"Freespeechapalooza"

Kathy Shaidle, Ezra Levant and Salim Mansur spoke at a 'free speech' event in Canada last week. A Catholic, a Jew and a Muslim explain to Canadians the dangerous restriction of freedoms being imposed by Canadian Human Rights Commissions.

Kathy Shaidle has published her entire speech on her site, and Roy Eappen has video coverage on his site.

Although this was a Canada specific event, it certainly isn't a unique problem. Human rights commissions around the world are doing their best to force 'correctness' on unruly citizens. Freedom is no longer a Western value, but a hindrance to Western governments seeking to align their legislation to conform to UN standards of 'proper belief'. That 'proper belief' would include state imposed syncretism, and total submission to the 'culture of death'. One writer at Brussels Journal concludes that we are now 'post democracy', citizens having become subjects in a 'global' construct run by 'expert elites'.

One wonders who ultimately will remain to benefit , and what the benefits will be in a soulless world of no democracy, no free speech, no children, no elderly, no families or marriage, and no faith?

Encouraging, if for no other reason than the joy of witnessing free expression, are the recent 'tea parties' in the US. Having followed this idea/event online since its inception a few months ago, I can state positively that there is a broad range of political and other 'beliefs' represented by these protesters. Something democratic has been unleashed, and the surest sign of this is the reaction of the media. (Even David Frum can't bring himself to really like the protests - not quite up to his standards of 'articulation'!)

Its going to take a lot of tea to reverse the stifling effect of the 'latte' drinkers, but is it impossible?

Not quite yet.

Books worth reading:
Tyranny Of Nice- Kathy's book
ShakeDown- Ezra's new book on his HRC experience.
America Alone by Mark Steyn

Pioneer Spirit Must Prevail

Alberta should lead the way to HRC reform in Canada

Calgary Herald:

...Today, society is far more open than it was.That's wonderful. But, since 1996, when Alberta's commission began policing opinion, politics is more closed.

That's when it became illegal not only to offend people the commission protects, but to publish anything that might offend them. No matter that statements be true, offence warranted, or publication dealt with matters of immediate concern--as did Rev. Stephen Boissoin for example, fined for writing letters against gay marriage while legalization was before Parliament.Or Levant, sued after his magazine printed Danish cartoons that had caused uproar in the Islamic world and were central to an international news story. (In all the world, he claims, he is the only person prosecuted for printing them, and it was right here in Alberta.)

No society prospers that silences contrarians--wrong as such people often are. But, sometimes they have something useful to say, offensive to some as it might be, and even if they don't, silencing them is still wrong....

....It should not be illegal to give offence: What is offensive, is that it presently is.The caucus now has the chance to lead the rest of the country in reclaiming the most fundamental right in a democracy.

I'm Alberta born, of pioneer families. Nothing in the travails of the first Albertans supports the current 'wussified' AHRC need to find offense in others' words.

Its time the AHRC reflected the mettle and character of Albertans.

.

And What of Democracy?

This week my husband and I attended one of several public 'townhall' forums being held to discuss the draft constitution and bill of rights for the Cayman Islands. This is the draft , after several years of starts and stops, that the British gov't has decided to sign off on. (The Cayman Islands is a British Overseas Territory.)

The CI Human Rights Committee has some problems with the draft bill of rights, the major one being that there is not an open, unlimited non-discrimination provision. (This was presented by the HRC chair, as something 'taken away', when in fact the new constitution and bill of rights goes much farther than the 1972 edition to protect 'rights' of Caymanians from gov't abuse.)

The proposed non-discrimination provision reads:

"subject to subsections (3) (4) (5) and (6), government shall not treat any person in a discriminatory manner in respect of the rights under this Part of the Constitution."

The HRC objects to the 'bolded' phrase, and would like the provision to be unqualified. (Discriminatory is defined in the document as "affording different and unjustifiable treatment to different persons on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, age, mental or physical disability, property, birth or other status.)

