having expressed in fire-and-brimstone language his opposition to what he considered homosexual "brainwashing" in school curricula. He was charged under Alberta's Human Rights, Multiculturalism and Citizenship Act (HRMCA) with publishing a statement that was likely to expose a class of persons to hatred or contempt. Almost six years later, he was found guilty and ordered to pay damages of $7,000. As well, he was handed a lifetime prohibition on publishing "disparaging remarks" about homosexuals and about several non-homosexuals who had participated in his prosecution. Finally, he was ordered to provide a written apology for his opinions.

This week, Boissoin's appeal goes before the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. But there will be more on trial than the pastor and his words. The law itself will also be on trial.

Boissoin's prosecution was conducted under so-called "human rights" legislation enacted by the province of Alberta. Canada's Criminal Code also contains provisions outlawing "hate speech" but Boissoin was never charged criminally. No wonder--it's much tougher to convict someone of a genuine criminal offence than a so-called human rights breach.

This difference will form part of the argument before the court. Under Canada's Constitution, only the federal government has the power to make criminal law. The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), an intervener in the case, will contend that Alberta's legislature has wrongly attempted to encroach on exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The CCF will also argue, based on many decades of jurisprudence, that there is no section of the constitution permitting a province to outlaw speech. Without constitutional authority, a province cannot just merrily legislate on any subject it chooses.

Indeed, while every Canadian province has antidiscrimination laws that resemble Alberta's HRMCA insofar as they outlaw prejudice in employment, housing and services, no province east of Manitoba has emulated Alberta's attempt to slip wide-ranging restrictions on free speech in among those very different types of prohibitions. Had Boissoin written his letter in Ontario or further east, he could not even have been charged, let alone punished.

If the Alberta law survives this week's constitutional challenge, it will mean that Alberta residents have narrower rights to free speech than their eastern counterparts.

Of course, all Canadians are guaranteed the right to freedom of expression by Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, another intervener in the case, will be arguing that Alberta's law is unconstitutional because it unjustifiably violates this Charter guarantee.

Those who advocate laws outlawing offensive speech demonstrate a dangerous short-sightedness. They support the construction of a huge state apparatus devoted to ferreting out and eliminating forms of expression they deem offensive. But their underlying assumption is that the machinery of state will always remain in the hands of the good guys--people they can trust to prosecute only genuine bad guys.

They never seem to learn from history that things change, sometimes suddenly and in unexpected directions.

If the bad guys ever get into power, the last thing anyone should want them to have is a ready-made state censorship machine. The power of censorship in the hands of a tyrant is a far more fearsome evil than any number of petty bigots writing contemptible letters to newspapers.

Fortunately, Canadians' complacency towards censorship seems to have been routed recently, thanks to the untiring efforts of a few individuals like former magazine publisher Ezra Levant and writer Mark Steyn.

Earlier this month, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a surprise decision in the Mark Lemire case, holding that the sections of the federal human rights law prohibiting publication of offensive words on the Internet are an unconstitutional violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Let's hope the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench sees the Boissoin case similarly.

Karen Selick Is The Litigation Director For The Canadian Constitution Foundation.

First Words From Boissoin Appeal Case

Montreal Gazette First Off The Mark

See What the Montreal Gazette has to say about the first day of the Boissoin Appeal Case in Calgary. Unfortunately not much, but at least some coverage, and with some minor commentary from Professor Moon, J Ly's good friend.

Stephen Boissoin Appeal Document - Part 1 Redux

Reporting on the Brief Submitted to the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta

Today is the start of the two days of hearings in Calgary on the Appeal of the absurd Decision in the case of Darren Lund V. Stephen Boissoin at the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. We can only hope that justice is served, and that the Decision is overturned first. Secondly, it is an opportunity for a real court to second or expand upon the Decision of Athanasios Hadjis in the Lemire Decision at the Canada Human Rights Tribunal recently.

So, recognizing that, I have brought forward the summary that I wrote about the (anything but) brief that Gerry Chipeur, Stephen's attorney had filed on his behalf. It was excellent work, that seeks to strike down the Decision and also hammers at the legality of Section 3 of the Alberta HRCM Act, which parallels Section 13 (1) of the Canada Human Rights Act.


Last evening, I received from Stephen a pdf of the 36 page brief submitted on his behalf, and ultimately on ours, to the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta. His case will be heard before the Honourable Mr. Justice E. C. Wilson on September 16 and 17, 2009 in Calgary.

