timeimmortal

And this homosexual activist group, in denouncing the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s unjust ruling against Christian pastor Stephen Boissoin, reflects that idea better than many of us freespeechers have in the past.

On several occasions, I’ve pointed out that the Alberta government’s persecution of a Christian pastor for writing an anti-gay letter to the editor was not supported by EGALE, Canada’s leading gay rights lobby. As former executive director, Gilles Marchildon wrote when the case was still winding its way through the HRC. An excerpt:

While it is difficult to support Boissoin’s right to spew his misguided and vitriolic thoughts, support his right, we must.

If Boissoin was no longer able to share his views, then who might be next in also having their freedom of expression limited. Traditionally, the LGBT community’s freedom has been repressed by society and its laws.

Plus, it is far better that Boissoin expose his views than have them pushed underground. Under the glaring light of public scrutiny, his ideas will most likely wither and die.

In fact, his words may serve to increase public education. By more clearly seeing the ugly face of bigotry and prejudice, the need for teaching tolerance in schools becomes obvious.

I’m impressed with that. It’s a call to civic responsibility. Marchildon doesn’t abide Rev. Boissoin’s comments one bit. But instead of asking the nanny state to protect him, instead of outsourcing his civic duties to some HRC, Marchildon wants to engage in a public debate, and use it as a teaching moment. And, as the title of his article, “Freedom for all means freedom for each” shows, Marchildon knows that if an “offensive” Christian activist is censored today, an offensive gay rights activist can be censored tomorrow.

The HRCs in Canada are basically the put-into-practice version of the anonymous “they” in the old saying that begins “First they came for…” And it’s entirely true that an organ of the state such as a human rights commission in Canada can and will, in due time, turn on those it purports to protect. Already, these supposed defenders of human rights are trampling on human rights, by assailing the freedom of expression of those who put forth opinions that some consider distasteful. But in due course, might those same commissions decide to set aside another right in pursuit of granting, to yet another offended party, some undue form of redress?

BCF writes in a whimsical comment on this article.

Closeted Sharianiks? Hardly I suspect we’ll see the OHRC sponsoring “Sharia Pride Day” this summer.

You know, since a certain former HRC investigator is rumoured to also be a member of EGALE, I wonder if this couldn’t be taken as the redefinition of “backdoor sharia“…

…but I digress. It is an interesting thing to see Islamist elements creeping into a government agency that one would expect would bend over backwards (urgh!) to “protect” “homosexual rights”, given the penchant of Islamists for calling for (or carrying out) the death of homosexuals world-wide. Stranger bedfellows (ack!), I have not seen.

Also, is it even possible to comment on the issue from this angle (crap!) without inadvertently uttering multiple double entendres?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

BCF writes in with what I presume is a comment on this article.

They can’t possibly hope to win this case, can they? They aren an affront to society.

I shall answer in reverse order, O Reader: they are, yes, and yes, they can and do.

That the CHRC is an affront to Canadian society is beyond doubt. When an HRC staffer like Dean Steacy can openly opine, in all seriousness, that he doesn’t put much stock in “an American concept” like freedom of speech, it becomes very obvious that human rights commissions openly spit on the rights of the people of Canada in pursuit of a collection of activist agendas. When EGALE member Richard Warman can abuse the system to the point that a) he is the only plaintiff of note in all Section 13 cases heard by the CHRC so far in this century, and that b) he has won all but one* such case, it becomes very obvious that the HRCs aren’t even about human rights at all.

So yes, they are an affront to society. Or, at least, to a free society. They’d be right at home in Soviet Russia, China, or North Korea.

But can they expect to win their case against Marc Lemire? Of course they can…why shouldn’t they? When both the plaintiff against Marc Lemire and one of the lead investigators of the government agency which is supposed to hear the complaint and, in an ideal world, render a non-biased judgement thereupon, are both engaging in acts of online entrapment to make the charge of racism against Marc Lemire seem more solid, what other outcome can there possibly be?