The forum was side-tracked by the usual (for Cayman) bogeyman of homophobia, in that the 'opposition' to the current draft, were concerned that the qualification included was in fact there solely for the purpose of protecting the Islands from being over-run by gay rights activists. For this they seemed to blame the churches, who had representaion equal to the HRC, on the negotiating team . (Something we'd never see in North America , I'm sure!) Although, the church representatives, and certainly many parishioners at the forum, have a fear and concern about this (who can blame them, considering the ridiculous things happening in Canada and Europe!), the greater concern is much more serious.

The HRC, in supporting their contention that the non-discriminatory provision should be unqualified, had several supporters
with moving personal stories of hardship that could have been alleviated by the gov't. One was a blind woman who had trouble renting because of her guide dog. Of course, since the CI proposed bill of rights is vertical, and applies only to the gov't treatment of its people, she was not a great example. Her case would only be relevant if she was denied an apartment in a gov't building. The gov't representative pointed this out, and suggested that local legislation was the answer to this kind of difficulty.

He was right. Local legislation is how a citizen has the ability to address needs in a democracy. The interesting thing was the HRC chair's response to that. She suggested that Caymanians would be better served by depending on unelected judges to sort out what the gov't owes them.

See the problem? Very few, of even the draft bill supporters, saw the problem.

The 'independent body' designated as a support for human (not just Caymanian) rights, the HRC, proposes to reduce the citizens input by handing over legislative responsibilities to the courts.

(How's that working out for you, CANADA??)

Is the HRC suggesting 'less power to the people' because the Caymanian people can't be trusted ?

And why does the Cayman media do nothing to 'enlighten' their readers? Do they also not trust the Caymanian voters?

Do the HRC, their supporters, and the media have a 'secret agenda'....?

...........................

Why is it that people who have never known any other life than that under a democratic system , have no idea when their democratic 'rights' are being siphoned off. Why don't they care?

I call it 'stealth socialism'.

I'm hoping that our haven of personal freedom, the Cayman Islands, doesn't have to suffer the degradation and repression of their society the way the once proud Canadian people have. And I say that as a Canadian.

And In Canada, Will They Fight?

Will the people of Canada waken from their somnolent stupor and give chase to Barbara Hall and her bureaucratic idiocy that threatens Canadians underappreciated freedoms? Doubtful. But the media may try to stir them...

Montreal Gazette:

...a preposterous suggestion that every publication in the country, including "media services" websites, be required by law to belong to a national press council that could adjudicate breaches of professional standards and complaints of discrimination. Chillingly, the council would have the power to order offending media to publish its findings, along with counterarguments from complainants. And in a bit of verbal legerdemain that would make Big Brother wince, the commission claimed that this would not constitute censorship.

The most frightening thing about this bit of nonsense is that it's hard to see what possible reason the commission has for proposing such a draconian measure. Scan Canadian media from, say, This Magazine on the left to blogger Ezra Levant on the right, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anything that pushes the boundaries of reasonable discourse...

...Commissioner Hall also claims that the media have a responsibility to "engage in fair and unbiased journalism." Those are certainly ideals The Gazette and most other Canadian publications strive to achieve, with admittedly imperfect success. But that responsibility, like membership in the Quebec Press Council, is voluntary. If someone wants to start a rabidly partisan, scurrilous scandal sheet, that's fine with us, too. State-compelled norms of behaviour are censorship, not idealism.

The underlying problem here might be that liberty has once again run into one of its most formidable foes - the bureaucratic mind. Such minds recoil at the unruliness of the media - among other things - and won't rest until all participants in public discourse are fully regulated by government. They do all this "for the common good," of course.

But when they succeed, we can all kiss our precious freedoms goodbye.

(h/t Dr. Roy)

Meanwhile, The Politicians Are Hard At Work...

'Section 13'of the Canadian Human Rights Act is being debated at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Any Hope for Change?


(h/t smalldeadanimals)

Public Service Announcement : HRC Reform

Action needed now.



