Life In The Spirit

Joshua Makes an Important Observation

Friend Joshua, who possesses much wisdom and very solid powers of observation, made the following comment as a result of his first telling me about Ashley Cleveland, a Christian musician he came across years ago, and my posting one of her songs from youtube here yesterday.

Here are his thoughts:

Thank you so much. In my previous communication about Ashley Cleveland, I forgot to mention that it was through Ashley Cleveland that we (my wife and I) reconnected with the Christian world. Until then, we had thought of our family as one of God's "little flocks of sheep", but socially speaking we were our own little island. After "getting into" the "Christian rock" sections in various US music stores (and online), we began to form strong connections, bonds and friendships with families like our own in the USA.

Michael, this brings up an important point. My wife, adult children and I all agree that Christian families are far more common in the United States than in Canada. And we all KEEP noticing it. It's been years now! And it's depressing to us all as Canadians. Just an observation, but maybe one that has been/could be confirmed/denied? I really don't know...

I was going to just add a comment to his, but think he has touched on a more serious issue, so decided to make a posting about it here.

I think my friend Joshua has noted something that I currently agree with, though the long term reality, I both fear and hope is likely to be different, so let me explain.

First off, I think that American Christians are far more out there and in your face with their faith, and by that I mean most particularly and in general the American Evangelical Christian family. God Bless Them. It appears to me as a snowbird, some time resident of the USA, that the American people are more demonstrative of everything that they possess, and that includes their faith. It shows up more in Evangelical Christians, and they have been a blessing to that nation, and to any of us who have reason to meet them or receive the blessing from them or their music or teaching, and preaching.

What is not so much in evidence in America is the Catholic Christian family, and not because of their weakness of faith as such, but because of the quiet way that Catholics have learned to live their faith.

In Canada, we are by our nature quieter about everything, and so are our Evangelical Christians. Canadian Catholics are quieter still, by and large, I think, and observe.

In my view, the Christian family has been under attack in this country, Canada, for a long time, and one area of that attack is the muzzling of free speech and trampling of other fundamental human rights here particularly for Christians. The HRC attacks on Stephen Boissoin, Fr. Alphonse deValk, Bishop Henry for having the temerity to speak out on Church teaching, which is unpopular in our secularized world are only some of the examples. HRC/HRT decisions that follow the secular agenda in all areas, where it is often contrary to Church teachings and the beliefs of people of good will has served to make us even more timid to speak out. At this time, the only group in this country that you can discriminate against with impunity is Christians.

From my time in the US, particularly over the last few winters, it seems that the Christian family in the US was stronger there, but I think it is reasonable to say that the Christian family is now under serious attack, and that attack is being led by the US Democratic Party. It happens in subtle ways, like the new Hate Speech legislation, and not so subtle ways, like in the vaunted Health Care Reform. And there is more on the horizon.

Christians, who now form a minority in both our countries are being handed over to be slaughtered, not in a visual holocaust sort of way, YET. It is the destruction of and manipulation of the values that we Christians hold dear. The devil is very much behind this and is only too pleased to facilitate it. Hell (and I mean that word), he has what is happening now in his end game plan.

But, we Christians have read the end of The Book, and he is not in it, certainly not in a victorious place.

God is calling us to stand up for what is truth, and to speak against injustice, even if it hurts peoples' feelings. We Christians must stand together against evil, particularly evil that masks itself as tolerance of lies and deceit.

So, in the midst of this dire situation, and it is far more dire than we believe, or want to believe, some great good is occurring. For example, Pope Benedict is on a mission to make the Body of Christ one again, inviting people of good will, to come home, to strengthen the Body as One. A serious problem that prevents Christians from making a united response to the evils that surround us and confound us is our fragmentation. Our message of truth gets watered down, since we all have different versions, not of the core principals, but on other very serious matters.