This brief, and its accompanying documents (which I did not receive) all of which make "brief" a misnomer, were prepared by the noted Human Rights advocate Mr. Gerald Chipeur Q.C. of Miller Thomson LLP of Calgary.

Mr. Chipeur is a heavyweight, and is just what the doctor ordered to see justice prevail in this absurd situation. He is a contributing editor for the legal publication Charter and Human Rights Litigation.

Of interest, Darren Lund, the Respondent in this Appeal is represented by Patrick Nugent of Chivers Carpenter of Edmonton.

This morning, I will make only some preliminary comments as I want to really work my way through the document to do Stephen and it justice. I believe that this case is pivotal to the freedom of speech debate in Canada. It is what Ezra Levant is fighting for, what Stephen Boissoin is fighting for (at least in this instance), and what we must all pay attention to. If there are values that we hold as individuals, and if we wish to be able to hold them and express them, even against the opposition of political correctness, then what is happening here in this case matters to us all.

And one other thing. Representation like the quality that Stephen has secured does not come cheap. If you believe in what he is fighting for, I urge you to put your money where your mouth is and donate to this cause here.

On a first review, the brief is a formidable document.

The brief seeks to answer for the court the following questions with the full question and the briefest of summary answer, with details to follow later:

A) Is the constitutionality of Section 3(1) of the HRCM Act properly before the Court in this appeal? - Yes

B) Has the Respondent established a legal or evidentiary basis for the conclusions of the Panel of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission ("Panel") set forth in the decision under Appeal ("Decision")? - No

C) Are the remedies in the Decision authorized in the HRCM Act and are they consistent with the Constitution? - No

D) Does Section 3(1) of the HRCM Act violate section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Charter? - Yes

E) Does the HRCM Act trump the Charter? - No

F) Is Section of the HRCM Act ultra vires the Province of Alberta under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867? - Yes

G) Is the Complaint unsustainable as a result of the operation of Section 3(2) of the HRCM Act? - Yes

H) Should the Respondent pay the costs of Stephen Boissoin on a full-indemnity basis? - But of course.

The Appeal in summary seeks to dismiss the complaint on the following bases:

a) the Decision and Section 3(1) of the HRCM Act violate the rights of the Appellant under section 2 of the Charter;

b) the Decision and Section 3(1) of the HRCM Act are ultra vires the Province of Alberta pursuant to Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867;

c) the Decision is ultra vires the Panel, as it is inconsistent with Section 3(2) and Section 32 of the HRCM Act; and

d) the Decision is not supported by the evidence and must be set aside because the Appellant did not publish the Letter and the Letter did not expose anyone to hatred and contempt.

This summary alone points out some of the absurdity of the entire case against Stephen Boissoin. I am leaving the absurdity of the case against Bishop De Angelis for another day. Stephen wrote a letter to the Editor of a newspaper. The newspaper chose to publish it. Stephen did not choose to publish, only to write it, yet the actual publisher was not a party to the case.

As the brief presents there was no evidence presented that made any sense whatsoever to the kangaroo court, yet Darren Lund, who was not an aggrieved party, since he claimed he was not himself a homosexual had standing to make the claim, and was granted an award, as was some other non party to the claim. More to come dear readers.

Thank you Stephen for sharing this.

The document itself is downloadable from Stephen's own site here.

Another Link Boissoin/De Angelis

Bishop Fred Henry In Calgary Links the Two

Bishop De Angelis has a brother Bishop in Calgary who knows what it means to be harassed by a Human Rights Commission for speaking the truth. In particular, he knows what it means to be harassed over gay rights, or what can be termed as gay rights by gay rights activists.

Bishop Fred Henry was for a number of years a teacher at St. Peter's Seminary in London, Ontario, where I originally met him. Over time, he became Auxiliary Bishop of London, then Bishop of Thunder Bay, and then Bishop of Calgary, where he has been since March, 1998.

Bishop Fred is no shrinking violet and you are welcome to his opinion, and that makes him endearing. You know what you get with him, because he is also as sharp as a tack. He may not always be right, but he is seldom in doubt. If it has to do with Church teaching, he's going to be right on the money. But, you have to listen to ALL the words, and then think about them before you take offence, not just jump in and take offence first.

