I went to Church this morning and was thinking about this whole thing, and realised that it is not about discrimination at all. So the comment I received to the previous blog entry was food for thought.
Anonymous said: "You said: First Principles. People should not be discriminated against PERIOD. By the way, that includes me, even though I am a white anglo saxon male heterosexual Christian. I have a right to not be discriminated against, and more than that I have a responsibility to not discriminate against my fellow man."
I interrupt for a moment to say that I realise that I was naive in my previous blog entry. Call it a brain f?rt. We as humans are discriminatory in our choices all the time, and that is not by and large a bad thing, but needs further discussion which I am not up to at the moment. What was I thinking. In a word, I wasn't. Sorry about that. During part of the blog I was. After I was, but during the first principles part, not so much.
"Then I ask you a couple of questions:
1. If I own a basement suite in my home, should I be within my rights to refuse a gay couple to rent my suite because of my personal and religious beliefs?
2. If a youth pastor who has worked at a church for years opens up about being gay and having sexual relations with other men/man should the church be able to fire him?
It would also appear to me that according to the Bible God discriminates.
As a Christian, I am to be an example of Christlike love to my brothers and sisters and of service to my community. I am to be loving, giving, caring and encouraging but I am to discriminate against right and wrong and in doing so I will inevitably be put into positions where I must explain my beliefs and even set boundaries that will be perceived as bigoted, hateful, judgemental etc. etc. to some.
Anyone who thinks that we can be Christians and be liked or accepted by everyone is incorrect and probably not living out their faith the way called to within God's word.
Scripture is clear that we will be persecuted on earth or righteousness sake and for believing in Jesus."
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
How to Write/Right a Wrong
Blogging for Sanity or NOT
I first came across a case of a friend being harassed by the Ontario HRC a couple of years ago, and thought it would go away. It was so absurd. But, it didn't go away. It got worse for her and her family. You can read what I wrote about it here.
I thought it was an isolated incident in Ontario, a mistake really. Then I heard Ezra Levant on the radio. So, I went to see him, Kathy Shaidle and Salim Mansur speak in London Ontario in the Spring, and bought Kathy's and Ezra's books. The place was packed, and people were really worked up about the Human Rights Commissions, and if what Ezra, Kathy and Salim were saying was true, there was more to this than one isolated case in Ontario.
I started to do my own research, which I urge you all to do as well. I found case reports just by looking for them for all provinces and the Canadian HRC. I found annual reports of the HRCs gushing with the good news of their successes in defending our Human Rights, or so they said in flowing prose.
I found at the Canadian Human Rights Commission level testimony in the Lemire Case here that free speech is an American concept, and that truth is less important than how people's feelings might be affected by what is communicated. If that is not the most absurb testimony from people entrusted by our government to protect our human rights I have ever heard, I do not know what is.
This is just the tip of an iceberg that I cannot fathom how to get around,over or under.
In the mean time, while discovering this, I started to blog what I was finding, and got more disgusted as I worked at it. But, what was also happening was that my health was deteriorating simultaneously. Because of the brain injury I sustained several years ago, I can only focus for a few hours a day on things I have to put my thinking cap to. When I do that though, it means that I use those brain cycles that I need to be present to the rest of my life. One of the other things that happens for me is that when i see something that really grabs my attention, and this whole thing does, I become obsessed with it, and have found it hard to put down or away. The result for me has been an increase in severe headaches, and a need to look at this differently if I am going to accomplish anything.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. So, I intend to keep eating the elephant, just one bite at a time, and remembering to chew my food slowly, instead of gulping it like I have been. I will probably only blog once or twice a week, so that I can keep up with the other things in my life that I need to as well.
Canada was a prime mover in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and we should be proud of our work in that, as we should be of our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But, those are first principles, and they are getting lost in a set of bureaucracies that have lost the way. The HRCs are being driven by the need to make people feel that they are not being disciminated against. Feelings do not work that way. I have done enough therapy myself over the years to know that feelings have very little to do with the present moment usually. They are often based in history, and do not interpret the present moment very well. Yet, our HRCs are prosecuting defendants based on the feelings of complainants all the time.
First Principles. People should not be discriminated against PERIOD. By the way, that includes me, even though I am a white anglo saxon male heterosexual Christian. I have a right to not be discriminated against, and more than that I have a responsibility to not discriminate against my fellow man.
the obverse of the First Principles are as important as the First Principles. We all have a Responsibility to respect the rights of our fellow man.
Our HRCs are not helping this to come about. So is there a better way? I'm thinking about it, and will get back to you. I'm just going to take my time.
"I REALIZE THAT THIS IS A NAIVE STATEMENT ON FURTHER THOUGHT. MORE TO COME LATER. SEE THE COMMENT I GOT IN RETURN AND POSTED."
I first came across a case of a friend being harassed by the Ontario HRC a couple of years ago, and thought it would go away. It was so absurd. But, it didn't go away. It got worse for her and her family. You can read what I wrote about it here.
I thought it was an isolated incident in Ontario, a mistake really. Then I heard Ezra Levant on the radio. So, I went to see him, Kathy Shaidle and Salim Mansur speak in London Ontario in the Spring, and bought Kathy's and Ezra's books. The place was packed, and people were really worked up about the Human Rights Commissions, and if what Ezra, Kathy and Salim were saying was true, there was more to this than one isolated case in Ontario.
I started to do my own research, which I urge you all to do as well. I found case reports just by looking for them for all provinces and the Canadian HRC. I found annual reports of the HRCs gushing with the good news of their successes in defending our Human Rights, or so they said in flowing prose.
I found at the Canadian Human Rights Commission level testimony in the Lemire Case here that free speech is an American concept, and that truth is less important than how people's feelings might be affected by what is communicated. If that is not the most absurb testimony from people entrusted by our government to protect our human rights I have ever heard, I do not know what is.
This is just the tip of an iceberg that I cannot fathom how to get around,over or under.
In the mean time, while discovering this, I started to blog what I was finding, and got more disgusted as I worked at it. But, what was also happening was that my health was deteriorating simultaneously. Because of the brain injury I sustained several years ago, I can only focus for a few hours a day on things I have to put my thinking cap to. When I do that though, it means that I use those brain cycles that I need to be present to the rest of my life. One of the other things that happens for me is that when i see something that really grabs my attention, and this whole thing does, I become obsessed with it, and have found it hard to put down or away. The result for me has been an increase in severe headaches, and a need to look at this differently if I am going to accomplish anything.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. So, I intend to keep eating the elephant, just one bite at a time, and remembering to chew my food slowly, instead of gulping it like I have been. I will probably only blog once or twice a week, so that I can keep up with the other things in my life that I need to as well.
Canada was a prime mover in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and we should be proud of our work in that, as we should be of our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But, those are first principles, and they are getting lost in a set of bureaucracies that have lost the way. The HRCs are being driven by the need to make people feel that they are not being disciminated against. Feelings do not work that way. I have done enough therapy myself over the years to know that feelings have very little to do with the present moment usually. They are often based in history, and do not interpret the present moment very well. Yet, our HRCs are prosecuting defendants based on the feelings of complainants all the time.
