Canada: Boissoin wins appeal

CALGARY: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) responded to today’s release of the Judgment of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Boissoin v. Lund, a case which pits freedom of expression against human rights legislation.

In 2008, an Alberta Human Rights Panel ordered Reverend Stephen Boissoin to pay $5,000 to University of Calgary professor Darren Lund in respect of a letter Reverend Boissoin wrote in 2002, published in the Red Deer Advocate. In his letter to the editor, Reverend Boissoin expressed his opposition to homosexuality being portrayed positively in the public school curriculum, and commented on other public policy matters. Professor Lund complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission that the letter violated section 3(1)(b) of Alberta’s human rights legislation, which bans expression that “is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt” because of race, religious beliefs, colour, and other grounds.

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice E.C. Wilson set aside the Panel’s order against Reverend Boissoin, ruling that Reverend Boissoin did not violate section 3(1)(b) of the legislation. Accordingly, the Order against Reverend Boissoin, that he pay $5,000 to Professor Lund and that he refrain from making “disparaging remarks” about homosexuals, is no longer in force.

“I am pleased that the Human Rights Panel Order against Reverend Boissoin has been overturned,” stated John Carpay, lawyer and Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

“Unfortunately, the law that was used against Reverend Boissoin to subject him to expensive and stressful legal proceedings for more than seven years, is still on the books,” added Carpay.

“In spite of today’s court ruling, Albertans need to continue to exercise extreme caution when speaking about public policy issues, lest they offend someone who then files a human rights complaint. No citizen is safe from being subjected to a taxpayer-funded prosecution for having spoken or written something that a fellow citizen finds offensive,” continued Carpay.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) intervened in Boissoin v. Lund to argue that the legislation itself violated Canada’s constitution, because provinces do not have the constitutional authority to restrict free speech on matters of public policy. Justice Wilson rejected this argument.

Justice Wilson also held that section 3(1)(b) does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, following the Supreme Court of Canada 1990 decision in Taylor v. Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Update from Up North: Canadian Provincial Government Continues to Support Fascist "Human Rights Commission"

Fr. Raymond J. de Souza writes for Canada's National Post:

I grew up in Calgary and I’m proud of my Alberta roots. So the other day when Mark Steyn noted that, in regard to the Danish cartoon controversy, Alberta was the only jurisdiction in the world which prosecuted anyone (Ezra Levant) over it, I felt a pang of embarrassment. It’s going to get a lot more embarrassing.

“It is a mark of shame upon Alberta,” Steyn said on Tuesday in Ottawa. He’s right, but in fairness to Albertans, nobody was really paying attention a few years back to the mischief being made by the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). That excuse is no longer valid. Now everyone knows what malevolent forces these commissions are in our public life. Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have seen to that.

So when the Alberta government announced last week — in a time of plummeting revenues and ballooning deficits, no less — that the AHRC was getting a $1.7-million boost in its budget, a 26% increase from last year, Albertans must have simply concluded that Premier Ed Stelmach was grossly negligent in reigning in bureaucratic empire builders. The alternative would be even worse, namely that the Premier thinks that Alberta needs more of the violations of religious liberty, censorship of the press and abuse of fundamental legal rights that the AHRC routinely provides. Having your basic liberties violated by the state is bad enough; increasing the subsidies for such illiberal activity is equal parts offensive and embarrassing.

Perhaps the Progressive Conservative government really does support the abuses of the AHRC, as incredible as that would seem. Alongside the funding increase, reforms were announced in the AHRC enabling legislation. The most egregious abuses have come under Section 3, which extends AHRC jurisdiction over the press. It was the intention of Lindsay Blackett, Minister of Culture and Community Spirit — how’s that for a creepy Orwellian title? — to get rid of those provisions, but the PC caucus opted to preserve the AHRC’s censorship powers. There is nothing in the reforms to remove the abuse of legal rights endemic in AHRC investigations. It remains investigator, prosecutor and judge. If it’s embarrassing to be an Albertan, it must be mortifying to be a member of the government caucus.

After the AHRC has been thrashed in the court of public opinion for three years, its worst excesses exposed, and in the face of serious proposals for reform coming from across the political spectrum, the Alberta government will leave the AHRC with wider jurisdiction and more funding. It is a positively perverse result.

One aspect of the announced reforms attempts to put some brakes on the radical agenda of the AHRC. It would give parents the statutory right to exempt their children from classes dealing with “religion, sexuality or sexual orientation”. This is a welcome recognition that parental rights in education are superior to the desires of state-sanctioned curriculum bureaucrats. Yet it remains to be seen how this will be administered by the AHRC, the primary arm of government in favour of coercive re-education on matters homosexual.

The provisions making explicit the rights of parents are no doubt a response to the madness midwifed by the HRC next door in British Columbia, where the Ministry of Education handed over supervision of the entire curriculum to a pair of gay activists, better to ensure that correct opinions on homosexuality are formed from kindergarten on. In principle, the Alberta provisions ought to protect parents from such propaganda being forced upon their children, but there is precious little ground for confidence that the AHRC will be effective in defending parental rights in practice.

It is entirely plausible that the AHRC, citing the possibility of parents asking for exemptions, may be emboldened to go even farther in mandating radicalization of the curriculum, should it be given the chance. Putting the AHRC in charge of protecting the rights of socially conservative parents sets the foxes to guard the henhouse.