Richard Moon’s report on the Human Rights Commission, released November 24, cost you more than $1000 per page. But it is worth it IF the government acts upon the number one recommendation. I think most taxpayers will insist that the government do what he recommends : repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Regulation of Hate Speech on the Internet. Mr. Moon’s first and main recommendation is just that. “The first recommendation is that section 13 of the CHRA be repealed, so that the CHRC and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) no longer deal with hate speech, and in particular hate speech on the Internet.”

Read his report here.



Getting rid of this troublesome and dangerous clause doesn’t fix the bigger problem of zealous and power driven appointees at the CHRC and its provincial counterparts abusing their authority. But lets start. Now.



Here is what we ask you to do:



1) call the Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper and ask him to fulfill recommendation number one of this $50,000 report.

REPEAL Section13.

Ask him to also fulfill the strong wishes of his own party membership, who at the recent convention, strongly passed a resolution on this very matter.



2) call Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and ask him to ensure the law is changed to prevent further abuses by HRC staff against citizens who speak freely on issues that involve ALL of us. Unfortunately Department of Justice lawyers have not supported the notion of this change.



These calls can be made via 1-866-599-4999.

Their emails are:
Harper.S@parl.gc.ca and Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca .




(Canada Family Action Coalition via Suzanne Fortin)

One For Free Speech

France's Court of Appeals overturned a 'homophobic speech' conviction in a ruling that has put the homosexual community up in arms:(LifeSiteNews)

....Deputy Christian Vanneste was convicted in 2006 of "homophobic" speech after stating in 2004 that "homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality. If it were universalized it would be dangerous for humanity." He also called the behavior of homosexuals "bigoted."

The French Court of Appeals overturned the lower court ruling, remarking that "if the disputed remarks were able to hurt the feelings of certain homosexual people, their contents do not go beyond the limits of freedom of expression."

The negation of the lower court's $4,000 fine for Vanneste's remarks was denounced by homosexualist organizations across the country.

"This decision of the Court of Appeals will unfortunately lead homophobes to believe that they can express their hate with complete impunity," complained the French organization "Gaylib" on their website. "This is precisely what the (anti-homophobia) law of 2004 sought by the government of Jean Pierre Raffarin was meant to fight."

"This decision could harm fragile gains" made by the homosexual movement, remarked representatives of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Center of Paris. The organization lamented that "the struggle against homophobia is floundering."

France's "ACT UP" claimed that "the legislature gave the means to prosecute offenses based on sexual orientation precisely because society has begun to realize the impact of homophobia. The decision of the appeals court put all of that in doubt."

"The communication tactics of the gay lobby are habitual," said Vanneste in an interview with the Evangelical Protestant Committee for Human Dignity. "They've been effective, and they're not going to stop using them."

"They consist in victimization, and distortions made in bad faith every time they meet an obstacle. The Court of Appeals seeks to say very clearly that I have expressed perfectly acceptable opinions within a framework of normal democratic debate," Vanneste continued. "I would like to add that they are founded on good sense, and they are shared by the majority. They consist in particular in saying that one can obviously judge behavior on a moral level."

In his defense, Vanneste's attorney brought forth philosophical, theological, and legal arguments in favor of his client, and called two philosophy professors and a pastor to the stand to testify.

"I made an exaggerated statement based on the categorical imperative of Kant," Vanneste said during the trial. "There are concepts that one can universalize and others that one can't. The first are the greater. That is a justification for the foundation of morality."

Vanneste also quoted Augustine's dictum that one must "love the sinner but hate the sin," and added that "homosexuality is morally inferior, according to the Christian concept of the family and matrimony."

No doubt Bash Back is buying their transcontinental flights right now. Close the borders!


In Canada, it wouldn't have been in court. It would have been a 'Human Rights' complaint, the victim (Vanneste) would have had to pay his own legal bills while the gov't agency usurped his rights to even a fair hearing. He would have been found guilty with no appeal to a 'higher' court, and a penalty would have been exacted. Like 'never speaking in public again' and perhaps apologizing for expressing Christian beliefs and paying a fine to be used for the sponsorship of Gay Marriage cocktail hour.

