Revisiting the HRC's from a Commentor

Thank you Brian for your thoughts

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

There is Evolution

Going Back to Basics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True North strong not free

Mark Steyn Is No Wimp

H/t Flaming Kitty. (Blazing Cat Fur)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom

Socon - Set Me Free

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walker Morrow Is A Standup Kid/Guy

So Why is Will Not After Him

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's A Human Right - Doncha Know

The Right to Hang Your Laundry Anywhere You Want To

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

As the article starts:

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

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

You go girl.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wonks Need Apply

Then They Need to Be Shot Down Figuratively

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric Sampson

Pembroke, ON

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

Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gilles Lacaille,

Pembroke, ON

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

Young Muslim Writer Defends Crucifixes in Italy

A Voice Cries Out In The Wilderness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would really like to read what she has written.

Double Standards - Fort Hood As An Example

Fr. Raymond de Souza Speaks Volumes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Father de Souza comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Bravo Father.

Smoking As A Disability

I Can't Believe I Wrote that Title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth Is Trouble - A Pregnant Pause

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case decision is here.

Knights of Columbus In Action

Victory in Pledge of Allegiance Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vivat Jesus.

The Voice of Canadian Martyrs

Persecution of Christians - IN CANADA

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

Scary Fundamentalist: The Voice of Canadian Martyrs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Focus On The Family Cave In? or Not?

Editing Radio Shows to Adapt To Hate Crime Laws

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

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

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

I can see two responses to this item.

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

Progressive versus classic liberalism. Which way to go?

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

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

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

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

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

Still searching for scary Nazis....

Blazing Cat Fur

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

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

When EX-CHRC Gas Bags Deflate

Blazing Cat Fur

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

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

Quoting from the piece:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blazing Cat Fur: When EX-CHRC Gas Bags Deflate

How Human Rights Ought To Be Dealt With

How A Wise Rabbi Dealt with Discrimination

Mitch Albom is well known for writing "Tuesdays with Morrie". Soon he will be as well known for his latest work, "have a little faith." It is the story of how his childhood rabbi, Rabbi Albert Lewis asked him to deliver the eulogy at his funeral. As it happened, the rabbi asked him 8 years before he died, giving Albom plenty of time to get to know his rabbi better.

Among the stories that he recounts, are instances of how the Jewish people of Haddon Heights, New Jersey were discriminated against, and how Rabbi Lewis dealt with it. Oh, that we should deal with discrimination like this today and here, rather than letting the government do it.

When Rabbi Lewis was appointed to the small synagogue in 1948, he found there was considerable angst among Christians about a Jewish congregation in their midst. There was no HRC to whine to, and in NJ there still isn't, so the rabbi took it upon himself to do something good about it. He joined the local ministerium, and set out to meet people where they were at, speaking in classrooms to students who wanted to see his horns, and being a friend to all.

One time during the High Holidays that happened this particular year to coincide with Sunday mass at the Catholic Church in the neighbourhood, one of his congregants was accosted by the local priest who was offended that there was limited parking for his congregation, as it was taken up by the Jewish participants in the High Holiday festivities at the synagogue. The priest was abusive in his anger and even said in a fit of pique: "They didn't exterminate enough of you."

Rabbi Lewis contacted the local archbishop about the incident, and received a call the next day from the priest wanting to meet. The priest apologized and shared with the rabbi an idea that the archbishop had told him.

So, shortly thereafter, when the local Catholic school had recess, the rabbi and priest walked around the school grounds arm in arm, as per the archbishop's suggestion. The priest and rabbi became friends, and finally when the priest died, Rabbi Lewis assisted in officiating at his Catholic funeral.

That's how disputes over human rights should be handled.

What we do now is lazy. There is no wisdom in the bullying of HRCs. We need to return to simpler times, with less government intervention in our daily lives.

Another Good NP Article From George Jonas

Saving the CHRC through Amputation

It is great to see respected journalists taking on the CHRC and the HRC industry, as here. A good read.

Here's his take on S. 13:

A law that takes an "expansive" view of discriminatory conduct based on the subjective feelings of groups selected to be immunized against existential trauma, then bases censure or sanctions against conduct that falls short of this standard, not on what the "actors" had actually done or intended to do, but on the effect their actions may have had on the most hostile or sensitive or vulnerable member of an immunized group, and finally adds insult to injury by describing this arbitrary, coercive and iniquitous process as "a non-adjudicative resolution of a 'dispute,'" turns society into a mixture between Orwell's 1984 and a Monty Python skit.

His conclusion might be sad but true:

When Canada's human rights industry, emboldened by its success with netting small fry -- a teacher here, a preacher there -- set its sights on the big fish swimming in the mainstream media, it opened itself to the risk of running into Moby Dick. As it happened, it ran into a whole school, from Ken Whyte's harpoon-resistant Maclean's magazine to a mix between a whale and a mongoose named Ezra Levant, and of course the world's only cetacean with a sense of humor, Mark Steyn. The biggest whale turned out to be the Internet itself, looming immense, committed solidly to the freedom of the seas. The good ship CHRC was no match against such fish.