Well, Bishop Henry, wrote a pastoral letter against same sex marriage on May 2, 2005. He has strong views on homosexual practices, and on other things that he sees as a theologian that are harmful to leading a Christian life, and he touched on them in his letter.

But, unlike friend Stephen Boissoin, Bishop Henry got not one, but two Alberta HRC complaints at the time. Also, unlike Stephen Boissoin, for some reason, the charges against Bishop Henry disappeared for some reason after lots of noise and wasted money defending against them.

But, as I said Bishop Henry did not let it drop with him. He went on the offensive as LifeSite News reported back in June of 2008 here:

Bishop Fred Henry has asked Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach to repeal Section 3(1)(b) of the Alberta Human Rights Act in order to protect the rights of religious freedom and freedom of speech.

In a letter to Premier Stelmach, Bishop Henry points out that in the past 18 months he has raised the issue of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) several times with the Premier. "On each of those occasions, you said that you understood the issues and shared my concerns."

"However," he continues, "the situation is continuing to deteriorate across our country and the various levels of governments are seemingly non-responsive."

In particular, the recent ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) against Christian youth pastor Stephen Boissoin has convinced the Bishop that decisive measures must be undertaken to curtail the powers of Canada HRCs.

"Each judgment emanating out of our various human right commissions," writes Bishop Henry, "seems to be more brazen and bizarre than the one that preceded it. However, for inane stupidity and gross miscarriage of justice our own Alberta Human Rights Tribunal deserves to take first prize for its treatment of Stephen Boissoin."

I wonder what Bishop Henry thinks about this nonsense in Ontario, his old stomping grounds with his Brother Bishop De Angelis.

Barbara Padilla's Got Talent and Class

Winners Win and Losers Lose

Barbara Padilla, for people who have not been watching America's Got Talent this Summer, is a cancer survivor who has wowed America with a beautiful indomitable spirit, and an amazing operatic, singing voice. She is a winner, no matter how the voting goes in the finals. She got the crap kicked out of her by a disease, probably had her pity parties, and tears, and then picked herself back up, because she had a young child, and a husband who loved her, but who also needed her.

Winners never quit, and quitters never win.

Many people who take cases to Human Rights Tribunals/Commissions have no choices that they know about. HRCs/HRTs do a good job of marketing, to create demand. But, a lot of losers take cases to HRCs/HRTs. Why? Because they can.

Barbara Padilla did not have an HRC she could complain to over her illness. She had no real choice but to soldier on, and figure a way out of it, and she did, and the world is a better place for it. That lady can sing, and she inspires others to overcome their difficulties.

When someone takes a Stephen Boissoin to Kangaroo Kourt over a letter to the Editor of a small town newspaper, and some brainless operative of the Kourt finds Boissoin guilty, there is no inspiration to any of us by the outcome, other than to want to fight back.

Winners win and Losers Lose. Stephen Boissoin will never quit, and Darren Lund will never win, regardless of the outcome of silly HRC decisions. This is much bigger than Darren Lund and his Complaint.

When some postie in Toronto takes offence at being stopped by a big white policeman named Constable Michael Shaw, and wins because some Kangaroo Kourter in Ontario can't see the forest for the trees, there is no joy in Mudville over that one either.

Winners win and Losers Lose. Michael Shaw will never quit, and Ronald Phipps will never win, regardless of the outcome of silly HRC decisions. This is much bigger than Ronald Phipps and his Complaint.

The Picture of Hatred In Canada - So Says the Alberta HRC

You Must Be Kidding Me

The picture at right is of my friend Stephen Boissoin. He has been convicted by Lori Andreachuk and the other clowns of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, as anybody who has been spending time on planet earth recently, particularly here in Canada knows of hate speech.

He wrote THE LETTER to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate about his views on the Homosexual Agenda, particularly as it related to the teaching of sex education in the schools of Red Deer. He is not apologetic for it, not should he be . He expressed a political opinion, for all intents and purposes, but more than that he expressed the deeply held opinion of a fervent Christian, and one which he was well prepared to discuss openly.

The Letter is on Stephen's own site here, along with his commentary about it, and its content, which is very telling about the mind and heart of the man.

This is also the man who wrote the following in a comment on my site over the weekend:

Being a follower of Christ isn't about labels. There is no institution that can save you or offer a right that has any saving, forgiving power in itself. It is pure faith in Christ and faithfulness to Christ that accomplishes much in our lives. And it is the application of love, kindness, benevolence and mercy...that impacts our lives together.

