The Shotgun Blog
« January 13, 2008 - January 19, 2008 |Main| January 27, 2008 - February 2, 2008 »
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The states of the races
Barack Obama's huge win will have the punditry going ga-ga and insisting he has the momentum now. Don't believe it.
Meanwhile, the Republican race continues to be unpredictable, although it appears the winner of the Florida primary will have the inside track to the nomination. The readers from up north might be wondering why there is so much angst among Republican voters about this field of candidates. I tried to explain why here; what follows is the main thrust - my reactions during the last debate on Thursday night:
In fact, I was more disturbed by the state of the race after I saw the debate than before. I drifted from candidate to candidate during the debate, only to have the candidates themselves remind me why I stayed away from them in the first place.
I know it sounds weird, but the more we find out about these candidates, the worse they look. It could be a tremendous problem for the GOP come November.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 26, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Warren Kinsella gets it all wrong
Warren Kinsella, National Post scribe, author, punk, and former Liberal spin meister, has been involved in the human rights commission discussion of late. Mostly, he is busy defending Richard Warman, the man who accounts for a whole pile of Human Rights Commission cases (mostly against neo-Nazis and white supremacists), as a modern-day saint and hero.
I can't vouch for his assessment of Warman. The Citizen put together as close to a hagiography of the man as you can get recently, and I see no reason not to think of him as a courageous man who uses, what I consider, terrible means to accomplish laudable ends. We all want neo-Nazis and white supremacists to shut up. There is nothing to be said for the vile views of "white nationalists" or whatever neologism they come up with to defend their idiocy of judging whole groups of people by the colour of their skin, or their ethnic background, or the colour of their hair, or whether they're right- or left-handed (they're all just as stupid a basis for making normative judgments about character). Nevertheless, some of us want to protect freedom of speech and expression. That includes vile speech, and speech that we would never accept in polite company, or in our home (whether that's an inclusive or exclusive disjunction depends on your home), and so on.
But none of that is my point. The point is that Kinsella misunderstands what freedom of speech and expression amounts to, philosophically. His definition appears to be something along the lines of, "I get to say whatever I damn well please wherever I damn well please." Let me illustrate by quoting large chunks from a recent post of his:
"I've written that I think Ezra Levant, who I like a lot, is full of crap on this "free speech" crusade he sort-of leads. Mark Steyn is full of crap, too, for similar reasons.
"In respect of the latter polemicist, and after 9/11, I wrote a column in the Ottawa Citizen that read:
"...The terrorism of September 11 was, and I very loosely quote Mr. Steyn, “a rude awakening from the indulgences of the last decade - disabled employees in wheelchairs, whom the Americans with Disabilities Act and the various lobby groups insist can do anything able-bodied people can, found themselves trapped on the 80th floor, unable to get downstairs…"
"From his perch in rural New Hampshire, Steyn popped a head valve when I objected to the fact that he was seemingly implying that people in wheelchairs shouldn't have been in the Twin Towers and, well, they sort of deserved what they got. He then withheld his column from the National Post for weeks, until two (not one, two) bizarre apologies were extracted from the Citizen's top truckler. Not very free-speechy of him, was it? What happened to the free exchange of ideas and all that, Marko? "
Here is point one: True, Kinsella does say "free speechy," which might be a hedge. Nevertheless, it is no violation of anyones free speech for Steyn to insist on getting an apology before he releases his columns or articles. That's his, well, right. It doesn't violate free speech for him to insist on 18 kittens and a basket of fruit from Warren Kinsella himself before he sends out his columns. He can make any demands he wants. If the Ottawa Citizen decides to cave in, that's their prerogative as well. It's their paper. They own it. They get to control what goes in, and what stays out. Just because they've declined to publish an op-ed I sent them many moons ago does not mean that my freedom of speech was violated. It just means that they made an editorial decision to exclude my op-ed from their paper because it didn't meet their standards, or they didn't like my name, or they didn't like my use of commas, or whatever.
"(They wanted me to apologize to Steyn, too, for disapproving of the fact that Steyn called Chinese people "chinks" and Japanese people "japs." Shortly after I told the Citizen's editor-in-chief I wouldn't apologize for telling the truth, my column was canned. Free speechers, unite! Defend Warren, now!)"
