FOCA - Freedom of Choice Act

Obama Wants to Keep His Promise Stealthily

I received the following today from Mike Huckabee who ran for the Republican nomination in the last US election. It is about a disgusting piece of legislation, that Christians and people of goodwill have to oppose, and that I was following while in the US last winter. His piece read:

In July 2007, Barack Obama promised a group of his supporters that, if elected president, he would sign perhaps the most evil piece of legislation in the history of our republic.

It's called the "Freedom of Choice Act," or FOCA -- but don't let the Orwellian title fool you. It isn't about "freedom" or "choice" at all. It's about forcing each and every American citizen -- regardless of his or her view on abortion -- to support abortion-on-demand not just as a "fundamental right" but as a taxpayer-funded entitlement.

But the compulsion wouldn't stop there. Because FOCA would also run roughshod over the conscience rights of doctors, nurses, and hospitals that oppose abortion on religious or moral grounds -- forcing them to provide or counsel for abortion or face professional de-certification, loss of funding, lawsuits, and even prosecution.

Not only that, FOCA would immediately strike down any and all state restrictions on abortion -- even those with wide popular support, such as prohibitions on partial-birth abortion and parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions.

Make no mistake: FOCA is the most radical piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed, one that would go far beyond Roe v. Wade in making abortion a government-protected and taxpayer-supported "right," through all nine months of pregnancy.

He explained a bit more why there has been a delay with this abomination:

You see, in his 2007 campaign pledge to Planned Parenthood members, Obama promised that signing FOCA would be "the first thing I'd do as president." The only reason he hasn't followed through on that promise is that Democratic-controlled Congress has yet to introduce and pass it.

Why the delay? For one thing, they've had bigger fish to fry -- such as trillion-dollar "stimulus" packages and a new government-run health care system. They learned from Bill Clinton's immediate post-election action on gays in the military not to squander a new president's honeymoon period on divisive social legislation.

But also, by delaying, they can lull their pro-life opponents into thinking that FOCA has been tabled, while quietly building support for it in a stealth propaganda campaign that is already underway using major media outlets -- such as the Washington Post, which recently ran a piece in its "On Faith" section called "Why Fear FOCA?"

Human Events, an organisation that has taken on stopping FOCA as one of their projects plans to use the media to halt FOCA as follows:

The main weapon in HUMAN EVENTS' media blitzkrieg will be an in-depth Special Report called, "The Facts About FOCA: Truth vs. Propaganda in the Battle Over the Most Radical Pro-Abortion Law in American History."

Written in consultation with the finest legal minds of our time, "The Facts About FOCA" will reveal how, despite pro-abortionists' attempts to soft-pedal its potential impact in order to ensure swift passage, the Freedom of Choice Act would:

• Establish abortion as a "fundamental right," elevating it to the same status as the right to vote and the right to free speech -- going beyond any Supreme Court decision in enshrining unlimited abortion-on-demand into American law
  
• Eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide -- including 44 states' laws concerning parental involvement, 40 states' laws on restricting later-term abortions, 46 states' conscience protection laws for individual health care providers, 27 states' conscience protection laws for institutions, 38 states' bans on partial-birth abortions, 33 states' laws on requiring counseling before an abortion, and 16 states' laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion
  
• Compel taxpayer funding of abortions through state and federal welfare programs, federal employee insurance plans, and in military hospitals.
  
• Force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions
  
• Force doctors and nurses to provide counseling and referral for abortions

But creating "The Facts About FOCA" is just the beginning. HUMAN EVENTS will then publicize and distribute it on a massive scale, both in print versions and online, to provoke a massive outpouring of voter outrage that will stop this evil law from being enacted.

Included among the activists, opinion-makers, and other influential citizens to whom HUMAN EVENTS will distribute "The Facts About FOCA" will be:

• Pro-life, conservative, and/or Republican activist groups on HUMAN EVENTS' own extensive nationwide list, with an invitation to help spread the word by ordering and distributing inexpensive bulk reprints of the report
  
• Top editors, reporters, and syndicated columnists on every major metropolitan and regional paper in America, plus many local ones. HUMAN EVENTS will give them blanket advance permission to reproduce the report in whole or in part, without paying royalties
  
• Talk-radio hosts in every radio market in the country, from Rush Limbaugh on down. Again, HUMAN EVENTS will allow them to quote from it as extensively as they wish, at no cost
  
• TV news editors, anchors, and reporters at all the networks and cable news channels, as well as local affiliates
  
• All 435 members of the U.S. House and Senate, with additional copies for their staff members and committee aides
  
• More than 150,000 dedicated HUMAN EVENTS readers

Needless to say, they want and need money. If you are interested you can support them here. Their main site is here. But, SHHHH, they're the Conservative Underground, though they seem pretty on top to me.

