Black & White on the Grey Matters (Jermiah Wright)

…
This is a potentially perilous moment. In the first four months of this story, the Canadian Islamic Congress have won no sympathizers and the broader “human rights” establishment have lost almost all the ones they previously had. So this press conference is a critical attempt to reposition themselves, not as Islamist bully boys trying to shut down all debate on the perfectly legitimate topic of Islam and the west, but as “victims” of a powerful Islamophobic media. Presumably they will offer to shut down the case in return for a more modest right of reply without some of the more absurd demands they made last time round. It will sound “moderate” and “compromising” and “reasonable”, all the things mainstream Canadian opinion likes. But, if Maclean’s were to accede, it would be setting a very dangerous precedent: it would reward the CIC thugs for their bullying. As David Warren said way back when, the process is the punishment. Maclean’s doesn’t fear a modest fine, which is all the commissars can do. What we fear is a world in which the editorial choices of private publications are destabilized by bullying lobby groups who represent nobody using the “human rights” process to hijack our pages.

As I said, they’ll be sounding “moderate” and “reasonable” today, but it doesn’t change what they’re trying to do – which is use the state as a lever to kidnap the content of privately owned magazines for their propaganda purposes. Why not get some bigshot Saudi to bankroll your own? (Source)

The KoolAid drinkers out there don’t seem to get it:  when the Toronto Star agrees to publish a full spread about the horrors of abortion or when Warren Kinsella gives up his blog to some neo-Nazi for a few days of merry blogging, THEN and only then will they have a consistent, although still ridiculously wrong, position.

Besides, the Kinsella’s KoolAid Klan is really getting hot and bothered about a potential showdown between Canada’s establishment magazine and one of the most popular English columnists in the world vs. the encroachments of Islam on Western Democratic values.  Who do you think is going to win when we go into the “discovery” phase of Mark’s work?  I can tell you it won’t be Elmo or Muhammed.

That we would have a booted ex-cop interrogating such a law and order type like Mark Steyn is just so CHRCesque – the irony could not be more robust, although it is hardly surprising considering the overall reputation of the HRCs. 

I think Ezra had it right when he commented in this clip about the Alberta Human Rights Commission having the gall to question a publisher in Canada about its editorial content.  Pick it up at the 2:41 mark. 

Shirley McGovern, the interrogator in Ezra’s case, saw the light of freedom and didn’t want to be associated with the government censors. Let’s hope more people on that side of the fence come to their senses before it’s too late.

The following instalment is the second part of my investigation into the CHRC and Richard Warman’s activities concerning the testimonies given at the Beaumont and Lemire Tribunal hearings.  Part 1, The Blogosphere Cross-Examination,  uncovered some disturbing testimony given by Dean Steacy  about Warman’s knowledge of the Commission’s “jadewarr” account, among many other troubling discoveries.

This instalment is concerned with highlighting the switching of evidence concerning certain postings on Stormfront.org.   The Canadian Human Rights Commission employees were (and perhaps still are) registered users on the Stormfront.org discussion board, “a white nationalist community discussion board for activists”.

The evidence presented here was, in part, gathered using the Access to Information Act.

PART A: Switching Evidence – Poem - Tab 17

In the Warman vs. Beaumont Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Hearing which took place in Vancouver between December 11-13, 2006, the CHRC had submitted into evidence a document about Ms. Jessica Beaumont, Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome”.  Richard Warman proposed to replace Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” with his generic version of the same document, Exhibit C – “Jadewarr Absent”, which did not list the “jadewarr” identity. Readers will notice that the substantive text of both documents is the same. As the upper and lower right hand corner of the original document submitted by the Commission attests, Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” was printed by using the Commission’s “jadewarr” account on April 13, 2005 while Richard Warman’s version, Exhibit C – “Jadewarr Absent”, was printed on December 8, 2006, which was the Friday before the Hearing commenced on Monday December 11.  According to Steacy’s March 25, 2008 testimony, Vigna and Warman visited him for the express purpose of printing off “certain postings” on Stormfront.org.  After not being able to locate the document by searching the discussion board, Steacy confesses to logging on to his “jadewarr” account where he was then successful at locating the desired document and printing it off in the presence of Warman and Vigna (0:00-1:05):

Below is the partial transcript of the relevant discussion dealing with switching the Commission’s submission, Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome”, with Warman’s version, Exhibit C – “Jadewarr Absent”.   (The coloured and bolded emphasis is mine as well as the links to the exhibits).  While it is true that both Vigna and Warman (who both knew that “jadewarr” was a Commission pseudonym used by Dean Steacy) stated that they had no objection to Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” remaining as part of the official record (page 241, lines 11-12), it was Warman who first suggested to remove the document (page 241, lines 5-7) and the Commission’s lawyer, Giacomo Vigna, who ultimately went along with its removal (page 276, lines 22-25) at the behest of the Tribunal judge and a helpless Paul Fromm (page 276, lines 22-23). 