First Principles. People should not be discriminated against PERIOD. By the way, that includes me, even though I am a white anglo saxon male heterosexual Christian. I have a right to not be discriminated against, and more than that I have a responsibility to not discriminate against my fellow man.
the obverse of the First Principles are as important as the First Principles. We all have a Responsibility to respect the rights of our fellow man.
Our HRCs are not helping this to come about. So is there a better way? I'm thinking about it, and will get back to you. I'm just going to take my time.
"I REALIZE THAT THIS IS A NAIVE STATEMENT ON FURTHER THOUGHT. MORE TO COME LATER. SEE THE COMMENT I GOT IN RETURN AND POSTED."
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Stephen Boissoin - Redux
Thoughts from the Stephen Boissoin Case and at Random
I am somewhat in a state of shock from testimony that I read the other day from the Lemire case Summations of September 2008.
There is no piece of scripture in the bible more fundamentally important to me at this stage of my life than John, Chapter 8, verse 32: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." I cannot even think of anything more straight forward, simple and above all true. It is the basis for this blog "Freedom Through Truth."
And how do you get to know the truth? First, you have to make yourself open to it, and desire it above all else. For me as a Christian, it comes first through prayer. But for all of us, regardless of our faith background, knowing the truth comes from listening actively and discerning what we listen to, and filtering out that which is not for our own edification, and that of our loved ones.
It does not come from the government filtering things out before we get to do that for ourselves. That is Big Brother censorship. It is not so much about taking away our right of free speech, as denying us our responsibility to train our minds to discern what we see and hear.
Compare that to what Simon Fothergill, a lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada had to say about the truth in the Lemire case in the fall of 2008: “It’s very difficult to construct an entirely truthful statement that constitutes hate, but there might be a context. Truth is not a defence and intent is not a defence, but they are irrelevant to the effects and effects are what matters in human rights legislation." Give me a fricking break.
As Marc Lemire blogged on his Freedom Site, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member hearing the Lemire Case, Athanasios Hadjis then asked Mr. Fothergill: “So, I’m to judge a truthful statement on the basis of who made it” and as Mr. Lemire comments "to decide whether it’s likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt?" Unfortunately, as absurd as it sounds when you put it out there Mr.Lemire, I think you got it.
So, we have human beings deciding whether something will expose someone to hatred and contempt to convict a person of hate speech, based solely on their own feelings or the perceived feelings of some other group of people. Facts are irrelevant.
Here's the real bottom line. If what is said is the truth, but is said by someone not from a distinguishable endangered group from an artificial discrimination standpoint, about one of the endangered, it's hate speech. Put the blighter through years of investigation, and hearings. Turn his life upside down, then penalize him, and get him to retract his hateful speech, and mend his ways, even if what he said was true or he had reason to believe it was true.
Stephen Boissoin wrote "1" (that's ONE count it ONE) letter to the Editor of the Red Deer Advocate, which you can find in one of my other blog entries, about activists bringing in a biased homosexual mandate to teach children from an early age about the homosexual lifestyle. He had young kids in the Red Deer school system, and he did not like what was being taught about homosexuality to his kids.
He was in his letter to the editor declaring an ideological socio-political war. He wanted to stand out. He is a committed Bible believing Christian. He speaks a different language than non Christians. When he talks war, the weapons of his warfare are the spiritual weapons from Ephesians in the Bible, not physical weapons. His weapons are teachings of truth from the word of God and science, that reveal that promiscuity is a dangerous lifestyle. That is what he wanted to have people understand to counter what was creeping into the school system. That is a father who loves his children, and the other children in the school system as well.
What he saw from his viewpoint was a homosexual machine that was moving into the schools with a mandate to teach and impress children. He believed that it was just as immoral as allowing a pedophile or drug dealer in the schools to influence young children. But, his letter was not about gay people, but about the gay politics of some hard line groups and there is a big distinction. His position was that most North Americans are not aware of what is going on in the public school systems.
The complainant against him, Darren Lund, was a high school teacher in Reed Deer. He invited a pro-gay minister into the public high school to teach what he called the pro-gay interpretation of the Bible. Stephen Boissoin was part of his local ministerial association and none of them were invited to ensure that the young minds were offered fair opportunity to consider and choose a view. No, as Stephen told me in an email, instead they were manipulated or corralled and guilted into believing lies, without hearing the truth.
Stephen himself has a long history of helping youth, and going that extra mile for them. In Red Deer, he has given his life savings to youth ministry and a group home for teens, including kids who were homosexuals, with no exclusions.
The organization Stephen worked with which ministered to teens still functions in Alberta, except for Red Deer. Where it was difficult before, the Human Rights complaint magnified the difficulties. They had 100 teens a week that they ministered to, and had good rapport with the local churches. The complaint and the unsavoury profile that the complainant Darren Lund was able to generate from the hate speech case over Stephen's letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate limited the access to funds.
Here is my hope and prayer for Darren Lund. I hope and pray that one day Darren Lund will see the damage that he did to Stephen Boissoin and the youth of Red Deer, both the street kids that Stephen ministered to and the students that Darren taught. When that moment comes, I pray that God's mercy will open his eyes, and that his heart will be softened.
Basically, in Stephen's opinion, left alone, the letter would have sparked debate, and then faded away. The letter was meant to be a sounding of the alarm. By it, Stephen was asking parents to wake up, and ask some questions about what was being taught in schools.
Stephen Boissoin saw something that he believed fervently was harmful to his children and other children, and he spoke up about it. It was either true or he had reason to believe that it was true.
TRUE does not cut it with the HRCs. They care about feelings, hurt feelings, or potentially hurt feelings some time in the future for one of their endangered groups.
Oh, by the way, Stephen Boissoin received death threats on his computer during the whole process but he just carried on. Who would have listened to him anyway?
If you want to hear an interesting interview with a thoughtful, calm and peaceful man, who was only trying to do the right thing, and will do so again, you can hear it on Catholic Light here.
If I have to choose between Stephen Boissoin and the Simon Fothergill's of this world, give me Stephen Boissoin every time. He will do his best to tell me the truth every time out. With the Simon Fothergills of this world, the truth is an inconvenience, unless it feels good.
I am somewhat in a state of shock from testimony that I read the other day from the Lemire case Summations of September 2008.
There is no piece of scripture in the bible more fundamentally important to me at this stage of my life than John, Chapter 8, verse 32: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." I cannot even think of anything more straight forward, simple and above all true. It is the basis for this blog "Freedom Through Truth."
And how do you get to know the truth? First, you have to make yourself open to it, and desire it above all else. For me as a Christian, it comes first through prayer. But for all of us, regardless of our faith background, knowing the truth comes from listening actively and discerning what we listen to, and filtering out that which is not for our own edification, and that of our loved ones.
It does not come from the government filtering things out before we get to do that for ourselves. That is Big Brother censorship. It is not so much about taking away our right of free speech, as denying us our responsibility to train our minds to discern what we see and hear.
Compare that to what Simon Fothergill, a lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada had to say about the truth in the Lemire case in the fall of 2008: “It’s very difficult to construct an entirely truthful statement that constitutes hate, but there might be a context. Truth is not a defence and intent is not a defence, but they are irrelevant to the effects and effects are what matters in human rights legislation." Give me a fricking break.
