Stephen Boissoin

San Francisco fest features public sex with no arrests

2009-01-09T11:45:00.006-07:00

Just like the year before, these absolutely perverted, sick, immoral homosexuals taking their freakshow out in public and I am called alarmist by some for my 2002 letter to the editor. It was no different at the Toronto Gay Pride Parade. Naked homosexuals marched in the parade and they weren't convicted of a crime or fined either.

'This is what the gay agenda is all about'
WorldNetDaily

Police officer on the streets, but apparently told not to enforce publicly nudity or indecency rules, during the recent "Up Your Alley" homosexual festival

Nude men engaged in multiple instances of public sex on a municipal street while police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregated nearby making no attempt to enforce public indecency regulations, according to a report on the latest homosexual-fest in San Francisco.

The behavior was documented in photographs of an event called "Up Your Alley," which is sponsored by the same group that organizes the city's fall "gay"-fest, the Folsom Street Fair, on which WND has reported.

"Consider how liberal government authorities like Mayor [Gavin] Newsom have corrupted the men in blue by stipulating that police not prosecute public nudity and indecency at homosexual festivals," said a report from Americans for Truth on the graphic activities documented at the event.

"What honor can there be in protecting the public practice of heinous perversions and nudity in the city's streets? The shame of pandering politicians is transferred to the cops who were intended to be guardians of the law and public order," said the organizer's chief, Peter LaBarbera.

His organization is one of the few in the country to call officials from San Francisco on the issue of the obscene behavior, including public acts of sex, documented during the festival in late July.

Americans for Truth previously worked to raise the nation's awareness of the Folsom Street Fair, which last fall broke into the headlines with its promotional image mocking the Last Supper scene of Jesus Christ and his disciples, replacing the biblical leaders with leather-adorned men and the bread and wine with sex toys.

LaBarbera, who had to edit photos to conceal full nudity in images from the public street festival before he could post them as part of his report, said there were exhibitionists who "walked around baring their genitals, with no fear of being arrested." Other websites, to which WND is unable to link because of their graphic content, published fully explicit photographs of various public acts of sex and nudity. They featured explicit photographs of oral and anal sex between men and men urinating on each other, among other activities.

The Americans for Truth report follows the July 27 event, "one of the city's two open-air celebrations of sadomasochism (euphemistically called the 'leather' lifestyle by practitioners)," AFT said. "It is telling to us that the same city whose mayor, Gavin Newsom (D), ignited the 'same-sex marriage' crusade in California by illegally issuing 'gay marriage' licenses – openly tolerates and celebrates gross perversions, nudity and sexual lawlessness on its streets."

A photograph revealing two men dressed in women's clothing, along with a man in the background being whipped, as part of San Francisco's "Up Your Alley" homosexual festival

The images captured in the photos were described by one WND reader as "vomit-inducing."

"This is what the gay agenda is all about," the reader said. "I'll go even further and call [the images] depraved and disgusting.

"Remember, this is on the public streets of San Francisco," the reader said.

"These photos do not fit in with the slick, national 'gay' marketing plan, to be sure," LaBarbera wrote. "Nevertheless, the pathetic and debased spectacle is as much an offspring of the 'GLBT' movement as the current quest for homosexual 'marriage.' The latter radically redefines and corrupts an ancient institution created by God to order relations between man and woman as the basis for family life. Perverse events like 'Up Your Alley' … mock any notion of right and wrong – as the reckless pursuit of anything-goes 'tolerance' leads governmental authorities to enable and promote evil, turning freedom into sexual anarchy while causing a breakdown in law and order."

WND made multiple attempts to reach officials in San Francisco for a comment on the apparent lack of obscenity and indecency regulation enforcement during the festival.

Officials with the San Francisco police department's media relations office declined to return a message left by telephone. Also declining to return a message requesting a comment was the office of Newsom. Officials in the media office for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents the district, also declined to comment at all on the XXX-rated festival.

"One San Francisco policeman told our volunteers that the police were instructed not to make arrests for indecency on the city streets at "Up Your Alley" – but merely to 'contain' the activity to the street fair, which encompassed several city blocks," Americans for Truth reported.

"San Francisco's extreme political correctness has turned cops into impotent Perversion Protectors," the group said.

The organization said the events included whippings, public sex between men, and even advocacy for slavery, with one man wearing nothing but cuffs and chains.

"Homosexual activists mock and deride Americans For Truth relentlessly for exposing sordid realities like 'Up Your Alley' – and showing you what happens when sexual radicals come to dominate a major city," LaBarbera said.

"They don't want Americans to see this side of their agenda … But we must face reality and come to grips with the truth that 'rights' based on aberrant sex are not genuine civil rights," he said.

"Like the pantless perverts wandering around in sneakers-only at 'Up Your Alley,' the liberals' pro-homosexual 'tolerance and diversity' program is now fully exposed as a soulless and bankrupt ideology," LaBarbera said. "According to its precepts, nothing can be judged as wrong (sexually-speaking) – except, of course, normal, historic Judeo-Christian mores."

What About Free Speech?

2008-11-06T11:37:00.003-07:00

Human Rights Commission: "Kill the Christian" Lyrics that's OK but Criticize Homosexuality NO WAY

2008-11-03T13:30:00.003-07:00

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110303.html

By Hilary White

RED DEER, Alberta, November 3, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Alberta Human Rights Commission (HRC) has come under scrutiny again for what critics are calling a brazen double standard in its treatment of "hate" and discrimination.

Blogger, lawyer and democratic activist Ezra Levant has revealed that Alberta Human Rights Commissioner Lori Andreachuk, who in a ruling earlier this year ordered a Christian pastor to publish a renunciation of his Christian views in the local newspaper, in 2003 dismissed a complaint against a rock music group who used lyrics in one of their recordings that urged listeners to "kill the Christian".

Andreachuk dismissed the case saying that Christians are not "vulnerable" enough and the group in question not a "credible" threat.

Levant is calling foul, however. Bluntly calling Andreachuk an "anti-Christian bigot" he points to the ruling by the same commissioner against Rev. Stephen Boissoin, who was ordered to pay heavy fines and publish an apology and renunciation of his religious views.

Andreachuk's ruling, he wrote, is a "smokescreen". "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."

The 2003 case was that of "Quintin Johnson vs. Music World", in which Johnson was browsing for CDs at a Music World shop in Red Deer, Alberta, and found an album from the group "Deicide" containing a track called "Kill the Christian".

Song lyrics began, "Kill The Christian/You are the one we despise/Day in day out your words compromise lies/I will love watching you die". Levant comments dryly, "Pretty hard to find any nuances there."

As a Christian, Alberta resident Quintin Johnson brought a complaint against the store saying he had been discriminated against. Lori Andreachuk, however, while she agreed that the "content and tone" of the lyrics "appear on the face of them to be discriminatory," Christians had nothing to complain about.

"There is very little vulnerability of the target group," Andreachuk wrote. The rock group, she wrote, "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".

Under this reasoning, Levant wrote on his 'blog, "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."

Rev. Stephen Boissoin, wrote in an email he forwarded to LifeSiteNews.com, "I guess a music store that sells music which shouts out 'Kill the Christian, Kill the Christian' is totally acceptable in Canada."

"I am certainly not one to suppress freedom of speech but it would appear that Christians are not assured the same standard of protection via these Human Rights Commissions as the rest of Canadians. After all, where did I ever say 'Kill the Homosexual, Kill the Homosexual?'" Rev. Boissoin said. Boissoin was found guilty last year by an HRC panel, headed by Andreachuk, of having exposed homosexuals to "hatred and contempt" by publishing a letter in the Red Deer Advocate warning against the dangers to the social order of homosexual activism.

Rev. Boissoin was prohibited for life from preaching sermons that are critical of homosexuality and told that he cannot criticise homosexuality even in his private communications such as e-mails. Rev. Boissoin was also ordered to pay a total of $7,000 in fines. As the respondent in the case, moreover, he was obliged to pay his own court costs while the complainant had the costs covered by the state.

Ezra Levant, who has had two HRC cases against him dismissed and dropped, maintains that even if the HRC decides in favour of the respondent, the "process is the punishment" with his own expenses having exceeded $100,000 and civil suits still pending.

Levant became an international internet celebrity when he published the proceedings against him on the video website YouTube. He resoundingly defended the democratic principle of freedom of speech and told investigating HRC commissioner Shirlene McGovern that he would "rot in hell" before he violated those principles and apologised for anything he had published in his magazine.
Levant said the Alberta HRC's dismissal of the music store case was a brazen case of a double standard that applies in the Human Rights Commissions in which only Christians and social conservatives can be guilty of "discrimination" but attacks on Christians by others are acceptable.

"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," Levant wrote.

Kill the Christians! - No really, we approve.

2008-10-31T06:53:00.010-06:00

Alberta HRC: Christians have no "human rights"

by Ezra Levant

Rev. Stephen Boissoin sent me an e-mail today. Readers will recall that Rev. Boissoin is the Alberta pastor who was given a lifetime ban on preaching sermons that are critical of homosexuality -- and even a lifetime ban on private communications, such as e-mails, on the same subject. The Alberta "Human Rights" Commission that ordered the destruction of his freedom of speech and freedom of religion went further -- Lori Andreachuk, the anti-Christian bigot who issued the ruling, actually ordered Rev. Boissoin to publish a (false) renunciation of his Christian views in the local newspaper. I know that's hard to believe, but read the ruling for yourself, here.

(That's a picture of the little Stalinist, to the left - see Ezra's site.) To their credit, the local newspaper refused to be used as Comrade Andreachuk's tool for such a clearly illegal auto-da-fé.

What Rev. Boissoin sent me was a ruling that Comrade Andreachuk had issued back in 2003, that for some reason I had missed in my review of Alberta case law. It's the case of Quintin Johnson vs. Music World. You can see the case here.

In a nutshell, Quintin Johnson was browsing for CDs at Music World in Red Deer -- the same city Rev. Boissoin was from, actually. Johnson came across a band called "Deicide", whose album contained a song called "Kill the Christian".

It's disgusting, but I want to publish the lyrics of Kill the Christian, because that's what this case is about:

Kill The Christian
You are the one we despise
Day in day out your words compromise lies
I will love watching you die
Soon it will be and by your own demise
Buried in hypocrisy
Lacerate your faith in God
Morally diseased
On the cross of Calvary your body bashed defeated stabbed
Blessing as you hate
Loyal to your enemies
Monetary faith
As him you will pay for the lies of your prophecy
Satan wants you dead
Kill the Christian, kill the Christian
Kill the Christian, kill the Christian
Kill the Christian, kill the Christian, kill the Christian
Armies of darkness unite
Destroy their temples and churches with fire
Where in this world will you hide
Sentenced to death, the anointment of Christ
In due time your path leads to me
Put you out of your misery
The death of prediction
Kill the Christian Kill the Christian, dead!

Read the full blog post here.

PS.......our friend at Marginalized Action Dinosuar is covering the same story. Check him out.

kill the Christian, Kill All The White People, MUSIC WORLD LTD, HMV CANADA and the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission say it’s ok!

Chris Kempling: An Unsung Hero

2008-10-11T11:58:00.004-06:00

The significant persecution that Dr. Chris Kempling has faced here in Canada has not received the attention that it should have. He is a quiet, gentle and humble man. I have spoken to him on many occasions and his integrity is clearly evident. His story gives me courage!!!