Needless to say that in a real court with proper rules of evidence and procedure, none of this switching and replacing would have been permitted.  Can anyone imagine a judge permitting the removal of evidence – any evidence – during a real trial?

240

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Which tab is this?

2 MR. WARMAN: The poem is from tab 17.

3 THE CHAIRPERSON: This one here?

4 MR. WARMAN: Yes. I see that there’s

5 big holes where the name should be.

6 THE CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry, I’m a

7 little confused here. Tab 17, I have A.

8 MR. VIGNA: The layout, when you look

9 at it, it might seem different, but if you look at the

10 contents it’s pretty much the same.

11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.

12 MR. VIGNA: Perhaps, Mr. Warman, you

13 can explain it.

14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps you

15 can explain it.

16 MR. WARMAN: Sure.

17 THE CHAIRPERSON: I do see that the

18 content is similar. It’s got the poem in it, but how

19 come the layout is different, as Mr. Vigna has

20 indicated?

21 MR. WARMAN: Sure. I will happily

22 explain.

23 The first one is a Commission

24 document. The second one is a document that was

25 printed off in my presence on Friday.

 

241

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, the second

2 document was available on the Internet and printed off?

3 MR. WARMAN: Yes, on Friday.

4 THE CHAIRPERSON: On Friday.

5 MR. WARMAN: So, if it’s more

6 appropriate, we can withdraw the first one and simply

7 tender the second one.

8 THE CHAIRPERSON: I’m just wondering,

9 given the different layout, maybe it would be better to

10 keep both.

11 MR. WARMAN: Sure.

12 MR. VIGNA: I have no problem.

13 THE CHAIRPERSON: For the purposes of

14 the record. We were shown one document and you

15 testified on that.

16 MR. WARMAN: Yes.

17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now you have the

18 second document and this one has been, according to

19 you, printed out. Is there any indication that you

20 printed it out you said yesterday?

21 MR. WARMAN: Friday.

22 THE CHAIRPERSON: You said Friday.

23 MR. WARMAN: Yes. There is no date

24 on it, but I can testify that it was printed off on

25 Friday.

 

242

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: It does refer to a

2 radio broadcast at the top, Friday, December 8th.

3 MR. WARMAN: Yes.

4 MR. VIGNA: We can keep both, Mr.

5 Chair.

6 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think it might be

7 better for the purposes of the record to keep both.

8 So, last Friday would mean December 8th.

9 MR. WARMAN: I believe it would be

10 December 8th.

11 REGISTRY OFFICER: Yes, it is the

12 8th. So, we are adding this to tab 17?

13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we

14 should add it to tab 17.

_______________________________________________________

273

2 MR. FROMM: Could I direct your

3 attention to tab 17?

4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you should

5 specify which of the two versions.

6 MR. FROMM: Yes. To the one we were

7 given yesterday, one of three, where it says across the

8 top, “Welcome, Jadewarr.” Do you see that, Mr. Warman?

9 MR. WARMAN: I do.

10 MR. FROMM: Can you explain what that

11 is, “Welcome, Jadewarr?

12 MR. WARMAN: It appears to be a name

13 that was logged in under.

14 MR. FROMM: By whom?

15 MR. WARMAN: I’m sorry, I don’t know.

16 MR. FROMM: Would that not have to

17 have been by you?

18 MR. WARMAN: No, it would not.

19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because you

20 indicated earlier that this was not a copy that you had

21 printed out.

22 MR. WARMAN: That I produced, no.

23 The second copy is the one that I produced.

24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Does your name

25 appear on this one?

 

274

1 MR. WARMAN: The second copy was

2 printed off in my presence.

3 THE CHAIRPERSON: It was printed off.

4 MR. FROMM: Then who is Jadewarr?

5 MR. WARMAN: I’m sorry, it’s not my

6 document.

7 MR. FROMM: But it was produced in

8 your presence?

9 MR. WARMAN: No, the second document

10 I printed off.

11 MR. FROMM: The second document,

12 which is the clearer copy, says “Italy for Italians” at

13 the top. You can see that. Is that the one?

14 MR. WARMAN: It does, yes.

15 MR. FROMM: The other one, the one

16 that was given to us yesterday, which is much less

17 clear and says to Der Totenkopf, but at the top it says

18 “Welcome, Jadewarr…” you say that was printed off in

19 your presence?

20 MR. WARMAN: No, it was not.

21 MR. FROMM: It was not. Then what’s

22 the origin of it?

23 MR. WARMAN: I don’t know.

24 THE CHAIRPERSON: You don’t know now

25 but you mentioned earlier that it was from the

 

275

1 Commission. That’s what I heard you say.

2 MR. WARMAN: It originates in the

3 broadest sense with the Commission.

4 THE CHAIRPERSON: So the Commission

5 had produced this photocopy?

6 MR. WARMAN: Yes, but in terms of its

7 specific origins, I have no idea.

8 MR. FROMM: Is it your testimony,

9 then, that it’s a Commission document?