No Christian should be silent on Life, and its sanctity from conception to natural death. It is natural law, and clearly ordained by God. How can one be for Christ, and be pro-choice, for example? "What you do to the least of these little children, you do also to Me."

God loves each and every one of us just as we are, but He is not prepared to leave us that way. He wants the very best for us, and it is up to us to go out and find His best, and then claim it for ourselves, and employ it in His Glorious Name.

Which brings me to the quiet American and Canadian Catholic Family. Pope John XXIII saw ahead and so he brought new life into the Church with Vatican 2. As he said from his death bed: “The moment has come to discern the signs of the times, to seize the opportunity and to look far ahead". He invited the Holy Spirit, who had never left, to take an active part in the formation of the current Church, and to transform the hearts and minds of Catholics and other people of good will.

Catholics and all Christians are invited to let the Holy Spirit come alive in them, to walk in the gifts of the Holy Spirit that have been available to Christians since the beginning, and for those Christians, particularly Catholic Christians who have received Confirmation of the Holy Spirit to seek release of those gifts that God has for them, and which are particularly necessary in this time and place.

So, dear readers, I believe, and am not alone in that belief, that unless we wake up to what is happening around us, we are in for worse times, and the Christian Family will face extinction, out of apathy.

Come out, dear readers, and walk in the Joy and Truth of God's Holy Spirit. You only need to invite God to give you His Spirit to guide you; to guide you to other believers who share that Spirit, to guide you to places where you can make a difference in your faith in Him, to guide you to the Cross of His Salvation.

Rumours of the death of Christianity and the Christian Family, its primary unit, in North America are premature, because there is a remnant of believers who are called to reinvigorate the faith, and when you are called by Him, who does not want to lose one of you, then you must heed His Voice.

I will be writing more soon on Life In The Spirit of God, and will share with you God's most exciting and exhilarating call on each and every one of our lives.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."

What Do You Stand For?

Alexander Hamilton, the First US secretary of The Treasury is credited with saying "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."

But, frankly it is getting harder to stand for anything in this day and age. In fact, in Canada, it has become next to impossible, though there are some who will do it anyway because it is the right thing, and are prepared to suffer whatever consequences come of it.

I came across a couple of examples from our southern neighbour that gave me pause this morning, because there are parallels here in Canada that I will discuss later on.

Morehouse College in Atlanta is an all male school that has graduated Martin Luther King Jr., Samuel Jackson, and Spike Lee, to name a few. It has produced 2 Rhodes scholars and 5 Fulbright Scholars. Morehouse took a stand recently that hit CNN here. You see, Morehouse banned all clothing and other apparel that it felt was contrary to being respectful. It met with some resistance, but by and large has been well received.

An all-male college in Atlanta, Georgia, has banned the wearing of women's clothes, makeup, high heels and purses as part of a new crackdown on what the institution calls inappropriate attire.

No dress-wearing is part of a larger dress code launched this week that Morehouse College is calling its "Appropriate Attire Policy."

The policy also bans wearing hats in buildings, pajamas in public, do-rags, sagging pants, sunglasses in class and walking barefoot on campus.

Somebody at Morehouse took a stand, from the President on down. They are leading the young people in their charge. If they tried to do this in Ontario, I imagine that Barb Hall would accept a human rights complaint, since it appears that this all black school is discriminating against its gay, though still black students, by not allowing the cross dressers among them to continue to dress crossly. I also imagine that some adventurous black kids could claim that preventing them from wearing do rags, and having their pants sagging down to their knees, is somehow taking away their human rights, though it might be a challenge. Too bad the school president isn't white, then they'd have a case for sure.

Meanwhile, in Louisiana, a justice of the peace, Keith Bardwell, wouldn't marry a mixed race couple, she's white, her new husband black, because he was of the belief that mixed marriages in Louisiana are too hard on the couple and on the children that they produce. He took a stand. Was he right? Does it matter? He took a stand, from his heart. He might be wrong. He might be right. He took a stand.