As Marc Lemire blogged on his Freedom Site, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member hearing the Lemire Case, Athanasios Hadjis then asked Mr. Fothergill: “So, I’m to judge a truthful statement on the basis of who made it” and as Mr. Lemire comments "to decide whether it’s likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt?" Unfortunately, as absurd as it sounds when you put it out there Mr.Lemire, I think you got it.
So, we have human beings deciding whether something will expose someone to hatred and contempt to convict a person of hate speech, based solely on their own feelings or the perceived feelings of some other group of people. Facts are irrelevant.
Here's the real bottom line. If what is said is the truth, but is said by someone not from a distinguishable endangered group from an artificial discrimination standpoint, about one of the endangered, it's hate speech. Put the blighter through years of investigation, and hearings. Turn his life upside down, then penalize him, and get him to retract his hateful speech, and mend his ways, even if what he said was true or he had reason to believe it was true.
Stephen Boissoin wrote "1" (that's ONE count it ONE) letter to the Editor of the Red Deer Advocate, which you can find in one of my other blog entries, about activists bringing in a biased homosexual mandate to teach children from an early age about the homosexual lifestyle. He had young kids in the Red Deer school system, and he did not like what was being taught about homosexuality to his kids.
He was in his letter to the editor declaring an ideological socio-political war. He wanted to stand out. He is a committed Bible believing Christian. He speaks a different language than non Christians. When he talks war, the weapons of his warfare are the spiritual weapons from Ephesians in the Bible, not physical weapons. His weapons are teachings of truth from the word of God and science, that reveal that promiscuity is a dangerous lifestyle. That is what he wanted to have people understand to counter what was creeping into the school system. That is a father who loves his children, and the other children in the school system as well.
What he saw from his viewpoint was a homosexual machine that was moving into the schools with a mandate to teach and impress children. He believed that it was just as immoral as allowing a pedophile or drug dealer in the schools to influence young children. But, his letter was not about gay people, but about the gay politics of some hard line groups and there is a big distinction. His position was that most North Americans are not aware of what is going on in the public school systems.
The complainant against him, Darren Lund, was a high school teacher in Reed Deer. He invited a pro-gay minister into the public high school to teach what he called the pro-gay interpretation of the Bible. Stephen Boissoin was part of his local ministerial association and none of them were invited to ensure that the young minds were offered fair opportunity to consider and choose a view. No, as Stephen told me in an email, instead they were manipulated or corralled and guilted into believing lies, without hearing the truth.
Stephen himself has a long history of helping youth, and going that extra mile for them. In Red Deer, he has given his life savings to youth ministry and a group home for teens, including kids who were homosexuals, with no exclusions.
The organization Stephen worked with which ministered to teens still functions in Alberta, except for Red Deer. Where it was difficult before, the Human Rights complaint magnified the difficulties. They had 100 teens a week that they ministered to, and had good rapport with the local churches. The complaint and the unsavoury profile that the complainant Darren Lund was able to generate from the hate speech case over Stephen's letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate limited the access to funds.
Here is my hope and prayer for Darren Lund. I hope and pray that one day Darren Lund will see the damage that he did to Stephen Boissoin and the youth of Red Deer, both the street kids that Stephen ministered to and the students that Darren taught. When that moment comes, I pray that God's mercy will open his eyes, and that his heart will be softened.
Basically, in Stephen's opinion, left alone, the letter would have sparked debate, and then faded away. The letter was meant to be a sounding of the alarm. By it, Stephen was asking parents to wake up, and ask some questions about what was being taught in schools.
Stephen Boissoin saw something that he believed fervently was harmful to his children and other children, and he spoke up about it. It was either true or he had reason to believe that it was true.
TRUE does not cut it with the HRCs. They care about feelings, hurt feelings, or potentially hurt feelings some time in the future for one of their endangered groups.
Oh, by the way, Stephen Boissoin received death threats on his computer during the whole process but he just carried on. Who would have listened to him anyway?
If you want to hear an interesting interview with a thoughtful, calm and peaceful man, who was only trying to do the right thing, and will do so again, you can hear it on Catholic Light here.
If I have to choose between Stephen Boissoin and the Simon Fothergill's of this world, give me Stephen Boissoin every time. He will do his best to tell me the truth every time out. With the Simon Fothergills of this world, the truth is an inconvenience, unless it feels good.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Are HRCs Useful?
An Answer for My Stepdaughter and Wife
Yesterday afternoon, my stepdaughter who has followed a bit of my blog asked me why it was so negative, and if in fact the HRCs did not do good as well as the bad that I was portraying. Her mother, my lovely wife asked me the same question later on in the evening.
I was unable to answer them at the time, not because I do not know the answer, but because of the brain fatigue and headaches that I feel when I have exerted my brain on any given day. And over the last several weeks, I have (for me at least) worked as hard as I can to understand what is going on with the HRCs. Granted I only spend a few hours a day on a few areas, but it wipes me out. With trying to figure this out, my headaches have increased disproportionately, and I have to figure a way to balance a meaningful objective with my own health. Well, enough of that.
Anyway, this morning I do know what I want to say to them both about a very good question that they asked.
The Nazis did not come to power in Germany because the people of Germany were bad. They came into power because the people were dissatisfied with the current political and international climate. With the Nazis, they got order from the chaos. The trains ran on time, and the streets were clean. Oh, by the way they persecuted anyone who disagreed with them, killing a few of them along the way, like 6 million Jews, plus lots of others. So, at what cost did the German people get trains on time and clean streets. At the cost of their dignity.
Our Human Rights Commissions do not run on time and have not cleaned up our streets. What good comes from a decision that on average takes over a year to reach, and often several to get to?
If you are a complainant and file a grievance that takes 14 months to resolve, over an apartment or a job that you were denied, is there really justice in that for you?
If you were the Defendant of the complaint, and have to pay legal fees for a complaint, often out of the blue, that drags on and on and on and on, where you are considered by the system to be guilty from the get go, and have no recourse to really prove yourself innocent, and it will cost you almost as much to win as to lose, is there really justice in it for you?
I reviewed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights this morning while preparing this, and think that we in Canada ought to look into trying to adopt it, instead of inventing most of the human rights we are doing on our own.
Article 18 says Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Tell that to Stephen Boissoin.
Article 19 say Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Tell that to Mark Steyn, Macleans and Ezra Levant.
The problem as I see it is not the objective, it is the system. I love this country, and want to see all people who are here treated with respect and dignity. I want to live in a country where when I disagree with you because of my religious or personal beliefs that that is not considered to be discrimination, but differences of opinion, and I do not have to go before a kangaroo court to try and defend myself.
I want to live in a country where the truth matters because it is objectively the truth, not just because it doesn't hurt somebody's feelings this time. Read my posting on Lemire/Levant yesterday for how the Canadian HRC has spoken about the truth.
I want to live in a country where when there is an instance where it appears that there has been an act of discrimination among people that there is an unbiased forum for resolution of that discrimination, not a star chamber.
So, simply, I think HRCs could be very useful, but not as they are currently configured.
Yesterday afternoon, my stepdaughter who has followed a bit of my blog asked me why it was so negative, and if in fact the HRCs did not do good as well as the bad that I was portraying. Her mother, my lovely wife asked me the same question later on in the evening.