10 MR. WARMAN: It originates with the

11 Commission. I do not know its providence.

12 MR. FROMM: In my submission, then,

13 it shouldn’t be an exhibit if we don’t know where it

14 came from.

15 MR. VIGNA: Mr. Chair, the document

16 that was produced this morning was produced by Mr.

17 Warman.

18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right. It was my

19 suggestion that we keep it because there was some

20 testimony about that yesterday. I just wanted to keep

21 the record complete.

22 MR. FROMM: Then what we have been

23 given this morning is substantially different from the

24 copy we had yesterday. Yes, the text from Jessy

25 Destruction would appear to be the same.

 

276

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

2 MR. FROMM: Perhaps not even that.

3 The text we have this morning just says Jessy

4 Destruction. There is no logo. The logo that appears

5 on yesterday’s would seem to be a Swastika.

6 MR. WARMAN: It’s because it was

7 printed off on two different days.

8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right, but you

9 yourself did not print off this page?

10 MR. WARMAN: No I did not. I should

11 be specific, not page 1 of 3, the first page there.

12 THE CHAIRPERSON: So it’s true you’ve

13 never seen this document yourself prior to it being

14 entered into –

15 MR. WARMAN: I’ve seen it as part of

16 the disclosure package that came from the Commission.

17 THE CHAIRPERSON: But not as a

18 document that you’re familiar with?

19 MR. WARMAN: This document, no. I’ve

20 seen the content of it. I’ve seen that website with

21 that material on it.

22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to have

23 it removed? Mr. Fromm wants to have it removed. Do

24 you have any objection to it being removed. Mr. Vigna?

25 MR. VIGNA: No.

(Source)

So to summarize, we have discovered the following salient points:

1) Knowing that ”jadewarr” was Dean Steacy, Richard Warman asked the judge to remove Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” (page 241, lines 5-7).

2) Knowing that “jadewarr” was Dean Steacy, Giacomo Vigna stated that the contents of both documents “are pretty much the same” (page 240, lines 8-10). He then later stated that he had no objection to Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” being removed from evidence (page 276, lines 22-25).

3) Athanasios Hadjis, the tribunal “judge”, asks the respondent’s representative, Paul Fromm, if he wants to remove the Commission’s “Welcome Jadewarr” document from the official record (page 276, lines 22-23).

PART B: Switching Evidence - Jesse Destruction ProFile - Tab 19

In this part of the ”Big Switch”,  we discover another instance of switching yet another original CHRC document, Exhibit X – “Jadewarr Welcome”, with Exhibit Y – “Jadewarr Absent”.

Here is the transcript that relates to the switch.  I have bolded and hyperlinked the relevant text.

Note: the content of the hyperlinked text is not absolutely certain. It represents my educated guess as to what documents the participants were referring to.

123

1 All rise. Please be seated.

2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

3 MR. VIGNA: Mr. Warman, under the

4 same oath as this morning, we had left off at tab 12.

5 I believe we had finished speaking about tab 12 and

6 we’re going to jump to tab 17.

7 The same questions: Do you recognize

8 the document? If so, why did you print it, where did

9 you get it, and then we’ll file it and continue on.

10 Do you recognize the document?

11 MR. WARMAN: Sorry, Mr. Chair, if I

12 may, there’s another copy of this document that I will

13 be able to identify, and the pages 2 and 3 of that are

14 about to come up in another exhibit. So I just think

15 there’s a bit of — if we could just skip to tab 19 I

16 think is the next one.

17 MR. VIGNA: Okay, we’ll go to tab 19

18 and we have a clearer copy of that which I will provide

19 the Registry Officer.

{Editor’s note: Vigna is most likely referring to the clearer copy of Warman’s version of the “Jesse Destruction” profile document. There were two Warman versions of this document in Tab 19 – one version with a clearer picture than the other version. These two Warman versions were in addition to the original CHRC version which was inserted into Tab 17.}

20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Have you made

21 copies for everyone?

22 MR. VIGNA: Yes, Mr. Chair, the

23 respondent I put one on his chair.

24 THE CHAIRPERSON: You sent out the

25 replacement for the first page.

124

1 MR. VIGNA: The photo is much

2 clearer.

3 Can you tell us about tab 19 and if

4 you recognize it, from where, and if you printed this

5 document. Then we will file it and then we will go to

6 the key elements.

7 MR. WARMAN: There is page 1 of 2,

8 then page 2 of 2. That’s a two-page document printed

9 off by me on the 23rd of December, 2004 entitled

10 “Profile Jessy Destruction” from the Stormfront website

11 that I provided to the Commission pursuant to my

12 complaint.

126

… 

19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Let’s go back here.

20 What we have at tab 19 is we have a two-page document,

21 page 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. There’s a title that appears

22 near the top called “Town Hall with David Duke each

23 Sunday 2 p.m. Eastern.”

24 Then what you’re saying, Mr. Vigna,

25 is that you would like the other four pages that appear

 

127

1 under this tab to go as a separate tab. So we will

2 call that 19A. Are you following me, Mr. Fromm?