What has and is occurring to him should anger us....especially if you are a Christian living in BC or simply a freedom loving individual.

Google the name Chris Kempling if you wish to learn more about how this brave man has been attacked here in our own Canada. His story is a disgrace. Here is a link to his address before a United Nations Commission on Human Rights Delegate Briefing in New York City http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html.

Following is a speech Dr. Kempling gave at a BC Parents & Teachers for Life event.

What I’m not Allowed to Say
-by Dr. Chris Kempling Psy.D. R.C.C. October 20, 2007

I am not allowed to speak publicly about homosexuality. I’ve been banned from being a school counsellor. I’ve been convicted of “personal harassment” because a colleague didn’t like a letter to the editor I wrote, even though I had never once communicated with that person on the matter. I’ve served a total of four months of suspension without pay and have countless letters of discipline on my personnel file, none of which has to do with my on-the-job performance. It’s no picnic standing up to the gay juggernaut. But I haven’t given up yet.

On Thursday, I attended a workshop at the BC School Counsellors Conference, entitled Coming Out and Sexual Minority Students: What’s the Big Deal? The presenter urged us to help confused teenagers come out to their peers. So I thought I’d inform him that there was a big deal. I asked him if he was aware of the research done by Gary Remafidi, a homosexual pediatrician, who found in 1991 that ¾ of all first suicide attempts by gay youth followed self-labeling, and that 1/3 attempt suicide in the first year after coming out. Dr. Remafidi also found that in his study group, 30% admitted to prostituting themselves, 51% had been arrested for a criminal offense and 85% used illegal drugs. Yet this is the “healthy” lifestyle the school system wants to urge our young people to embrace as “normal”.

Here is some additional data of this normal alternative lifestyle, done right here in Vancouver by Dr. Robert Hogg, at the BC Centre of Excellence in HIV-AIDS. He studied 700 gay men under the age of 30. He found that the level of HIV infections increased an astonishing 300% in the previous five years and that their lifespan was being shortened by 8-20 years. Hogg and his colleagues continue to be upset when social conservatives quote his statistics. Yet here we are on the brink of changing the entire school curriculum in BC to teach that homosexual behaviour is safe and normal. It is neither, and that is why I have taken the risks I have.

Perhaps I’ll briefly recap how this all got started. On May 9th of 2002 I was convicted of conduct unbecoming a member of the BC College of Teachers . The reason was because I expressed my opinion in my local newspaper. Between April 1997 and July, 2000, I wrote one freelance column and six letters to the editor of my town’s newspaper, which questioned the wisdom of promoting the homosexual agenda. I provided factual information on rates of promiscuity and disease infection which had been previously published in scholarly journals. I said that many religions consider homosexuality to be immoral, that it may be caused by negative psycho-social influences, and that it was nothing to be applauded. I said that I would refuse to be a false teacher, compromising my faith to teach information which the Bible clearly says is immoral. I said this not in my classroom, or my staff room, but on the editorial pages of my local newspaper. I had thought that the editorial page was a place where all Canadians have the right to express their points of view, whether other people like them or not. I highly value the freedom of the press, and all points of view should be represented in our newspapers, including those opposed to ours.

I appealed the conviction to the BC Supreme Court, but lost in February of 2004. I appealed to the BC Court of Appeal and lost again in June, 2005. I appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada but it was rejected. As a last resort, I sent my case to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva . I did not get any response at all. As a result of my case, teachers are not be able to write privately to their own supervisors to question a new curriculum resource, write privately their own elected officials on a matter of public policy, nor can they able to address the topic of homosexuality in post-graduate research papers. I was disciplined for doing all of these things. This is an unacceptable restriction of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of intellectual expression.

The College presented no complaints about what I had written publicly from teachers, none from students, none from parents, and most importantly, none from any member of the gay community. The people who did disagree with me did so by writing their own letters to the editor, and I fully support their right to do that.

My school district supervisors have also decided to silence me. They have disciplined me repeatedly for speaking out, including for advertising my intention to offer orientation change therapy services through my private practice. On March 31, 2005, I appeared before a formal hearing of the Quesnel School Board to explain why I publicly criticized the government’s same sex marriage legislation. I was then suspended for three months without pay, even though not one homosexual person has gone on record to complain about what I wrote. I filed a Human Rights complaint against the school district for religious discrimination, but surprise, surprise, they did not even bother to investigate my complaint. In June , 2005, I was requested by the parliamentary committee examining the same sex marriage bill to testify before them. I agreed, but when I returned from Ottawa , I was slapped with yet another disciplinary letter. It was only after MP’s Vic Toews and the NDP’s Bill Siksay (who happens to be gay) wrote to the school board reminding them that is a federal offense to intimidate an official witness of parliament that they backed down.

My latest letter of discipline came last spring. In an article discussing the proposed legislation increasing the age of consent from 14 to 16, our local Member of Parliament was quoted as saying that there was very little opposition to this bill. But I happened to know that there was opposition to it from EGALE Canada (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere). They submitted a formal brief to Parliament arguing that raising the age of consent was a bad idea. So I wrote a letter to the editor pointing out that there was opposition to the bill and it was from EGALE. I received a letter from my Director of Instruction saying I had crossed the line again. I then challenged my superior to defend EGALE’s wish to have continued sexual access to 14 and 15 year olds, but imagine that, he declined and backed off further discipline.

I have one more round to go with the College of Teachers , who are considering whether to discipline me again for my January 2005 letter to the editor criticizing same sex marriage. I will likely be facing more discipline. I am a Christian seven days a week, both on the job and off the job, and I will not compromise my faith to teach falsehoods to children. As servants of the Most High God, it is our duty to speak up courageously for what is right. I do not know what may become of me, of my career.

But here is what the book of Ecclesiasticus says of such a situation, and this is God’s message for those of us who call Christ our Lord: “My son, if you aspire to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for an ordeal. Be sincere of heart, be steadfast, and do not be alarmed when disaster comes. Cling to him and do not leave him, so that you may be honoured at the end of your days. Whatever happens to you, accept it, and in the uncertainties of your humble state, be patient, since gold is tested in the fire, and chosen men in the furnace of humiliation. Trust Him and he will uphold you, follow a straight path and hope in Him. You who fear the Lord, wait for his mercy; do not turn aside in case you fall. You who fear the Lord, trust him and you will not be bilked of your reward. You who fear the Lord hope for good things, for everlasting happiness and mercy. Look at the generations of old and see: who ever trusted in the Lord and was put to shame? Or who ever feared him steadfastly and was left forsaken? Or who ever called out to him, and was ignored? For the Lord is compassionate and merciful, he forgives sins, and saves in days of distress. Woe to faint hearts and listless hands…Woe to the listless heart that has no faith, for such will have no protection. Woe to you who have lost the will to endure; what will you do at the Lord’s visitation? Those who fear the Lord do not disdain his words, and those who love him keep his ways. Those who fear the Lord do their best to please him, and those who love him find satisfaction in his Law. Those who fear the Lord keep their hearts prepared and humble themselves in his presence. Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, not into the hands of men; for as His majesty is, so too is His mercy.”

My friends, the fate of our children rests with you, because the secular humanists who control our school systems are bent on imposing their worldview on all Canadian children, no matter what their sincere religious beliefs may be. And if that conflicts with their parent’s beliefs—well too bad. You can just keep quiet while we indoctrinate your children. But here is what Abraham Kuyper, the great Dutch statesman who believed that Christian principles and civil politics were not incompatible: “When the principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then the battle is your calling, and peace has become sin. You must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy with all the fire of your faith.” Godless principles are now winning the day, and now is the time to go to battle for the lives of our children and our children’s children.

Thank you for inviting me to speak, and may God bless you all.

Canadian “Human Rights” Commissions Bear Down on Christian Clergymen

2008-10-01T14:47:00.004-06:00

Lee Duigon » Bio Posted September 2008
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=2886

“Those who refuse to participate in the worship of man, those who refuse to surrender to man’s complacent satisfaction with man and man’s society, are increasingly branded as aliens … Every kind of subtle and direct pressure is employed to force the true believer into conformity with the City of man and the creed of Cain.” —R. J. Rushdoony, 1970[1]

“Each judgment emanating out of our various human rights 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.” —Fred Henry, Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary (quoted by Ezra Levant on June 24, http://www.ezralevant.com/ )

A Protestant minister and a Roman Catholic priest who edits a Catholic magazine are in the crosshairs of Canada’s “human rights” commissions.

In Alberta, Rev. Stephen Boissoin has run up almost $200,000 in legal costs, defending himself from the provincial “human rights” commission. In Ontario, Fr. Alphonse de Valk’s monthly magazine, Catholic Insight, has incurred $20,000 in legal fees while awaiting a ruling from the commission as to whether he and his magazine are guilty of promoting “hate.”

What crimes did they commit to place them in such jeopardy?

Six years ago, Rev. Boissoin wrote a letter to his local newspaper, Red Deer Advocate, expressing his opposition to “the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s” (for the full text of the letter, see http://canadianpastor.blogspot.com/). And Catholic Insight’s offense was to publish the church’s teachings on sexual morality. In both cases, offended homosexual activists complained to provincial “human rights” commissions, and the machinery of censorship was set in motion.
Will Boissoin Go to Prison?

The Alberta Human Rights Commission has ordered Rev. Boissoin to pay $7,000 to the offended party, to write a public apology for publication in the Advocate, and never again to say or write anything critical of homosexuality in any public venue, including the Internet—a lifetime gag order. The gay activist plaintiff, Boissoin said, “has told me in person that I need to be reeducated.”

But Boissoin says he will not pay the fine, he will not recant, and he will not keep silence.
“They can incarcerate me if they want to,” he told Chalcedon. “But by the power of God, I don’t think I can be ruined spiritually. If I’m incarcerated, I’ll minister in prison.”

Meanwhile, he hopes to file an appeal in a court of law against the commission’s decision. He is being represented pro bono by the Alliance Defense Fund in the United States: otherwise, he said, he never could have borne the costs—although concerned citizens can donate to his defense fund via http://www.stephenboissoin.com/.

“I have been ordered not to talk about this case, or make any disparaging remarks about the commission or its actions,” he said. “But I’m talking to you, and I’ll keep talking. I’ve started educating people, and I’ve had fantastic opportunities to do this since my letter was published.”
Hate Literature?

It may seem natural to most of us for a Catholic magazine to publish articles about Catholic teachings, but that’s what plaintiffs are trying to stop Catholic Insight from doing.

“They’re trying to put us out of business, harass us, cost us money,” Fr. de Valk said. “Our magazine is hate literature, as far as they’re concerned. We haven’t had a hearing in front of the commission yet, but we’ve already spent $20,000 fighting nuisance actions. Meanwhile, they’ve asked the Heritage Ministry to take away our subsidy.”

Canadian magazines, he explained, are all subsidized by the Heritage Ministry, an agency of the federal government.

Over the years, he said, Insight has published more than one hundred articles on homosexual activity, including official Vatican statements and scientific studies of the health effects of sodomy. Sixteen months ago, a gay activist in Edmonton filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Fr. de Valk is still waiting to learn whether the commission will hear the case.