I'm not sure that I see eye to eye with everything they are doing, but FOCA is bad news, and stopping it in the US is good for us, because it's ugly sister will get here soon.

Jim Corcoran Comes Calling

I See That Jim Corcoran is Coming to Visit

This IP pops up from time to time in my Log.

Ste Anne's Country Inn And Spa (204.101.39.10) Jim Corcoran
freethroughtruth.blogspot.com/2009/08/latest-word-on-corcorande-angelis-case.html
www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GFRC_enCA210CA211&q=corcoran deangelis&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

My objective is not to offend Mr. Corcoran, but I sure wish he could see the damage that he is doing to the Catholic Church by his churlish behaviour in Cobourg. It's one thing to have discord in your local parish with your neighbours of many years. Mr. C. just dropped in last August and drives 60 km each week to add insult to his injury; this, to people who were hurt enough over the last few years with the loss of their beloved Fr. Cachia, his friend and co-worker. They don't need the additional trauma in their lives. I can't imagine he needs the stress of this either.

Usually these things only go badly for the condemned. But, in this case, the bloggers and the media are not letting Mr. C. off the hook, which is coming as quite a surprise to him. Since "Shakedown" more eyes are focused on more of these cases and the hinkiest ones are going to get watched more closely and reported on every time someone breaks wind or squeaks.

I wonder what color Mr. C's wind is, which reminds me of lyrics from the song Color of the Wind:

You think the only people who are people
Are the people who look and think like you
But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger
You'll learn things you never knew you never knew.

Try to walk in Bishop De Angelis' footsteps, Mr. C. It's very lonely there, and believe it or not, he needs you. You have a lot to offer to the Church. This just isn't it.

Stephen Boissoin IS NOT THE LETTER

Context People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BC Doc With Brain Injury Quite a Headache for UBC

Claims Discrimination Due to Disability to BC HRT

In a news item the other day from the Vancouver Sun, was a report about Dr. Ruth Gibson, a physician originally from Northern Ireland, practicing in Whistler, who claims that the UBC faculty of medicine has discriminated against her because of a disability she has.

In 1982, before she qualified as a physician in Ireland, she was in a major car accident and incurred a mild traumatic brain injury. Now, 27 years later, some of the symptoms still linger. I can personally relate to her situation, as I incurred one myself about 6 years ago, and in my case many of my symptoms are still present. In her case:

According to a 2007 neuropsychological assessment, Gibson’s cognitive functions are generally excellent, with a few exceptions – that there are areas of subtle weakness exacerbated by growing anxiety during Dr. Gibson’s residency, reaching the point that her symptoms met the criteria for a “generalized anxiety disorder.”

In 2003, she was enrolled in residency in anesthesiology at UBC faculty of medicine. But:

On Nov. 15, 2006, the faculty of medicine terminated Gibson from her residency for what was described as “unsuitability” or “weaknesses demonstrated that the FOM claimed were not remediable.”

She reported the following about her anxiety symptoms:

A psychologist found those symptoms became increasingly disabling in the last 18 months of Gibson’s residency, interfering with her performance.

Gibson claims that the weaknesses identified by the FOM during her residency were caused or substantially driven by her disability, but could have been remediated with accommodation, with the result that the termination of her residency was discriminatory.

But, Dr. Gibson applied to enter the Enhanced Skills program of the UBC FOM and was rejected in November 2008, and that is what she is claiming discrimination about, and has had a first hearing to determine what is fact she is claiming discrimination about here.

Actually trying to understand what she was claiming gave me a headache, as I am sure it does the FOM and even the Tribunal. However, I can empathize with her situation. I will do another post when I can sort out what the preliminary decision was actually getting at because it is an interesting case about mental disabilities.

Free Speech on Trial in Alberta

Free Speech on Trial in Preacher's Appeal

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

By Karen Selick

Calgary Herald, September 16, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Words From Boissoin Appeal Case

Montreal Gazette First Off The Mark

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

How Do I Know That Bishop De Angelis Is Not Discriminating Against Jim Corcoran

Because Bishop De Angelis knows the Church Teachings on Homosexuality and Follows Them

From Catholic Answers here is some of the Catholic teaching on Homosexuality summarised starting with the introduction:

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

Although there is much more worth reading, the conclusion is important:The Catholic Church thus teaches:

"Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).

Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).

Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.

Courage,
Church of St. John the Baptist
210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001

(212) 268–1010
Web: http://couragerc.net

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Note that there is the presence of the Nihil Obstat, meaning "attestation by a church censor that the above contains nothing damaging to faith or morals." The Imprimatur attached means that it "is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Roman Catholics.

This plus what I omitted is what Bishop De Angelis believes and it does not in any way discriminate against Jim Corcoran. The Bishop was asking Jim Corcoran to step down to not put a stumbling block in front of the other parishioners because of their faith not his, as I wrote here. But, of course, the man appears too thick to think that it is not all about him, and so on and on and on we go.