Again, a mistake, and point two: They can can you, Warren. They can fire you if Steyn insists on it. That's all perfectly within their rights, and is no violation of freedom of speech or expression whatsoever. We can defend you if we think they made a bad decision, or if we think you are fantastic and bring a novel perspective on the issues (and, truth be told, I often do think this), but not on grounds of defending freedom of speech. Because freedom of speech has nothing at all to do with it.
Freedom of speech and expression amounts to my right to use my resources, and the resources of consenting others, to publish (almost) whatever I damn well please, on the property of those who consent, or in some public places. It is not a violation of your freedom of speech if you stood up on a chair in my kitchen, started pontificating about the joys of state-run schools, and I insisted that you either keep quiet or leave. It's my house, and my kitchen, and you'll do what I say there. In your own kitchen, Warren, you are free to pontificate about anything you'd like, to whoever you decide to invite in order to listen. And just as you are at the mercy of me, who owns the kitchen where you stand on my chair, so, too, are you at the mercy of the owners of The Citizen, who own the paper where you write your column. If they insist that you apologize to Steyn before they let you back into their, uhm, kitchen, then you have two choices: Apologize to Steyn, or take your ball and play elsewhere.
It would be a violation of freedom of speech if I called the government or, more to the point, the Human Rights Commission to shut you up (it would be fine if I called them to get you out of my house). Freedom of speech and expression are violated if you are told to shut up by the government or one of her organs when you are on your own private property, or on property owned by someone who lets you say what you'd like there, or are distributing materials you had purchased, and so on. Within the constraints of private property, you can say whatever you damn well please, and the government shouldn't be allowed to prosecute or persecute you for doing it.
(Of course, all the typical caveats about libel, and threats of violence, and fraud, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre apply).
Incidentally, while Kinsella doesn't get it, Kelly Toughill does. Big time. In spite of the fact that she disagrees with Ezra and Steyn and the WS on just about every issue, she understands just what is at stake in this debate. It's not about whether you agree or disagree with Ezra, and it's not even remotely about Islam, or defending western culture, or whatever. It's about the Western Standard's legal right to publish what, in our judgment--and not the government's, or Shirlene McGovern's, or the Human Rights Commission's, or Warren Kinsella's, judgment--is a newsworthy, relevant, and important bit of news. Cancel your subscription, organize a boycott, write a nasty letter-to-the-editor, those are your consistent-with-freedom-0f-speech-and-expression rights. Sic the HRC on us? Hell no.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 26, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (46) | TrackBack
Empowering the mullahs?
From the recent article by Amir Taheri:
"More regime opponents were killed or thrown into prison under Rafsanjani and Khatami than under Ahmadinejad. And both "reformers" tried to export the Khomeinist revolution via agents and clients in many Muslim countries, especially in the Middle East."
Iranian regime reformers and hardliners are no different. The current so-called reformers are those who seized the US embassy in 1979 and helped massacre the dissidents in the 1980s and killed foreign based ex-government officials such as Prime Minister Shapur Bakhtiar and other Kurdish leaders. No elements of this inhumane regime can be trusted and voting in their sham elections only prolong the regime's life. And the US Secretary of State Condi Rice is wrong to believe that promoting dialogue with this evil regime can bring peace to the region.
Posted by Winston on January 26, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Friday, January 25, 2008
New cartoon at the WS
McCullough, our cartoonist, takes on the U.S. Federal Reserve in this week's comic entitled "Voodoo Economics."
Posted by Western Standard on January 25, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Greens on Emery
Just got wind of this press release. The Green Party, including all the people running in the by-elections, has come out to ask Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to intervene in the Marc Emery case.
We wrote (sympathetically) about the Emery case in "Seeding Sovereignty."
Our cartoonist, J.J. McCullough, saw things differently.
Here is the press release from the 21st:
21.01.2008
Green Party calls on Nicholson to intervene in Emery extradition
VANCOUVER – Dan Grice, the Green Party candidate in the Vancouver-Quadra by-election, is condemning Justice Minister Rob Nicholson’s refusal to intervene in the Marc Emery extradition case.
“We need to ensure the independence of the Canadian justice system,” said Mr. Grice. “Our citizens have the right to be protected and punished according to our legal standards, not those of other governments. This case is a clear infringement of Canadian sovereignty and sets a dangerous precedent. Minister Nicholson’s willingness to abandon a Canadian whom we are unwilling to charge ourselves is disturbing.”