“The Fred Phelps of Canada”

At the time he wrote his letter to the newspaper, Boissoin was a youth minister with the Upper Level Youth Centre of Central Alberta, “a multipurpose Christian charitable organization that promoted Christian character and offered numerous life-skill, employability, recreational, and other youth development programs.”[2]

“Once the complaint was filed against me,” he said, “that made it very, very hard on the organization—especially when the complaint hit the media and Darren Lund [the gay activist plaintiff] started attacking me in the media, comparing me to the Aryan Brotherhood, etc.”
Boissoin lost his place with Upper Level, and now supports himself with a part-time sales job while continuing as best he can as a minister.

“I just want to work,” he said, “but I’m perceived, nationally, as a very controversial person. That makes it hard for anyone to hire me.”

For some time, he said, he had serious worries about the loss of his livelihood and the potential loss of all his possessions—worries that soon led to a crisis in his faith. But that has passed, he said: God has made him ready for whatever he has to suffer.

“It’s ironic, though,” he said. “I’m not an anti-homosexual activist. That was maybe one percent of my life, before all this. But now I’m the Fred Phelps of Canada.”[3]
Canada Sleeps

Fr. de Valk tried to explain how such things could happen in Canada.

“The whole idea of moral ineptitude is no longer prevalent here,” he said. “What we see in Canada is not a full-blown persecution, but a very quiet strangulation of Christians.

“In 1995 the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that ‘sexual orientation’ was covered by the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms], and they’ve been working on it steadily ever since, step by step. The judiciary has played an enormous role in that. In 2001, human rights commissions in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, as well as the Canadian Human Rights Commission, were given the right to supervise the Internet. Because anything that’s written can end up on the Internet, they can supervise everything that’s written.”

But Fr. de Valk and Rev. Boissoin both agreed that the chief cause of Canada’s “human rights” tyranny has been the ignorance and apathy of the Canadian people.

“Canadians have a very good standard of living, and they’re very comfortable with things as they are,” Boissoin said. “Canada is the fat man lying under the big apple tree with apple cores all around him, fast asleep. They don’t want to stand up for anything, and they certainly don’t want to be persecuted for anything.”

“Everyone is asleep,” De Valk said. “They all take the attitude, ‘Who cares? How does it affect me?’ We have tried to explain: once homosexuals are ‘equal,’ they will invade the schools and indoctrinate your children. That’s how it affects you. In British Columbia schools today, ‘gay marriage education’ is mandatory for all children.

“If all the Catholics in Canada were to wake up and stand together against this, it’d all be over in a minute. But so many Catholics just shrug their shoulders—just like in the United States. Catholic politicians support abortion, and the church just looks the other way.

“It’s the refusal of Catholics—priests, bishops, laity—to take to heart the message of Christ. It’s as simple as that.”

“Feelings …”

Rev. Boissoin described his experience at the hearing before the “human rights” commission.
“When compared to the right the Alberta Human Rights Commission is given to rule on all the most important constitutional issues, it was unbelievably unprofessional,” he said. “The hearing was held in an ordinary conference room, not a court room, with one single panelist who was to be my judge and jury—plus one stenographer, and one lawyer from the Alberta attorney general’s office who was there to bolster up the human rights law. He asked my witness, ‘Have you compared Rev. Boissoin’s letter to Mein Kampf?’

“The hearing officer was not a judge, not a constitutional scholar. She wouldn’t let me interpret my own letter. They brought in a witness for the plaintiff who was allowed to go on a long, personal rant about how bad I’d made him feel. And I just sat there, listening to that, and thinking, ‘I’m doomed.’”

Never again, the commission ruled, may Rev. Boissoin publicly express his opposition to “the homosexual machine.”

“As they see it,” he said, “we criminalized homosexuality in Canada for many years. They believe social conservatives have persecuted them for decades. All their troubles—disease, depression, the high death rate among homosexuals—they blame on ‘homophobia.’ And so they are excluding my entitlement to my religious views.

“Of course I have sympathy with those who are struggling with homosexuality. My opposition is to the gay activists. The gay activists in Canada don’t want to coexist with us.

“A few Christians are starting to wake up and resist. But it takes courage to do that, and everybody only has a certain amount of courage.”

But Christian morality and “gay rights,” said Fr. de Valk, are a perpetual reproach to one another, making coexistence problematic.

“Canada’s ‘human rights’ laws are abominable,” he said, “especially Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act, which criminalizes any speech that makes a person feel uneasy. So it’s not a matter of truth, or evidence, but of feelings.”

Section 13.1 prohibits speech, including speech on the telephone, or writings on the Internet, that is “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”[4] Whether this is “likely” to happen soon, or in the distant future, the law does not specify. Nor does it define speech that is “likely” to do this. In practice, “human rights” commissions have allowed plaintiffs to define it, based on their subjective feelings.

“Now, finally, there is quite a stirring against the human rights commissions—at least among the newspapers,” De Valk said. “We hope this is beginning to change the environment.”

Canadian newspapers have been increasingly critical of “human rights” commissions since complaints were brought against Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Maclean’s magazine. Levant, when he was editor of the now-defunct Western Standard, fell afoul of the “human rights” regime when he published the notorious “Muhammad cartoons” to illustrate a news story about them. Maclean’s, Canada’s most widely circulated magazine, published excerpts from Steyn’s book, America Alone, that discussed the growing Muslim influence in Western Europe.

But Levant, Steyn, and Maclean’s have vigorously defended themselves. Their high-profile cases have led to calls for investigation of the commissions’ procedures and even for repeal of portions of the Human Rights Act—first by newspaper, and lately by members of Parliament. Meanwhile, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have launched their own investigation of the commissions.
“The Canadian government has got to be convinced to act,” De Valk said. “We have a Conservative government and a Conservative prime minister; but it’s a minority government, so the Conservatives can’t go forward without support from the other political parties.”

A Taste of Irony
“[T]he things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel.” —St. Paul, Philippians 1:12
Let us savor the irony.

By trying to silence Rev. Boissoin and Fr. de Valk, the “human rights” commissions have caused the clergymen’s messages to reach a much wider audience than they ever could have reached on their own.

By trying to crush these clergymen, the commissions are losing the cloak of invisibility that has protected them for years, revealing themselves as censors, despots, and bullies. People now are paying attention to the commissions instead of ignoring them. Newspaper editors, especially, don’t like what they see.

How does it start?

The state tried to establish a regime of “full equality” for homosexuality, and found that it could only be maintained by censorship and coercion. Christians—and Jews and Muslims, too—know that sodomy is an abomination, consistently condemned in all the Scriptures. In a country like the United States (or Canada, to a lesser extent), where the great majority of citizens at least profess to be Christians, the people can never fully accept “gay equality” without rejecting their religious beliefs.

Even to some unbelievers, the folly of sodomy is obvious: it generates no children and is fraught with a plethora of serious risks to health.

As Fr. de Valk explained, once the state decides that “gay marriage” is morally equal to real marriage, then this doctrine must be taught in the state schools. As we have seen in our own country, this always begins as “voluntary” and soon morphs into “mandatory.” In Massachusetts, this has been done by “educators” who simply ignore—with impunity—laws that allow parents to opt their children out of such instruction. In California, the state law has been changed to require public schools to teach the moral equivalency of all “sexual lifestyle choices.”
But if Christian doctrine, and five thousand years of recorded history, are right, then the teachings of gay activists must be wrong. The two worldviews are diametrically opposed: how can they possibly coexist?

The state can only maintain its “gay rights” regime by intimidation: hence the “human rights” commissions, hate speech laws, campus speech codes, mandatory “sensitivity training,” and the forcible indoctrination of children into an anti-Christian worldview.
Why has this come to pass?

Because Christians in the Western world—not just Catholics, but all denominations—have refused to obey God. It really is, as Fr. de Valk said, as simple as that.

Can we get the Christian children out of schools where they are taught that Christian morality is wrong? Of course we could—but as a nation, as a church, we haven’t. The Southern Baptist Convention, just this summer, rejected a resolution to urge Christian parents to remove their children from California’s public schools—where the law now makes “gay education” mandatory for all grades from kindergarten on up. If this provocation could not move the SBC, what can?
Meanwhile, servants of God like Stephen Boissoin and Alphonse de Valk faithfully proclaim God’s Word: “Of whom the world was not worthy” (Heb. 11:38).

***Update***
Before this article could go to press, the Canadian Human Rights Commission dropped the complaint against Fr. deValk and Catholic Insight, and declared the file closed.
This is good news for the magazine; however, Catholic Insight has still paid $20,000 in legal fees to defend itself from frivolous "human rights" complaints—while the plaintiff's costs have all been paid by the Canadian taxpayer. In effect, the magazine has incurred a $20,000 penalty for publishing content that a gay activist didn't like.

***Further Update***
On Aug. 13 the same homosexual activist appealed the dismissal of his complaint against Catholic Insight. The complaint having been rejected by the CHRC, the activist has asked for a new hearing in Edmonton, Alberta. And so the process begins again. How much will it cost the magazine this time?

As Ezra Levant has often observed, when it comes to “human rights” complaints, "The process is the penalty."

[1] R. J. Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1970; 2001 edition), 172.
[2] See http://www.stephenboissoin.com/began.html.
[3] Phelps is notorious for turning up at public occasions displaying signs that read “God Hates Fags.”
[4] “Canadian Human Rights Commission,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission.
Lee Duigon is a Christian free-lance writer and contributing editor for the Chalcedon Report. He has been a newspaper editor and reporter and a published novelist.

If - Rudyard Kipling

2008-09-03T16:22:00.003-06:00

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream -- and not make dreams your master;
If you can think -- and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings -- nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run --
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And -- which is more -- you'll be a Man, my son!

Ezra Levant not guilty for republishing so called hate...?

2008-08-29T11:01:00.008-06:00

As many of you are already aware, back in 2002, I submitted a letter to the editor of my local newspaper that expressed my deeply heartfelt religious and socio-political opinion against homosexual activism directed at children and youth. I did not have control over publishing thus I ultimately had no idea if the submission was going to be printed or not. For this, the HRC's drag me through a five year process that has cost me well over $100,000 and growing. They find me not guilty, then they grant an appeal and find me GUILTY. In their Remedy Order, they order me to abstain from sharing my religious beliefs in public or via private emails. Furthermore, they fine me thousands of dollars and order me to abstain from criticizing the process or the complainant and his so called witnesses.

Since, Ezra Levant has willfully and repeatedly published my letter which the AHRC already deemed hate literature. He admits doing so as an act of defiance against the ruling and the HRC's. Anti-Christian and pro-homosexual activist Rob Wells filed a complaint with the CHRC against Levant for doing so. A few years back, this same Rob Wells filed a complaint against me and the Christian political lobby group I was part of. Through negotiations, we appeased Mr. Wells but Levant, he gets off scot-free. Wells' complaint against Levant is dropped by the CHRC as they say his motives for publishing my letter were acceptable .

It is clear that the HRC's have the final say about your personal motives, regardless of how well you explain them. At the hearing, I clarified that my letter was not hateful; that I did not hate homosexuals; that I believed God loved all people equally, including homosexuals; that my letter was religious and politically motivated in the middle of a heated nationwide debate; that it was against activism; that I would never advocate hate or violence against a homosexual person etc etc etc. Yet, they link my letter to a supposed assualt on a gay teen TWO WEEKS AFTER my letter was printed. The assault was never even CORROBORATED by the newspaper that printed the story or the police!!!!