Media Lawyers' Assoc.. Conference

Ezra Levant makes opening remarks (refering to CHRC track record):

...That’s not law. That’s corrupt, that’s abusive, that’s un-Canadian.

It’s un-Canadian than not a single person tried under s. 13, in thirty years, has ever been acquitted.

It’s un-Canadian that 91% of the CHRC’s targets are so poor they can’t afford lawyers, and aren’t given one.

It’s un-Canadian that the CHRC goes online, posing as neo-Nazis, spewing racist venom, to entrap people in discussions that they then prosecute.

It’s un-Canadian that the CHRC has no ethics code, and has hacked a private citizen’s e-mail account in one of their neo-Nazi personas – which is why the CHRC is now under both RCMP and Privacy Commission investigation.

Anyone who believes in a spectrum of ideas should be furious with these kangaroo courts. And anyone whose job it is to defend the media should be very worried, too.

I hope Mr. Levant wasn't the only voice of reason.

.

AHRC Staffer Andreachuk 'Anti-Christian Bigot'

Ezra Levant exposes infamous Alberta HRC staffer, Lori Andreachuk as blatant anti-Christian bigot:

...So what did Comrade Andreachuk say?

"…while the content and tone of the communications appear on the face of them to be discriminatory, there is very little vulnerability of the target group. The expressions used do not reinforce existing stereotypes, nor do the messages appeal to well-publicized issues. More importantly, however, the medium used to convey the message is extremely suspect, lacks credibility and has a small circulation. The context of the publication is not presented as a debate or any purportedly authoritative analysis and the target group is not vulnerable as, in order for the group to receive the message, the purchase of these would be by an extremely limited audience and only an audience seeking to receive messages such as those conveyed.



…there is very little likelihood of a representation to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt in the context of this particular medium which is unlikely to be taken seriously or credibly by the target group.



…The vulnerability of the target group would be extremely limited, if at all and the audience, including the exposed, would be limited in nature and would only come into possession of these particular CD’s in an overt act of volition on their own behalf."



Got it?

So it doesn't matter if Christians are exposed to hate -- they're not vulnerable. So says Comrade Andreachuk. By definition, she writes, a Christian cannot be the victim of hate speech.

Oh, and if she's wrong? Not to worry -- the CDs were not credible. They weren't authoritative. They weren't popular. And you actually had to open up the CD case to get to them -- they weren't forced on anybody.

Hang on: doesn't that describe just about every single hate speech case prosecuted in this country? They're almost always obscure websites on the Internet, with no credibility and with very little traffic -- except for the agents provocateurs of the human rights industry, trolling for new targets.

Doesn't Comrade Andreachuk's ruling -- by definition! -- suggest that a neo-Nazi could never be guilty of spreading hate, because by definition a neo-Nazi is obscure, not credible, and listened to only by those who seek them out?

Comrade Andreachuk's rationale is a smokescreen, of course. It's made up -- just like the rest of the crap that HRCs publish as "rulings". It's not jurisprudence; it's not coherent; it pretends to adhere to precedent, but it clearly doesn't. It's legal mumbo-jumbo to cover up the bald political fact here: Comrade Andreachuk thinks it's fine to call for the murder of Christians. And this same anti-Christian bigot sentenced Rev. Boissoin to a lifetime of silence about his faith...

Nobody can put enough lipstick on that pig!

.

CHRC After MP For Talking To Constituents

CHRC is at it again.

Fabricate a 'case' to justify oppressing speech. And thought. And colour! Use otherwise useless pseudo research and 'analysis' to back up decisions. Publicize 'rationale' in public media. Pay for everything with tax dollars. Prime Minister remains asleep.

Yep. Canada. Cold enough to freeze brains and guts.

Discussing HRC's

An interesting forum on HRC's was reported on by Scott Gilbreath:

As promised , I took copious notes last night at the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Public Affairs (CCEPA) debate on human rights and free speech. Rather than pronounce my verdict on the evening, I’ve decided initially to share my notes online so everyone can draw their own conclusions.