I was unable to answer them at the time, not because I do not know the answer, but because of the brain fatigue and headaches that I feel when I have exerted my brain on any given day. And over the last several weeks, I have (for me at least) worked as hard as I can to understand what is going on with the HRCs. Granted I only spend a few hours a day on a few areas, but it wipes me out. With trying to figure this out, my headaches have increased disproportionately, and I have to figure a way to balance a meaningful objective with my own health. Well, enough of that.
Anyway, this morning I do know what I want to say to them both about a very good question that they asked.
The Nazis did not come to power in Germany because the people of Germany were bad. They came into power because the people were dissatisfied with the current political and international climate. With the Nazis, they got order from the chaos. The trains ran on time, and the streets were clean. Oh, by the way they persecuted anyone who disagreed with them, killing a few of them along the way, like 6 million Jews, plus lots of others. So, at what cost did the German people get trains on time and clean streets. At the cost of their dignity.
Our Human Rights Commissions do not run on time and have not cleaned up our streets. What good comes from a decision that on average takes over a year to reach, and often several to get to?
If you are a complainant and file a grievance that takes 14 months to resolve, over an apartment or a job that you were denied, is there really justice in that for you?
If you were the Defendant of the complaint, and have to pay legal fees for a complaint, often out of the blue, that drags on and on and on and on, where you are considered by the system to be guilty from the get go, and have no recourse to really prove yourself innocent, and it will cost you almost as much to win as to lose, is there really justice in it for you?
I reviewed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights this morning while preparing this, and think that we in Canada ought to look into trying to adopt it, instead of inventing most of the human rights we are doing on our own.
Article 18 says Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Tell that to Stephen Boissoin.
Article 19 say Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Tell that to Mark Steyn, Macleans and Ezra Levant.
The problem as I see it is not the objective, it is the system. I love this country, and want to see all people who are here treated with respect and dignity. I want to live in a country where when I disagree with you because of my religious or personal beliefs that that is not considered to be discrimination, but differences of opinion, and I do not have to go before a kangaroo court to try and defend myself.
I want to live in a country where the truth matters because it is objectively the truth, not just because it doesn't hurt somebody's feelings this time. Read my posting on Lemire/Levant yesterday for how the Canadian HRC has spoken about the truth.
I want to live in a country where when there is an instance where it appears that there has been an act of discrimination among people that there is an unbiased forum for resolution of that discrimination, not a star chamber.
So, simply, I think HRCs could be very useful, but not as they are currently configured.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Lemire and Levant on the same side?
What would put an alleged white supremacist from Ontario and a Jew from Alberta on the same side of any question?
Wake up Canada. If Ezra Levant and Marc Lemire agree on something, there might be something to it.
Ezra Levant comes across to me in person, like a cocker spaniel, pit bull cross. He looks harmless until he bares his teeth. He is a product of his own Calgary Jewish upbringing, his legal education, his time in Ottawa, and above all, his recent trials at the hands of the HRCs and their minions and hangers on. He is a good guy to have on your side. He is opinionated, loud and carries a sharp bite. However, his opinions are researched not just shot from the lip. His being loud is also a good thing, so maybe he can be heard above the deafening white noise of the HRCs and their ilk. And, he is doing his best to sink his teeth firmly into the ?sses of the HRCs and bring them to justice, not the frontier, kangaroo court type that they mete out, but real justice. You know, bring it out into the light of day where we can all see it and be disgusted by it. In my mind, Ezra Levant is a freedom fighter.
Merc Lemire is a different kind of freedom fighter. He is reported to be a white supremacist, and may well still be. He was raised in Toronto and now lives in Hamilton, Ontario. He reportedly was President of the Heritage Front, from 2001 until it disbanded in 2005. That organisation was a neo-Nazi white supremacist group founded in 1989. But, he too is dogged in is determination, more like a Doberman. He does not seem to be cute and cuddly, more dogmatic, yet well researched, and with technical skills to ferret out meaningful information, that is embarrassing to his enemies.
But, these two have a common enemy, Canada's Human Rights Commissions, and in particular the Hate Speech sections of the law in each jurisdiction.
Marc Lemire challenged the consititutionality of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, resulting in many days of hearings over seveal years and which culminated in 3 final days of summation in September 2008.
At the summation, he documented what Simon Fothergill, a lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada had to say about the truth: “It’s very difficult to construct an entirely truthful statement that constitutes hate, but there might be a context. Truth is not a defence and intent is not a defence, but they are irrelevant to the effects and effects are what matters in human rights legislation."
I have 3 young adult daughters, and in recent years have expended considerable energy trying to get them to understand the concept that "It is more important to figure out what the truth is then it is to be right." Little did I know that I was preaching sedition to them.
As Marc Lemire blogged on his Freedom Site, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member hearing the Lemire Case, Athanasios Hadjis then asked Mr. Fothergill: “So, I’m to judge a truthful statement on the basis of who made it” and as Mr. Lemire comments "to decide whether it’s likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt?"
In one of the earlier days of hearings Dean Steacy, an investigator for the CHRC was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?" — to which he replied "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value … It's not my job to give value to an American concept."
This guy is allowed to investigate free speech based discrimination on behalf of his employer the CHRC, but seems to have misplaced his copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or at least Section 2 thereof. I did not make this up.
But, back to Fothergill, and the Summation hearings. Mr. Fothergill had the audacity to state the following, which Mr. Lemire detailed in his blog: “There are excerpts from the Bible that can expose people to hatred or contempt and the Tribunal has dealt with that,” Mr. Fothergill stated.
It appears from Mr. Lemire's notes that Fothergill was apparently defending Tribunal Vice Chairman Hadjis’ previous ruling in the Warman v. Jessica Beaumont case where she was condemned for citing two passages from Leviticus in support of her critique of same sex marriage. For those of you who care, Leviticus is also the 3rd book of the Hebrew Torah, and is sacred to the Jews as well.
I don't know about you, but I believe as do Christians and Jews throughout the world that the Book of Leviticus in the Bible and Torah is the undisputed word of God. To discredit the Word of God is foolhardy at best. I have not yet reviewed the Jessica Beaumont case, but think I will in the future.
The more I read and try to understand what is going on here, the more I conclude that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
As Ezra Levant says, and I am sure Marc Lemire would agree: Fire. Them. All.
Wake up Canada. If Ezra Levant and Marc Lemire agree on something, there might be something to it.
Ezra Levant comes across to me in person, like a cocker spaniel, pit bull cross. He looks harmless until he bares his teeth. He is a product of his own Calgary Jewish upbringing, his legal education, his time in Ottawa, and above all, his recent trials at the hands of the HRCs and their minions and hangers on. He is a good guy to have on your side. He is opinionated, loud and carries a sharp bite. However, his opinions are researched not just shot from the lip. His being loud is also a good thing, so maybe he can be heard above the deafening white noise of the HRCs and their ilk. And, he is doing his best to sink his teeth firmly into the ?sses of the HRCs and bring them to justice, not the frontier, kangaroo court type that they mete out, but real justice. You know, bring it out into the light of day where we can all see it and be disgusted by it. In my mind, Ezra Levant is a freedom fighter.