Of course, the woman in the couple is offended. Why, because someone disagreed with her. He must be a racist, and God put her there to make things right. Give me a break. She got married, just not by him. Now, of course, it's been on CNN, and Bobby Jindal, the Governor, who is pushing up his political capital is on it like white on rice, oops, I mean he's on it. This is about politics now, and Keith Bardwell will be fried in the end, unless people other than just him stand up for his "unalienable Rights.".

The American Declaration of Independence said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." But, in 2009 it seems it is no longer true. If Mr. Bardwell's pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness gets in the way of a woman who wants to get married, for whatever reason he might have, fry him.

Now this case is not a far stretch from the case in Saskatchewan where Marriage Commissioner Orville Nichols, a Baptist refused to marry a gay couple of men, on his personal beliefs. The gay men took him to Kangaroo Court, and the CBC reported that the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench supported the HRC ruling against Mr. Nichols further ruling the HRC "correct in its finding that the commission had established discrimination and that accommodation of Mr. Nichols' religious beliefs was not required." They haven't heard about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Saskatchewan. Or, if they have they must think that one of the rights is political correctness.

As the Saskatchewan Kangaroo Court responded to the ruling:

The Court of Queen's Bench decision was praised Thursday by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

"To allow a public official to insert their personal beliefs into decisions about who should and who should not receive a public service would undermine the protection of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code," said Human Rights Commission manager Rebecca McLellan.

Crazy world we live in. "Unalienable Rights" like in the Declaration of Independence in the US, not so much. "Fundamental freedoms" like freedom of conscience and religion (that's the first one), and freedom of association in Canada as in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not so much.

It will be interesting to see who stands for what here. Don't roll over and die on these folks. Remember the Alamo. In Canada, remember the Boissoin case, and Fr. De Valk, Bishop Henry and those who will speak the truth as they understand it to be, and have a right to do so, unless you stand by and allow that right to be curtailed by our Kangaroo Courts.

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.

Catholic Leaders Applaud Lemire Decision

Deborah Gyapong Writes Another Fine Article

Deborah wrote an incisive article that is available on Canadian Christianity at their website canadianchristianity.com here.

She weaves in the Lemire decision, but also cases against other Christians particularly that have been targets of the HRCs and their concept of "likely to expose . . . to hatred or contempt".

If there is a real point to what is now being seen and heard, it is that awareness is happening, and as more people are becoming aware of the power that has been in the hands of our HRCs/HRTs, a level of warranted disgust is arising.

You must read the article to get the flavour of her writing, and the points she is making. It is worthy of your time.

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.

Feelings - Nothing More than Feelings

HRCs Decide Based on Feelings. Facts Not so Much

In a world gone mad, the truth is becoming inconvenient, unless Al Gore wants to use his version of it and Inconvenient Truth as a title, which is not really the truth, to tell us about Global Warming, which is not really good science anyway.

But Feelings. Ay that's the rub.

So, I set out when I started this blog to try and get at the truth, because that is what I have been seeking in the last number of years, having started to wake up from living my life in delusion like we all do, and wanting something better. But, as I dig deeper, I find more people in denial, trying even harder than I am to seek the truth, to keep it buried. Because it is ... inconvenient.

I was shocked to read Simon Fothergill's statements in the Lemire case on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada that Human Rights legislation in Canada is all about feelings, not the truth. I thought: "Are you out of your mind, Sir?" But, as I ponder what he was saying, I wonder if he is maybe from the AG's perspective trying to wake us all up to the lunacy of the legislation that the AG's office has to oversee to some extent, and might be even trying to distance themselves from intentionally or inadvertently.