This post will cover only the opening remarks of the four speakers. This portion occupied about 30 minutes of a two-hour meeting, so there will be more to come.

NB: These are my notes, not an official transcript. I stand by the accuracy of these notes as an honest reflection of what was said, but what appears below should not taken as a verbatim record of the proceedings. (I have speakers using the pronoun “I” for convenience, not to suggest direct quotation.)

CCEPA will make available a DVD of the evening’s discussion in about three weeks.

I estimate that 80-100 people came to the hall at St Mary’s University, which has a capacity of approximately 300.

The four panelists spoke in this order:
Dan Leger, Director of News Content, Halifax Chronicle Herald
Krista Daley, Director and CEO, Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (NSHRC)
Mark Mercer, Professor of Philosophy, Saint Mary’s University.
Pearl Eliadis, Montreal Human Rights Lawyer

The moderator was Kevin Kindred, Lawyer and Chair of the Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project.

The presentation began with Chris Stover, General Manager, Canadian Centre for Ethics in Public Affairs, who welcomed us to the evening’s event and introduced the moderator.

Kevin Kindred Opening Remarks

He welcomed us to a debate on an issue that is important but sometimes volatile. He will try to be as impartial moderator. He himself is a lawyer and human rights activist on behalf of homosexual rights, but will put that aside this evening. He will try to ensure that we hear from all four panelists equally.

The human rights vs free speech controversy has been called the perfect storm of public policy issues.

He mentioned three legal cases that, in his view, exemplify the issues:
1. Stephen Boissoin, complaint brought by Darren Lund
-case decided in Alberta
2. Craig Harrison, complaint brought by Richard Warman
-case heard by Canadian HRC
3. Macleans, complaint brought by three Muslim students
-complaint considered by three jurisdictions, none of which sustained the complaint: Canada, Ontario, BC

Each speaker will make an opening statement. Then I will ask questions of the speakers, then members of the audience will be able to ask questions.

Dan Leger Opening Statement

I’m not an expert in human rights; I’m a journalist. I receive complaints and special pleadings about newspaper articles every day; people insist on a right to rebut or dispute.

We live in a marketplace of ideas. Some people don’t like that. I am a small-l liberal....

(I'm happy to see Scott is back in business at his (post-retirement) blog Nova Scotia Scott. Hope he likes the new digs! Nova Scotians are well known for their hospitality! )

As Expected...Harper Not Moving Mountains

Kathy Shaidle posts this uninspiring Q + A with Harper:

...(Reporter)the issue of the human rights commission, we have seen both federal and provincial human rights commissions taking media organizations, journalists before them to justify what they have written and I was wondering if your government will be touching that topic?

....(Harper)In terms of the free speech issues and some of the activities of human rights commissions, I think that everyone has had some concerns about this. This is a complicated area of law, balancing what most people understand to mean by free speech with obvious desire to not have speech that would be intended to incite hatred towards particular groups or individuals. I think some of the most egregious cases, if you actually look at this, are in provincial human rights commission and obviously, you know I can't control or comment on that. I think there has been some - I think the Canadian human rights commission has been moderating some of what - some of its practices a little bit recently to respond to some of these concerns and I hope that will continue.

Uh, yeah....we're 'hoping' that too!

..almost sounds like Canada!

Califaornia Catholic reports on am amazing case of secular oppression at a gov't funded college:

According to a press release from Pacific Justice Institute, student Kandy Kyriacou visited an instructor in December 2007 to give her a Christmas gift. “Kandy found the instructor alone in her shared office,” said the press release. “When the instructor indicated she was ill, Kandy offered to pray for her. The instructor bowed her head, and Kandy began to pray -- until she was interrupted by another faculty member, Derek Piazza, who walked in and said, ‘You can't be doing that in here!’ Kandy quickly left and rejoined her friend and fellow student, Ojoma Omaga. Piazza followed Kandy outside and repeated his rebuke.”