The Bishop of Calgary, Frederick Henry, in criticizing the proposed reforms, wrote that “it is painfully obvious that the majority of the caucus didn’t read Ezra Levant’s recently released book, Shakedown. Pity.”

It’s more than a pity. It’s a disgrace. And it’s embarrassing.

Canadian "Human Rights" Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Catholic Insight

Now that their tactics have been exposed worldwide, the Canadian "human rights" commissars are running scared. Today, they dismissed the complaint filed by a radical homosexual activist against Catholic Insight magazine. This follows the dismissal of a complaint against Macleans magazine by the Canadian Islamic Congress.

Fr. Alphonse de Valk, editor of Catholic Insight, received this letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Dear Sir,

I am writing to inform you of the decision taken by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the complaint (20070410) of Rob Wells against Catholic Insight.

Before rendering their decision, the members of the Commission reviewed the report disclosed to you previously and any submission(s) filed in response to the report. After examining this information, the Commission decided, pursuant to paragraph 44(3)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to dismiss the complaint because the material is not likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on sexual orientation.

Accordingly, the file on this matter has now been closed.

For your information, either party to a complaint can ask the Federal Court to review a Commission decision under subsection 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act. The application to the Court must normally be filed within 30 days of receipt of the Commission’s decision.

But this is not the end of the story. Fr. de Valk reminds his readers of the ongoing assault on religious freedom in Canada.

Today, July 4, 2008, we were informed about what might be the conclusion of a process that started in February 2007. Let us recall a few facts.

On April 16, 2008, I received word that the investigation into the complaint filed by Rob Wells against the magazine and myself had been completed. The CHRC’s investigator, Sandy Kozak, concluded her 8-page report by recommending “pursuant to subsection 44(3)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act,” that “the Commission dismiss the complaint because the material is not likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on sexual orientation.”

That was not the end of the affair. The complainant, Rob Wells, had the right of reply. He submitted another lengthy accusation received by us on May 9, 2008. This, in turn, required a detailed legal refutation from Catholic Insight, which we submitted to the Commission on May 23. Our nine page response buttressed the main findings of the investigator, while also challenging some unsubstantiated observations in the investigator’s Report.

Rob Wells, the complainant, is a member of the homosexual “Pride Centre”, Edmonton. Some years ago, for a number of weeks, he used a spray-painted vehicle to circle around Edmonton’s St. Joseph’s Cathedral at the Sunday afternoon Mass. The slogans compared the Catholic Church to Nazism. No charges were laid against him.

He then turned to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to pursue his advocacy after Ottawa had given it jurisdiction over the Internet (2001). Our magazine had opposed the agenda of homosexual activists for legal reforms since our start in 1993; we countered arguments put forward by their activists both inside and outside the courts as well as without and within the Christian community. We used news reports and analyses, research papers, specialized articles on medical, psychological, legal, and sociological consequences. We used scientific data, refuting particular arguments (e.g. that 10% of the population is comprised of homosexuals, or that all homosexuals are born that way, etc.). Above all, we communicated the theological reasoning of the Catholic Church which opposes the homosexual way of life as contrary to the will of God the Creator, and, therefore, sinful. Eventually some 108 articles and reports made it onto our website.

The designation of homosexual activity as a sin opened the road to claims of “discrimination”, “bigotry” and “hatred” by Rob Wells, on the basis of section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Where do we stand now? It is clear that the Human Rights Act, related provincial legislation, and the Commissions themselves must be reformed if there is to be a reasonable prospect of peaceful debate on controversial issues, and in particular, issues related to sexual morality.

The struggle, therefore, is still in its beginning stages. The outrages committed against Chris Kempling in B.C., Stephen Boissoin in Alberta, Christian Horizons service organization in Ontario, and many others, must be undone. The demands of people like Rob Wells that everyone must affirm homosexual activity and bow to their demands is intolerable. The promotion of homosexual behaviour through enforced curricula changes in many provinces needs to be reversed. So let us pursue this struggle with vigour.

Catholic Insight appreciates the support of so many Canadians in this struggle, and in particular the efforts of many supporters, especially those of modest means, who have contributed to our legal defence fund. While the findings of the investigator and the Commission’s recent announcement are good news, Catholic Insight is aware that an appeal of the Commission’s decision could cause this matter to escalate to another level and become a continuing burden on our small publication. We shall keep you, our supporters, informed.

Persecution Watch: Canada (Again!)

Apparently, the Canadian Thought Police think they can control what a visiting American youth minister says in an Alberta church! Via Stephen Boissoin:

Last week I received an email through my website from a concerned US citizen. This individual and her husband have been invited to facilitate at a seminar which is being hosted by an Edmonton church...IN THE CHURCH.

The US couple was concerned about their freedoms here in Canada because they're offering a teaching on Biblical sexuality that is based in the Song of Solomon and does address homosexuality as sin. They were thinking about cancelling due to risk of prosecution. I encouraged them to keep it in the church and they should be ok.

The couple decided to contact the Alberta Human Rights Commission to enquire about the legalities surrounding their presentation. Below you can read the phone log of the conversation with Ralph Roman an officer of the AHRC.

An interesting point here is that this couple was advised by Ralph Roman, to inform the church that they should hire a lawyer to draft up legal consent forms and ensure that the attendees consent to the teaching...PLUS, she was advised to have the curriculum reviewed by the Police and was cautioned that the attendees should NOT talk about the information presented. Ralph Roman went on to inform her that even with a consent form there is still no guarantee that a complaint could not be filed IF someone was offended....like a teacher for instance.

Christian parents are not allowed to "opt" their kids out of biased pro-homosexual propaganda in our public schools but the HRC advises that we need to obtain consent to teach our religious beliefs in our own religous institutions.

Canadian Thought Police Cave to Pressure; Drop Steyn/Maclean's Case

In the face of mounting criticism both at home and abroad, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has decided to dismiss the complaint by the Canadian Islamic Congress against Maclean's magazine and journalist Mark Steyn.

TORONTO, June 26 /CNW/ - Maclean's magazine is pleased that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed the complaint brought against it by the Canadian Islamic Congress. The decision is in keeping with our long-standing position that the article in question, "The Future Belongs to Islam," an excerpt from Mark Steyn's best-selling book America Alone, was a worthy piece of commentary on important geopolitical issues, entirely within the bounds of normal journalistic practice.

Though gratified by the decision, Maclean's continues to assert that no human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial decisions of the nation's media. And we continue to have grave concerns about a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to say nothing of the inconvenience. We enthusiastically support those parliamentarians who are calling for legislative review of the commissions with regard to speech issues.

The reference to "multiple jurisdictions" is a reminder that a similar complaint against Maclean's and Steyn remains pending before the provincial tribunal in British Columbia.

Next, They Came for the Comedians. . .

The Canadian Thought Police are at it again. This time, it's literally a joke.

Guy Earle, a Toronto comedian, must now stand trial before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal on the charge of telling unfunny jokes.

That sounds like a joke itself, but it's not.

In May, 2007, Earle was hosting a comedy night at Zesty's restaurant in Vancouver. He says a couple of lesbians came in, got drunk and starting making out right in front of the stage. He said they also heckled him and other comedians.

In other words, like anyone else -- gay, straight or otherwise -- they set themselves up for some wise-cracks. And crack wise Earle did.

But didn't he know he was in the People's Republic of British Columbia?

Lorna Pardy, one of the humourless lesbians, filed a complaint against Earle and Zesty's. In B.C., unlike other human rights commissions, it is possible to make a preliminary application to dismiss a complaint.

That application to dismiss was rejected this week. Here is the ruling, that commits the matter to go to trial.

Take a look at who wrote it: Heather MacNaughton, the same tribunal member who chaired Mark Steyn's show trial earlier this month.

In that trial, too, the funny-ness of jokes became an issue. The Canadian Islamic Congress said that some of Mark Steyn's jokes weren't funny, but they also insisted that the CBC's awful "sitcom", Little Mosque on the Prairies, was indeed funny, and if Steyn didn't think so, he was a racist.

So MacNaughton feels comfortable in her self-appointed role as government joke-tester.

The march toward tyranny in the name of tolerance continues in the Great White North.

The Canadian Thought Police Are At It Again

Yet another Canadian outlet of free expression is being dragged into the "human rights" star chamber for crimes against humanity. This time, it's Nova Scotia's Chronicle Herald for publishing a cartoon which has been deemed offensive by some devout followers of the Religion of Peace.

The cartoon, published April 18 in the Chronicle Herald newspaper, depicts a woman in a burka holding a sign that reads, "I want millions," and she says, "I can put it towards my husband's next training camp."

The cartoon by Bruce MacKinnon is a reference to Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal, a woman from Nova Scotia whose husband was arrested in 2006 in an anti-terrorism raid. Qayyum Abdul Jamal was released from jail after charges against him were stayed on April 15...

Dan Leger, the Herald's director of news content, said the cartoon does not take aim at all Muslims.

"The whole purpose of that cartoon was to comment on the outrageous demands of this individual for compensation long before any hearing into her case had ever been held," he said.

In an interview with the Herald before the cartoon ran, Jamal said she wanted to sue the federal government for what her family has gone through and told the reporter, "I want millions," Leger noted.

"[MacKinnon] depicted her exactly the way she looks and used her own words, and that's the genius of cartooning that you're able to do that," he said.

Ezra Levant offers his preliminary observations on this latest outrage, which not only involves the provincial "human rights" gestapo, but actual police, as well.

I'm sure the Chronicle Herald will have a lot to say on this matter themselves -- they've been one of the newspapers leading the charge against the "thought crimes" provisions of human rights acts. Here are my first-blush reactions.

1. This was a cartoon that commented on a particular Muslim radical, who had issued particular political demands ("millions of dollars"). This is just the latest example of radical Islam attempting to criminalize criticism as "religious discrimination". The Chronicle Herald was clearly engaging in political commentary. Radical Islamists, and their useful idiots in Canada's human rights commissions, will do anything to silence their political critics.

2. It's embarrassing enough that rogue human rights commissions are taking on such clearly legitimate expressions of political opinion. But what is the excuse for real police calling the newspaper? When Calgary's resident jihadist, Syed Soharwardy, tried to get the police to arrest me for opposing radical Islam, they politely refused. They didn't even contact me -- they knew a nuisance complaint when they saw one. Why are Halifax police allowing their good offices to be abused? Don't they know the inappropriate chilling effect that will have on the media? Or is that their point?
3. Look at the identity of the official complainant here. It's not Mrs. Jamal, the money-grubbing wife of the accused terrorist. It's Ziaullah Khan, of Halifax's "Centre for Islamic Development". Here's Khan's angry rant about the honour killing of Aqsa Parvez, whose father killed her for, amongst other sins, not wearing a hijab. Khan doesn't focus his fury on Parvez's father, but on the "hatemongers" in the media for covering the horrible story. I'm surprised he didn't file a human rights commission back then.