What an absolute CROCK!!!! I WILL NEVER SUBMIT TO ANY RULING THAT IMPINGES ON MY RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! THIS CORRUPTION MUST END!!!

Levant's take on it is fantastic....read it below.

Levant to CHRC: "You should all be fired"

http://ezralevant.com/2008/08/levant-to-chrc-you-should-all.html

By Ezra Levant on August 28, 2008

As I mentioned in this blog post, I have been targeted again with a human rights complaint, this time before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The complaint,which you can see here, was filed by Rob "Fred Phelps" Wells, an anti-Catholic bigot in Edmonton who has made a habit of harrassing school children and little old ladies outside St. Joseph's Basilica. The fact that Wells is a CHRC complainant (he also filed complaints against Catholic Insight magazine and Rev. Stephen Boission) and not a target of a CHRC investigation shows the moral inversion at work at the CHRC. Then again, the CHRC is one of Canada's largest hate groups on the Internet, with its staff posting literally hundreds of anti-Semitic, anti-gay and anti-Black comments with impunity.

As per the notice from the CHRC, I filed my reply today. You can see it here in .pdf format. And here is the full text:

August 28, 2008

Natalie Dagenais
Canadian “Human Rights” Commission
344 Slater Street Ottawa, ON K1A 1E1

Dear Natalie,

Re: Rob Wells v. Ezra Levant

I received your letter dated August 8, 2008. At first I wasn’t sure it was yours, because you didn’t write your name on it, and your signature was illegible.

I can understand your shyness. It has become an embarrassment to publicly admit to being a “human rights investigator” in Canada, because Canadians have caught on to what you really do: you don’t actually protect human rights, you violate them. At least you didn’t sign it as “Jadewarr”, or any of the other false names that your office uses when surfing the Internet in the guise of a neo-Nazi, spewing anti-Semitic and racist venom.

In Alberta, Shirlene McGovern, the human rights investigator who pursued an Islamic fatwa against me for publishing some cartoons, received such a backlash from the public that she actually quit my case. It is my hope that you have a revelation as to the odious nature of your work.

Come to think of it, if I worked for the CHRC, I’d use an alias, too.

As to the substance of your letter, I object to your Assessment Report because it is hypocritical, it demonstrates the corruption of the CHRC, and it is unfounded in law.

Hypocritical

It is hypocritical because the bullies at the CHRC have already found that the exact words at the center of this complaint are contrary to the section 13 “hate speech” provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act. In CHRC investigation number 2005-2462, you decided that a Christian pastor, Rev. Stephen Boissoin, had contravened the law by publishing the exact same words in an Alberta newspaper. I republished the same words as Rev. Boissoin and yet you have recommended that the CHRC not proceed against me. There is only one reason for this: the CHRC is anti-Christian, and thus you excuse in me what you condemned in Rev. Boissoin. This is not the first indication of a deep-seated bigotry at the CHRC. You have mercilessly persecuted other Christians in Canada for merely expressing their faith, such as Fr. Alphonse de Valk of Catholic Insight magazine and Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage Party to name just two others. I note that the CHRC has never once prosecuted a “hate speech” complaint against any non-Christian, though there is plenty of non-Christian bigotry in Canada. No Muslim extremist, no Tamil extremist, no Sikh extremist has ever been prosecuted, though those communities are wracked with internecine hates between radical and moderate camps, that sometimes spill over into violence. But you’d rather pick on a seventy-something Catholic priest for publishing a newsletter. That’s why you’re letting me go – I’m not a weak, penniless Christian clergyman. That’s hypocrisy, but it’s not surprising coming from an organization so sick that its staff perpetrate racist slurs through their own vile posts on the Internet. It is now public knowledge that staff at the CHRC, like Dean Steacy and Richard Warman, joined neo-Nazi groups and surfed the net in full racist drag. The fact that everyone from the Chief Commissioner on down hasn’t been fired for this scandal is amazing to me.

Corruption

One of the tenets of Canadian law – a real human right, not one of your counterfeit human rights such as the “right not to be offended” – is equal justice under law. That means that rich or poor, powerful or powerless, everybody is treated the same way before the law. It’s a legal tradition that dates all the way back to the Magna Carta signed by King John. I know he’s a dead white man, and Christian to boot, so the CHRC would regard him as the enemy. But Canada still follows those rules. But not over at the CHRC. Your own staff commits heinous acts of online bigotry, publishing the worst filth imaginable. Richard Warman – your former staffer, currently your most active complainant, and the CHRC’s star witness whose expenses are paid for with tax dollars to this day – went online to write that gays are “sexual deviants” who are a “cancer” in society. He called for the creation of an Apartheid city in Canada to be called “Whiteville”. He called federal cabinet ministers, such as former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, “scum” because they’re Jewish. He made literally hundreds of similar posts. Yet every complaint to the CHRC about Warman’s own hatemongering has been rejected. That’s a form of corruption – just like it’s corrupt that the CHRC refuses to comply with its statutory obligations to disclose records to respondents; it’s corrupt that the CHRC refuses to comply with access to information laws, despite an order by the Information Commissioner; it’s corrupt that your own little squad illegally solicits and receives police evidence obtained in criminal search warrants; it is corrupt that you release inaccurate transcripts of CHRT hearings, with embarrassing facts about the CHRC left out. A few years ago, the CHRC underwent a confidential internal government audit. You received a failing grade when it came to ethics. You don’t even have a written ethics policy – let alone anyone to enforce that ethical code. The only question is why it took so long for the CHRC to fall under an RCMP investigation. The Commission is rotten to the core. And you and your commissioners don’t give a damn about it. The CHRC even hired a crooked cop, Sandy Kozak, who was drummed out of a police force for corruption. She was too dirty for them, but just right for you. That’s the standard of ethics at the CHRC.

Incorrect law

My contempt for the CHRC and its political masters is deep. The thought that your crooked ex-cop colleague, Sandy Kozak, was the investigator examining the saintly Fr. de Valk, is a grotesque moral inversion. But when it comes to your “reasoning” for acquitting me but convicting Rev. Boissoin, it is laughable. In paragraph 31 of your letter, you try to distinguish my acquittal with Rev. Boissoin’s conviction by saying the context is different – and that for the CHRC to find material illegal, it must appear in vile forums, like neo-Nazi websites. I know you’re pretty familiar with those neo-Nazi websites, as half of your office has membership privileges. But Rev. Boissoin’s publication didn’t appear in any of your favourite neo-Nazi sites. It appeared on the pages of the Red Deer Advocate, a moderate and mainstream newspaper. In paragraph 33, you state that my republication of Rev. Boissoin’s words were “more likely” to generate a debate, than to promote “hatred”. Again, that’s a fabrication: Rev. Boissoin’s column generated an enormous debate, both in the pages of the Red Deer Advocate and elsewhere. The debate is still going on, six years later. But putting aside this factual falsehood, you falsely imply that hate speech jurisprudence grants an exemption for publications that create a debate. You just made that up, as a fig leaf to cover up your double-standard against Rev. Boissoin. In paragraphs 14 and 33 of your letter, you distinguish my publication from Rev. Boissoin’s by asserting that mine had a “social purpose”. So did Rev. Boissoin’s – he was a Christian pastor promoting his social views in a public forum. Again the conclusion is hypocritical. But the point here is that you’re just making up an excuse. You’ve confected it out of thin air. Truth, fair comment and the defence of “reasonable journalism” have not been treated by the CHRC as defences to section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Why did you do it? Why would you write such a letter? You did it because the Commission doesn’t want to proceed against me. You’d rather pick on poor Christians like Rev. Boissoin. Because you know that, unlike him, I’m going to expose you and the CHRC to be the inconsistent human rights violators that you are. I object to your reasoning because it’s false. I deliberately republished a column that I knew had been condemned as “hate speech” by the Alberta human rights commission. You have made up excuses to let me go that no other target of the CHRC has been able to use as a defence for themselves. You are making a special exception for me, for political reasons. That is inappropriate and cowardly. However, the truly odious parties here are the CHRC commissioners themselves, who condone and enable your actions and – in Jennifer Lynch’s case – publicly excuse your actions.

You should all be fired.

Signed,

Ezra Levant

Canada's Human Rights Commissions a Threat to Academic Freedom: US Academic Elites

2008-08-28T11:48:00.004-06:00

By Hilary White

OTTAWA, August 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Canada is a "problematic" destination for a conference on political thought because of the predilection of its Human Rights Commissions (HRC) for squashing freedom of expression says a number of American intellectuals.

The group of U.S. academics is circulating a petition asking the American Political Science Association (APSA) not to hold its annual convention in Toronto next year for fear that some of its members will be subject to human rights prosecutions if they speak or write about controversial subjects.

"Our belief is that most Americans - even APSA members - have no idea how precarious the rights of freedom of speech and conscience are in Canada," said Bradley Watson, professor of American and Western political thought at Pennsylvania's St. Vincent College.

Watson told the National Post that Canada's lack of protection for free speech, as demonstrated by the recent prosecutions of conservative journalists by the HRCs, is an impediment for an organisation that supports no particular political agenda, either left or right. The American Political Science Association is the largest association for political thinkers in the world and is constitutionally bound to complete neutrality and total academic freedom to investigate, publish and speak on all political subjects.

"Our belief is that the APSA should choose its sites carefully, with particular regard for questions of freedom of speech and conscience. We therefore believe Canada to be a problematic destination," Watson said.

The petition says that the Canadian government, under the auspices of the HRCs, "have recently sought to suppress speech and impose legal penalties on speakers" who have expressed opinions on "the morality of homosexual conduct and the question of legal recognition of same-sex unions", and "the threat to freedom posed by violent extremists acting in the name of Islam." This is, the petitioners assert, "speech that, according to all accounts, would be protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."

The group fears that with Human Rights Commission cases against Maclean's Magazine, Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, Catholic Insight magazine, Pastor Stephen Boissoin and others, government suppression of academic freedom is a logical next step.

The petition says, "[T]he writ of Canada's HRCs runs without evident limit to encompass any speech, academic or otherwise, to which potential complainants take 'offense'."
The "arbitrariness and procedurally unconstrained practices of the HRCs create an air of uncertainty regarding whose speech, on what subjects, before what audiences, will be targeted next."

David Warren, a political columnist and foreign affairs correspondent writing for the Ottawa Citizen, called the Human Rights Commissions a relentless "Kafkaesque bureaucracy."

"The septic idea of policing public opinion has spread rapidly through many Canadian institutions, under tireless pressure from activists of various kinds - feminist, homosexual, Islamist, and miscellaneous leftist - who hold the notion of free speech in contempt."

When asked recently in an interview "what value" he gives to freedom of speech when investigating complaints, Dean Steacy, a leading official of the HRC, replied, "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

The success of the HRCs to suppress freedom of expression, Warren wrote, "depends on the obsequious response of our political class - Conservatives and Liberals alike - who tend to wet themselves at the first shrieking note from a radical lunatic."