I "feel" as a Christian that I am being discriminated against. I am personally offended that pro choice activists can speak so hatefully about those who speak on behalf of the unborn children in this country and the world. I "feel" hurt and saddened that Darren Lund and Rob Wells could persecute with the state's help in Alberta and Canada my friends Stephen Boissoin and Fr. Alphonse de Valk who are doing their best to bring the truth as they understand it out into the light of day so we can talk about it, think about it, agree or disagree, and live our lives as we did before, or maybe seek to do something different.

I ask, how come Darren Lund and Rob Wells are allowed to wage war against Christians by filing frivolous claims with HRCs against law abiding Christians who are using our Human Rights to express deeply held religious beliefs based on the Holy Bible? - Because their feelings are hurt. Not really, because their personal feelings were not hurt. They do not have to be. They can act on their own. They just have to contend that somebody's feelings might get hurt even in the future. If that is not frivolous, what is?

Then why do the HRCs actually put men of God like Fr. de Valk and Pastor Boisson through years of hell while investigating this nonsense at their own expense? - Because that is their mandate currently, and that is the problem. That should not be their mandate. There is a very important mandate for them. This ain't it.

My Synopsis of Human Rights in Recent History - Part 1

Trying to get a Feel for the Historical Perspective

I started on my journey to understand Human Rights inadvertently while living in the US during the Presidential election in the Fall of 2008. At that time, while doing some pro-life work, the kind of stuff which puts me in league with other right wing extremists as far as Homeland Security is concerned, I pondered on the first Human Rights document I knew of, the United Stated Declaration of Independence.

United States Declaration of Independence

As Canadians, we are likely to be aware that this document was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, a gathering of the then 13 Colonies that would become the first 13 of the United States of America. I hear some wag in the back row saying to his wife: “Gee that’s the same day as American Independence Day. I wonder if that’s a coincidence, Martha.”

The document itself was principally drafted by Thomas Jefferson, from Virginia, who would later become the 3^rd President of the United States. Jefferson was in fact wise beyond what was finally written, as about ¼ of what he wrote made the cutting room floor, but what remains is masterful, particularly that section which is called the preamble and which I have quoted below.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

If you recall Dean Steacy’s testimony from the Lemire case, which I commented on here, where he calls “freedom of speech” an American concept, here’s where they got the ball rolling. But, it’s not like they copyrighted the concept, and doled out marketing rights like the NFL or something.

Anyway, there is wisdom in these words, and every year there are parades to celebrate them, but a lot of their meaning has now hit that same cutting room floor in the US, and the valuable lessons that we, their nearest neighbour in Canada could have learned have gone to the Arctic or down the toilet. Ponder on these excerpts.

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. True, their unjust powers they get through lies and deceptions, when our backs are turned, and by churning out reports where they tell us what a great job they are doing, omitting deceptive practices and things they are too ashamed to admit to, for fear of losing their jobs. You can read what Ezra Levant has to say about Jennifer Lynch and the Canadian HRCs latest report here, including links to the actual report.

But as immediately follows: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”. Jefferson and his peers were specifically talking about the British and their unjust rule over the American colonies, but even then, talked about man’s prudence, about altering before abolishing, and about suffering evils where they are sufferable before abolishing. But then there comes a time when action must be taken, words must be spoken or written, to protect the nation.

Four Freedoms Speech – January 6, 1941

Fast forward most of 200 years to 1941. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt voiced his own and the words and thoughts attributed to his wife Eleanor Roosevelt. Many credit these words as being an opening salvo in world wide Human Rights, particularly as they were later followed up with Eleanor’s work in the United Nations on Human Rights.

He spoke of 4 Freedoms in his State of the Union Address to Congress on that day. They were 1) Freedom of speech and expression, and 2) Freedom of religion both from the First Amendment and familiar to Americans of the time. He then added 3) Freedom from want, and 4) Freedom from fear. In context, there was a world war going on then that America was not yet engaged in, but was getting prepared for. So, these were heady times, and though Freedom from want is a post depression hope, more than a probability, Freedom from fear was high on everybody's list of hopes and dreams at the time. The entire speech is available in text here.

