Truth-bashers are on the offensive. Silencing Conservative media is no longer enough for them. Now they are targeting a magazine that chose to provide a balanced point of view rather than sticking to the typical "left versus far left".
I find it ironic that a magazine like Maclean’s - which has only recently started to realize that there are two opinions on world events - is feeling the brunt of the kind of thinking which it has fostered in Canada these past few decades. Of course, it is simply a coincidence that now that Maclean’s has decided to offer some conservative viewpoints, apart from the liberal milksop we have all come to enjoy, they find themselves SHOCKER OF ALL SHOCKERS!!!! in front of the CHRC.
It is clear that the CHRC is nothing more than a political tool of the Left to silence dissent. When has a conservative ever won a case against a leftist? Or perhaps the most salient question is: when has a conservative ever even filed a case against a leftist?
Meanwhile, as the shamans of political correctness are preparing to sacrifice yet another outspoken journalist to their idols of tolerance and multi-cult, the Alberta Human Blights Tribunal found a young Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin guilty of "exposing homosexuals to hatred and contempt". Stephen's crime was writing a letter to the editor, outlining his arguments against promoting homosexual lifestyle to elementary school children. Stephen is a youth minister and he had frequent occasion to help those suffering from the homosexual disorder. Among other things, he mentioned the following fact:
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.
The tribunal found that to be "hate speech" which, they believe, could have been "indirectly responsible" for an assault on a homosexual teenager a few weeks later. The latter has never been proven. And, of course, nobody bothered to explain how come the link between criticizing a lifestyle choice and violent attacks on those practicing the lifestyle never works on, let's say, smokers whose lifestyle choice is being aggressively denounced by governments, organizations and individual activists. But that's what the truth-bashers' chairman believes in, so the tribunal rules accordingly.
In the extrajudicial courts of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, the complainant’s expenses are paid for by the state, but the defendant must pay for his own defense and the rules of evidence, normal in the regular courts, do not apply. In nearly every case in Canada brought against Christians who criticize the homosexual subculture, the Tribunals have found in the complainant’s favor. A defendant may follow the case up with an appeal to the legal courts, but again must pay his own expenses.
...
Gwen Landoldt, the group’s vice-President, told LifeSiteNews.com, the decision is “typical of the Human Rights Commission. If a complaint is laid against you, you’re automatically found guilty.”
She said bluntly, “Something has to be done to curtail the power of these commissions,” she added. “People in a democracy should be able to have an opinion on homosexuality or on gardening or on anything without being charged or paying money out to protect oneself.”
Who is going to be courageous enough to stand up to those freedom-snatching committees? Stephen Harper had the "court challenges program" nixed. (Better late than never.) Can we hope that among next steps would be cutting government funding to kangaroo courts, which would effectively bring their operations to a halt? Or will we have to organize a party-like lobby group that would help those of us who are targeted to defend themselves and pressure politicians (under threat of splitting the vote) to start doing something to bring back justice and freedom of speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment