Quago - A New Term for our HRCs/HRTs

New Vocabulary as Part of Denormalization

Frankly, I don't know how some of the bloggers out there come across the more absurd things in our world, but they do. Blazing Cat Fur picked up on this today. It was basically an article from the UK Times Online about the most absurd thing I have heard in at least the last 24 hours, maybe.

The article was about the Quasi Non Government Organisations (quangos for short and for quaint) banning certain words in common parlance because they might be politically incorrect, such clearly offensive words as gentleman's agreement, blacklist, black sheep, black mark, right hand man. These all clearly have racist or other discriminatory overtones, don't they, at least to idiots with nothing better to do with their time.

Aha, methinks. Brain engaged. BCF headlined his post with "Jennifer Lynch will be on this". That reminds me of other Organisations where idiots are employed with nothing better to do with their time than to try and make us all politically correct. We do it somewhat differently in Canader, eh, what! Our HRCs/HRTs are Government Organisations, not Non Government Organisations, but they are Quasi, in the sense that they are fake courts using fake processes to make real pain for real people, but not following real proper procedures. So they are really Quasi Government Organisations, or we could call them Quagos for short.

Quago works for me as part of denormalisation. They are Quasi - not real. But, with Quago, I am reminded of quagmire, and dealing with them is like falling into a quagmire. When you have been summoned to an HRC/HRT, you have been quagoed. So quago is a noun that stands for the HRC/HRT organisations themselves and also for the process of being complained about and the process of resolving at great pain to yourself the complaint, as in, "I've been quagoed."

So, Constable Michael Shaw was quagoed recently, as has Stephen Boissoin been, though he is appealing his quago. Ontario is trying to quago Bishop DeAngelis and the 12 from St. Michael's in Cobourg. They tried to do a triple quago on Ezra levant, but he saw their quago and raised them, so they dequagoed him. They also unquagoed Mark Steyn. Unquago and dequago mean the same thing essentially.

My friend the grade school principal was double quagoed by Ontario, but then they unquagoed her on the one case, because they said it had no merit. Now, they have requagoed the dropped case, making it a double dip quago.

When you put it this way, you can see that quagoing is both fun and profitable, at least for quagos. J Ly is the head of a quago, or Quagojefe. Quago employees, like baristas at Starbucks could be quagoistas.

I see that my spellchecker went yellow bananas on me with quago and derivatives. Obviously, my new words are not part of the accepted lexicon yet, but since they just came out of my imagination a few minutes ago, I'm okay with that.

Anyway, quago works for me. Whadda ya think?

How "Chilling" is it Really?

Jennifer and CASHRA Have Chilled The Rest Of Us

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

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

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

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

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

But, I digress, mainly for fun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small Epiphany about the Truth

I Really Can't Do This

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's Not About Rights At All At All

It's About the Personal Exercise of Power and It's a Narcotic

What do people in authority in the Human Rights Commissions in our land all have in common? They all have the smell of fresh blood in their nostrils, and its taste on their tongues. Once a dog has tasted blood it can never be domesticated again. Remember that when you think of how to fix this thing in the future. They have unbridled POWER to reach out and touch someone's life, often for the worse.

Do the most basic of research to find that Human Rights are meant for everyone. Then look at how the commissions choose to discriminate against Catholic Priests like Fr. Alphonse de Valk, ministers like Stephen Boissoin, writers like Mark Steyn, Kathy Shaidle, Ezra Levant, selectively, because they wrote something that somebody didn't like. Those are just a smattering of the free speech issues over the last few years. And it is not all about free speech. Look at my other blogs, and I assure you I am just touching the tip of the iceberg. There is no way of getting to all the people who have been beaten up by the commissions over the years for some articifial Right that has been artificially wronged by some poor schmoe just doing what he did yesterday.

It took me some time to figure out what this is all about. It was actually so familiar to me. I was telling my wife about a particularly prideful part of my early life when I was looking for money and power, and it was all about me. I worked hard at my jobs, and did the best I knew how, on my own understanding. But, I also wreaked havoc in a marriage, and other relationships, because my focus was really on my own gain. This is the focus that I see in the Commissions. I could be wrong. Then again, I could be right. If so:

Proverbs 16:18 "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."

It happened to me. Thank God.

Are HRCs Useful?

An Answer for My Stepdaughter and Wife

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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