The release gives the following account of what led to the filing of the lawsuit:

The students were surprised by Piazza's intimidating behavior, but they were stunned when, three days before Christmas, both received letters notifying them of the college's retroactive "intent to suspend" them. In violation of the school's own policies, the letters stated no factual bases for the charges, vaguely alleging that the students had engaged in “disruptive or insulting behavior, willful disobedience… persistent abuse of, college employees." Then, in guilty-until-proven-innocent administrative hearings, it became clear that the college considered Kandy's get-well prayer -- which her instructor seemed to welcome -- worthy of discipline. The college even threatened suspension or expulsion for further infractions -- apparently other public prayers.

The students turned to Pacific Justice Institute. PJI staff attorneys, baffled by the school's stance, attempted to resolve the situation through demand letters. The college did not respond. PJI local affiliate attorneys Steven N. H. Wood and Christopher Schweickert, of the Walnut Creek firm Bergquist, Wood & Anderson, LLP, made a final demand that college officials rescind the disciplinary letters and acknowledge the students' right to pray. The college refused. On Monday, Wood, Schweickert, and PJI staff attorneys filed a federal lawsuit to remove the cloud of intimidation hanging over the students.

"It's outrageous," PJI President Brad Dacus stated. "Since when does praying for a sick teacher to get well -- with her consent -- earn a suspension? This is not just a constitutional violation; it is a complete lack of common sense. These students were not looking for a fight, but since the school to this day insists that it can expel them if they pray again, we will have to resolve it in federal court."

Look for organizations like the non-profit Pacific Justice Institute to start springing up in Canada, specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights and other civil liberties. I can think of recent HRC cases where the defendants could have used their help!

Troubles in India- Perspective for Canada

Catholic World News:

Bangalore, Sep. 22, 2008 - More than 3,000 stunned Catholics gathered in sorrow at St. James church at Marianapalaya, a Bangalore suburb, on Sunday after the church was found desecrated.

Eighteen locks of the church had been broken by the intruders who entered in the early morning hours, broke into the tabernacle, and scattered the Sacred Species around the sanctuary. The vandals also threw vestments and other articles around the sacristy.

"This is an attempt to terrify our people," Father Joseph Menezes, the vicar of the parish, which numbers about 5,000 Catholics, told CWN. "See what they have done. It has been done by people who know what hurts our people (Catholics) most," said Father Menezes pointing to the tabernacle.

As the news of the desecration spread, shocked Catholics assembled around the church, voicing their outrage at the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) governing the Indian state. Hundreds of police officers around the church were kept busy controlling the protest, with dozens of reporters recording the events.

"We have seen on TV these days churches being attacked in Orissa and other areas. But I never expected this will happen in Bangalore," lamented Sunita Vinod, a Catholic parishioner. Meanehile elderly women were standing before the closed main door of the church, praying the Rosary in reparation for the descration.

Some furious Catholics even burnt the portraits of B. S. Yeddyurappa, chief minister of the Karnataka state, of which Bangalore is the capital. Catholics charged that "inaction and encouragement" by the BJP government had led to the explosion of violence by Hindu mobs.

The desecration of the church came exactly a week after a dozen churches of different denominations were attacked in and around Mangalore, along the west coast of the state. Hindu fundamentalist groups even held a press conference to claim responsibility for that campaign of religious violence.

Shockingly, the BJP chief minister of Karnataka chose not to take action against the Hindu groups, and went so far as to rationalize the attacks as a response to the allegations that Christians were seeking to convert Hindus. Since the government issued that reaction, 15 more churches have been desecrated in different parts of the state.

Archbishop Bernard Moras of Bangalore-- who returned from a trip to Israel on September 22-- severely berated the BJP leadership. After meeting with Yeddyurappa, the chief minister, the archbishop told reporters that he had told the BJP leader that Christians are "very hurt and upset with your government."

"Desecration of the tabernacle is descration of the Body of Christ," Archbishop Moras said. "We are prepared to give our lives against this."
..........................................................................

A significant portion of our parish of St.Ignatius, Grand Cayman, hail from Goa. It is frightening and sad to hear of these persecutions.
..........................................................................