Professor Moon quickly moved to cut bait, not to save an endangered species of free-swimming sea creatures but to secure the escape of the beleaguered whalers. Moon thinks he has done it, too. "While the critics of the CHRC have been successful in spreading their views, all they can hope for is a marginal win in a polarized debate," he offered in his lecture. The pity is he may be right.

Canada Tells United Nations to Stuff It

Partly

Scary Fundamentalist from the left coast starts his recent posting with this:

If only Canada had rejected all 68 outright, I would really be bursting with pride...

Canada told the United Nations Tuesday more than half of the 68 recommendations other countries say will improve Canadian human rights standards are unacceptable. In an address to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Canada rejected outright 14 of the recommendations issued in March, and partially rejected another 22.

And, note who is critical and who is not:

The Council agreed by consensus to adopt Canada's response as part of the international record, but not before Algeria, Cuba, Russia and Iran expressed additional criticism. By contrast, the United States said Canada "sets high standards for its human rights practices."

I think I'd rather be associated with the US than that other club.

I urge you to read the rest of it over here:

Scary Fundamentalist: Canada Tells United Nations to Stuff It

Australia Considers Bill To Criminalize Free Speech By Christians

It is Still in the Consideration Stage

Excerpt from The Australian:

Australians who wear a crucifix to work or offer to pray for a patient in hospital could run foul of a charter of rights, according to a British legal expert who says its introduction in this country would trigger an attack on religious expression.

Barrister Paul Diamond said equivalent laws in Britain had intensified religious resentment and introduced a degree of uncertainty into the rule of law.

He cited the example of a workplace dispute at British Airways in which the company had tried to prevent an employee from wearing a crucifix while permitting other workers to carry Sikh ceremonial knives and wear turbans and Muslim head scarfs.

Mr Diamond said the secular ideology of the British Human Rights Act was being used to politicise the judiciary and eradicate “unacceptable religious viewpoints on same-sex, on women, on a whole range of moral issues”.

Mr Diamond, who is visiting Australia as a guest of the Ambrose Centre for Religious Liberty, criticised the report of Jesuit priest Frank Brennan's consultative committee on human rights, which has called for a human rights act, a charter of rights and changes to the way courts interpret legislation.

Mr Diamond's concerns are in line with those of 20 church leaders who were part of a delegation to Canberra last week that urged Attorney-General Robert McClelland to reject a charter.

Catholic Cardinal George Pell said there was no doubt a charter would be used against religious schools, hospitals and charities by those who did not like religious freedom and thought it should not be a human right.

[...]Mr Diamond said the ideology of the British Human Rights Act had contributed to a widespread attack on religious freedom since it gave effect in Britain to the European Convention on Human Rights.

[...]He said one of his most frightening cases concerned a man known as David Booker who was threatened with dismissal for telling a co-worker that Christians opposed pre-marital sex and same-sex relations.

“She had asked him about his Christian faith. She complained and he was suspended and would have been sacked had we not intervened. It was a private sector employer interpreting their diversity policy to eliminate offensive Christian viewpoints from the culture.”

In the 10 years of its existence, the British Human Rights Act had intensified racial and religious tensions, caused widespread community resentment, introduced a degree of uncertainty to the rule of law and been associated with an influx of young, politicised judges, he said.

He rejected the charter lobby's argument that Australia was out of step with comparable western democracies in not having a bill or charter of rights.

"I hope this doesn't sound patronising, but it is good to be 10 years behind. I've seen the future and it doesn't work. You can avoid it," Mr Diamond said.

Further excerpt from Wintery Knight who has cited some of the tip of the ice berg of particular cases in the UK, Canada and the USA where putting down Christian thought and action has become sport:

Not only has this caught on in the UK with the British Human Rights Act.

• Woman gets police visit after writing letter protesting gay pride parade
• Another nurse faces termination for being a Christian in public
• UK stewardess fired for refusing to dress as a Muslim
• Couple arrested for answering Muslim’s questions about Christianity

Canada has similar infringements on religious expression because of the anti-Christian Canadian Human Rights Act.

• Pro-life debater shouted down at McGill University
• Pro-life debater shouted down at St. Mary’s University
• The persecution of a Catholic Bishop (at Blazing Cat Fur)
• The persecution of Rev. Stephen Boissoin (at Ezra Levant)
• The persecution of Catholic Insight magazine (at Ezra Levant)
• The persecution of Christian businessman Scott Brockie (at The Interim)

And bad things are already happening the United States.

• Feminists suppress free speech at East Georgia College
  
• ACLU instigates arrest of two Christians for praying in a church
• New Mexico Human Rights Commissions fines couple $6000 for being Christians
• Obama forces Catholic school to cover abortion on health care plan

People of Good Will, this is not going away. It will only continue to get worse, unless you/we stand against it. You want a real pandemic. Here is a real pandemic. It is viral. The hatred behind this is highly contagious. There are Christians ministering throughout the world, who are being killed for their faith currently, as always, and the numbers far exceed H1N1. This particular strain of the Christian Persecution flu makes a slow death.