3 MR. FROMM: Yes.

4 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will mark the

5 first ones as tab A, under tab 19, 19A, and the other

6 four sheets as 19B.

(Source)

Summary

There are three pages in the context of  Warman’s testimony about Tab 17 on page 123, lines 11-14. The first page is Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” (poem content).  The subsequent two pages (Exhibit X – “Jadewarr Welcome”) are the profile of “Jesse Destruction” i.e Jessica Beaumont.  These were the original documents submitted into evidence by the Commission which would be eventually removed and replaced by the Warman versions.

In my earlier analysis, we learned how the Commission’s version, Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome”, was replaced by Warman’s version, Exhibit C – “Jadewarr Absent” (Tab 17 – Poem Content).

In the case of Tab 19 and the “Jesse Destruction” profile, the Tribunal inserted Warman’s version, Exhibit Y - “Jadewarr Absent”, and placed it in Tab 19A.

When I requested the complete contents of Tab 17 and 19 (including tabs 19A & 19B) -  via the Access to Information Act – I expected to see the original CHRC “Jesse Destruction” profile document (Exhibit X – “Jadewarr Welcome“) somewhere in these Tabs.  The documents were officially submitted into the Tribunal Hearing by the Commission as evidence and located in Tab 17.  They were even referred to by Richard Warman (page 123, lines 6-14) in his testimony.  Furthermore, unlike the poem document (Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome“), there was no motion to have it removed from evidence. 

And yet, when I examined the contents of these tabs as supplied to me by the CHRT via the Access to Information Act, there was no CHRC “Jesse Destruction” profile document (Exhibit X – “Jadewarr Welcome“) to be found.

It had magically disappeared.

 

 

 

 PART 1

 

INDEX PAGE

Muslims’ fury forces schools to shelve anti-homophobia storybooks for 5-year-olds

Two primary schools have withdrawn storybooks about same-sex relationships after objections from Muslim parents.

Up to 90 gathered at the schools to complain about the books which are aimed at pupils as young as five.

One story, titled King & King, is a fairytale about a prince who turns down three princesses before marrying one of their brothers.

Another named And Tango Makes Three features two male penguins who fall in love at a New York zoo.

Bristol City Council said the two schools had been using the books to ensure they complied with gay rights laws which came into force last April.

…

“The main issue was there was a total lack of consultation with parents,” he said.

“The schools refused to deal with the parents, and were completely authoritarian.

“The agenda was to reduce homophobic bullying and all the parents said they were not against that side of it, but families were saying to us ‘our child is coming home and talking about same-sex relationships, when we haven’t even talked about heterosexual relationships with them yet’.

“They don’t do sex education until Year Six and at least there you have got the option of withdrawing the children.

“But here you don’t have that option apparently. You can’t withdraw because it is no particular lesson they are used in.”

…

A spokesman for Bristol City Council said: “All Bristol schools have a legal duty to report and deal with homophobic harassment as part of the curriculum since April 2007.”

She said the council had “temporarily withdrawn” the use of the materials in question and was liaising with various groups to “ensure that the topic can be addressed in an inclusive manner in the curriculum”. (Source)

Amazing what a little bit of community activism can do.  It just shows how pathetic we are as a Church today. Even if a fraction of our people would show some backbone, the sexcops who occupy positions of power in this country would think twice about perverting our children.  I am sure security concerns also encouraged the council to reconsider their curriculum too.  Security. concerns.  Would you show a little muscle to protect your children?  Or is that a politically incorrect question to ask you?

WASHINGTON, April 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – At the same time as praise and gratitude pours into the office of New York’s Cardinal Egan from the pro-life community for his firm statements on the necessity of denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians, all eyes are now turning to Washington’s Archbishop Donald Wuerl who remains evasive after Senator John Kerry and other prominently pro-abortion Catholic politicians were photographed receiving the Eucharist at the Pope’s Mass.

Wuerl has issued a statement saying, “How to respond to those in public office who support abortion legislation is open to various legitimate pastoral approaches.” This is in sharp contrast to a letter sent four years ago by then-Cardinal Ratzinger saying unequivocally that such public figures “must” be refused Holy Communion.

The New York archdiocese issued a statement saying that the former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani had agreed to refrain from reception of Communion at Mass “because of his well-known support of abortion” and Cardinal Egan said he will be seeking a meeting with Giuliani over the issue. The archdiocese informed LifeSiteNews.com that the issue was being brought forward publicly at this time “because it has become a public issue and a public question.”

… 

In the past, Archbishop Wuerl has refused to address the issue of publicly pro-abortion politicians who continue to receive Communion on his episcopal doorstep. Today, in a statement quoted in the New York Times, Wuerl repeated his contradiction of the Pope, saying that there is no absolute ground for refusing Communion.

The statement claimed that Archbishop Wuerl had “consistently and persistently presented the Church’s clear teaching on the evil of abortion and the need for those in public office to recognize that the support of abortion is wrong.”

