Blue Like You

Archive for the ‘All comments must first be approved by HRC’ Category

Why is it only the good ones seem to leave the LPC?

Please stay Dr. Martin ! The future of free speech in Canada depends on you. You are making a difference.

Just ignore all the Kindergarten antics and keep your eye on the ball.

Ezra Levant has highlighted Mark Steyn’s appearance on today’s MDL.

If you care at all about the future of free speech in Canada, this is a must-watch.

Saturday Update : SDA - Lucy, look what you started!

Christian Horizons has come under a great deal of unwanted publicity lately due to a decision by the OHRC that ruled that the Christian organization must pay lesbian Connie Heinz $23,000, plus interest. I discussed this story a few days ago , and I’m still not sure where exactly I stand on it.

However, today the Record had an interesting editorial that alluded to the ramifications of this type of ruling - and the dangerous precedent that it might be setting:

What last week’s ruling really shows is how the delicate balance between personal and religious rights in Canada is in continual need of adjustment. The ultimate outcome of the ruling against Christian Horizons could be a series of uncomfortable questions about other religious groups that perform services for the general public. Will someone, for instance, in the wake of this ruling question the right of Catholic hospitals in Ontario to refuse to perform abortions? Would the tribunal hear such a case?

Lorne Gunter also has a few thoughts on this situation. What he finds most disturbing is that Christian Horizons must, among other things, now undergo Human rights training, which Gunter equates to thought-control:

…Worse yet, all CH managers and employees must undergo a "human rights training program," which, of course, is a euphemism for government-approved, state indoctrination aimed at re-educating unacceptable beliefs out of employees’ heads…

Christian Horizons is still pondering the ruling and may appeal. Otherwise, they may be forced to either comply with the ruling, or simply stop delivering the services to the general public and help only Evangelical Christians, which would allow them to stay in touch with their own religious beliefs.

The Ontario opposition parties are pushing to defund CH , even though their services cost the government less than what could be provided otherwise.

A difficult situation. I’m sure we’ll see other similar cases in the future.

* * * *

Update : Here’s another example showing how Canadian Human Rights Commissions are looking out for you - Alleged hijacking of website by rights officials ‘disturbing’.

Interesting case here where a gay bar tried to ban a woman and was charged by the Quebec Human Rights Commission . H/T Ezra Levant

Works both ways, I guess.

Wednesday Update : Evangelical and Catholic Groups Call for Curbs on Human Rights Commission after Anti-Christian Ruling - Lifesite .

Check out the rhetoric that the Sun’s Michael Den Tandt uses to describe the Prime Minister of Canada:

The crows are coming home to roost for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and a mangy bunch of birds they are. Will this provoke an election? Not likely. Not yet.

Harper must wake up some mornings and wonder where it all went wrong. Not long ago he was the Iceman, firmly in control of every teensy strand of his government, and seemingly managing it all with aplomb.

With Harper at the helm there were no mistakes. You didn’t get charm, but you did get efficiency, intelligence and a ruthless instinct for political combat that made him more winner than loser.

Most Canadians were buying that package, when compared with the alternatives. We weren’t warming to the man — the piranha smile and assassin’s eyes make that difficult – but we were getting used to him. Harper and Stephane Dion, mano a mano? Dion was sure to emerge with two black eyes and his glasses fastened together with Scotch tape…

Assassin’s eyes?

Why is it that bloggers need to be so careful, but MSM can say anything they want?

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has ruled that Christian Horizons has violated the rights of a previous employee who had revealed that she was gay - Christians Horizons Rebuked (Record):

…The tribunal has ordered Kitchener-based Christian Horizons to compensate Connie Heintz, 39, and to end a prohibitive code-of-conduct contract for its 2,500 employees.

The contract, which all staff must sign, forbids workers from cheating on their spouses, having pre-marital sex or homosexual relationships, using pornography and “endorsing” alcohol or tobacco, among other things…

So Christian Horizons must now pay Heintz $23,000, plus interest.

That includes $5,000 for “the wilful and reckless infliction of mental anguish.”