4. Why is it that Khan, whose job description is the promotion of Islam in Halifax, has allied himself with the Jamals? It's because, regrettably, too many imams in too many mosques in North America are radical themselves, and even if they don't preach terrorism, they excuse it, or in this case, sympathize with the accused terrorist. If only the Khan's of this world were as eager and angry to speak out against Muslim terrorism, instead of media coverage, or Canadian counter-terrorism efforts.

5. But why has Mrs. Jamal herself not yet filed a defamation suit against the newspaper? Khan called the cartoon "libellous". If so, Mrs. Jamal could sue. But then she'd have to pay for her own lawyers -- not have the clowns at the human rights commission pay for them. And the Chronicle Herald would have centuries-old common law defences, such as truth and fair comment. Moreover, they'd be able to cross-examine Mrs. Jamal at length, not only about her demands for "millions of dollars", but about her knowledge of her husband's activities. No, better to stick with kangaroo courts and made-up "human rights", than to go to real courts.

6. Is it a coincidence that the Chronicle Herald, one of Canada's smartest critics of HRCs, has been targetted by one? Maybe. Or maybe their CEO, the mawkish Michael Noonan, is still smarting over the paper's amazing smackdown of him, and thought he'd mete out a little kangaroo court justice.

7. I hate the fact that the Chronicle Herald will now have to spend thousands of dollars fighting against this unholy alliance between fascist Islamist censors and weepy politically correct HRC bureaucrats. But, other than that unfortunate side-effect, I'm actually glad for this, in a dark, "the worse, the better" kind of way. The more people hear about these abusive HRCs, the more they realize the threat to our freedoms they have become, the more they realize that everyone is vulnerable -- not just conservatives like me and Mark Steyn, but anyone who dares to have an opinion -- the more there will be a demand for reform or abolition of these commissions. As with the offensive Barbara Hall of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, I hope that Khan's repugnant voice is heard again and again and again, for he discredits his cause more than any of his critics could.

Tyranny in the name of tolerance appears to be moving full steam ahead in the Great White North.

Lewis on the Worst Form of Tyranny

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – (C.S. Lewis, In Freedom)

Posted as a comment at Down with Everybody

Persecuted Pastor Appeals Thought Police Verdict

From the Red Deer Advocate:

An appeal will be filed next week concerning a former Red Deer pastor and an anti-gay letter he wrote and had published.

“We do plan to file Monday or Tuesday through the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta,” said Calgary lawyer Gerald Chipeur on behalf of his client Stephen Boissoin, on Thursday.

The appeal will centre on a recent ruling and decision made by the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission.

In November, the commission ruled the Concerned Christian Coalition and its former executive director, Boissoin, broke Alberta’s human rights law after a letter was published in the Red Deer Advocate in June 2002.

The commission said Boissoin’s letter likely exposed homosexual people to hatred and contempt.

On May 30, the commission ruled that Boissoin and the coalition would have to pay $5,000 in damages to former Red Deer school teacher Darren Lund.

Lund had filed the complaint that the letter was a hate crime after a gay teen was attacked in the city.

Another $2,000 would have to be paid to Janelle Dodd, one of Lund’s witnesses who spoke at an earlier commission hearing.

Boissoin and the coalition were also ordered to stop publishing in all forms of media any “disparaging remarks” about gays and homosexuals.

As well, they must give a written apology to Lund, and request that the Red Deer Advocate publish a copy of the May 30 order and their written apology.

For the record, here is the original letter which ran Pastor Boissoin afoul of the Canadian Thought Police (via The Blog of Walker):

Homosexual Agenda Wicked

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.

Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage. My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term "morality."

The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, "I'm just not sure where the truth lies," or "If they don't affect me then I don't care what they do," abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority. Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.Edmund Burke's observation that, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.

Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.

Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive? Come on people, wake up! It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn't rooted in protecting homosexuals from "gay bashing." The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.

If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It's time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.

Rev. Stephen Boissoin

Visit Stephen Boissoin's web site and blog.

American Press Awakening to Plight of Persecuted Canadians

Two articles in American publications offer hope that the march toward tyranny in the name of tolerance might be halted before it lurches southward. Jimmy Espy of the Dalton (Ga.) Daily Citizen devoted his column yesterday to the subject of the "phony watchdogs" of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Meanwhile, Janie B. Cheaney of World magazine shines the light on the Canadian thought police's persecution of Maclean's magazine and journalist Mark Steyn.

A three-member panel convened in Vancouver early this month to hear the case. Maclean's editor Andrew Coyne, liveblogging the proceedings, reported that according to Section 7.1 of the Human Rights Code, "innocent intent is not a defense, nor is truth, nor is fair comment or the public interest, nor is good faith or responsible journalism. In other words, there is no defense." Also no standard for conviction except the complainant's feelings—no wonder the national CHRC has never declared a defendant innocent.