It then attempted to pass the responsibility on: “The decision concerning the refusal of holy communion to an individual can best be made by the bishop in the person’s home diocese with whom he or she presumably is in conversation.”

But such evasions are not holding water with Catholics who have watched the scandal for years. Philip Lawler, editor of Catholic World News wrote in an editorial that Cardinal Egan’s statement “corrects the record and prevents the further dissemination of a very misleading and damaging perception about Catholic Church teaching and pastoral practice”.

… 

“American Life League’s Crusade for the Defense of Our Catholic Church has been asking American Bishops to enforce Canon 915 since our campaign began in 2003.  We are indeed gratified that Cardinal Egan has seen this as a priority as well.  Protecting Christ from sacrilege is an honor and we applaud Cardinal Egan for making this clear.”

When I visited Archbishop Prendergast about retracting the Winnipeg Statement last November, I told him that the bishops of Canada had to repent.  I said it three times during the meeting. I wanted to say more, much more.

I wanted to tell him frankly that the bishops of Canada have been grossly negligent in their duties to protect the flock and now we are all paying the price in so many ways.  The unborn children have paid the price these past forty years in the most unimaginable way possible.  And every day that goes by, our schools and our freedoms are being eroded  — not just for us but for all Christians and people of good will — because of their pastoral delinquency.

Deliquent fathers.  That’s what most of them are.  Plain and simple.

TORONTO, April 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The ruling by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to force a Christian ministry to the disabled to stop requiring staff to live up to Christian moral standards as a condition of employment threatens the existence of all faith-based charities in Canada. (For more coverage, see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08042512.html) In light of the recent decision, LifeSiteNews.com spoke with the provincial government ministry in charge of such matters and found they showed little willingness or desire to accommodate sincere Christianity in the public sphere.

Raj Dihr, the prosecutor for the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal in the case, explained to LifeSiteNews.com that the Christian ministry in question – Christian Horizons – was not permitted an exemption under the human rights code which would permit it to hire only Christian staff who were willing to live according to fundamental Christian moral precepts.  The reason, he explained, was two-fold.  First, he said, the organization was serving the general public, and not restricting its services to Evangelical Christians, and secondly, in the opinion of the Tribunal (a single adjudicator by the name of Michael Gottheil) adherence to the tenets of Christianity as set out by the Evangelical group was not seen as necessary in fulfilling their services to the public.

… 

Dihr, the Tribunal prosecutor, told LifeSiteNews.com that the decision puts all Christian organizations at risk of facing fines and prosecution from complainants or even the Human Rights Commission itself.  Asked if, based on the ruling, other Christian organizations which stipulated Christian sexual morality for employees could also face fines, Dihr replied, “Yes, I think that’s one danger that organizations face is that if they don’t address these things in a pro-active way, which is what we’d encourage – then there’s always the possibility that an individual or even the commission will file a complaint against them and bring them to the tribunal.”   

It’s good to see the sex police will be slipping on their jackboots to ensure that people of faith conform to the sex codes of the province.  For a moment there, I actually thought we had religious freedom. It’s good to know that, like marriage, freedom is now under the thumb of the sex fools.

Let the persecution begin. 

This must be some kind of joke.

Hey, Warren!

A bit of different packaging doesn’t change what’s inside.

Get it through your head:  Maclean’s doesn’t need to publish anything it doesn’t want to.  Freedom of speech is as much about selecting what you want to print as it is what you choose not to.  Why can’t you figure that out?

I wet myself watching it too but if I link to it or embed it, I’d be sued.

We conservatives must watch our speech in this country right now, lest the speech police slap us with another libel notice.

Still…some silver-balled bloggers have ventured to put it up on their sites.

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory…” — Winston Churchill

Our fathers spilled their blood and died to let us enjoy the fruits of our freedom. Are we so weak, so self-absorbed and ungrateful that we will surrender these rights to this veiled totalitarianism under the guise of so-called “human rights”? Speak out now and get involved while you still can. Don’t be known as the generation that did nothing, stood for nothing and was worth nothing when the time came to stand up for our inalienable right to free speech in the face of such tyranny.

1. Fork over some cash because talk is not cheap in Canuckistan.

NATIONAL POST

 

2. Sign the petition to the politicians:

3. Lend your moral support here:

E-mail me at pacheco377@gmail.com to add prominent names to the list.