Merc Lemire is a different kind of freedom fighter. He is reported to be a white supremacist, and may well still be. He was raised in Toronto and now lives in Hamilton, Ontario. He reportedly was President of the Heritage Front, from 2001 until it disbanded in 2005. That organisation was a neo-Nazi white supremacist group founded in 1989. But, he too is dogged in is determination, more like a Doberman. He does not seem to be cute and cuddly, more dogmatic, yet well researched, and with technical skills to ferret out meaningful information, that is embarrassing to his enemies.
But, these two have a common enemy, Canada's Human Rights Commissions, and in particular the Hate Speech sections of the law in each jurisdiction.
Marc Lemire challenged the consititutionality of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, resulting in many days of hearings over seveal years and which culminated in 3 final days of summation in September 2008.
At the summation, he documented what Simon Fothergill, a lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada had to say about the truth: “It’s very difficult to construct an entirely truthful statement that constitutes hate, but there might be a context. Truth is not a defence and intent is not a defence, but they are irrelevant to the effects and effects are what matters in human rights legislation."
I have 3 young adult daughters, and in recent years have expended considerable energy trying to get them to understand the concept that "It is more important to figure out what the truth is then it is to be right." Little did I know that I was preaching sedition to them.
As Marc Lemire blogged on his Freedom Site, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member hearing the Lemire Case, Athanasios Hadjis then asked Mr. Fothergill: “So, I’m to judge a truthful statement on the basis of who made it” and as Mr. Lemire comments "to decide whether it’s likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt?"
In one of the earlier days of hearings Dean Steacy, an investigator for the CHRC was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?" — to which he replied "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value … It's not my job to give value to an American concept."
This guy is allowed to investigate free speech based discrimination on behalf of his employer the CHRC, but seems to have misplaced his copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or at least Section 2 thereof. I did not make this up.
But, back to Fothergill, and the Summation hearings. Mr. Fothergill had the audacity to state the following, which Mr. Lemire detailed in his blog: “There are excerpts from the Bible that can expose people to hatred or contempt and the Tribunal has dealt with that,” Mr. Fothergill stated.
It appears from Mr. Lemire's notes that Fothergill was apparently defending Tribunal Vice Chairman Hadjis’ previous ruling in the Warman v. Jessica Beaumont case where she was condemned for citing two passages from Leviticus in support of her critique of same sex marriage. For those of you who care, Leviticus is also the 3rd book of the Hebrew Torah, and is sacred to the Jews as well.
I don't know about you, but I believe as do Christians and Jews throughout the world that the Book of Leviticus in the Bible and Torah is the undisputed word of God. To discredit the Word of God is foolhardy at best. I have not yet reviewed the Jessica Beaumont case, but think I will in the future.
The more I read and try to understand what is going on here, the more I conclude that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
As Ezra Levant says, and I am sure Marc Lemire would agree: Fire. Them. All.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Gator Ted and the Doper (Medical Use Only) - Ontario HRC
My license to smoke dope trumps your liquor license UPDATED
Ted Kindos runs, at least for now, Gator Ted's Tap & Grill in Burlington Ontario. Why for the moment? Well, to date in his 4 year battle for his sanity, he has spent over $40,000 defending a nonsense complaint before the Ontario HRC (yes them again), because he did not want to let Steve Gibson, a licensed medical marijuana user, smoke dope by his front door. How insensitive of him!!
Steve Gibson qualifies as a disabled person. Hence the medical marijuana certificate. So, Bad Boy Ted is discriminating against a disabled person, by not allowing him to smoke dope by his front door. It doesn't matter whether it offends Gator Ted's other patrons. They are not probably endangered species, like Stevie Boy, unless Gator Ted were to change his bar to a Gay bar. I am pretty sure that Gay trumps disabled. Hey Ted. I got the answer for you. (I sure hope that Steve Gibson is not Gay).
You can read what Tim Hudak, Niagara West MPP who is running for the leadership of the Provincial PC party, has to say about this bit of fluff and nonsense here.
If Tim Hudak is prepared to go to bat against all the insanity of the Ontario HRC, he might be the guy to have running the PC party here in Ontario. Just a thought. This is not a paid or unpaid political announcement.
Oh, Gator Ted is no fool. In March 2009, he filed a federal court application asking that people permitted by Ottawa to use marijuana for health reasons remain subject to provincial laws. He wants the court to declare he doesn't have to serve such users when doing so would violate the Ontario Liquor Licence Act, putting him at risk of losing his business. The act says he can't serve anyone possessing a banned substance. If he is successful with this route, it will trump the Ontario HRC, he says. Good luck with that Ted. These people don't care about the law. They make it up as they go along.
But the real issue is Gator Ted's. I'm not making this stuff up. If you are in Burlington, drop by his place at 1505 Guelph Line, and drop a little cash on some some grub and a drink or two. He might need it to fight this nonsense. Or you can drop by his Waterdown location at 419 Dundas St. E., but I don't think there is any dope smoking there. (I am not sure if I mean any dope who is smoking or smoking of dope). This is also not a paid or unpaid advertisement.
Ted Kindos runs, at least for now, Gator Ted's Tap & Grill in Burlington Ontario. Why for the moment? Well, to date in his 4 year battle for his sanity, he has spent over $40,000 defending a nonsense complaint before the Ontario HRC (yes them again), because he did not want to let Steve Gibson, a licensed medical marijuana user, smoke dope by his front door. How insensitive of him!!
Steve Gibson qualifies as a disabled person. Hence the medical marijuana certificate. So, Bad Boy Ted is discriminating against a disabled person, by not allowing him to smoke dope by his front door. It doesn't matter whether it offends Gator Ted's other patrons. They are not probably endangered species, like Stevie Boy, unless Gator Ted were to change his bar to a Gay bar. I am pretty sure that Gay trumps disabled. Hey Ted. I got the answer for you. (I sure hope that Steve Gibson is not Gay).
You can read what Tim Hudak, Niagara West MPP who is running for the leadership of the Provincial PC party, has to say about this bit of fluff and nonsense here.
If Tim Hudak is prepared to go to bat against all the insanity of the Ontario HRC, he might be the guy to have running the PC party here in Ontario. Just a thought. This is not a paid or unpaid political announcement.
Oh, Gator Ted is no fool. In March 2009, he filed a federal court application asking that people permitted by Ottawa to use marijuana for health reasons remain subject to provincial laws. He wants the court to declare he doesn't have to serve such users when doing so would violate the Ontario Liquor Licence Act, putting him at risk of losing his business. The act says he can't serve anyone possessing a banned substance. If he is successful with this route, it will trump the Ontario HRC, he says. Good luck with that Ted. These people don't care about the law. They make it up as they go along.
But the real issue is Gator Ted's. I'm not making this stuff up. If you are in Burlington, drop by his place at 1505 Guelph Line, and drop a little cash on some some grub and a drink or two. He might need it to fight this nonsense. Or you can drop by his Waterdown location at 419 Dundas St. E., but I don't think there is any dope smoking there. (I am not sure if I mean any dope who is smoking or smoking of dope). This is also not a paid or unpaid advertisement.