October 31, 1945 County of York, Ontario, Drummond Wren - An Unlikely Civil Rights Hero

Now come to Ontario Canada, for the convergence of the end of WWII, a well known Canadian jurist, and an unlikely war veteran turned civil rights hero.

The Second World War killed many fine Canadians, seriously wounded many others, and it woke a bunch of others up. One of the newly wakened was Drummond Wren. He bought a new home after the war, then promptly sued himself. Yes, he did. He sued because he saw a covenant that he had signed that said: “Land not to be sold to Jews or persons of objectionable nationality." He fought in a war for equality for all Canadians and he didn’t think this was right, so he sued to have this covenant declared invalid, and he won.

Ontario Supreme Court Judge John Keiller MacKay, a well respected jurist who would later be Lieutenant Governor of Ontario had this to say in the decision in Re Drummond Wren: "If sale of a piece of land can be prohibited to Jews, it can equally be prohibited to Protestants, Catholics or other groups or denominations. If the sale of one piece of land can be so prohibited, the sale of other pieces of land can likewise be prohibited."

In simile modo, one can also say that if a Catholic priest (Fr. Alphonse deValk) or an ordained minister (Stephen Boissoin) speaks what he believes to be true about homosexuality, which today is condemned as hate speech, then tomorrow, what the homosexual speaks about Christianity or medical care or some other identifiable group is also able to be condemned as hate speech. Simplistically, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and we're just waiting for the weather to change.

Judge MacKay also said in Re Drummond Wren: "Ontario, and Canada too, may well be termed a province, and a country, of minorities in regard to the religious and ethnic groups which live therein. It appears to me to be a moral duty, at least, to lend aid to all forces of cohesion, and similarly to repel all fissiparous (cool word of the day, means separatist or break away) tendencies which would imperil national unity."

Well spoken Judge MacKay in 1945. Jennifer Lynch would have us believe that people sparking debate about the work of the Canadian HRC by criticizing its practices and some of its cases is fissiparous. On the contrary, it is the practices themselves and the lack of accountability and failure to follow proper rules of evidence and procedure for bringing to trial that are hurting the cohesiveness of this country. I say: “Shame on you, Ms. Lynch for lying to us and blaming us for not rolling over and taking the lies.”

Although I digress from specific history of Human Rights, I was so impressed by the Honourable Judge MacKay that some things he said or thought were pertinent to the fabric of Human Rights in this country and so I have included them here.

In later life he also asked this question at one time: "Many new things are useful, but the experience of the ages must not be repudiated. Tradition has its failures but is it not so that tradition is the sum of those enduring values, which have been kept alive through all mutations and help to give us continual stability and direction to life?"

My first impulse is to stand up and start singing the song from Fiddler on the Roof about Tradition. But, more practically, I think of my personal Christian traditions, and those of Stephen Boissoin, and Father Alphonse de Valk, which they expressed in their writings, and for which they were charged with hate crimes. And it is our tradition in this country that, contrary to what our HRCs will tell us by either their testimony or the cases that they adjudicate, we have the freedom to speak our minds, should we choose to so do. That is how tradition and new ideas are communicated.

The one time mayor of Mimico Ontario, Hugh Griggs said of Judge MacKay’s philosophy of life: “I think one should in the first place make a success in his own vocation. He should strive to be a lover of beauty, which is its own reward. He should be of service to others, which is one of the noblest attributes of mankind. He should value truth, without which no nation can become great and no society long endure. “

Judge Mackay is probably rolling over in his grave watching how the HRCs are tromping over the garden of jurisprudence that he strived to nurture in his lifetime is being filled with weeds. Judge MacKay believed you should value truth. Simon Fothergill of the Canadian HRC says the truth is optional, but if your feelings are hurt, somebody's gonna pay. There is a real disconnect here.

In Part 2, I will look at the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with some of my own thoughts, and try to work my way to today.

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.