It puts the Canadian HRC into perspective.International framework. You could almost align them with the BJP chieftain - setting up the environment for outright persecution. Of course in India, Christianity has never been the predominate culture.

By warped Canadian HRC standards, membership in a 'majority' culture is suspect and deserving of tax funded persecution by gov't agencies.

We are not facing violence, yet. Humiliation and financial ruin are a threatening first act.

DesChamps HRC Stooge Extrordinaire

Jonathan Kay at NP :

"Pierre Deschamps... the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (HRT) adjudicator, became the first jurist in recorded human history to convict someone of racial discrimination for praising visible minorities...Aside from being another advertisement for why we should be closing down Canada’s human-rights commissions, the episode nicely illustrates the absurd lengths to which our society’s elites will now go to demonize Whitey. Used to be that us white males had to actually say or do something racist to get put on the human-rights dock. That criterion has now been downgraded to 'preferred, but negotiable.'... "
(h/t Black Kettle)

Wells vs Levant - Canadians to Pay

Ezra Levant attacked by crazy Christian hater Rob Wells:

"It’s not Wells’s first time using the CHRC to prosecute his hatred for Christians. They’re a perfect fit for each other, Wells and the CHRC. Wells drives around town, uttering anti-Christian filth; the CHRC staff surf around the Internet, publishing racist and anti-gay filth. It’s surprising that the CHRC hasn’t hired Wells to be one of their online hatemongers – he could do what he loves, and get paid for it.

Wells is a favourite of the CHRC. He has used the CHRC to harass the Christian Heritage Party. And he was the complainant against Fr. Alphonse de Valk and Catholic Insight magazine, that drained them of $20,000 in legal fees. That complaint was dismissed by the CHRC when they started getting political heat over it, but Wells is now appealing that dismissal.

Between making little Catholic children cry at church and filing nuisance suits, where does the man find the time?

His complaint against me is rooted in my recent republication of Rev. Stephen Boissoin’s editorial column in the Red Deer Advocate several years ago. That was the column in which Rev. Boissoin expressed his Christian opposition to gay rights – and it resulted in a complaint filed against him at the Alberta HRC. After five grueling years of bureaucratic bullying, Rev. Boissoin was sentenced to a $7,000 fine, a lifetime ban against giving any public sermons that were “disparaging” to gay rights (he was also banned from sending private e-mails about the subject) and he was actually ordered to publicly renounce his religious beliefs on the subject. Seriously – read the sentence here for yourself if you can't believe it.

I republished Rev. Boissoin’s column in full, as a sign of my freedom and as an indication that I don’t grant the government the moral authority to tell me what I can or can’t say. I’m pleased to say that Canada’s leading gay lobby, EGALE, agrees exactly with my position. They know that Wells’s fascism is an embarrassment to their cause. And – more than an embarrassment – it endangers anyone who might be the target of an overweening state, like gays themselves were in the past..."

(h/t LifesiteNews)

Good to know that the Canadian tax dollar is being used to the benefit of us all, so effectively. Again.

No Room For Morality in Medicine - Huh?

CALGARY HERALD:

"It is profoundly troubling to observe something as personal as the right to live by one's conscience superceded by the collective right to medical services, which is not the least bit endangered in this instance.

There is no justification for accusing a doctor of professional misconduct for acting within the bounds of conscience. Any woman, for instance, whose doctor refuses to refer her for an abortion can turn to the Yellow Pages to find agencies willing to help her.

If the College enacts this policy, it will mean that doctors will leave Ontario, further adding to the physician shortage there, according to Saskatchewan MP Maurice Vellacott, who has introduced a private member's bill, C-537, which would amend the Criminal Code to protect health-care workers' conscience rights.

"The policy jeopardizes or blackmails doctors," says Vellacott. The College's motivation to draft the policy came, Vellacott says, not because of a complaint filed with the provincial human rights commission against a doctor, but rather as a means of pro-actively preventing such complaints.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services put forward a regulation to protect doctors and other health-care professionals from being fired or losing their certification if they refuse to provide services that run counter to their personal beliefs.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt described the regulation as "protecting the right of a physician to practise medicine according to his or her moral compass." Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., objects to the regulation, saying it risks compromising women's ability "to manage their own health care" because of politics and ideology.