Bishop De Angelis loves Jim Corcoran as a son in Christ, and respects his choice of a life of celibacy, knowing how difficult it is for him to make that choice. He too has made that choice. He probably has a little more difficulty with his stubbornness and recalcitrance with his running off to the Ontario HRC. However, this too shall pass.

Human Rights Watch Was Looking Out

Seemed to Forget to Look In First

Yesterday, I picked up on an item about Human Rights Watch, and a senior military analyst of theirs Marc Garlasco who had a penchant for nazi memorabilia. I was thinking they were tarring him for a hobby he had.

Seems there is more to the story here. The Ottawa Citizen notes that Mr. Garlasco painted Israel in a poor light, as they say:

In his capacity as an influential "human rights" activist, Garlasco has made a career of painting Israel as a criminal state. Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious, but no matter -- among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero.

Hmmm!! Maybe this is really a case of another one bites the dust, and all is more well with the world.

Then the question is, who is watching the watchers?

If Gadhafi Were Stephen Boissoin's or Marc Lemire's Father

Perish the Thought But Imagine the Consequences

Moammar Gadhafi is not my idea of a fun guy, and his son and wife might not be my cup of tea either. While the son and daughter in law were visiting in Geneva last Fall, they were arrested for beating two of their servants in a Geneva luxury hotel. That kind of thing is not on, in Suisse.

Daddy was not pleased, so he submitted a proposal to the UN to have Switzerland divvied up between France, Italy and Germany. A little harsh, don't you think? The UN rejected his proposal. Not sure why.

Gadhafi remained undaunted, and recalled diplomats, pulled $5 billion from Swiss banks, and threatened to cut off oil supplies. Oh, he also detained 2 Swiss businessmen and won't let them leave Libya, without an apology for the arrest of his son, Hannibal.

Swiss President Merz traveled to Libya a few weeks back to kiss some Libyan butt, but he was rebuffed.

Now the Swiss are calling for his resignation and blaming him for screwing up the peace mission. Blame the messenger. Boy, has that guy got power.

In one way, it's too bad Stephen Boissoin or Marc Lemire aren't related to the great one (Not Gretzky). Could have saved a lot of money and time, theirs not ours.

You Think You Got It Bad?

If The Ontario HRC Won't Get You the Ontario College of Teachers Might

My wife was a teacher in the Ontario school system for many years, and she still gets the publication of the Ontario College of Teachers every month, called "professionally speaking". It's cool to use lower case in your title.

They have their own Discipline Committee, a 3 member panel, kind of like a Tribunal to "conduct public hearings into cases of alleged incompetence or professional misconduct."

It says in the magazine that "If found guilty of professional misconduct or incompetence, a member's certificate may be revoked, suspended or limited. In cases of professional misconduct only, the committee may also reprimand, admonish, or counsel the member, impose a fine, publish its order in Professionally Speaking or order the member to pay costs."

Have any of you ever come across a really incompetent teacher that you wanted to either kick their rosy red ??? across the street, or do something? Well, maybe you can contact the OCT about them. Go to their web site at oct.ca and see if you can. I don't know. You can try emailing them at info@oct.ca.

On the other hand, you all know a teacher who busts his or her hump to make learning fun and good for the kids. Maybe you could contact them about him or her too. Hopefully, you'll send more good news stories than bad news stories.

However, that is not my point. Like any well meaning tribunal with more power and interest in political correctness than makes sense to thinking people, they carry on with their task. They unfortunately have to adjudicate some pretty egregious behaviour, but not always.

Here is a case in point, and fortunately for the teacher involved, his name was left out of the report in the magazine. The man in question had been a teacher for 29 years. The good news for him is that after this nonsense, he is probably close to the retirement 85 factor (you can retire as a teacher in Ontario when your age and years of teaching total 85).

He coaches sports and committed the following very serious offences (not in my opinion):
1) brushed his foot against the buttocks of a girl during a basketball practice, probably to get her to go where he wanted her to.
2) tousled a young boy's hair during a baseball game
3) put his hand on the shoulder of a female student while discussing a detention with her.
and 4) touched the back of a young girl during a dance practice to place her on her mark.

He was reprimanded, and required to take a course on appropriate boundaries and boundary violations.

In 29 years of exemplary conduct, this is what they zapped this poor guy for, basically for caring about the kids, and trying to reach them.

If Barbara Hall had gotten this at the Ontario HRC, she could have spent a lot of tax dollars fixing this guy's little red wagon. If she gets wind of it now, she will probably try to set up a mechanism that allows her to Appeal OCT tribunal decisions to the OHRC, so she can get her pound of flesh out of them. Actually, I see a new special project for Barb's Boys coming here. Better zip it.