Vancouver resident Marc Emery and two of his employees have been facing extradition to the United States for mailing cannabis seeds across the border, where draconian legislation could have forced them to spend life in prison. Mr. Emery is set to agree to serve a five year sentence on the condition that his employees, including one who has Crohn’s disease and uses medicinal marijuana for her condition, are not charged. Selling cannabis seeds is typically considered a summary offense in Canada and Mr. Emery has not been charged domestically.
“Canadian law enforcement officials have been aware of Mr. Emery’s activities for years yet have chosen not to penalize him. By turning a blind eye to his activities, Canada has implicitly acknowledged that our marijuana laws are nothing short of ridiculous,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “The United States’ ideologically-motivated pursuit of Mr. Emery has gone far enough. We should either enforce our laws, or change them. Justice is not served when actions are penalized only when requested by another country.”
Mr. Grice added that the Green Party would heed the call of the Canadian Senate’s 2002 Special Committee on Drugs by legalizing the adult use of marijuana and taxing the substance at a rate similar to tobacco.
--30--Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 25, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (119) | TrackBack
Pushing the limits of free speech on American TV
Friday night potty humour...
Watch Family Guy’s hilarious Osama bin Laden outtakes and listen to the anti-FCC song.
Show creator Seth MacFarlane pushes the limits of free speech and good taste in every episode.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on January 25, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission and Free Speech
'What follows is my question to the AHR&CC and their response. Do I feel any better about my right to free speech and expression as supposedly protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Quite simply, no. Based on the way this Commission is currently operating I see it as a can of worms. How do we deal with it? Two days ago I attended a presentation by Alan Borovoy, entitled "Whatever happened to free speech?" He was one of the persons instumental in getting human rights commissions established. He was dead against them dabbling in "Freedom of Speech and Expression" matters but offered only turning the bright light of public scorn on their proceedings. I say if you are faced with dealing with a can of worms you first arm yourself with an appropriate can opener.
Thank you for visiting the Alberta Government feedback web site. Following is the response to your question prepared by Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture [TPRC]
On 2008-01-25 12:37:00.0 you wrote:
What in the act authorizing your existence or the mandate under which the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission operates allows you to act on and award punishments in cases that are not in any way illegal and are strictly matters of free speech or freedom of expression which is expressly protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture responds as follows:
Thank you for your Alberta Connects inquiry. The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission is an independent body of the Government of Alberta. In addition to providing public information and education programs that help to reduce racism and discrimination, the Commission accepts human rights complaints made under the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (HRCMA).
The HRCMA protects Albertans from discrimination on grounds such as race, colour, gender, and religious belief, and in areas such as employment, services, tenancy, and publications and notices. The Act also includes a strong statement upholding the right to free expression of opinion on any subject.
When the Commission receives a complaint in the area of publications and notices, it has the difficult task of balancing the right to be free from discrimination and the right to free expression. The Commission is guided by the Act, by Supreme Court decisions, and decisions from other courts regarding what constitutes discrimination in publications.
The Commission follows standard procedures that are in keeping with the provisions of the Act for all complaint files. Both parties are offered complaint conciliation services that often result in a settlement agreement. If settlement is not possible, the Commission conducts an investigation to determine whether or not there is a reasonable basis to proceed with the complaint. If there is no reasonable basis to proceed, the complaint is dismissed. If there is a reasonable basis to proceed, the matter is referred to a human rights panel.
Human rights panels hold public hearings into complaints. The Commissioners are appointed by Order in Council through public competition. Commissioners are selected based on their human rights knowledge and their ability to run fair hearings. Panel decisions can be appealed to the Court of Queens bench. Additional information is available on the Commission’s website at www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca
Government reviews all legislation from time to time to ensure that it is meeting its intended purpose, and your comments will be kept in mind".
Posted by Bob Wood on January 25, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack
Sceptical people still need to be persuaded
The headline on the B.C. government's big news release today reads, "B.C. TO FUND WORLD-LEADING CLIMATE RESEARCH." But read the release, and it becomes clear that the $94.5 million "Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions" isn't just about climate-change science. Instead, the centre is also slated to be a public-relations hub, "to find ways to educate and encourage greener lifestyles."
Oh, did I just say "public relations"? Sorry, I meant to say, "propaganda."
Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 25, 2008 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Iraq-related fibbing
D.J. McGuire's post below reminded me of a recent story making the blog rounds: The Bush Administration fibbed 935 times during the build-up to the Iraq war. Fibs include: Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, implying a link between 9/11 and Iraq, and so on. An excerpt:
"President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
Pajamas Media, however, has posted a rebuttal to the study. They question both the methodology, as well as the framing of the questions and the context for the statements. Here's an excerpt:
"As Dr. Kuyper notes in response, “Perhaps the question to ask is why did the administration believe so strongly that Iraq had WMDs? Instead, CPI contextualizes by paraphrase and citing an anonymous source. Alternatively, Cheney’s statement could have been framed as running congruent to many members of Congress and British Intelligence.”
My take: I think the original study is a bit shoddy, and does use questionable methods. However, the PJM rebuttal is a little weak as well. We really should wonder why the Bush Administration was so certain and definitive about WMDs. Why say "we know that," when "we have good reason to believe that" is or was true?
I also think we should think long and hard about the false links many pro-war folks encouraged between Iraq and 9/11. There is continued mention of this in the Republican primaries and caucuses.
Maybe calling them "lies" is a bit over-the-top. While I wasn't persuaded by Colin Powell's presentation of the argument for WMDs (I distinctly remember being in a standing-room-only cafeteria hall at Vermont Law School watching the presentation), that doesn't change the fact that reasonable people could reasonably disagree about what we had most reason to believe at the time. It was reasonable, I think, to believe back then that Iraq had WMDs. But "reason to believe" does not equal "know." And use of "know" was, well, false.
(And if it's true that Saddam was busy trying to persuade Iran that they had WMDs, why did the U.S. and the Brits believe him? Why weren't the experts in the U.S. and her allies more careful with research and military intelligence prior to the war?)
Similarly with the implied links between al-Quaida and the secular and tyrannical (and vile) Iraq regime under Hussein. I think it's too much to be forgiving about that.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 25, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Saddam lied, people died
Sure, it's not as catchy as the Bush-Derangement-Syndrome-fueled original, but it has one thing said original doesn't have . . . it's true.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 25, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A ten year forecast on the Calgary job market
And in local news...
Calgary Economic Development (CED) announced today that they are going to release the results of a commissioned report on a 10-year forecast of employment demand in the Calgary region. Calgary’s Employment Demand Forecast will be released on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 and will “assist in identifying the occupations of high growth anticipated over the next 10 years.”
So what do you think?
Will we need more realtors and mortgage brokers – or more bankruptcy trustees and bailiffs? Fewer elementary school teachers but more geriatric nurses? More preachers and prison guards for the casualties of hard times - or more travel agents and plastic surgeons for the oil rich?
Are you bullish on the next ten years in Calgary – or have you caught the subprime flu?
And, for those of you who call Calgary home, what do you think about the future of civic life in our city?
Let me know.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on January 25, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
"Psst: He raised taxes"
UPDATE1: Fox News gets in on the action
UPDATE2: Tsos2, from the comments, alerts us to this comment/explanation by MSNBC. They claim an open mic caught the whisper from someone in the audience.
UPDATE3: What the hell is a little green football anyways?
So there's Mitt Romney, being asked a question about whether or not he'll do what Reagan did in '83. Then you hear someone whisper "he raised taxes," followed by Romney's assertion that he won't raise taxes. Did he get some help from off stage right?
Watch the video:
MSNBC caught it too, and blogged about it (just before they decided to take it down). But the Lew Rockwell blog managed to catch the original post. Here it is:
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 25, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (40) | TrackBack
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Boycotting the Racists
Dysfunctional, corrupt, wasteful, undemocratic --- these are the words which best describe the United Nations.
Yet strangely, Canadians generally hold this institution in high esteem.
That's why it took something akin to courage for the Harper government to boycott the UN's "anti-racism" conference scheduled to take place next year.
Of course, the government is doing the right thing.
As the Canadian Coalition for Democracies put it, "the last UN anti-racism conference held in Durban in 2001 degenerated into a hate-fest of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel vitriol, while the most egregious human rights violators escaped criticism."
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on January 24, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack
Enough to drive you to drink . . .
Liquor store employees in Nova Scotia will soon be voting on a cushy wage increase. A new deal was reached this week. As their union leader Joan Jessome put it, "The employer did not get any of the concessions they were looking for and there were quite a few of them." For those trying to follow, "the employer" here is a crown corporation run by the government of Nova Scotia.
It's hard to believe that in 2008 there are still antiquated state monopolies running liquor sales. It's a pan-Canadian shame. In Saskatchewan not that long ago, CTF found that the cost of running government liquor stores has soared.