	Liberal MP Keith Martin
	Liberal MP Dan McTeague
Ezra Levant	Conservative MP Kevin Sorenson
Rex Murphy	Conservative MP James Rajotte
Catholic Insight Magazine	Conservative MP Bruce Stanton
Catholic Register	Conservative MP Russ Hiebert
Paul Schneidereit (Halifax Chronicle Hearald)	Conservative MP Nina Grewal
Victoria News	Conservative MP Jason Kenney
PEN Canada	Conservative MP Gary Lunn
CDN Association of Journalists	Conservative MP Lee Richardson
Mark Steyn	Liberal MP Andrew Telegdi
Calgary Herald	Liberal MP Paul Szabo
Western Standard Magazine	Conservative MP John Cummins
London Free Press	Conservative MP Rick Dykstra
B’nai Brith Jewish Tribune	Conservative MP Russ Hiebert
Sask Leader-Post	Conservative MP Rob Anders
Deborah Gyapong	Bloc Quebecois MP France Bonsant
Calgary AM770
Globe and Mail
National Post
David Warren
Eye Magazine
Toronto Star
Toronto Sun
The Interim
Sault Ste.Marie – SooToday
Winnipeg Free Press
Oak Bay News

4. Write to your MP and demand the immediate repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act:

 

5. Keep yourself informed. Visit FreeMarkSteyn.com:

 

6. Laugh, Cry, Yell, Be Amused:

 

 

Freedom of Speech Song

 

 

 

“Never give in. Never, never, never, never–in nothing, great or small, large or petty–never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” – Winston Churchill, October 29, 1941

 !!!

 Dear Glenn:

The office of the Honorable Rona Ambrose, MP, has recently forwarded me a copy of your correspondence to her regarding your dealings with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

While I am only aware of the generalities of your specific case with the Tribunal and it would be inappropriate for me to comment without full knowledge of the situation, rest assured that I am in agreement with you that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (as well as similar bodies at the provincial level) has recently overstepped its original mandate and is in need of reform. Its mandate is to protect the human rights of Canadian citizens, not to curtail free speech and impose censorship on an open, democratic society.

I give you my assurance that when motion M-446 comes before the House of Commons it will have my support. Furthermore, the passage of

M-446 in no way prevents the enactment of further legislation to reform human rights bodies in Canada, should the need arise in the future.

Thank you for taking the time to bring this issue to the attention of my colleagues and myself, I hope that my support of M-446 is reassuring to you. Should you have any further questions or concerns please don not hesitate to contact my office.

Yours truly,

James Rajotte, MP

Edmonton-Leduc

http://www.jamesrajotte.com/

Groups and Writers that Support Repeal of Section 13:

Liberal MP Keith Martin Liberal MP Dan McTeague Ezra Levant Rex Murphy Catholic Insight Magazine Catholic Register Paul Schneidereit (Halifax Chronicle Hearald) Victoria News

PEN Canada CDN Association of Journalists Mark Steyn  Calgary Herald Western Standard Magazine London Free Press B’nai Brith Jewish Tribune Sask Leader-Post Deborah Gyapong Calgary A M770

Globe and Mail National Post David Warren (Ottawa Citizen) Eye Magazine (Toronto) Toronto Star Toronto Sun Interim Magazine Sault Ste.Marie – SooToday Winnipeg Free Press Oak Bay News

(Source)

A provincially-funded Christian group violated the rights of a worker who had to quit her job after revealing she was gay, says the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.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.

That policy violates those workers’ basic rights, ruled Michael Gottheil, chair of the tribunal.

Heintz’s case provided an inside look at the practices of Christian Horizons, an evangelical organization that operates more than 180 residential homes in Ontario for people with developmental disabilities.

The agency, which was started by a local couple in 1965, is now the largest of its kind in Ontario. It’s funded almost entirely by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and has a payroll in excess of $63 million, according to Revenue Canada…. (Source)

And the HRC Sex Agenda just keeps rolling on at the expense of the greater society as a whole.  You know, the Catholic Church alone runs 25% of all AIDS hospices around the world.  Suppose all Christian organizations got out of the whole charity shtick because of the Rainbow Sex Dictators, would society be better off? Who would fill in the spots? Certainly not the secularists. Their dying off in droves.  

NOTTINGHAM, April 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – When the Labour government’s Sexual Orientation Regulations were passed last year, the leadership of the Catholic Church in England and Wales warned that the new law would spell the end of Catholic involvement in social service, particularly adoption. Now the first of the UK’s Catholic adoption agencies affected are announcing they will close their doors for good rather than betray religious principles and their guiding principle of the good of the child.

Bishop Malcolm McMahon said his diocese of Nottingham would be cutting ties with the their adoption agency, the Catholic Children’s Society, because of the law that forces them to consider homosexual partners as equally qualified to adopt as people in natural heterosexual relationships.

“We have been coerced into this, I am not happy about it at all,” the bishop told Catholic News Service April 18. “The regulations have coerced the children’s society into going against the church’s teaching, and we don’t wish to do that.”

The Nottingham agency, together with that of the Northampton Catholic diocese, will become a secular institution “with a Christian character” by merging with the adoption agency of the Anglican Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham in October. The parish churches of the diocese will no longer solicit funds to support the agency.

The Nottingham agency was founded in 1948 by the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace and placed 25 children a year with adoptive families.

Contrary to common accusations that Catholics are trying to unjustly discriminate against homosexuals, the Catholic Church holds that its motivation is rather the desire to protect the best interests of children. The Church teaches, according to recent documents from the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, that allowing a child to be adopted by homosexual partners “would actually mean doing violence to these children” by placing them into a situation where their full social and spiritual development would be threatened.

