OHRC vs The Bishop — Stephen Boissoin's Case Taken To A New Level

For those who aren't familiar with Stephen Boissoin's story: He spoke up against the propagation of homosexuality to young people and the Alberta HRC made an example of him. Apart from being fined $7000 (not to mention having to pay the legal expenses, while the complainer was getting a free ride,) Rev. Stephen Boissoin was ordered to publish a letter of apology in the very same newspaper that had published his letter to the editor which triggered the complaint. And on top of all that - the ruling forbade Rev. Stephen Boissoin from criticizing homosexual lifestyle ever again. Somehow, the "human rights" act allows those jackboots to impose a lifetime ban on what they believe is "hate speech".

A similar story is now unfolding in Ontario on a much larger scale. This time, the defender is a Catholic bishop that chose to dismiss a controversial altar server and the 12 parishioners who were the whistle-blowers in the case. As more details become public, it turns out, that there was more to it than the controversial altar server's lifestyle choices. It turns out that the man in question also likes to associate with an excommunicated priest, rewarding him with a lucrative job, making him an "unofficial chaplain" at his business. Sure, it's his business, but then he shouldn't complain if a Catholic church doesn't want him as an altar server.

Yet, the complainer believes he was unfairly singled out. Here's what he wants on top of the hefty $265,000 compensation:

He has also requested six other "remedies." First, he indicates that he "would like the group of 12 parishioners to be held accountable for their un-Christian actions, in front of their peers in a public forum, by the Bishop or the Bishop's superior." Second, he wants the Bishop to preach at his parish "on the consequences of practicing discrimination and the slanderous spreading of rumours, hate and innuendo."

Third, he wants to be restored as an altar server, and fourth, for the bishop to apologize for having removed him. Fifth, he wants the bishop to write an article for the diocesan newspaper "on the rights of persons with same sex attractions to practice their faith within the Catholic Church without fear of threats, recrimination or discrimination." And finally, sixth, he wants the diocese to develop policies "that support the human rights of all people within the church."

More >>>

In other words - he wants anyone who finds his lifestyle and his views too controversial, to be publicly shamed, to be forced to apologize on their knees for hurting his precious feelings. And, since no church authority as well as no court of law would back him, he resorts to a quasi-judiciary tribunal where truth is not a defense and where hurt feelings matter more than facts. Just like in Stephen Boissoin's case, we have a self-disillusioned thug who knows that he can't win an argument, so he wants to silence his opponents by all means possible.