There is another way. You get to keep all of the revenue, dramatically increase employment in the sector, dramatically improve product selection and avoid the pitfalls, public sector labour tactics and politicization of state run liquor sales: Privatize it. It worked in Alberta; It works in a lot of places - from Taiwan to Ireland to New Zealand. Politicians, union bosses and bureaucrats might drive us all to drink, but it doesn't mean they should be holding the bottle for us. . .
Posted by Liam O'Brien on January 24, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Two years and counting
At 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Friday afternoon in the Congress Hall of the Ottawa Congress Centre, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will deliver remarks at an event celebrating the government's second-year anniversary. He will be joined by members of the Conservative Caucus.
Two years in a fragile minority government. I have to admit it: I never dreamed that even such an astute strategist and tactician as Mr. Harper could pull it off. Then again, I never imagined that Stephane Dion would suffer from such an acute case of political osteoporosis or that Jack Layton would devolve into a caricature of himself.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 24, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Politicians targetted too
We hear daily of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, but only rarely do we hear of some of the lesser publicized instances of journalists, politicians and others being targetted by censorious human-rights commissions.
Ron Gray, national leader of the Christian Heritage Party, reminds us today of the peril in which he and his party have now been placed by a human-rights complaint. Here's a link to the CHP website's background on the case. And here's the text, pasted below, of Gray's news release of earlier today (a release in which Gray also provides a good overview of other similar cases):
CHP warns of trend to fascism in abuse
of and by human rights commissions
LANGLEY, BC; Jan. 24, 2008 (CHP) — “If any magazine, journalist, or political party can be told by a government agency what it may or may not say, Canada will become a fascist state,” warns Ron Gray, leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada.
He was speaking about recent ‘human rights’ complaints against Maclean’s magazine, author Mark Steyn, former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant—and the federal political party he leads.
The CHP, the sixth-largest of Canada’s 16 registered federal political parties—next in size after the Green Party—with its leader have been targeted in three complaints made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission by an Edmonton man.
Those complaints cite articles on the CHP web-site that oppose same-sex “marriage” and other aspects of the “gay rights” agenda.
Ironically, the first of the complaints was about an article not written by the CHP, but by an American Internet news service, WorldNetDaily.com; that article reported extracts from legal and sociological commentaries in the quarterly Law Review published by Regent University of Virginia in April, 2002.
However, the complaint from Rob Wells of Edmonton to the CHRC didn’t come until December, 2007—more than four and a half years after the CHP had posted the report.
For 20 years, the CHP has maintained a policy that says:
“It should be beyond the power of any legislative or administrative body to recognize, affirm, condone or discriminate in favor of identifiable sexually aberrant individuals or groups.”
That policy underlies the CHP’s opposition to same-sex “marriage” and other legal recognition given to homosexuals in recent years, says Gray.
“While our policy is rooted in our commitment to biblical principles,” he adds, “there are sound secular reasons for it as well:
“The science is now very clear that homosexuality is not innate—every study that ever claimed to have found a ‘gay gene’ was discredited by subsequent peer review.
“Dr. Jeffrey Satinover—who taught psychiatry at Yale and is past president of the CJ Jung Psychological Institute—says homosexuality is a behavioral addiction whose nearest analogue is alcoholism: the more it is indulged, the stronger the addiction becomes.1
“The 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association to delete ‘homosexuality’ from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual—a decision that was far more political than medical, coerced by pressures including threats of physical violence made by homosexual advocates during the APA’s 1973 convention in San Francisco2 —has been repudiated by subsequent surveys of practising psychiatrists: a 1977 survey found that 69 percent of psychiatrists in North America still regard homosexuality as a treatable mental illness3; in a later survey covering both North America and Europe, 73 percent of psychiatrists agreed.4
“And a 2000 study in Vancouver, published in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association and in the International Journal of Epidemiology, showed that the life expectancy of homosexual men is dramatically less than that of heterosexual men—from 8 to 20 years less; the life expectancy of a homosexual man in Canada in 2000 was about the same as the life expectancy of all men in Canada in 1871!5
“If journalists, politicians and educators continue to tell children ‘It’s OK to be gay,’ some of those children will be tempted to experiment; if they experiment, some will become addicted—and if they become addicted, those journalists, politicians and educators will be responsible for condemning those children to a miserable, short life and an early grave.
“That’s why the CHP opposes such legislation as the Liberals’ legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’—which their Justice Minister promised Parliament in 1999 the Liberal government would never enact,” says Gray.