The fight against the abuses of the Human Rights Commissions is continuing. Although some of the complaints have been dropped against Ezra Levant, the former editor of the Western Standard magazine, he still faces multiple complaints in other provinces and civil suits over various items that appeared in his magazine and on his blog.

After 18 months of legal proceedings, at a cost of $20,000, the complaint was also dropped against Catholic Insight magazine. Stephen Boissoin, however, was ordered by the HRC to publicly renounce his Christian beliefs by issuing an apology for having spoken out against homosexualist activism, and pay a fine of Cn. $7000. He was ordered never to express his views against homosexuality again in any public forum.

Anti-Christian Bigot Files Human Rights Complaint Against Ezra Levant

2008-08-21T13:19:00.007-06:00

Rob Wells is the Fred Phelps of the gay rights lobby.

Phelps, as readers will know, is the former award-winning civil rights activist who just snapped about 25 years ago. Now he pickets funerals, holding up signs saying things like “God hates fags”.

Wells is pretty much the same, but without the noble past. And he switches Phelps’s routine around a little: he protests outside churches, for months on end, slandering Catholics. He actually dresses his vehicle with anti-Christian hate messages, equating Catholics with Nazis, and drives around looking for people to offend. I wouldn't be surprised if he does funerals, like Phelps does.

Come to think of it, Wells could use the same posters as Phelps, with just a little re-arranging: “Fags hate God”. But that’s probably not vile enough for Wells, the garbage-mouthed fool who thought the bumper sticker “F*CK HARPER” was the height of political eloquence.

The fact is, it’s Phelps and Wells who are the haters.
Which is why it’s such an honour that the latest human rights complaint filed against me is by Rob Wells.

You can read a copy of the complaint here, filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I received word of this complaint just last week.

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.
Let’s walk through the letter I received from the CHRC.

Read the full story here.

Rejoice

2008-08-15T12:55:00.002-06:00

Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. 1 Peter 4:12-13

Thank-you Lord that I know you and your ways!!!!!!!

Foremost UK Gay Activist Admits there is No Gay Gene

2008-08-08T18:21:00.008-06:00

By Hilary White

August 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - One of the untouchable dogmas of the homosexualist movement is the assertion of the existence of a "gay gene", or a genetic marker that causes same-sex attraction. The assertion of a genetic factor in homosexual preference has never been demonstrated by scientists and now at least one prominent campaigner in the British homosexualist movement has admitted this fact.

Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born British homosexual activist who founded the "direct action" group OutRage! that specialises in media stunts such as disrupting Christian religious services, wrote on Spiked Online that he agrees with the scientific consensus that there is no such thing as a "gay gene."

Contrary to the findings of some researchers who have tried to posit a purely genetic origin for same-sex attractions, Tatchell wrote, "Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that's all. Predisposition and determination are two different things."

Homosexual activists have adopted the "gay gene" theory to bolster their assertion that any objection on moral grounds to homosexual activity is akin to objecting to left-handedness or skin colour. It has supported the accusation that Christians and others who object to the homosexual movement are racists and bigots.

Tatchell even went as far as to acknowledge the existence of some who have changed their "sexual orientation." "If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined... how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can't."
Sexuality, he wrote, is "far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow."

"Examples of sexual flexibility... don't square with genetic theories of rigid erotic predestination."

Bill Muehlenberg, a Christian writer and philosophy lecturer, called Tatchell's admission a rare and "refreshing" and "very revealing case of homosexual honesty." Muehlenberg said that he has been "howled down" by homosexual lobbyists for years for saying the same things about putative homosexual determinism. Whoever is saying it, he wrote, the conclusion must be the debunking of the myth that homosexuals are "born that way" and cannot help, or change, their inclinations.

The "gay gene" theory has been used by gay activists "to deny choice, to make it appear that homosexuals cannot help it, and to argue that any criticism of the gay lifestyle is as silly as criticism of being left-handed or red-haired."

"And this has been a deliberate strategy by homosexual activists. They have done a very good job to convince a gullible public that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change."

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Lesbian Break-in and Riot During College Speech on "Born-Gay Hoax" Forces Cancellation
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050205.html

"Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Head of The Human Genome Project
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07032003.html

Search for "Gay Gene" Is "Bad Science" Says Nebraska Professor
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07080805.html

Play sparks protest

2008-08-02T08:15:00.004-06:00

By Stacy O'Brien - Red Deer Advocate - August 01, 2008 Members of a Kansas church known for protests at the funerals of those who have died of AIDS and of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq say they will be in Red Deer next week.

The Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, says it will speak out against Matchbox Theatre’s production of the Laramie Project.

As a result, planning for a number of counter-protests is also underway.

The Laramie Project tells how the town of Laramie, Wyo., copes the year after gay student Matthew Shepard is killed in 1998. The Westboro Baptist Church is portrayed within the production because the group protested outside the young man’s funeral.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, who is a member of Westboro Baptist Church, said six or seven people from the congregation of 70 will protest at the theatre in Red Deer on Friday, Aug. 8, and Saturday, Aug. 9, from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m.

“The point is that this is where the rubber meets the road,” Phelps-Roper said.

“This is where you stand in your homes, in your churches and in your schools and you teach rebellion against God. That’s the whole point of that play. That Laramie Project has no function, but to teach rebellion to your people. . . .”

Among the signs Westboro Baptist Church members have prepared for their protest are: “God hates Canada” and “Canada is doomed,” as well as a number of signs against homosexuals.

“(The play) teaches rebellion against God and the standards of God and takes your people to hell and brings great wrath upon you,” Phelps-Roper said. “Those are all pretty compelling reasons for not liking it.

”She said it’s the first time the Westboro Baptist Church will visit Red Deer, but they’ve protested the play dozens of times before.

Matt Grue, who is the director of the Laramie Project, said the protest is drawing a lot of attention to the play, but not necessarily the attention they would like. However, he said they won’t let the protest put a dark cloud on the production.

“I believe everybody is entitled to their opinion. I think they have just as much right to express how they feel about the play as we do to put it on,” Grue said.

“What I don’t agree with is their tactics. I think they go a little too far when they condemn Canada, the nation, to hell because of a play like this and when they go around to people’s funerals and they slam this in the face of people who are obviously grieving.”

He said the discussion they want to provoke with the play is if people don’t break the cycle of hate, are they prepared to deal with the consequences?

“What the Laramie Project does is it forces us to examine ourselves and what our beliefs and opinions are and how we might be consciously or unconsciously contributing to the cycle of hate and violence,” Grue said. “So at the very least it provokes that discussion, but (with) the Westboro people coming down here I believe that will just resonate more strongly.”

Many people from different perspectives say they’d rather not see the Westboro Baptist Church protesters at all.

Jill Lanz, with the Central Alberta AIDS Network Society, is one of the organizers of a counter-protest. She said the counter-protesters’ message will be one of peace, acceptance and unity. It’s not about protecting certain members of the community, but about the well-being of the entire community, she said.

“I think what we need to do is make it very clear that their hate and their ignorance is not welcome in Red Deer and it is not a part of what we believe,” Lanz said. She encourages people to drop by the production at 5:30 on Aug. 8 and 9 and bring signs, pictures, poetry and guitars and have a peaceful disagreement.

Phelps-Roper, with the Westboro Baptist Church, said their protests are based on loving thy neighbour as thyself.

“Here is how you do that: you don’t hate them in your heart, but you don’t suffer their sin upon them,” she said. “If you’re not warning them that their sin is taking them to hell, then you hate your neighbour in their heart and you have not loved your neighbour as yourself.”

However, Stephen Boissoin, a former Red Deer pastor, said he thinks the Westboro Baptist Church coming to Red Deer is unfortunate.

“Their interpretation of the scripture and how they choose to manifest that interpretation is a disservice to the Christian gospel of God’s grace. Grace means unmerited favour and unmerited love to all human beings, who are all sinners,” Boissoin said.

Boissoin’s anti-gay letter to the Advocate was ruled by the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission to have broken Alberta’s human rights law. He said it is unfortunate that in the middle of his appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench, the Kansas group is coming here. He said it will cause further confusion about what other Christians — like himself — believe, which is that God loves all people equally, but not all of their behaviour.

“(The Westboro Baptist Church members) seem to attack the person and don’t have an understanding of their own unrighteousness,” Boissoin said. Contact Stacy O’Brien at sobrien@reddeeradvocate.com

"God Hates Fags" coming to Red Deer

2008-07-31T14:22:00.007-06:00

It was disheartening to hear that the Phelps gang will be coming to my home town Red Deer, Alberta to protest. From what I have heard, Lund is organizing a counter-protest and I'm sure he will have a hayday intertwining the actions of pseudo-Christian lunatics like Phelps with my legal battle for freedom of speech and religious expression.

Although I am all for "truth" and "tolerance", I cannot offer my support to either Phelps or Lund. Both are equally dangerous in their own right. Phelps is a fanatic that does a great disservice to the Christian Gospel of grace and Lund is a strategic pro-gay social engineer that sees no harm in manipulating the minds of young people and stomping all over the rights of those that disagree with him.

Kangaroo Canada

2008-07-29T14:54:00.003-06:00

by Douglas Farrow

Douglas Farrow is associate professor of Christian Thought at McGill University and author of several books, including Ascension and Ecclesia and Nation of Bastards.

Mark Steyn is the author of the bestselling America Alone, a witty tirade against the decline of the West, a portion of which appeared in the Canadian magazine Maclean’s. Ezra Levant was the publisher of a journal called the Western Standard, which in 2006 reprinted cartoons depicting Muhammad from a Danish newspaper. Steyn and Levant have now been hauled before Canada’s human rights commissions to answer to charges of hate speech.

These commissions (HRCs, for short) were set up in the 1960s and 1970s with the aim of combating discrimination on a practical level. In recent times, however, they have transmogrified into mechanisms for enforcing politically correct ideologies and silencing dissent. “It never occurred to us,” remarks Alan Borovoy, one of the originators of the HRCs, “that this instrument, which we intended to deal with discrimination in housing, employment and the provision of goods and services, would be used to muzzle the expression of opinion.”

That is exactly what has happened, through the mechanism of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits hate messages. Under Canada’s criminal code, the incitement of hatred is already counted a crime—but against that charge, truth and good faith are viable defenses, and the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Not so with the Human Rights Act. As James Allan, a law professor in Queensland, marvels: “To be in breach of these hate-speech provisions, you don’t have to counsel violence; you don’t have to urge discrimination; you don’t have to express hatred; you don’t even have to have said or written something that did, in fact, subject some group to hatred or contempt. All that is needed is that your comments, in the view of the sort of people chosen to staff these tribunals, are ‘likely’ to expose someone or some group to contempt or hatred.”

Allan, like many other bemused observers, refers to the HRCs as kangaroo courts. Their proceedings display a bouncy ineptitude and, simultaneously, a sinister level of collusion. Take, for example, Richard Warman, a former investigator for the national commission who decided that it was more fun to be the aggrieved victim of a human rights violation. He has filed twenty-six complaints so far, including more than half of Section 13 complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). What’s more, he has a perfect 100 percent conviction rate for these complaints.