The charitable organization must also undergo “basic human-rights training for all employees and adopt an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy.”

Personally, I’m on the fence on this one. If this was a case of a Catholic parish hiring a staff member who turned out to be gay, would they have the right to ask that person to resign?

Would they be forced to hire an openly gay person even if it conflicts with the church dogma?

It certainly indicative of the ongoing dichotomy between freedom of religion vs. the state.

Is there a code of Blogging ethics and liability somewhere? From the Star Phoenix:

…Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals is one of several named as defendants in a statement of claim filed by Richard Warman with the Ontario Superior Court on April 7. Others include Ezra Levant, The National Post and one of its journalists, Jonathon Kay.

In the statement of claim, Warman alleges he was defamed on a blog known as freedominion.ca. He alleges those comments were linked to or commented upon on other blogs, including McMillan’s and The National Post’s.

Those who picked up on the original comments did not take steps to determine whether they were true, Warman alleges.

Warman also states it is not enough for a site to remove comments and postings that are questionable, as The National Post did. The newspaper pulled the piece written for its blog that Warman found defamatory.

In its place, the newspaper posted a retraction and apology. However, Warman alleges the article was linked to and copied by others online by that point and The National Post and Kay should be considered responsible for those republications. Editors for The National Post had no comment about the statement of claim…

Two questions here. First of all, does this mean all bloggers can get into trouble if they link to stories on other blogs that turn out not to be true?

Secondly, in the case of the National Post, they are being sued in spite of a retraction and apology, supposedly because the story was picked up all over the internet. Personally, I just don’t see how a story can be contained in this day and age.

And should it be?

In any case, some of my readers have questioned my apparently heavy-handed comment moderation policy lately.

The reason should now be crystal clear.

Steve Maher’s featured again on National Newswatch - this time with a somewhat more relevant piece than a previous one…

Today’s column (Tories may only have succeeded in making themselves look bad) is fairly well-balanced, with plenty of scorn for both major parties in Canada. However, I find this paragraph disturbing:

…The Harper team instinctively attacks opponents, which is good politics, since it forces political rivals to spend half their time defending themselves. When the Tories go after independent officials, however, they look dishonest and mean, since to believe them, you are asked to believe that independent officials are corrupt. The standard of proof for that is higher than anything the Tories have offered…

Contrast that with David Frum’s excellent editorial in today’s Post - Elections Canad’s campaign against free speech:

Yesterday on this page, Gerry Nicholls accused Elections Canada of being a power-crazed bureaucracy motivated by petty vindictiveness.

That’s the optimistic scenario! Power-crazed bureaucrats can be restrained or replaced.

The more frightening possibility raised by this week’s RCMP “visit” to Conservative party headquarters is that the Canadian bureaucracy has once again revealed a deep, sustained and highly ideological hostility to ordinary rights of free speech…

Frum goes on to outline how some of our supposedly non-partisan Canadian institutions like Elections Canada and the CHRC are undermining political free speech, and political freedom by extension! Please read the whole thing and then save it for future reference.

Canadians need to take off their rose-coloured glasses and take a critical look at those hallowed institutions that we seem to have placed on a pedestal. They are run by human beings.

And as such, they are not above constructive criticism and monitoring.

Jonathan Kay warns of the OHRC’s desire to increase its jurisdiction.

In a related article (Rights body dismisses Maclean’s case), Tarek Fatah founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress weighs with these observations:

..for the Commission “to refer to Maclean’s magazine and journalists as contributing to racism is bullshit, if you can use that word.”

He said the Commission has unfairly taken sides against freedom of speech in a dispute within the Canadian Muslim community between moderates and fundamentalists.

“There are within the staff [of the Ontario Human Rights Commission], and among the commissioners, hardline Islamic supporters of Islamic extremism, and this [handling of the Maclean's case] reflects their presence over there,” Mr. Fatah said, identifying two people by name.

“In the eyes of the Ontario human rights commission, the only good Muslim is an Islamist Muslim,” he said. “As long as we hate Canada, we will be cared for. As soon as we say Canada is our home and we have to defend her traditions, freedoms and secular democracy, we will be considered as the outside.”