He said the CHP published the WorldNetDaily article in 2002 because it contained information vital to the on-going public policy discussion about the “gay rights” agenda. “We felt then, and still feel, that the public is entitled to see the information from those academic studies,” Gray said.
A GROWING THREAT
Gray listed sampling of recent cases in which human rights commissions have penalized Canadians for exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression—rights which are supposedly protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
• Most recently, Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine were the subject of a jet-to-be-adjudicate complaint for reprinting a chapter from Steyn’s book America Alone.
• Ezra Levant, founder and formerly publisher of Western Standard magazine, is currently being investigated by the Alberta HRC in connection with a complaint about his magazine publishing Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet, Mohammed.
• Catholic Insight magazine is currently the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission for material on its website critical of homosexual conduct.
• Steven Boissoin, a Christian pastor, faces punishment by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for a letter published in the Red Deer Advocate. The adjudicator alleged a “circumstantial causal connection” between his letter and an unrelated attack on a homosexual teenager in that city.
• John Di Cecco, a Kamloops city councilor, was fined $1,000 for by the BC Human Rights Tribunal when a complaint was brought in response to comments he made about homosexual conduct.
• Knights of Columbus of Port Coquitlam, BC, were fined by the BC Human Rights Tribunal in 2005 for refusing the use of their hall for a lesbian “wedding” reception.
• Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary was the subject of a human rights complaint in 2005 for articulating the Catholic Church’s teachings on same-sex marriage in a pastoral letter. (The complaint was later withdrawn after a meeting with the complainants, and substantial expense.)
• In 2002, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to three complainants because of the publication of an advertisement that quoted Bible verses on homosexuality. Four years later, this was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal after the court ruled that the message, though offensive, didn’t reach the level of inciting hatred..
• Bill Whatcott, charged with spreading hate against homosexual persons for the distribution of material objecting to an advertisement that ran in Saskatchewan’s largest newspaper for homosexuals, Perceptions, seeking boys for activities that specifically mentioned that their age was “… not so relevant”. The material distributed by Mr. Whatcott also objected to material promoting “gay” culture and beliefs entering into the Saskatoon Public School System and the University of Saskatchewan. The appeal by Mr. Whatcott to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench from his conviction and fine of $17,500.00 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal was denied by the Judgment of Mr. Justice F. Kovatch in a decision received on December 11, 2007.
• Chris Kempling, a teacher and counsellor at a public high school in Quesnel, was cited in May 2001 for “conduct unbecoming a professional” by the BC College of Teachers for letters published in a local newspaper during the summer. As punishment he was suspended from teaching for one month. He appealed his suspension all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which in 2006 refused to hear his appeal.
CBC radio interviews in 2004 about his private practice as a counselling psychologist in Prince George were made the basis for a formal reprimand by the Quesnel School District; when Dr. Kempling complained to the BC Human Rights Tribunal that his liberties were being infringed, the Tribunal refused to hear his complaint.
Dr. Kempling was also penalized by his employer, the Quesnel School District, for a letter to the editor of his local newspaper announcing his candidacy for the CHP, and stating the CHP’s long-established policy on government approval of homosexuality.
• In 1999, Toronto printer Scott Brockie was ordered by the Ontario HR Commission to pay a ‘gay’ activist group $5,000 for refusing to print their letterhead.
Gray also commented on the political effect of the complaints against him and the CHP.
“Of course, such allegations probably hurt us politically in the short term,” Gray said. “The complainant grossly misrepresents us as ‘bigots’—which we’re not; but we understand that’s part of the give-and-take of a debate about public policy.
“But activists who want to use the power of the state to silence arguments they can’t answer don’t accept such a free interchange of ideas.
“Such attempts to use government authority to silence opponents are the very essence of fascism.”
FOOTNOTES
1—J. Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996) pp 31-40
2—R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (New York: Basic Books, 1981) pp 102-146;
3—”In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association decided to remove homosexuality from its list of psychiatric disturbances. But, in 1977, a survey of American psychiatrists (cf. Lief, H. I., “Sexual Survey 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality”, Medical Aspects Of Human Sexuality, 11 [1977] 110-111) revealed that 69 percent of them continued to think that homosexuality was a pathological adaptation and not a normal variation.”
— http://www.familytofamilies.com/scienceand.pdf
4—(Stanton L. Jones, Ph.D., Provost of Wheaton College, and Mark A. Yarhouse, Ph.D., Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate, pp. 97-98)