The real ideology at work is one that dictates an individual is not entitled to freedom of conscience if they do not morally support a pet liberal cause. The College should be protecting doctors' rights to live by their consciences, not aiding and abetting human rights commissions in sacrificing those rights on the altar of political correctness."
(h/t bigbluewave)

It occurs to me, that if the doctors remove 'morality' entirely from their profession by disallowing the practice of morality by their own peers, they become purely purveyors of technical skills, and should no longer be allowed the 'special' status that has afforded them an elevated place in our society. They will not warrant our trust. Ironic, that at the very moment they wish to eliminate any pretense of 'caring', they are also trying to lock themselves in as the sole arbiters of life and death, the only authority on rubrics of human value.

Its a power grab, and they are not the 'good' guys.


Go for it Ontario - the rest of us can certainly use more GOOD doctors!!

Politically Correct Healthcare

Stand Your Ground has a post on the 'human rights' crisis facing western society today:

"Secular fundamentalists can't stop complaining about Christians allegedly trying to force their religious beliefs on them. The truth however is - it's the secular fundamentalists that have been forcing their views on us.

Let me reiterate: Whatever rights and freedoms we still have left - we've inherited them from the days preceding Trudeau's "human rights" legislation. Once the so called "human rights" act had been passed and Orwellian tribunals (commonly known as "human rights" commissions) had been installed - we became second class citizens; since then our constitutional rights and freedoms have been continuously taken away to empower special interest groups. "


The expansion of the feeling of empowerment that the HRC's have, to self-monitoring civil 'authorities' of major professions, will affect greatly our access to actual health care. We will be limited to politically correct health care - a very disturbing development, especially in consideration of recent attempts by the CMAto establish itself as the final word on our most basic right - the right to LIFE.


....................................................................................
Caymanians would do well to take note of the strife in other 'civilized' countries like Canada , and take steps to protect itself from ignorantly following the same path to repressive conformity of thought and speech promoted by the secular religionists. Succumbing to the pressure of our British governors to conform to UN and EU 'standards', will affect every area of Caymanian life, and wipe out every vestige of genuine Christian culture and Caymanian spirit of independance and integrity.

THEY DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT CAYMAN! We are only a 'trade-off' in Britian's own struggle to maintain anything remotely British within Britain itself. The 'BRAVE NEW WORLD' is on the horizon, and we're not going to like it.

Ezra Left Holding The Bag (and it smells bad)

Lifesite News relates the final conclusion of the Alberta HRC...there was no basis for complaint, in the circumstances. Don't bother cheering. The inexcusable treatment of a journalist/editor for using his talent AS IF HE WERE IN A FREE COUNTRY, spending years of his valuable time and energy that may have benifitted the nation otherwise in never to be known ways, is not dealt with at all. They still believe they have the right to call him back on the carpet at any time, for any further 'questionable' behavior, and treat him the exact same way.

Its not over.

Almost Good News, Kinda

Good coverage on the latest chapter of CHRC 'doings' at 'The World Tonight':

"..This is a perfectly logical conclusion, but I'm not prepared to concede that the Canadian Human Rights Commission reached this conclusion for the right reasons. Obviously, the BC Human Rights Tribunal went to far as to conduct a hearing on the Steyn piece (verdict still pending), and the Ontario Commission clearly wishes it could have - so are we really to believe the federal commission is simply that much more enlightened that its provincial counterparts?"

Links to the complainant, the defendant and commentary by Ezra Levant.
(h/t The Black Kettle)

Meanwhile,Magic Statistics points out to the CHRC that Friday's Supreme Court decision clarifying the difference between 'fair' and 'fair comment' might cramp their style.

In other news, PM Stephen Harper won a Human Rights Award from the B'nai Brith! (I'm not sure how this is going to help..)

With Canada Day just around the corner, maybe Harper has a birthday present in mind?