These quasi-judicial bodies are staffed by political appointees who have neither the qualifications nor the independence of regular judges. Their ad hoc procedures provide no firm rules for evidence; bigoted comments, posted by strangers to websites in foreign jurisdictions, have been judged admissible, for example. No actual proof of harm is required in order to obtain a conviction. Investigations and deliberations are driven by far-reaching, utopian mandates to “reduce discrimination and promote social change.”

The growing train of hate-speech prosecutions might have been derailed as long ago as 1990, when an appeal brought Section 13 under review by the Supreme Court in Taylor v. Canada. The court found, however, that the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression “is not unduly impaired.” Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Dickson opined that, “as long as human rights tribunals continue to be well aware of the purpose” of Section 13, “there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning of the section.”

That view now appears rather naive. Allegations have been made that agents or former agents of the CHRC have themselves posted hate messages online under pseudonyms, and even by way of Internet identity theft, and that their activities in manufacturing offenses have been covered up by evidence and transcript tampering. Meanwhile, for evidence that “subjective opinion as to offensiveness” is getting the upper hand, one need look no further than the recent judgment against Stephen Boissoin. A Protestant pastor, Boissoin was brought before the Alberta commission for a letter to his local newspaper in which he issued a “war cry” against “the aggressive propagation of homo and bisexuality” and articulated some decidedly countercultural opinions, asserting that “where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.”

The commissioner who heard the complaint—which was brought by a heterosexual, an activist named Darren Lund—might well have noted that political orientation, unlike sexual orientation, is not a protected category. Neither, for that matter, is moral orientation. From which it follows that the coercive power of the state ought not to be used to settle the agenda wars of private citizens. Instead, Commissioner Lori Andreachuk—with the support of the Alberta attorney general, whose office intervened on Lund’s side—decided that Boissoin’s views could not be tolerated. “In this case,” she wrote, “the publication’s exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter.”

In the absence of any particular victim, Andreachuk determined that Boissoin should pay Lund $5,000 for his personal sacrifice in lodging the complaint and should also provide him with a written apology. But here is the kicker, which highlights the naiveté of the Supreme Court’s view that Section 13 is “sufficiently precise and narrow.” The commissioner also ordered Boissoin and his organization to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” She further prohibited them “from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund’s witnesses,” and directed that “all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals . . . be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin.” In short, she served up a comprehensive lifetime ban that prohibits Pastor Boissoin from ever saying anything that someone like Darren Lund might find offensive.

Boissoin can appeal, but many appeals are not heard and many others are never made for the simple reason that the appellant cannot afford it. And in the absence of a successful appeal, the remedies of the kangaroo courts are enforceable by the criminal courts, and the prospect of jail awaits anyone who refuses to comply. Nor do those who escape conviction escape punishment. The process itself, as Steyn points out, is a punishment. The complainant is liable for nothing, not even the cost of a lawyer, while the accused is liable for everything. “Even if I was eventually acquitted,” says Levant, “I would still lose—hundreds of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills. That’s not an accident; that’s one of the tools of these commissions. Every journalist in the country has been taught a lesson: Censor yourself now, or be put through a costly wringer.”

The full story can be accessed at http://www.firstthings.com/.

What's the Matter With Canada?

2008-07-25T09:43:00.004-06:00

Chuck Colson

How is this for irony? Recent actions by Canadian human rights groups have observers alarmed for the state of human rights in Canada. That is because the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal do not give a fig about protecting human rights. Their mission is suppressing free speech.

Maclean’s magazine was hauled before these two “quasi-judicial” bodies when it published excerpts from Mark Steyn’s popular book America Alone. Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress charged that the content of these excerpts about the expansion of radical Islam “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.”

The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint, but the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal got in on the act. It investigated the charges in what bloggers on the scene called a “kangaroo court,” and has yet to issue a ruling. But there is a greater cause for concern here: As the Calgary Herald pointed out, Maclean’s has the money to fight the charges—but not everyone does. The Herald gloomily predicted, “Let a citizen of modest means utter a politically incorrect thought: He will be crushed.”

That is what happened to the Reverend Stephen Boissoin. In a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, he protested the homosexual agenda, and was hauled off before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The complaint—sound familiar?—was that Boissoin’s words were “likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt because of their sexual orientation.”

The panel ordered “that Mr. Boissoin . . . shall cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or in the internet, in the future, any disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” He was also ordered to apologize in writing for the article, and was fined.

As the Catholic Exchange reports, “In essence, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal is ordering . . . the minister to renounce his Christian faith, since his opposition to homosexuality is based upon the Judeo-Christian Bible.” The article went on to observe that a prominent Canadian priest, Father Alphonse de Valk, is now being investigated “for having publicly defended the Church’s traditional definition of marriage. Some of [his] allegedly hateful statements are quotations from the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

Read the full article here.

"How is Stephen Boissoin's letter any different from Hitler's Mein Kampf?"

2008-07-18T12:43:00.012-06:00

Government of Alberta: We're fine with Rev. Boissoin's gag order

From Ezra Levant's Blog

Lindsay Blackett, the freshman Alberta MLA who is the Minister for Culture and Community Spirit (I'm not kidding), has finally responded to the avalanche of mail he received when his government sentenced Rev. Stephen Boissoin to a lifetime ban on preaching his Christianity. He supports the ban.

More than two months ago, Blackett's fellow Tory, Lori Andreachuk, was the human rights commissioner who issued a Stalinist order telling Rev. Boissoin that he not only was banned -- for life -- from criticizing homosexuality, even in sermons or private e-mails, but that he had to positively renounce his faith in the local newspaper.

(You can read my analysis of that ruling, here.)

Andreachuk's unconstitutional ruling wasn't some independent decision, at arms length from Blackett's government. The Government of Alberta positively sent in a lawyer to argue in favour of convicting Rev. Boissoin. It's the only case I've ever read where the government sent in a lawyer to tell the human rights commission what to do. And they did it, with gusto. You can read my analysis here.

After thinking very hard about all this, Blackett's office sent out its replies today. Here it is. I've highlighted a few parts:

-----Original Message-----

From: CCS Minister [mailto:CCS.Minister@gov.ab.ca]

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:17 PM

To: [redacted]Subject: Reply from the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit [redacted]

Dear Mr. [redacted]: Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission. Every Albertan has the right to live free from discrimination.

The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission has a two-fold mandate: to foster equality and reduce discrimination. It fulfills this mandate through public education initiatives and the resolution and settlement of complaints of discrimination. If Albertans feel that their rights are not being respected, they can discuss their concerns with the Commission. The Commission is required to accept all complaints that fall within its jurisdiction. A large number of these complaints are resolved by meeting with the two parties and trying to mediate a solution. For others that can't be resolved, there is an established process in place to address the concerns raised that provides an opportunity for both parties to be heard.

The Albertans Human Rights and Citizenship Commission operates independently of government and its work is guided by the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. As an elected official, I do not become involved in the day-to-day activities of the Commission, nor do I comment on individual cases. The Act protects people from discrimination in a number of areas including publications and notices, employment, services and tenancy. Within these areas, Albertans are protected on grounds such as race, colour, ancestry, disability, gender and religious belief. The Act includes a variety of appeal provisions to ensure that the best decision is made in each case.

Government recognizes the importance of reviewing all legislation from time to time to ensure that it is meeting its intended purpose. We will be taking your views into account as we examine Alberta's human rights policies and legislative framework to ensure it supports all Albertans.Thank you again for writing and sharing your ideas.

Sincerely,

Lindsay Blackett

Minister of Culture and Community Spirit

MLA, Calgary-North West

I despise letters like that. They're what the Brits call bumf. They don't answer the question -- they seek to distract, daze and confuse. But they're never effective. I can sum up the above letter more succinctly: "We don't care what you think, and don't respect you enough to say so honestly. So we'll give you a bucket full of cliches and buzzwords. Go pound sand."

The letter claims that religious views are protected in Alberta. But that's clearly not true. Rev. Boissoin is specifically ordered not to preach sermons about homosexuality. He's been ordered to publicly renounce his faith. To say that his religious views are protected is a falsehood.

The letter also claims that the government doesn't interfere with particular cases. Again, that is not true. The government sent in a lawyer, named David Kamal, to argue not only in support of the law, but its application against Rev. Boissoin. Kamal argued -- on behalf of the Tory cabinet -- that Rev. Boissoin's real religious rights should be trumped by the fake "right" not to be offended. Blackett's letter is a lie.

Read Ezra's full post here.

Here is something even more ridiculous. When Attorney General lawyer, David Kamal, cross examined my expert witness, Dr. Barry Cooper, he asked him, "How is Stephen Boissoin's letter any different from Hitler's Mein Kampf?" I just about fell off of my chair in disbelief. Does that sound like a question that would come from someone who is impartial? I knew I was beat for sure when there was an attempt to correlate my letter to the editor with a 600 plus page book authored by a man who ordered the murder of millions (nine or ten plus?) of innocent civilians. Steve B

Guest Post By Mark Mercer of St. Mary's University: Where is the Outrage?

2008-07-07T10:28:00.004-06:00

Guest Post By Mark Mercer, Dept. of Philosphy, St. Mary's University

http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2008/07/guest-post-by-mark-mercer-of-st-marys.html

Where is the Outrage?

Back in November, a human rights panel in Alberta found Stephen Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition to have contravened Section 3 of Alberta’s Human Rights, Citizen and Multiculturalism Act. Mr Boissoin’s letter in the Red Deer Advocate, said the panel, had exposed homosexuals to hatred or contempt in virtue of their homosexuality. On 30 May, the panel issued its remedy.

Mr Boissoin is to pay up to $7,000 to people the panel acknowledges he did not harm, he is to apologize, whether sincerely or insincerely, for writing the letter the Advocate published, he is not to disparage his persecutor, and, finally, he is to refrain from expressing his opinions and feelings on matters gay and lesbian for the rest of his life.

That a human rights commission decided to investigate a case having nothing to do with discrimination or harassment but simply the peaceable expression of opinion is troubling enough. This remedy, though, is outrageous. If you thought “Made in China” is a label found only on consumer goods in Canada, think again.

The remedy is outrageous, but where is the outrage?

Now it might be that people don’t know about Mr Boissoin and the Alberta commission. Few newspapers outside Alberta have reported the story. Yet it is a story of national importance. It involves a government agency penalizing a person financially for commenting on matters of public interest and seeking to make him a pariah in his community. Worse, it involves a government agency stripping a Canadian citizen of his freedom to speak his mind. That government agency, moreover, is a human rights commission, and so has siblings all across the country.

The case might well have an additional significance. The Alberta government has remained mute on it. Further, as with all governments in Canada, it has remained mute on the general matter of suppression of expression by human rights commissions. Mr Boissoin will most likely appeal the remedy to the courts. We could be about to witness another sad affair of politicians shirking their responsibilities by allowing law to be set by judges.

The case of Stephen Boissoin is not the only case being ignored by main-stream media. Peace, Earth and Justice News, an online journal, has been harassed by the BC Human Rights Commission. A complaint against Catholic Insight magazine was only recently dropped by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, after costing the magazine $20,000. The mayor and town counsellors of Truro have been frogmarched into sensitivity training by the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission. This case, having to do with the town’s refusal to fly a gay pride flag and the mayor’s comments on the matter, is particularly important, for the commission has usurped both the prerogative of Truro’s elected officials to set policy and the responsibility of Truro’s citizens to discipline—or not—those officials, as they see fit. No doubt this bit of meddling will boost our politicians’ resolve to speak to us candidly.