Homosexual partners have had the legal right to adopt children in Britain since 2002. The new law, however, removes the right of Catholic and other Christian agencies to decline to consider homosexuals for adoption.

The move by the Nottingham diocese follows similar decisions made elsewhere in Britain. In the summer of 2007, shortly after the legislation was passed, the Leeds-based Catholic Care, which placed 20 children a year with adoptive families, voted to pull out of adoption services. Bishop Patrick O’Donohue of Lancaster announced at the same time that the Catholic Caring Services, an adoption agency working in Lancashire and Cumbria, will likely close rather than bow to the regulations.

When the legislation passed in 2007, Cormac Cardinal Murphy O’Connor, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, attempted to find a compromise in which Catholic adoption agencies would be exempt. Tony Blair, later to be received into the Catholic Church by the same Cardinal, refused to consider an exemption. Instead Blair offered his own version of a compromise: Catholic agencies had a year to adjust to adopting children to gay partners or close. That deadline comes at the end of this month.

The conflict comes at the same time that local branches of government continue to discriminate against Christians who volunteer to take in foster children. In November 2007, Vincent and Pauline Matherick, a Christian couple who had fostered children for years, were told by their Somerset council that they would no longer be allowed to continue because of their religious objections to homosexuality. They were later reinstated but only after a media furor and notices to the council by a Christian lawyers’ group.

In February this year, it was reported that a Christian couple in Derby, Eunice and Owen Johns, is suing the local council after their application to foster children was refused because of their religious objections to homosexuality. In addition, the Labour-controlled council adoption panel was said to be “upset” that the couple insisted that children in their care would be required to accompany the family to church on Sundays.

In September 2007, an independent investigation revealed that a local council’s fear of being labelled homophobic had allowed a total of 19 boys to be placed with a pair of homosexual child molesters. Despite growing reservations by staff and complaints from the mother of two of the boys, the Wakefield council placed the children into the care of Ian Wathey and Craig Faunch who were convicted in May 2006 of molesting and filming eight-year-old twins and two 14 year-old boys.

Mark Steyn got in his tank and rolled over the CHRC yesterday. You can read his column here.  Here’s how he starts out….

Last week’s letters page included a missive from Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., chief commissioner of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, defending her employees from the accusation of “improper investigative techniques” by yours truly. Steyn, she writes, “provides no substantiation for these claims,” and then concludes:

“Why is this all important? Because words are important. Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be given free rein. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred.”

Hmm. “History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes.” Commissar Lynch provides, as she would say, “no substantiation for these claims.” But then she’s a “hate speech” prosecutor and, as we know, Canada’s “human rights” procedures aren’t subject to tiresome requirements like evidence. So she’s made an argument from authority: the great Queen’s Counsel has risen from her throne in the Star Chamber and pronounced, and let that suffice. Those of us who occupy less exalted positions in the realm might wish to ponder the evidence for her assertions.

It’s true that “hurtful actions that undermine freedom” and lead to “unspeakable crimes” usually have some fig leaf of intellectual justification. For example, the ideology first articulated by Karl Marx has led to the deaths of millions of people around the planet on an unprecedented scale. Yet oddly enough, no matter how many folks are murdered in the name of Marxism-Leninism, you’re still free to propound its principles at every college in Canada. …

Everytime the HRC functionaries offer their baseless and rather comical opinions on why free speech should be shut up, they further damage their quickly eroding credibility.  Jennifer Lynch went after Mark Steyn.  Jennifer Lynch made a mistake.

Jennifer Lynch was also appointed by Stephen Harper.

Jennifer Lynch, Q.C.

Jennifer Lynch, Q.C. was appointed Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in March 2007, at which time she also assumed, on behalf of Canada, the Chair of the International Coordinating Committee (ICC) of National Human Rights Institutions, a United Nations-supported body. Ms. Lynch brings to the Commission an outstanding combination of skills and experience gained over 30 years in law, human rights, organizational conflict competence and corporate governance. Ms. Lynch has served as chief executive officer in both the private and public sectors: leading the international consultancy PDG People Development Global Inc. from 1998 until her appointment as Chief Commissioner; and a federal agency, the RCMP External Review Committee (1992-1998). Ms. Lynch gained her expertise in human rights through quasi-judicial service determining grievance and discipline appeals within the Canadian policing community (1985-1998). She was also a pioneer in women’s rights, at her Ottawa law firm Lynch and Associates and later as a partner of the national law firm, Lang Michener. Ms. Lynch is world renowned for developing the field of organizational conflict competence through the implementation of Integrated Conflict Management Systems (ICMS). The Lynch ICMS Model is the foundation for many of the world’s most advanced ICMS, including the United States Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration, the World Bank, and several Canadian federal departments and agencies. Ms. Lynch is also a respected Alternative Dispute Resolution practitioner, with particular expertise in mediation and the facilitation of complex group processes. Ms. Lynch is an active contributor to the Ottawa community, and is currently an Executive Member of the Board of Governors at the University of Ottawa and chair of two University Pension Plan Committees. Ms. Lynch has been awarded many honours including Queen’s Counsel, the Queen’s Jubilee Medal, and the Ottawa Business Women’s Achievement Award. A graduate of Queen’s University and Osgoode Hall, Ms. Lynch was called to the Bar in Ontario in 1977. (Source)

300 Schools to Close in Ontario because of Birth Rate Crash

By Hilary White

TORONTO, April 24, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Plummeting birth rates have resulted in the closure of over 300 schools in Ontario and half of the province’s school boards have 90,000 fewer students than they did six years ago. 300 schools are slated to be closed in the province simply because there are not enough children to go into them according to a report by People for Education.