As his case goes before the Alberta Court of Queens Bench this week on the 16-17, I stand firmly beside my Brother. I support his right of free speech. I support his right to freedom of religion, even if we might have "doctrinal" differences.

I stand 4 square against government suppression of the essential freedoms that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms describes for us all. And I believe in the first lines of the preamble to the UDHR where it says:

"recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

Go Stephen. Go get 'em Gerry Chipeur. You can support Stephen on his web site here.

The Letter

The Stephen Boissoin Case at the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Red Deer is a nice city in Alberta we know
not much more than a good home for some.
Till Stephen Boissoin wrote The Letter, and Lund took offense
Now human rights hotbed it's become.

Now it didn't start there. It goes back further than that.
To when things were going real good.
Stephen was pastoring youth in the town
Giving all he had for the kids in the 'hood.

His specialty was listening to what's going on
To being friend to one and all.
With his ear to the street, a situation emerged
Someone was going to have to take the fall.

The kids were concerned about something at school
That made them feel anxious and sad.
Someone was teaching homosexuality out of context
Making hetero's feel icky and bad.

The teacher was stuffing an agenda down their throats
The kids were feeling submerged.
So, Stephen wrote The Letter to the Advocate as we know
And manure and fan blades converged.

Darren Lund took offence, not because he was gay.
He was teaching this stuff to the young.
He didn't want to be questioned about his methods or means.
Dog gone. He was having too much fun.

Lund filed a complaint. Gays backed off in droves.
They didn't want to inhibit free speech.
They didn't like what Steve said, didn't agree with a word
But not his right to speak it, they'd breach.

Lund soldiered on when the HRC first dropped the case
Determined to win was he.
So, he got Stephen his day in court after many years
Well it turned into five actually.

Five days of BS and nonsense galore
Stephen sat there and took it on the chin.
When all was said and done, more said than done
The Panel Chair walked out with a grin.

The Chair, Lori Andreachuk from Lethbridge, QC
A divorce lawyer, political hack, up to no good.
Way over her head on this case she was.
Should have let it go when she could.

But, in too deep, she rendered her words
A decision she will come to regret.
Because this is a case that will stand out forever,
And her name history will not soon forget.

She ordered Stephen to pay money to Lund
Which might happen when cows leap the moon.
Then if he ever spoke again about gays from the pulpit
That, dear boy, would be too soon.

It didn't take long for the hue and the cry
To echo across the land.
Stephen Boissoin, on behalf of us all
Had really and truly been had.

His lawyer, Gerry Chipeur was on the bandwagon
Filing the proper appeal.
"If lunacy like this is allowed to go by,
Free speech as we know it's not real."

Gerry wrote a brief, an impassioned plea
Full of argument, and facts galore.
And if his brief was too brief, not detailed enough
In his pocket, he's got plenty more.

He wrote that the decision was outside the law
ultra vires he calls it, not the flu.
Lori invented the decision out of thin air.
This girl just stepped in her own do.

She was way off the res on the decision she wrote
No idea what she was thinking that day.
But, the province backed off from the Appeal
Said, not us. They just up and walked away.

They left Lund alone to fight for his cause
With not as much as good bye.
Don't let the door hit ya, where the Good Lord split ya
Now ain't that a pie in the eye.

Chipeur is rolling, after big game,
Not just overturning the decision.
He's after the Alberta law that's behind it.
He's grinding at it with precision.

He says Section 3(1) is bad law from the start
And its also unlawful to boot.
He wants it gone from the law of the land.
Rip it out by the root.

Appeal courts are like all courts.
They can be fickle things.
We just hope and pray that when Stephen has this day
Mr. Chipeur his A game he brings.

The Decision will be what the Decision will be
The biggest thing to do is pray.
But I know for a fact that Stephen's tapped out
So, you could send him some money today.

Boissoin/Lemire Similarities?