Friday, June 5, 2009
The Costs of the HRCs - Direct & Indirect
A Brief Look at The Costs of our HRCs
There are costs to the work (work - that's a misplaced word) that our HRCs undertake allegedly on our behalf. There is the direct cost of the HRC itself, and there is the indirect costs born by the Defendant, and to a some extent by the rest of us.
Direct Costs
I was curious to see if I could figure out what the HRC industry spends of our tax dollars in a year. So, I went to each HRC web site. Nunavut does not have their own HRC yet. They work their problems through the NWT HRC. Many of the HRCs have their financial statements in their annual report. Some are part of another ministry, and had to be located there. Reporting standards varied, from one number for the whole, to greater detail.
Bottom line here. The HRCs, including provinces, territories, and Canada total about $77 million annually. There is some guesswork here, since the last financial statement I could find for the Canada HRC was 2002. That is only about $2.32 for each one of us on our annual tax bills. Personally, I'll take the cash if it is offered.
Indirect Costs
All indirect costs of our HRCs are not able to be measured. When I call them indirect, I mean it only from the perspective of the HRC itself. ie. They never see it, or probably care about it.
Legal Fees
The most common of these costs is Legal Fees. Ted Kindos has spent north of $40,000 to defend a nonsense case about a licensed pot smoker at his place of business. Ezra Levant has spent significantly more than $100,000 to defend himself against the nuisance claims made against him over the last few years.
Awards and Interest
Cases when completed often result in an award to the Complainant, with interest calculated from some earlier date. A minister in PEI in a case I will review sometime soon was awarded $600,000 plus interest for lost wages and pain and suffering. In ADGA which I reviewed in an earlier post, the Complainant got about $80,000.
However, most cases settle for smaller amounts before they get to the actual hearing stage. As Ezra Levant titled his book, these are shakedowns. For a nuisance payment of $5,000 to $20,000, plus some other pound of emotional flesh, the complainant walks away with a tax free bonus, and the Defendant gets to crawl away.
Non Financial Award Costs
HRCs tend to be attempting to remediate egregious behaviour on the part of the Defendants, and so they tend to order them to undertake sensitivity training, or something similar. As well, particularly for businesses, they like to get them to put their staff through this training, make them develop training materials in case they should ever again hire someone like the person who complained about them in the first place. Of course, these ativities must be undertaken with consultants approved by the HRC. I smell a sub industry here.
In the case of Viola Landry and the Popeye Restaurant in Geraldton Ontario, she had to put cards with the Human Rights Code on the tables to help her customers not discriminate against each other and her staff. I wonder what happened to the cards after she lost her business.
Emotional and Other costs
This is the cost that cannot be quantified. I watched my friend, the grade school principal, having to retire early because of the deands on her health, of seeing her life's work and labour of love torn apart because she stood up to a loud mouthed parent of the wrong colour.
I listened to John Fulton who owns 2 health clubs in St. Caherines, and hopes he still will after the transsexual who he couldn't accommodate on the spot in his Women's Only Club decided to make a case of it. Mr. Fulton has built his business from scratch over 25 years, and is active in the community supporting worthy causes. Will be able to when this is done, not just financially, but with the emotional cost of it all on him.
Viola Landry's business was not particularly strong when her case started, but she was doing her best to make it work. She closed it down last year, and had to seek work elsewhere.
This Emotional and Physical cost on the bodies and minds of the Defendants of these actions are a burden that our society will bear into the future. As humans, we do not wake up each day with renewed energy, unhindered by the challenges that we faced yesterday or yesterday's yesterday. No, we carry the burden of traumas in our life with us, often forever. The burden may be reduced by therapy with the right counsellor, another indirect cost. But, once that emotional and physical energy has been spent, it often cannot be recovered. We are seeing more cases of chronic fatigue, and autoimmune problems, particularly among those who have carried emotional burdens beyond their own ability.
Will Ted Kindos, John Fulton, Viola Landry end up retiring earlier than they otherwise might have? I would not be surprised that the traumatic burden of their HRC cases will impact their long term physical and mental health. I saw it with my friend the principal.
Can our Country, Provinces and Territories afford the cost of second hand smoke that is coming down the pipe from these cases?
People in our country should be free from discrimination, including the Defendants and this wierd process that makes them into victims.
This system is seriously broken.
There are costs to the work (work - that's a misplaced word) that our HRCs undertake allegedly on our behalf. There is the direct cost of the HRC itself, and there is the indirect costs born by the Defendant, and to a some extent by the rest of us.
Direct Costs
I was curious to see if I could figure out what the HRC industry spends of our tax dollars in a year. So, I went to each HRC web site. Nunavut does not have their own HRC yet. They work their problems through the NWT HRC. Many of the HRCs have their financial statements in their annual report. Some are part of another ministry, and had to be located there. Reporting standards varied, from one number for the whole, to greater detail.
Bottom line here. The HRCs, including provinces, territories, and Canada total about $77 million annually. There is some guesswork here, since the last financial statement I could find for the Canada HRC was 2002. That is only about $2.32 for each one of us on our annual tax bills. Personally, I'll take the cash if it is offered.
Indirect Costs
All indirect costs of our HRCs are not able to be measured. When I call them indirect, I mean it only from the perspective of the HRC itself. ie. They never see it, or probably care about it.
Legal Fees
The most common of these costs is Legal Fees. Ted Kindos has spent north of $40,000 to defend a nonsense case about a licensed pot smoker at his place of business. Ezra Levant has spent significantly more than $100,000 to defend himself against the nuisance claims made against him over the last few years.
Awards and Interest
Cases when completed often result in an award to the Complainant, with interest calculated from some earlier date. A minister in PEI in a case I will review sometime soon was awarded $600,000 plus interest for lost wages and pain and suffering. In ADGA which I reviewed in an earlier post, the Complainant got about $80,000.
However, most cases settle for smaller amounts before they get to the actual hearing stage. As Ezra Levant titled his book, these are shakedowns. For a nuisance payment of $5,000 to $20,000, plus some other pound of emotional flesh, the complainant walks away with a tax free bonus, and the Defendant gets to crawl away.
Non Financial Award Costs
HRCs tend to be attempting to remediate egregious behaviour on the part of the Defendants, and so they tend to order them to undertake sensitivity training, or something similar. As well, particularly for businesses, they like to get them to put their staff through this training, make them develop training materials in case they should ever again hire someone like the person who complained about them in the first place. Of course, these ativities must be undertaken with consultants approved by the HRC. I smell a sub industry here.
In the case of Viola Landry and the Popeye Restaurant in Geraldton Ontario, she had to put cards with the Human Rights Code on the tables to help her customers not discriminate against each other and her staff. I wonder what happened to the cards after she lost her business.
Emotional and Other costs
This is the cost that cannot be quantified. I watched my friend, the grade school principal, having to retire early because of the deands on her health, of seeing her life's work and labour of love torn apart because she stood up to a loud mouthed parent of the wrong colour.
I listened to John Fulton who owns 2 health clubs in St. Caherines, and hopes he still will after the transsexual who he couldn't accommodate on the spot in his Women's Only Club decided to make a case of it. Mr. Fulton has built his business from scratch over 25 years, and is active in the community supporting worthy causes. Will be able to when this is done, not just financially, but with the emotional cost of it all on him.