“Much of the funding that school boards receive is based on numbers of students,” the report said. “As a result, fewer students equals less funding, fewer programs and, in many cases, closing schools.” The losses in this report are in addition to the 110 school closures in Ontario between 2004 and 2005.

Four years ago, University of Toronto economics professor David Foot called then-record low birth rate the “revenge of the birth control pill.” Foot, the author of 1996′s Boom, Bust and Echo, a book on Canadian demographics, said the widespread use of artificial contraception was responsible for fewer children being born in the 1960s and 1970s. This left fewer women of child-bearing age for the next generation, today’s mothers.

The number of live births for every 1,000 people, plunged by 25.4 per cent between 1993 and 2005. Despite slight increases, Canada’s total fertility rate in 2005 was 1.54 children per woman, an increase of only .01 per cent, but which, nevertheless, is the highest rate since 1998. The latest report from People for Education estimates that there will be 500,000 fewer students in Canada’s schools in the next 10 years.

The Ontario Ministry of Education has predicted that by 2010, total elementary and secondary school enrolment will drop by nearly 100,000 students from 2002 numbers.

Well, when a society has a guttural view of sex, and can’t figure out that having 0.63 kids per couple is going to have incredibly destructive consequences to a society, the above report can hardly be surprising.

The rather remarkable thing about it all is that the “progressives” in our society don’t really dispute the data or where it’s going to lead.  They just demand the right to gut the future and die a horrible death so that the gods of sterile orgasm can have free reign today.  The good news is that the culture of death they prop up will be dying off with them.  The only thing that will be left of them is a bad memory and a lot of venereal diseases.

Educate yourself today and dump the condoms and the pills.

Have real sex.  Have children. Love them. Love your wife. Control your urges. Live a life. Take some responsibility.

Got this message in my inbox today from a fellow blogger: 

One bit of fallout from the HRC thing is that I shut down the comboxes for the Post-Darwinist and the Mindful Hack, and hid existing comments. I did this partly for time management reasons, but in truth I was also worried about the growing reach of hrc’s.  Quite honestly, I have no way of determining what may offend someone I have never met or heard of or what may cause them to feel that they are a subject of “hate.” That’s too bad because I often used the combox to plea for tolerance of opposing views, on difference sides.

Here is the message I posted:

- 0 –

Comments currently disabled

Some readers have written to ask why I disabled the Combox. Two reasons:

1. Time pressure. Interest in both the intelligent design controversy and the mind vs. materialism controversy has exploded. I cannot manage all my current desks nor train people fast enough without cutting back on all non-essential activities.

2. Canada’s current “human rights” regime has created significant difficulties for bloggers with comboxes for which they are responsible. I am one of the people campaigning for reform, but I don’t know when or whether reform will happen. If you want to know more about that kind of thing, go here and here.

If reform happens and I have the time, I will reenable the combox.

- 0 –

Anyway, I plugged some of our blogs. I will plug some of the others too, as opportunity allows.

cheers, Denyse

- 0 -

OTTAWA, ON, April 22, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A legal opinion presented to Conservative MP Ken Epp, who introduced the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill C-484, by Stephen Scott, professor emeritus at McGill University, argues that C-484 is constitutionally valid and could be adopted almost “as is” by the federal government, reports La Presse.

Bill C-484 seeks to make it a separate crime to kill or injure a unborn child in an attack on its mother.

In the opinion Michel Morin, a law professor at the University of Montreal maintains that allegations that the bill was intended to reopen government debate on abortion are unfounded. “The expression ‘unborn child’ used in the bill already appears three times in the Criminal Code. It is nothing new,” he says, referring to the concern expressed by abortion advocates that the proposed bill refers to the fetus as a “child” and not simply as a “fetus”.

Mr. Morin points out that “the bill in no way addresses the issue of legal abortion. Therefore, it is unlikely that the bill will be contested on that issue, much less make it to the Supreme Court.”

“The only thing that might possibly happen, is that a far-fetched legal suit might go forward,” he said. “But the likelihood of that happening is one in a million.”

Professor Scott told La Presse that while he thought the proposed legislation might be used by some to “advance their personal agendas,” he agrees with his colleague at the University of Montreal that the chances of success are slim. “It is too explicit,” Mr. Scott said.

…and there I was thinking this was about abortion. Silly me. I guess I just jumped the gun a bit too soon.

Will you all forgive me?