Evidence by the complainants consisted mostly of blog comments, which may or may not have been inspired by Steyn's article. Witnesses included a Quran specialist, a media professor whose area of expertise is Bollywood films, and Dr. Naiyer Habib, co-complainant, who testified of his distress when he read some of the nasty blog posts. Other magazine articles and surveys were introduced, none of which had any connection with Mark Steyn or Maclean's, but because there were no rules about evidence, some were admitted and some not.

In final arguments on June 6, council for the complainants asserted that they had met a two-part test of hate speech, proving that Steyn had both encouraged hate in the readership, and expressed hate in his writing. Plus, he used sarcasm.

The defense introduced no evidence but appealed to Canada's tradition of freedom of the press—even though that tradition has lost its teeth. Only the week before, a CHRC panel in Alberta handed down a decision against Stephen Boissoin of the Concerned Christian Coalition, who published a letter critical of homosexuals in a local newspaper. For this offense, Boissoin and the coalition were directed to pay $5,000 to the complainant for "pain and suffering," to refrain in the future from publishing discriminatory letters, and to make no "disparaging remarks" about the case. These measures, according to the panel, are "remedial not punitive." Nice to know.

The Steyn decision is not expected for several weeks, and tribunal officials are probably aware that this case is loaded. It's a prominent national journal they're dealing with, not some puny pack of concerned Christians. Some speculate that the CHRC will give Maclean's a stern lecture and dismiss the case so it can continue wreaking havoc on Canadian civil rights in relative obscurity. A conviction might drag the commission's habit of overreach into the public glare, and possibly force reform.

Whatever the decision, Steyn and Maclean's promise to hang tough. We can hope so, because rights generally erode before they collapse. As the old caveat goes, "First they came for the sarcastic. . . ."

HT: The ever "poisonous" Blazing Cat Fur

You Can't Make This Stuff Up, Part MCMXXXIV: Canadian Commissars Blame Their Victims

Canada's National Post reports on this week's gathering of the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies. Apparently, what was supposed to be a celebration of the triumph of fascism in the Great White North turned out to be an exercise in navel gazing and damage control as the commissars and their legal apologists blamed their victims for the scrutiny under which they now find themselves.

Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who has emerged as the only high profile critic of human rights commissions to be tolerated by their supporters, argued that, as a major force in the establishment of Canada's first human rights commission in Ontario in 1961, he never expected they would be used against the free expression of opinion.

"The problem is the statute, is the law," he said. "There's no requirement that there be an intent to create hatred or contempt, and there's no defence of truth or reasonable belief in the truth."

As examples, he cited scholarly and journalistic writings on Serbs, Rwandans and Germans, all of which alleged widespread complicity in genocide.

"There's very little worse you can say about people than what those authors said about Rwandans, Serbs and Germans. Whether they were adequately nuanced or not, are we saying that such expressions of opinion should be suppressed? How can we have a sensible debate about foreign policy when views like that are considered unlawful?"

Pearl Eliadis, a prominent human rights lawyer, responded that what Mr. Borovoy thought 40 years ago should not determine the current state of human rights law, and that the arguments against human rights commissions dealing with complaints against media are premised on the notion that "new rights are bad rights."

She said the commissions are "strategically and uncomfortably poised" in "dynamic tension" among NGOs, government, voters, industry and other influences, and it is "almost proof of their relative success that nobody is happy."

"There's a narrow band of intolerant bigots out there who are jumping on to this bandwagon and are using this debate to propagate particularly hateful views," Ms. Eliadis said in an interview. "What the free speech absolutists are saying is that, once you take that core element of speech and transport it into mass media, suddenly it becomes immune. I don't understand why speech should be immune from discrimination law. The media should not enjoy more rights or immunity than anyone else."

At the same time, she said the three Muslim law students who complained against Maclean's magazine have done themselves a disservice by claiming they have a right not to be offended. "I'm sorry, you don't," she said. "Those sorts of things have to be part of the normal rough and tumble of debate and discourse."

Mel Sufrin, executive secretary of the Ontario Press Council, said human rights commissions should have no role in dealing with complaints against the media, and he regrets that the case was heard in British Columbia (it was dismissed in Ontario, and remains before the federal commission.) But Wahida Valiante, national vice-president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, said the commissions are the only recourse available to minorities treated unfairly in the media.

She repeated the CIC's complaints that membership in press councils is optional, and that criminal hate speech charges require the consent of the federal Attorney-General, which leaves human rights commissions as the only option.

She compared Mark Steyn, the author of the Maclean's article in question, titled The Future Belongs to Islam, to James Keegstra, an Alberta high school teacher who taught and tested his students on how Jews "created the Holocaust to gain sympathy."

"They basically talk about the same theories," she said. "This is not a civil dialogue."

She said that, in Germany, long before the Holocaust, "it was the words that set the stage for what happened later on.... We may end up with the same fate, and that is at the heart of why [the complainants] wanted to take this on."

Both she and Ms. Eliadis had harsh words for the growing contingent of bloggers who lambaste the commissions, and have been invigorated by the prominence of the Maclean's complaints.

Ms. Eliadis singled out one in particular, blazingcatfur.blogspot.com, as "poisonous" for referring to her panel at the conference as a "Texas cage match."

She said it was evidence of the "appalling tone" that is "illustrative of how badly this debate has gone."

But Chief Commissioner Lynch was more resigned to the heat of public scrutiny, even if it sometimes burns. As she put it in an interview, "We fully welcome this discussion. It's imperative to have discussion. It's a basic tenet of democracy."