Viola Landry's business was not particularly strong when her case started, but she was doing her best to make it work. She closed it down last year, and had to seek work elsewhere.
This Emotional and Physical cost on the bodies and minds of the Defendants of these actions are a burden that our society will bear into the future. As humans, we do not wake up each day with renewed energy, unhindered by the challenges that we faced yesterday or yesterday's yesterday. No, we carry the burden of traumas in our life with us, often forever. The burden may be reduced by therapy with the right counsellor, another indirect cost. But, once that emotional and physical energy has been spent, it often cannot be recovered. We are seeing more cases of chronic fatigue, and autoimmune problems, particularly among those who have carried emotional burdens beyond their own ability.
Will Ted Kindos, John Fulton, Viola Landry end up retiring earlier than they otherwise might have? I would not be surprised that the traumatic burden of their HRC cases will impact their long term physical and mental health. I saw it with my friend the principal.
Can our Country, Provinces and Territories afford the cost of second hand smoke that is coming down the pipe from these cases?
People in our country should be free from discrimination, including the Defendants and this wierd process that makes them into victims.
This system is seriously broken.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Back to Reality - Redux
Yesterday I posted "Back to Reality."
Stephen Boissoin, who anyone reading my blogs or Ezra Levant's or those of others who are incensed at the actions of the Alberta HRC against him, responded as he has so graciously to a few of my postings. Rather than leave his very meaningful response buried as a comment, I have reproduced it here as a separate entry, for a couple of reasons.
One, I would like my readers to see that here is a man, bloodied but not bowed by the insanity of the actions of the Alberta HRC against him. Two, his approach is a common sense approach to the fact that we are all different, and we have rich, long held beliefs that are important to us, and do not deserve to be minimized because they might hurt some poor baby's feelings.
"You said, "It is true that no one should be discriminated against, NO ONE. But, the way out of discrimination is getting to know each other, and to learn to accept the differences."
I agree that we should not discriminate by preventing one from receiving equal medical care, education, social services etc etc but I do not believe that it is beneficial to make everyone FEEL good about their behaviour as is being pushed on us to do today.
Based on my personal beliefs and my beliefs as a Christian, I must discriminate between right and wrong, good and bad, safe and unsafe, wise and unwise behaviour or the propagation of such behaviours as right.....especially because these behaviours cause harm to mankind. Expressing these beliefs may cause some to feel discriminated agaisnt due to behaviours they choose to act out that contradict my beliefs.
We can co-exist to some extent and be at peace doing so BUT we cannot agree on everything and if we are to co-exist in peace then we must be able to BELIEVE and EXPRESS our differences. We can disagree and even dislike or hate opposing opinions, while at the same time wishing no harm.
I hate certain behaviours but I would still do good as God directs to those who live out ways I do not agree with.
Problem is.....we are being forced to believe that hurting feelings is causing great harm.
Today I am told that holding to and expressing my traditional Christian values is unnacceptable. My government is attempting to FORCE me to remain quiet. I am discriminated against and my feelings are hurt but do I have equal rights.....no. Why, I am a Christian that believes in the Word of God and praise God for His mercy that I do."
All I can add to that is: "All you who have ears to hear, listen."
Stephen Boissoin, who anyone reading my blogs or Ezra Levant's or those of others who are incensed at the actions of the Alberta HRC against him, responded as he has so graciously to a few of my postings. Rather than leave his very meaningful response buried as a comment, I have reproduced it here as a separate entry, for a couple of reasons.
One, I would like my readers to see that here is a man, bloodied but not bowed by the insanity of the actions of the Alberta HRC against him. Two, his approach is a common sense approach to the fact that we are all different, and we have rich, long held beliefs that are important to us, and do not deserve to be minimized because they might hurt some poor baby's feelings.
"You said, "It is true that no one should be discriminated against, NO ONE. But, the way out of discrimination is getting to know each other, and to learn to accept the differences."
I agree that we should not discriminate by preventing one from receiving equal medical care, education, social services etc etc but I do not believe that it is beneficial to make everyone FEEL good about their behaviour as is being pushed on us to do today.
Based on my personal beliefs and my beliefs as a Christian, I must discriminate between right and wrong, good and bad, safe and unsafe, wise and unwise behaviour or the propagation of such behaviours as right.....especially because these behaviours cause harm to mankind. Expressing these beliefs may cause some to feel discriminated agaisnt due to behaviours they choose to act out that contradict my beliefs.
We can co-exist to some extent and be at peace doing so BUT we cannot agree on everything and if we are to co-exist in peace then we must be able to BELIEVE and EXPRESS our differences. We can disagree and even dislike or hate opposing opinions, while at the same time wishing no harm.
I hate certain behaviours but I would still do good as God directs to those who live out ways I do not agree with.
Problem is.....we are being forced to believe that hurting feelings is causing great harm.
Today I am told that holding to and expressing my traditional Christian values is unnacceptable. My government is attempting to FORCE me to remain quiet. I am discriminated against and my feelings are hurt but do I have equal rights.....no. Why, I am a Christian that believes in the Word of God and praise God for His mercy that I do."
All I can add to that is: "All you who have ears to hear, listen."
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Back to Reality
Asserting Rights
In thinking about the HRCs sweep across the country to protect us from those who would sabotage our Human Rights, at least if we fall into one of the protected groups - not you Billy Bob - I was reminded of the Crusades.
The Crusades were commenced with a seemingly noble cause, to return the Holy Land, which had fallen under Muslim rule back to Christian control. However, there were 9 official Crusades, 8 of which were under papal sanction, and numerous other crusade like conflicts over roughly 500 years. Basically, the noble cause gave way to a Turn or Burn approach to religious conversion, along with raping, plundering and pillaging, once again proving irrefutable that Fighting for Peace is like Screwing for Virginity.
The HRCs started with what appears to be a noble goal, to rid this country and its provinces and territories of discrimination, by giving people a place and forum, and the financial backing to assert their rights. Ah, there's the rub.
The Ontario Government has on its web site a section on Gender Identity:Your Rights and Responsibilities. I thought it might have been interesting if the Responsibilities wordings dealt with the responsibilities of the gender challenged individual. However, it deals with responsibilities from the perspective of all the rest of us to the gender challenged.
So, our governments want us to be accepting of each other, and particularly those who are different, and they have defined those differences. White anglo saxon males probably aren't different, unless they are disabled, gay, or receiving public assistance in Ontario. The governments have defined things as rights, and somehow in all of this it has boiled down to a right to not feel offended by someone else, if you are able to be considered part of a protected special interest group.
However, it is very political. As you will recall from the Boissoin case, Stephen as a bible believing Christian was offended by certain overt actions of some homosexuals to infiltrate schools with teachings of homosexuality as an acceptable life style and spoke out in a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate. In simple terms, the homosexual agenda to teach about the homosexual lifestyle in schools discriminates against Christians and their beliefs. However, a man with no dog in the fight apparently, since he himself is apparently not a homosexual, Dr. Darren Lund claimed foul and called Mr. Boissoin's letter hateful against homosexuals. Alberta legislation protects people from discrimination on 13 grounds. The 3rd one is religious beliefs - ie. Stephen Boissoin. The 13th one is sexual orientation - ie. the homosexual community.