Other cases: Marc Lemire, Ciran Paul Donnelly, an editorial cartoon in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, Jim Pankiw....

Newspapers and other main-stream news outlets have given some space to one or two cases of speech that have come before human rights commissions. We’ve seen a few editorials and opinion pieces stemming from cases involving Maclean’s magazine and the Western Standard. But even here we have not been offered much straight reporting.

It might be that Canadians would be outraged by the remedy issued in the Stephen Boissoin case if they knew of it, but it is also possible that Canadians don’t much care. The shallow and sporadic coverage assaults on freedom of expression get in the main-stream media could well reflect accurately the level of concern Canadians have for this issue. After all, censorship is nothing new in Canada. Group defamation laws appeared in this country as early as the 1930s. Maybe we’re used to it. Maybe most of us accept it.

In any event, those of us who advocate a free, democratic, and open Canada have our work cut out for us. The free speech contingent in this country has always been small, and has not always been vigorous. (Its record of wins rivals that of the Leafs.) We must encourage Canadians not to focus, or not to focus exclusively, on the unfair procedures of the commissions, or on the specific ideological commitments of the commissioners, or on particular bad rulings. We must encourage them to focus on the fundamental question whether a government agency ought to have any powers at all to suppress or punish expression.

Stephen Boissoin wrote a letter to the editor of a paper on a matter he thought crucially important for his community to consider. For that, if the remedy handed down sticks, Mr Boissoin is permitted never again to say publicly what is on his mind. Does it matter what he wrote in that letter? Are you unmoved by the knowledge that you, too, could be muzzled not for biting anyone, but merely for something you said?

Catholic + Protestant = Christian

2008-07-05T10:54:00.031-06:00

"...fundamentalists lack Sacred Tradition and the grace of the Sacraments. Thus their theological vocabulary and grasp of Biblical nuance is not as developed as that of a Traditional Catholic priest who has been schooled in St. Thomas Aquinas." Pete Vere

This quote was taken from an excellent column titled "Free Speech in Canada, RIP - The Silencing of Fr. de Valk" The full article read here.

Catholic journalist Pete Vere (Catholic Insight, Catholic Exchange, Washington Times and others) is great overall but the highlighted portion below is fallacious and demeans non Catholic Christians. His comments do nothing to unite Christians who can be found in numerous man made institutions...including Catholicism and Protestantism.

I was raised Catholic baptized and confirmed. I attended Catholic schools and mass BUT it was the scriptures that changed my life years later NOT the Roman Catholic Church nor any of the Protestant churches that I attended.

Mr. Vere needs to get over the Catholic/Protestant debate. It does nothing but cause division for all who depend on Christ and His TRUE Gospel which has nothing to do with man made titles and labels. This mentality will keep the true Body of Christ divided and unable to defend itself against the secular humanist onslaught in our country.

Canada needs passionate, united, devoted followers of Jesus Christ...regardless of Catholic or Protestant affiliation...or lack thereof. God is no respecter of persons and shows no favouritism when dispensing his wisdom. The prophets, the apostles and a millenia of pre-Aquanis Christians succeeded in standing faithful in defense of Christianity and the moral precepts it espouses.

Vere's article has a hint of arrogance which seems to denote a strong interest in the accolades of men and is less concerned with the immense magnitude of the battle WE (Christians at large) face.

While praying to the Father, Jesus said "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." John 17: 20

"In a world situation filled with danger and insecurity, all Christians are called to stand together in proclaiming the values of the Kingdom of God," the Holy Father stressed. "The events of recent days make this duty all the more urgent. The quest for full communion among all Christians is a duty which springs from the prayer of the Lord himself." John Paul II

ps...I believe that Pete Vere is passionate about Christ, the cause of Free Speech and protection for religious expression.

Homosexual Agenda Wicked- Red Deer Advocate June 17, 2002

2008-07-03T15:00:00.026-06:00

Disclaimer: I do not encourage, condone, support or approve of ANY violent act towards ANY individual(s) unless in self-defence or the defence of the innocent.

"Love must be sincere.

Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."

Romans 12:9

Over the last six years I have read numerous attempts to interpret my 2002 letter to the editor. The vast majority have been innacurate. The most disheartening has been the fallacious interpretation offered by the AHRC Panel Chair and complainant Darren Lund.

The following is a breakdown and brief explanation of my 2002 letter which contained a combination of my personal, political and religious opinion. It is reprinted for the sole purpose of providing an accurate commentary on the intent and meaning of the letter. The letter must be understood in context and accepted as a whole with each part connecting to the main theme of the letter. My interpretation should be accepted over any other. After all, I wrote it, I should know what the letter implies.

I understand that many people feel that I am wrong and even hateful for being admittedly anti-homosexuality, anti-gay-activism and especially for voicing my position in public. I can accept being hated if that is what it takes to stand up for what I believe and for the welfare of our children and youth.

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.

This letter was not directed at gay individuals that are not involved in an activist agenda and it is especially not directed at those who are struggling with an unwanted attraction to the same sex. The following paragraph confirms this.

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.

Heterosexuals and gay activists were the target and especially gay activists that target children and youth. This can be clearly understood when the letter is taken as a whole. Once again, the following paragraph confirms that the target of my letter is not gays in general but instead activists targeting children and youth. Looks pretty clear to me yet many incorrectly assert that I was targeting gays at large. Soooo...if you're gay and do not target children and youth with biased pro-homosexual intentions then I have no beef with you.

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."

'Banner' refers to the raising of one's standard. At the time of this letter I was the Executive Director of a Christian charity, active in youth ministry, an ordained minister, a leader of a Christian based political lobby group and a volunteer with other youth focused community initiatives. This letter was submitted to the RED DEER Advocate, not the National Post. War has been declared simply meant that I was making my standard 'public' and that I would no longer remain quiet since becoming aware of how pro-gay activists are indoctrinating young people. Anybody with a hint of common sense knew that this terminology had nothing to do with violence.

In a July 2008 Washington Times article, Barack Obama is speaking about gay rights and equality. He is quoted as saying that " we must fight for the world as it should be." Is he referring to violence by his usage of the word 'fight?' I don't think so. His usage of 'fight' is figurative and no different than similar statements like 'war on poverty' and' 'war on AIDS.' Heck, I even read that certain Muslim clerics had declared 'war' on condoms.

Obviously, I was declaring 'a public war of ideologies' against gay activism. This would have been accepted by the vast majority had Darren Lund not strategically and deceptively linked my letter to an uncorroborated, uninvestigated assault on a gay teen which occurred TWO weeks or more after my letter was published.

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.

Self-explanatory.

Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.

Gay marriage, gay adoptions, gay parades, gays undermining the traditional family and teaching children and youth that homosexuality is normal and acceptable.

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.

Realize this is happening and be very concerned! Teachers are not presenting the facts. They are not informing young people that there are therapies available for those struggling with an unwanted attraction to the same sex. They are leading them to believe that a person is born gay. That it is normal to be gay. They are not highlighting the health risks associated with homosexual behaviour nor are they informing them that Health Canada is refusing to accept organ donations from men that have sex with men due to the risk to society.

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.

Biased pro-gay indoctrination IS occurring in our public schools. This is certainly not just my opinion. The psychological problems that are attributed to homosexuality are well documented and the physiological effects are being noticed as well. Disease, depression, stress even poverty have been associated with negative 'physiological' changes in young people.

Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.

Same-sex parents and romantic affection between the same sex.. IS.. warped in my books.

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?

Lund has incorrectly interpreted that I was referring to disease or HIV/AIDS. It has nothing to do with disease. It clearly says 'homosexuality' not HIV/AIDS. It refers to what can happen when a young person is informed 'over and over' that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. Deem something acceptable - - increase the likelihood of participation. To disagree with this is admitting to idiocy and/or complete ignorance about basic human behaviour.

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.

Well, at time of writing this letter, I am a full-time youth minister, a parent and a Christian involved in politics. The 'wickedness' that I have been highlighting in this letter involves gay activism. Let's take whatever steps are necessary to reverse what the gay activists have and are doing in our schools and in the minds of our children and youth.

For instance, let's find out what they are being taught. Let's make a concerted effort to teach them why homosexuality is immoral and dangerous. As theist's (Christian in my case), let's pray to God almighty asking for His assistance. Let's get involved politically - -vote, write letters to our MP's etc. Let's realize that this is a relevant battleground of our day and fight the good fight.

My letter, nor any other newspaper story, can be held accountable for the criminal actions of another even if it was a gay teacher or activist who was beat up two weeks after my letter and the assailant said "I am part of Stephen Boissoin's war against gay activists" but that wasn't even close to the case...was it?

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.

Gay activists want you to believe that homosexuals have it worse than everyone else. They want you to believe that they need special protections. They disguise a scientifically baseless pro-homosexual agenda that is desinged to promote homosexuality by telling us that it is all about tolerance. I am all for tolerance. Nobody has the right to physically harm a person because of their sexual orientation! If the agenda stopped there, I would have little to say but instead it pushes homosexulity on our society, on our children and I am going to do my part of voice my opposition to it. Nothing normal about homosexuality in my books.

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.

According to my personal and religious beliefs, teaching a child that homosexuality is normal and acceptable is JUST AS IMMORAL as how a pedophile, drug dealer and pimp seduces a child/young person.

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.

Homosexual activists are an enemy of certain values that I hold as a Christian. It's time to start fighting back in an attempt to protect these values, the safety and future of our children is at stake.

Rev. Stephen Boissoin

Central Alberta Chairman

Concerned Christian Coalition

Disclaimer: I do not encourage, condone, support or approve of ANY violent act towards ANY individual(s) unless in self-defence or the defence of the innocent.

The Commission of Human Wrongs

2008-07-02T14:38:00.004-06:00

by Nigel Hannaford

Given the clear, intended and government ordained threat to free speech rights the HRC system represents, the obvious step is their complete abolition. Their useful anti-discrimination functions are amenable to some process within the court system that is modelled on the settlement of small claims. Their role in policing speech must be discontinued and truly egregious infractions left to the law courts and the Canadian Criminal Code.

It could be argued that simply removing the portions of the human rights codes most offensive to free speech values would retain the best of the HRCs while meeting the goal of salvaging free expression.

Another partial remedy would be to introduce common law defences into the enabling legislation. Politically, these might be the only achievable goals, for there are significant obstacles to the reform of HRCs.

Politicians are skilled at being elected, not philosophy. One seldom encounters an elected official who really understands what the commissions are and what they do, though legion are those who know any principled attempt to reform them would carry high political costs In an atmosphere of political correctness, timidity abounds.

There are 13 commissions to deal with, each requiring its own legislation to take action. The situation is not helped by the difficulty of defending hard cases. Anti-Semites whose cases did much to define the law Canadians now struggle with have little public following. (One wonders how much of the little they do have stems from their status as free speech martyrs. As Canadian Civil Liberties lawyer Alan Borovoy has argued, they really would have been better left alone.2
“Politically, there are few achievable goals, for there are significant obstacles to the reform of HRCs.