Much Ado About Something Really Important - Free Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here was an interesting comparative about contempt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instant Replay 3 - I'm Feeling a Little Discrimination Today

Fix That Please Ms. HRC

I was born in 1950. My father was a Spitfire pilot in the Big War, and came back home in the mid 40's somewhat physically disabled, before that was understood. He had married my mother before he went, and she worried her way through the war, as many others did. Her father , though aged, served in the merchant marine during the war, giving her and her own mother more to worry over. As well, my grandfather, being of Irish descent, had a fondness as many do for the drink. He wasn't an alcoholic officially, because he didn't go to meetings, but he could have qualified. In an alcoholic household suppression of expression of emotions, particularly those that could be considered to be negative becomes the rule of the day because you cannot risk offending the potentially volatile alcoholic. My mother was the second of 3 daughters, and it usually happens in the families of alcoholics that the middle child also becomes an enabler.

So, my parents settled in London where my father went to university and started to work in a small business he ran from the house, before that was fashionable. In 1950 I was born and my sister came along in 1953. That makes me ... old, and my sister ... oldish. Our lives seemed normal to us, because it was the only ones that we knew. Here's where the enabler part of our mother kicks in. Our father's health deteriorated, and he spent considerable time in the veteran's hospital here in London, no in and out in a day like now. For us as kids, life was confusing without our dad, and our mother basically taught us not to feel our emotions. She had many tools at hand, shame being a particularly good one. I remember particularly this one that she hit us with. We were raised in a Catholic home so she would say to us: "Anger is a sin. Good Catholic boys and girls don't get angry." Wow! What a heavy burden for little kids to bear.

The point is that I entered adulthood and up until the last few years or so had very immature emotions. My wife on the other hand, has a strongly developed emotional maturity. Boy, did we clash, until I finally got it.

Life for me was very fact based, or so I thought. I remember saying to her during one battle we had almost 7 years ago: "Don't give me this emotional Bull Sh?t. Give me some facts." At the time she called me an arrogant a??hole, and she was right.

If I was going to have a better life, and have a marriage at all, I had to get in touch with my emotions. I had no idea what I really felt about anything. It took a ton of therapy for me to get to a place where I understand where emotions come into the fabric of my life, and what part they play in my decision making on a day to day basis. I realised a lot of things about feelings that I believe are important for me, and significant in this whole HRC situation we find ourselves in today.

Because I was not in touch with my emotions, they were actually running my life. So, here I was telling my wife I wanted facts, when I was angry as h?ll, and could not even realise it, and that was driving me at the moment. Go Figure Eh!

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Nothing. But, it has a lot to do with the cost of discrimination in Canada.

Here is what I learned. What I feel about anything is my choice. Two of us look at the same sunset. I feel great joy at the beauty of God's creation. You feel sad that the day is over. Is one of us wrong? No, just different.

Two men find a Nazi internet site and read scurrilous drivel denying the holocaust. One feels that he is discriminated against and files an HRC complaint. The other feels sadness only, and goes on with his life.

An 8 year old black boy in Grade 5 in Ontario steals $6 from the principal's desk and confesses to it in writing, and the principal disciplines him with detention in her office. One parent feels anger that her son has been discriminated against for some reason that defies logic to everyone but her and her local HRC, and so she files a complaint with the HRC. A similar parent is saddened by the behaviour of her child and disciplines the child at home further to ensure that this behaviour is never repeated again.

A Pastor writes a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate about the Homosexual Agenda in the school system, and one teacher gets angry and holds onto this anger and files a complaint with the Alberta HRC. EGALE, who has a real dog in the fight if there were to be one reads the letter, dislikes the content, but calmly dismisses it as a right of free speech.

The problem that I have with the cases I have studied is that they are almost all based more on feelings than on hard data, and the HRCs are finding people guilty of hurting other people's feelings. Well, here is a fact for you HRC folks out there that I taught my kids even before I knew it myself. My kids would come to me and say: "She hurt my feelings." A very popular thing to say in this day and age, I guess. My response is and was: "Nobody can hurt your feelings. Your feelings are hurt. You own that."

Why does it matter if Stephen Boissoin said that the Homosexual Agenda in the school system is wicked? Certainly not because it hurt Darren Lund's feelings, or because it might cause somebody to feel hate, because his words can't make someone feel hate. Give me a break.

For the last several years, the HRCs have been called the "thought police". I think that is a misnomer. I think they are more elusive than that. I think they are the "emotion police."

Lemire - A Narrow Hate Crime Win for the Canadian HRC

Longest Game in Hate Crime History Decided in a Shootout

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worse still, are things noted by Scary Fundamentalist here:

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

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

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