So, capriciously some people's rights to not be offended trump other people's rights to not be offended.
Interestingly, the Alberta HRC ruled against a Christian from Red Deer Alberta, who complained that the lyrics of a song called "Kill the Christians" on an album by the band Deicide was hateful and discriminatory. Lori Andreachuk, the Alberta Human Rights Commissioner dismissed saying Christians aren't vulnerable enough and Deicide as a group was not credible enough. Ms. Andreachuk, the divorce lawyer from Lethbridge, who heads the Alberta HRC was responsible for the ruling in the Boissoin case I and many others have written about. Talk about discrimination. Has anyone thought of charging her nibs with discrimination?
This looks more like a Crusade gone wrong every day. Too much power concentrated in the hands of people who are all too human, and can handle it no better than any one of us on the outside could either.
Society as we know it cannot survive us fighting with each other over fictitous rights to not be offended. It is true that no one should be discriminated against, NO ONE. But, the way out of discrimination is getting to know each other, and to learn to accept the differences. It is what makes a good marriage work. Have you ever tried to resolve marital differences with an inent to preserve the marriage in a court? I guess not. You only go to court for a divorce. Been there done that. It certainly did not make me think better of my former wife at the time.
Who will stand up against this Crusade?
In thinking about the HRCs sweep across the country to protect us from those who would sabotage our Human Rights, at least if we fall into one of the protected groups - not you Billy Bob - I was reminded of the Crusades.
The Crusades were commenced with a seemingly noble cause, to return the Holy Land, which had fallen under Muslim rule back to Christian control. However, there were 9 official Crusades, 8 of which were under papal sanction, and numerous other crusade like conflicts over roughly 500 years. Basically, the noble cause gave way to a Turn or Burn approach to religious conversion, along with raping, plundering and pillaging, once again proving irrefutable that Fighting for Peace is like Screwing for Virginity.
The HRCs started with what appears to be a noble goal, to rid this country and its provinces and territories of discrimination, by giving people a place and forum, and the financial backing to assert their rights. Ah, there's the rub.
The Ontario Government has on its web site a section on Gender Identity:Your Rights and Responsibilities. I thought it might have been interesting if the Responsibilities wordings dealt with the responsibilities of the gender challenged individual. However, it deals with responsibilities from the perspective of all the rest of us to the gender challenged.
So, our governments want us to be accepting of each other, and particularly those who are different, and they have defined those differences. White anglo saxon males probably aren't different, unless they are disabled, gay, or receiving public assistance in Ontario. The governments have defined things as rights, and somehow in all of this it has boiled down to a right to not feel offended by someone else, if you are able to be considered part of a protected special interest group.
However, it is very political. As you will recall from the Boissoin case, Stephen as a bible believing Christian was offended by certain overt actions of some homosexuals to infiltrate schools with teachings of homosexuality as an acceptable life style and spoke out in a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate. In simple terms, the homosexual agenda to teach about the homosexual lifestyle in schools discriminates against Christians and their beliefs. However, a man with no dog in the fight apparently, since he himself is apparently not a homosexual, Dr. Darren Lund claimed foul and called Mr. Boissoin's letter hateful against homosexuals. Alberta legislation protects people from discrimination on 13 grounds. The 3rd one is religious beliefs - ie. Stephen Boissoin. The 13th one is sexual orientation - ie. the homosexual community.
So, capriciously some people's rights to not be offended trump other people's rights to not be offended.
Interestingly, the Alberta HRC ruled against a Christian from Red Deer Alberta, who complained that the lyrics of a song called "Kill the Christians" on an album by the band Deicide was hateful and discriminatory. Lori Andreachuk, the Alberta Human Rights Commissioner dismissed saying Christians aren't vulnerable enough and Deicide as a group was not credible enough. Ms. Andreachuk, the divorce lawyer from Lethbridge, who heads the Alberta HRC was responsible for the ruling in the Boissoin case I and many others have written about. Talk about discrimination. Has anyone thought of charging her nibs with discrimination?
This looks more like a Crusade gone wrong every day. Too much power concentrated in the hands of people who are all too human, and can handle it no better than any one of us on the outside could either.
Society as we know it cannot survive us fighting with each other over fictitous rights to not be offended. It is true that no one should be discriminated against, NO ONE. But, the way out of discrimination is getting to know each other, and to learn to accept the differences. It is what makes a good marriage work. Have you ever tried to resolve marital differences with an inent to preserve the marriage in a court? I guess not. You only go to court for a divorce. Been there done that. It certainly did not make me think better of my former wife at the time.
Who will stand up against this Crusade?
Housekeeping
If you are new to my blog, I urge you to look at some of the earlier posts back several pages. Without reading some of the earlier entries recent ones might be taken out of context. You can use the Labels section on the left hand side of the page to find areas and case commentaries of interest. Click on them to access them directly, or go to the bottom of a page and click on "Older Posts" to go to a previous page.
I welcome comments, particularly if what I have said is inaccurate or down right wrong. I will correct errors and omissions of which I am aware.
Also, there are some people currently being persecuted by HRCs who could use your financial support. Here are links to their sites. Tell them I sent you, please.
Stephen Boissoin heads to Appeals Court this Fall. I do not have details as yet, but will post when I do. He has indicated that he will be bringing his blog up to date as that time approaches. But, his blog has a Donate location on it. Here is his blog.
Ezra Levant is a tireless fighter of the HRCs and is also a well known target for them. I encourage you to support him and to read his entertaining blog. You can donate to his cause on his site. His blog is here.
Kathy Shaidle is another outspoken critic of what is wrong with our HRCs, and as such became another of their targets recently. Please read her blog entries. They are entertaining, and informative. She is a very good writer. Her donation clicker is on the right hand side of the page part way down. Here is her blog.
One final, for now, individual who could use your support is John Fulton from St. Catherines. I have written about him in another blog post which I urge you to read. Click on Fulton in the labels section on the left of this page, and read about this travesty of justice. You can donate to his cause through the Canadian Constitution Foundation here.
Thank you for your support.
I welcome comments, particularly if what I have said is inaccurate or down right wrong. I will correct errors and omissions of which I am aware.
Also, there are some people currently being persecuted by HRCs who could use your financial support. Here are links to their sites. Tell them I sent you, please.
Stephen Boissoin heads to Appeals Court this Fall. I do not have details as yet, but will post when I do. He has indicated that he will be bringing his blog up to date as that time approaches. But, his blog has a Donate location on it. Here is his blog.
Ezra Levant is a tireless fighter of the HRCs and is also a well known target for them. I encourage you to support him and to read his entertaining blog. You can donate to his cause on his site. His blog is here.
Kathy Shaidle is another outspoken critic of what is wrong with our HRCs, and as such became another of their targets recently. Please read her blog entries. They are entertaining, and informative. She is a very good writer. Her donation clicker is on the right hand side of the page part way down. Here is her blog.
One final, for now, individual who could use your support is John Fulton from St. Catherines. I have written about him in another blog post which I urge you to read. Click on Fulton in the labels section on the left of this page, and read about this travesty of justice. You can donate to his cause through the Canadian Constitution Foundation here.
Thank you for your support.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)