Absolutely chilling - especially in view of today’s events.

Liberal MP Dan McTeague does seem to like being in the limelight, and some of his causes are worthwhile.

However, yesterday he stated that “Foreign Affairs violated Brenda Martin’s privacy rights by allegedly leaking a department report” according to Canadian Press.

Well, as my insightful reader Gabby pointed out in comments, this is all a bit rich:

So now Ms. Martin’s privacy rights have been violated?
Who splashed her story all over the MSM - press, TV, radio?
Who made sure her name was on practically every news report?
And which parties continuosly accuse the government of secrecy, lack of transparency, and unwillingness to release documents under the freedom of information requests?
So now that the government releases information, it’s a violation of Ms. Martin’s privacy?
A little consistency would be welcome.

Oh! the hypocrisy!

So, if you’re concerned about privacy rights being violated, Mr. McTeague, how about shining a light on this abuse as reported in Jonathan Kay’s excellent Post editorial this morning - A disaster for Canada’s Human Rights Commission:

Privacy is another concept that the HRC seems to find confusing. The most scandalous disclosure to emerge on Tuesday involved the manner by which investigators logged on to Lemire’s Web site.

In what appears to be a ham-fisted attempt to avoid revealing the commission’s IP address, they tapped into the unsecured wi-firouter of a 26-year-old Ottawa woman who lived near the commission’s 344 Slater St. headquarters. At Tuesday’s hearing, a Bell Canada employee read out the woman’s name, address and phone number to shocked audience members. A National Post reporter contacted the woman and found that she’d never heard of Lemire, Steacy, or his investigations. Unless she is secretly working undercover for Steacy, it appears that the commission cynically invaded the privacy of an innocent citizen in order to pursue an obscure Web-trawling vendetta; and then caused her name to be read out to the Canadian public, thereby identifying her as an unwitting conduit to neo-Nazi Web sites. One likes to imagine that the privacy commissioner will be having a chat with Dean et al. in coming days.

This is absolutely horrifying. Just think about it. The HRC is trolling and baiting using an innocent citizen’s IP address, and then her name gets dragged into this abysmal, taxpayer-funded sinkhole of a Kangaroo Court!

To be fair to Dan McTeague, he has already come out in support of fellow Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin’s private member’s bill M - 446. (Note how he says there is a “reversal of the presumption of innocence” in the clip. How ironic considering the Martin case where we talk about Mexico’s horrible justice system!!)

I think we need Dan McTeague’s help in getting this issue front and centre in the media.

Every citizen in Canada should be warned about how Free Speech is not given ‘any value’ by HRC’s Dean Steacy.

Because when you think about it, aren’t even Canadians like Brenda Martin more threatened by lack of free speech than anything else?

Privacy czar will probe Brenda Martin report leak - CTV.

‘Dozens’ of people at rally - Globe

Classic Steyn. Don’t miss it!

…Yet there is no “presumption of innocence” in Section 13 “hate” cases. Au contraire, there is a presumption of guilt, which is why no one hauled before the CHRC under Section 13 has ever been acquitted — with the exception of the “Canadian Nazi Party,” which got off scot-free on the quaint grounds that it did not, in fact, exist. (The fact that Richard Warman, “human rights activist” and the CHRC’s serial plaintiff, is reduced to suing entirely fictional entities tells you a lot about how necessary Section 13 is to the Queen’s peace)

Alas, if you do have the misfortune to exist in what passes for the real world at the CHRC, then your chances of bucking the spectacular 100% conviction rate are a lot slimmer. So Maclean’s and my book will be convicted because that’s the only menu option available. Section 13 and its administration are a public scandal. I hope Canadians will support Dr. Keith Martin, MP, who has introduced a private member’s bill calling for its abolition…

Ivison: Free Speech not just about Nazis. Please read this whole editorial. Very illuminating.

A vous M. Kinsella.

What’s this? Warren’s right to Free Speech has been denied by the National Post? How utterly ironic.