"Discussion," of course, as defined by these fascist tribunals is not the same as freedom of expression, which is what truly is "a basic tenet of democracy." As long as the government of Canada tolerates the likes of Jennifer Lynch and Pearl Eliadis, its commitment to democracy must be seriously questioned.

Robert Spencer: Wake Someone Up Today

"Inane Stupidity and Gross Miscarriage of Justice"

The Rt. Rev. Fred Henry, Bishop of Calgary, who was himself the target of persecution in the name of "tolerance" a few years ago, makes it clear in a letter to Alberta's Premier Ed Stelmach that it is time to rein in on Canada's out of control "human rights" tribunals.

Dear Premier Stelmach:

I have raised the issue of the Alberta Human Rights Commission several times with you in the past 18 months. On each of those occasions, you said that you understood the issues and shared my concerns. However, the situation is continuing to deteriorate across our country and the various levels of governments are seemingly non-responsive.

April 2008: The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered an evangelical Christian charity, Christian Horizons, to rescind its morality code and require employees to undergo anti-discriminatory training. In addition, Christian Horizons has been ordered to pay $23,000 plus lost wages for terminating Connie Heritz's employment based on a morality code which she freely and knowingly signed as a condition of employment and which she failed to adhere to.

Every religious institution should have the jurisdictional independence to determine its own confessions, doctrines and ordinances, including conditions of employment.

May 2008: A Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined a Regina marriage commissioner, Orville Nichols, $2,500 after finding he discriminated against a gay couple when he declined to perform their same-sex ceremony. Nichols, who has performed nearly 2,000 marriages since 1983, had referred the couple to another marriage commissioner because he said his religious beliefs (Baptist) kept him from performing the ceremony.

The conflict between social pressure and the demands of right conscience can lead to the dilemma either of abandoning a profession or of compromising one's convictions.

Faced with that tension, despite the ruling of the commission, we must remember that there is a middle path that opens up before workers who are faithful to their conscience. It is the path of conscientious objection, which ought to be respected by all, especially legislators.

Every person has the right to have their religious beliefs reasonably accommodated.

Each judgment emanating out of our various human right commissions seems to be more brazen and bizarre than the one that preceded it. However, for inane stupidity and gross miscarriage of justice our own Alberta Human Rights Tribunal deserves to take first prize for its treatment of Stephen Boissoin.

June 2008: The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal fined Stephen Boissoin, $5,000.

Section 30 of the Alberta Human Rights Act states: "Evidence may be given before a human rights panel in any manner that the panel considers appropriate, and the panel is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence in judicial proceedings."

Logic ignored

It would also seem that this panel is also not bound by reasonable argument or the elementary rules of logic but is free to skewer anyone not espousing and proclaiming politically correct views.

Darren Lund, the complainant, said that Boissoin's words in his 2002 letter to the Red Deer Advocate were hateful, and furthermore, an assault on a gay teenager three weeks later could be connected to them. No proof of either was presented.

Lori Andreachuk, the chairperson of the tribunal, agreed that his words were "likely" to expose gays, "a vulnerable" group to hatred due to their sexual orientation. No court in the land would connect the letter and the assault but this silly tribunal did.

Andreachuk acknowledged, "In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward."

However, she also wrote: "Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation." One might ask on what grounds?

Complainant feted

She concluded that Boissoin "shall pay to Dr. Lund an award for damages, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,000." Lund wasn't the victim of any kind of discrimination and yet he is handsomely paid and, subsequently, was feted as Gay Pride Parade marshall in Calgary.

The tribunal effectively stripped Boissoin of his right to freedom of speech. "Mr. Boissoin . . . shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals."

What is meant by "disparaging"? This is tantamount to ruling out honest debate and a plurality of views in the public sphere lest someone be offended by a differing viewpoint.

Public humiliation

The tribunal decided to extract a further pound of flesh by way of public humiliation. "Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint." What happens if Lund is not satisfied with the apology?

Mr. Premier, we have talked enough about the inadequate provisions of and appointment to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunals. It is time to repeal Section 3(1)(b) of the Alberta Human Rights Act and to protect the rights of religious freedom. Every person has the right to make public statements and participate in public debate on religious grounds.

(Editor's Note: Section 3(1)(b) of the Alberta Human Rights Act states, "No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.")

New Links: Eyewitnesses to Canadian Tyranny

Check out the new "North of the Border" sidebar with links to blogs and websites by and about the current targets of persecution by the Canadian thought police tribunal masquerading as the "Human Rights Commission."

Canadian Commentaries on Christian Persecution

Here are a few of the choice commentaries, from a Canadian Catholic and a Canadian Jew, respectively, concerning the ongoing persecution of believers north of the border.

When did the Bible become 'hate speech'?
Father Raymond J. de Souza
National Post, Thursday, June 12, 2008

Four years ago, I wrote an article entitled "Thinly Disguised Totalitarianism" for the religious journal First Things, surveying the erosion of Canadian religious liberty under various regulatory bodies, professional associations and human rights tribunals. I wrote then that "there are no restrictions on freedom of worship in Canada today." That's no longer true.

As Ezra Levant details below, the Stephen Boissoin case is an egregious assault on religious liberty, press freedom and freedom of speech. And for those of us who previously underestimated the threat to religious liberty, it serves as a rude correction.