Finally, there are the vested interests that have grown up around the commissions in the past 40 years (the lawyers, the patronage appointments, the quotable expert witnesses). Some of them would undoubtedly subscribe to radical lawyer James Chalmers McRuer’s bromide: “The fundamental protection of the rights of the individual is not so much in the substantive law as in the procedure by which it is administered.” Yet , such surgical reforms are very much the prizes of consolation and should be considered mere way stations to the ultimate goal.

As long as the commissions exist, even in skeletal form, the temptation to rebuild them as agencies of social control will remain and will almost certainly be too much for some government to resist.

This should give serious pause to those interest groups that have been the commissions’ most prolific and rewarded clients. In Canada’s relatively short history, many groups have had their difficult years: the Fenians, the Communists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, to name a few. Nobody cares much any of them now, as new issues come to the fore and new overlords settle
old scores.

Not to put too fine a point on it, times change and those in the saddle today may find themselves under the horse’s heels tomorrow.3 Then, their reduction of liberty during their few years of transcendence will be revealed as a bitter curse. Liberty is the friend of all, must be nurtured by all and defended for the sake of all.

The commissions must go. Ottawa must show the way by winding up the Canadian Human
Rights Commission, for it is from Ottawa that the provinces will take their signal.

Read the full report here.

Oh Canada, I stand on guard for thee!

2008-07-01T08:36:00.017-06:00

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

Canada’s Parliament Buildings Remind Us of God.
Every day and every hour the bells peal out the message of our Saviour's birth.
by Douglas Cryer

Engraved forever in the Parliamentary Buildings are Scripture verses which remind us of God’s dominion and our continued reliance on Him. In 1921, as a permanent testimony to the convictions of our forbears, architect John A. Pearson commissioned the following Scriptures over each of the exterior arched windows of the Peace Tower:

Over the East window – “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea” (Psalm 72:8).

Over the South window – “Give the King thy judgment, O God, and thy righteousness unto the King’s son” (Psalm 72:1).

Over the West window – “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18).

And these are but a few of the many Scripture verses etched throughout the Buildings. In an age where there seems to be no enduring legacies, the testimony of our forefathers endures in the Scriptures, written in stone and accessible for all to view simply by walking up to the Parliament Buildings.

The music that rings out from the carillons for 15 minutes each day at noon may also turn our thoughts toward God. The carillons are made of 53 bells, weighing from 2.5 kilograms to 10,160 kilograms, (approximately the weight of a city transit bus). The largest bell is the one that is heard ringing in the new hour. Of particular interest, is that on this largest bell, inscribed in 1926 at the request of former Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, is the Scripture verse announcing the birth of Jesus Christ to the shepherds, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill to men” (Luke 2:14). ...... every hour of every day there is a reminder of the angelic message proclaiming the Messiah’s birth.

Read full article here.

My personal Declaration of Independence. Canada Day July 1, 2008

I declare that though I am a citizen of Canada, Canada does not own me and is not permitted to dictate what I think, what I believe, what I feel or what I say.

I declare that there is a God and that I am subject to God.

I declare that according to my beliefs as a Christian, I am first, a citizen of the Kingdom of God.

I declare that I am responsible to God for what I believe and voice in private or the public square.

I declare that I will stand on guard for the moral precepts taught in the Holy Bible. I will do so for my personal benefit and the betterment of society.

I declare that when inspired, I will voice these precepts in private and in the public arena.

I declare that I will impose my will, which is subject to God's will, against those that attempt to prevent me from voicing the moral precepts taught to mankind by God, even if incarcerated.

I declare that I am on loan to Canada and that Canada is subject to God. I admonish Canada to protect me, to grant me the inalienable birthrights promised to me in the Charter.

I declare that Canada is responsible to God and it is my duty to continue to remind her of this.

Oh Canada, I stand on guard for thee!

Will you join me?

"Canada does not have freedom of speech, and I have already spoken, putting me in a special class and at risk." says US Christian author.

2008-06-27T09:50:00.015-06:00

Last week I received an email from a concerned US citizen via my website. This individual (who I will keep anonymous until otherwise advised) and her husband are both accomplished Christian authors. They have been invited to facilitate at a Sex Education Retreat which is being hosted by an Edmonton church.

The couple was very concerned about their freedoms here in Canada because they're offering a teaching on Biblical sexuality that is based in the Song of Solomon (Song of Songs) and a small part of their teaching does address homosexuality as sin. They were thinking about cancelling due to risk of prosecution but I encouraged them to keep it in the church and they should be ok. Still apprehensive, the couple decided to contact the Alberta Human Rights Commission to enquire about the legalities surrounding their presentation. You can read the phone log of the conversation with Ralph Roman an officer of the AHRC below.

An interesting point here is that this couple was advised by Ralph Roman to get a lawyer to draft a consent form and to also have the person declare that they will keep it private and not make the information public." ...PLUS..., she was advised to have the curriculum reviewed by the Police. Ralph Roman went on to inform her that even with a consent form there was 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.

Following is the log of the phone conversation with the AHRC.

Canada does not have freedom of speech, and I have already spoken, putting me in a special class and at risk.

Phone call log June 26, 2008 to Confidential Inquiry Line at Edmonton, AL 780.427.7661 at 3:40 p.m. (30 minute conversation).

Spoke to Ralph Roman, Human Rights officer who said he could explain the laws.

I started by saying, "I'm an American citizen, an author and public speaker, with an upcoming seminar on sex education for young people from the Bible in a church in Alberta."

He said, "Could I ask your name in case I've read some of your books?" I laughed and said, "If I give you my name, will you be waiting for me at the border?" He laughed and said okay.

I stated: "While I'm not a gay basher, in publications, both books and CDs, I have stated my conscientious and Biblical objection to homosexual behavior. It's a minor part of my material, but it's there."

Ralph said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and there is always going to be disputes, for example creationists vs. Darwinists. The problem was speech that could be considered hate or that might cause someone to be looked down upon.

He then numbered the following points of what he recommended:

1. You have the invitation, congratulations.

He said the problem is any kind of public teaching vs. private teaching such as a newspaper, public statements, employer, or by a teen in a classroom and a teacher being offended. He said that is when the law is being broken.

He said the following recommendations were the responsibility of the people who invited me, not my responsibility.

2. Ask the church to get a signed consent form from everyone, parents and children, everyone, stating that they are not forced to attend and are there of their own free will. Later he added that this consent should be drawn up by a lawyer who is familiar with the Human Rights Laws.

3. The weekend retreat is considered one-occasion situation and that a license was probably not required.

4. The church needs to contact the education people and take a curriculum of the program and demonstrate that it is an educational program that is not unwelcome by the group there and everyone is there by consent. Also, the church needs to ask the education people if a license is required. At this point Ralph was uncertain and seemed to think a license would be helpful if problems occurred.

5. The church needs to contact the police to make sure they do not view the program as bordering on criminal activity—need to show them the curriculum so they know what is going on and do not arrive on the scene.

I told Ralph I would be dealing with the "hookup mentality" of this generation and teaching abstinence. He said that is a religious belief that lots of people have, but it cannot be forced on anyone and not taught to anyone who is not a part of the group.

I then told Ralph that the church had already distributed a CD of mine to each of their families to prepare for the retreat that had some statements on it about homosexuals. He said that they needed a consent form from each family that this was not unwelcome material and that their kids would not be talking about any of it in the schools.

He said, "You may have a problem with the CD if it is seen as gay bashing and if anyone who has it displays it before the public, i.e., talking about it in a classroom. It needs to be used by a select group who consented to receiving the material. Religious material must not be forced on anyone who is not a part of the group who consented. If a student did this, and the person complained, you would be liable and it would not matter that all the safeguards were in place."

He said, "Here's the bad news: Even if you do the right thing and someone comes to us. We can't stop people from making complaints. Teachers can make a complaint if a student makes comments on his/her own. This kind of material is only for you and not for public consumption and students must be advised to keep it private."

Ralph ended with, "You need to get a lawyer to draft the consent form and to also have the person declare that they will keep it private and not make the information public."

My last question was, "I have a male partner who will be teaching the boys, is he liable because of my CD?" He said. "As your associate, he could be."

Ralph closed the conversation by wishing me well in my teaching. I noticed that he was very careful not to disagree with me about any of my views, but simply stated "many people believe that" or "that is a religious opinion."

I personally would not trust my safety to any lawyer who was not fully informed and involved with Human Rights issues to draw up the consent and will not distribute form.

I did not ask the question about the church's liability, but understand from reading about recent cases that they would also be held liable for distributing the CD without a properly worded consent form.

Calgary's Bishop Henry Calls on Premier to Curtail Powers of Human Rights Commissions

2008-06-24T09:05:00.000-06:00

Cites "inane stupidity and gross miscarriage of justice" regarding treatment of Stephen Boissoin
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
CALGARY, June 23, 2008 (LifeSIteNews.com) - Bishop Fred Henry has asked Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach to repeal Section 3(1)(b) of the Alberta Human Rights Act in order to protect the rights of religious freedom and freedom of speech.
In a letter to Premier Stelmach, Bishop Henry points out that in the past 18 months he has raised the issue of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) several times with the Premier. "On each of those occasions, you said that you understood the issues and shared my concerns."
"However," he continues, "the situation is continuing to deteriorate across our country and the various levels of governments are seemingly non-responsive."
In particular, the recent ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) against Christian youth pastor Stephen Boissoin has convinced the Bishop that decisive measures must be undertaken to curtail the powers of Canada HRCs.
"Each judgment emanating out of our various human right commissions," writes Bishop Henry, "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."
Boissoin was convicted by the AHRC for hate speech after he published a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate expressing his disagreement with the radical homosexualist agenda. The AHRC ordered him to pay $7,000 in fines, and to refrain from ever again making "disparaging" remarks about homosexuals, in any venue whatsoever. Mr. Boissoin has also had to resign his job ministering to at-risk youth because of the adverse publicity his case brought to the Christian charity that employed him; as well, he has had to carry the cost of his defence himself.
In the world of the HRCs, Bishop Henry writes, "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."
Bishop Henry also commented on the April Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruling, which ordered an evangelical Christian charity, Christian Horizons, to rescind its morality code and require employees to undergo anti-discrimination training. Christian Horizons was also ordered to pay $23,000 plus lost wages for threatening to terminate Connie Heritz's employment. Heritz resigned from her position at Christian Horizons after being told she would likely be fired for having violated the terms of the morality code which she signed by openly living in a lesbian relationship.
"Every religious institution should have the jurisdictional independence to determine its own confessions, doctrines and ordinances, including conditions of employment," the Bishop stated.
Bishop Henry also criticized a recent Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal decision against marriage commissioner Orville Nichols, who was fined $2,500 for refusing to officiate at a same-sex wedding.
The letter to Premier Stelmach concluded with a demand to remove provincial human rights legislation that disregards rights listed in the Canadian constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and tramples on freedom of speech.
"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."

"Gay" Sex Kills

2008-06-22T13:50:00.003-06:00

LifeSiteNews.com

"In light of the irrefutable medical facts, it should be considered criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative form of sexual expression (or "sexual orientation")." ....."Children are impressionable. Their young minds are fresh clay ready for molding, and these adult homosexual activists know it. Your child's spiritual, emotional and physical well-being belongs in your hands, not in the hands of liberal activists and elitist educators with a deceptive and destructive political agenda."

Read the full story here.