The judgment of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (AHRCC) against the Reverend Stephen Boissoin, a Protestant youth pastor, is a direct violation of his religious liberty. Whatever his "guilt" --and who is not guilty before the human rights commission? -- the judgment requires him to write an apology abjuring his views on homosexuality, and prohibits him and the Concerned Christian Coalition from making "disparaging" remarks about homosexuals.

It is not specified what the AHRCC might consider "disparaging," but simply reading in public -- as in a sermon -- the Biblical admonitions against homosexual acts is not precluded. Indeed, the scope of the AHRCC order is so wide that it effectively says that Rev. Boissoin may not speak publicly on homosexuality ever again, unless he changes his opinion.

Given that the "offence" was a letter to the editor published in the Red Deer Advocate, the judgment by implication would apply the same restrictions to the newspaper itself. The offence was "causing to be published" the letter, which "was likely to expose homosexuals to contempt or hatred because of their sexual orientation." In order for something to be published in a newspaper, both a writer and an editor/publisher are required. Had the complainant in this case named the Red Deer Advocate in his charge, there is every logical reason to expect that the AHRCC would have slapped a perpetual ban on the newspaper publishing any "disparaging" stories on homosexuality.

Rev. Boissoin is not the only Alberta clergyman hauled before the AHRCC. In 2005, Frederick Henry, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary, was brought before the commission for writing a pastoral letter against same-sex marriage to his own flock. Before the AHRCC had a chance to find him guilty, Bishop Henry clarified his remarks and the complaint was withdrawn. It is now clear that had it gone ahead, the AHRCC would have ordered the bishop of Calgary not to speak about same-sex marriage ever again.

There have been numerous other cases too, including ones against the Knights of Columbus and Catholic Insight magazine. We can expect more after this most recent AHRCC ruling.

Until a real court throws all of this out, the ruling against Rev. Boissoin stands. And it is no sure thing that the courts will not accommodate themselves to restrictions on religious liberty, even as they did on free speech when the "hate" speech prohibitions enforced by human rights commissions were first tested at the Supreme Court in 1990. If the courts uphold what the AHRCC did to Rev. Boissoin, religious liberty will be mortally wounded in Canada.

Rev. Boissoin, as one would nobly expect of a clergyman and citizen of free country, has said he will neither write the apology nor pay the "damages" assessed. Unless the courts overturn the AHRCC decision, he will eventually be found in contempt and imprisoned--a prisoner for religious liberty and press freedom.

About 18 months ago, a journalist friend writing a book surveying trends in world Catholicism called to inquire about whether, apropos of my totalitarianism article, I thought it likely that priests in Canada would, in my lifetime, have to go to prison for preaching their faith. I said then what I believed to be true: No. After the Boissoin ruling, that is manifestly not the correct answer.

The Charter of Rights enumerates freedom of religion as its first freedom. Freedom of the press is its second. As a priest first and a journalist second, I should be comforted. Yet I am not. Those freedoms are at risk in Canada, an attack not only on pastors and journalists, but on citizens of a free country. The enemies of liberty got Rev. Boissoin. They tried to get Bishop Henry. They are going after Ezra Levant. Everyone with a pulpit or a column should ask: When will they come after me?

Ezra Levant on the Human Rights Show Trial of Christian Pastor Stephen Boissoin

What could Mark Steyn’s punishment be, if he and Maclean’s magazine are convicted of “Islamophobia” by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal?

It could look like the order issued by the Alberta government against a Christian pastor named Stephen Boissoin.

Rev. Boissoin wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate, in which he denounced homosexuality in no uncertain terms. A local teacher — who wasn’t gay — filed a complaint with Alberta’s human rights commission, claiming that Rev. Boissoin and the newspaper were “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” The newspaper accepted a plea bargain, but Rev. Boissoin didn’t. So, like everyone else charged with that vague offence, he was found guilty. His punishment was announced two weeks ago.

It’s right out of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Lori Andreachuk, the human rights commissioner who issued the order, started off by acknowledging that “there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward.”

The complainant was the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund with an axe to grind. Andreachuk’s first order was that “Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.”

So a busybody with no standing spends his time filing complaints — and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. For his “suffering” — not at the hands of Rev. Boission, but “as a result of his complaint.” People in Red Deer ridiculed Lund for being a tattle-tale and a censor — as they should. But Rev. Boissoin must pay for that.

Her order continued: “Mr. Boissoin … shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.”
Boissoin can never communicate anything “disparaging” about gays again. It’s a lifetime ban — and it applies to every conceivable medium, including his private e-mails and public sermons.

Nothing “disparaging” means nothing critical. She didn’t order him not to communicate anything “illegal” or even anything “hateful.” She ordered him to say nothing disparaging. For the rest of his life.

And then she declared that Rev. Boissoin is “prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund’s witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint.”

Lund, a political activist, is “protected” not just from Rev. Boissoin’s alleged anti-gay remarks, but from any other criticism. Forever.

But Andreachuk was just getting warmed up. Rev. Boissoin must “provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate, which was the subject of this complaint.” The Alberta government couldn’t convince a Christian pastor that he’s wrong, so it will just order him to condemn himself. Other than tribunals in Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China, where is that considered to be justice?

This is like a Third World jail-house confession — where accused criminals are forced to sign false statements of guilt. But jail-house confessions pretend to be real. Not here. Andreachuk just comes out and says it: You’re going to say you’re sorry, even if you aren’t.

In the final insult, Rev. Boissoin was ordered to “request [his] written apology for the contravention of the Act be published in the Red Deer Advocate.”

Rev. Boissoin doesn’t just have to issue a false apology to Lund. He has to publicly humiliate himself, by publicly declaring his contrition — contrition he does not feel — and his abandonment of his deeply-held religious beliefs.

So a pastor cannot give a sermon he actually believes in. Instead, he must give a false sermon; he must apologize to his accuser for his Christian faith. And then that pastor is ordered to declare to his entire city that he has renounced his faith, even though he has not.

And then he’s fined $7,000.

This wasn’t just the work of a rogue human rights commission. The Progressive Conservative Government of Alberta sent a lawyer to intervene in the hearing — against Rev. Boissoin.

That’s how human rights commissions work in Alberta, allegedly the freest province in Canada. How will they work in B.C.?

Press Silence Over Canadian Assault on Freedom

David Warren notes the disturbing silence of Canadian journalists in the wake of recent decisions by so-called "human rights tribunals" which are a direct assault on freedom of speech.

As free speech disappears in Canada, one looks for instance not at the more celebrated cases of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, but at the much less publicized fate of e.g. Rev. Stephen Boisson, convicted by an Alberta kangaroo court ("human rights tribunal") last November for publicly expressing the Christian and Biblical view of homosexuality, on the say-so of an anti-Christian activist from his home town.

Rev. Boisson has now been ordered to desist from communicating his views on this subject "in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet" so long as he should live. He has been ordered to pay compensation to Darren Lund, the anti-Christian activist in question, and further to make a public recantation of beliefs he still holds.

Meanwhile, Fr Alphonse de Valk, editor of the magazine Catholic Insight, is being prosecuted by a gay rights activist in Edmonton, for having upheld both sides of the Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the pages of his magazine over more than a decade: that homosexual behaviour is sinful, but that we are nevertheless to love the sinner.

That case, in which, as ever, all of the expenses of the complainant are met by the taxpayer, will drag on for some time before the inevitable guilty verdict is delivered, and the punishments to Fr de Valk and his colleagues are meted out. While the case drags on, the small magazine, which exists without state subsidies or significant advertising, on the dime of its several thousand loyal Catholic readers, is being driven towards bankruptcy by the cost of maintaining its own legal defence. These are costs they would not be eligible to recover, even if they won at tribunal.

Fr de Valk has written a lead editorial in the June number of Catholic Insight that should be read not only from the pulpit to every practising Catholic in Canada, but by every concerned Canadian regardless of his religious or political affiliations. It is entitled, "Fascism has come to Canada," and mentions several other major cases in which Christians have been hauled before the country's "human rights" tribunals, and ordered to abandon their beliefs, pay out to complainants, stage public recantations, submit to indoctrination, etc. -- with little to no media coverage. Alas, there are more cases (they are multiplying quickly), and the "human rights" commissars are not the only source of state persecution.

Among the spookiest aspects of these cases is the silence over, and indifference to them, on the part of journalists whose predecessors imagined themselves vigilant in the cause of freedom. As I've learned first-hand through email, many Canadian journalists today take the view that, "I don't like these people, therefore I don't care what happens to them." It is a view that, at best, is extremely short-sighted.

Of course, it is hard to ignore the fact that speech is not the only freedom being destroyed by these kangaroo courts. The first and most basic of all "human rights" is the freedom of religion. It is also the one which none of these "human rights" commissions seem to respect.

Fr. de Valk Fights Christian Persecution in Canada

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 10, 2008

A monthly Canadian Catholic magazine of news, analysis and opinion has been burdened by $20,000 in legal costs so far to defend itself against a campaign of harassment – including a human rights complaint – launched by homosexual activists.

Catholic Insight magazine had the human rights complaint filed against it in February 2007 by Rob Wells, a member of the Pride Centre of Edmonton. Sixteen months later, the publication is still awaiting a ruling from the Canadian Human Rights Commission on whether the matter will proceed beyond the investigation stage. The magazine has held to the position that the complaint is without basis.

The magazine has also had to engage legal counsel to deal with frivolous and unsuccessful actions launched by a homosexually “married” Toronto resident and disgruntled former Catholic seminarian, who wrote in an August 21, 2007 posting on the http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/ website with respect to opposing religious institutions, “As long as the disruption is non-violent and it is proportionate to the provocation, then I think that it may be acceptable. It may not be legal, it may not be pretty, but it may be morally acceptable in some cases.”

This individual’s campaign of “disruption” against Catholic Insight has included attempting to strip the magazine of its funding under Heritage Canada’s Publications Assistance Program and filing a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

Catholic Insight editor Father Alphonse de Valk is deeply offended that the publication, which operates on a modest budget, has been burdened with such unnecessary, but significant, legal expenses for complaints and actions that have so far failed in every case. At the same time, he is heartened by the fact that the magazine’s subscribers and supporters, both within and outside Canada, have stepped forward generously to help the publication deal with its financial challenges through contributions to a Legal Defence Fund.

While pledging that the magazine will not be fazed by the actions and will continue to publish for years to come, de Valk renewed his call for the elimination, or at least radical restructuring, of human rights commissions.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Father Alphonse de Valk, (416) 204-9601