timeimmortal

It would appear that homosexual activist and anti-Catholic bigot Rob Wells is filing a motion for judicial review of the CHRC’s dismissal of his complaint against Catholic Insight magazine.

I don’t know how far he’ll get with this; if the CHRC decides your complaint doesn’t have merit, you probably don’t have much of a chance in court. But some people are persistent…

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Don’t get me wrong — I’m glad that the Calgary imam who filed a human rights complaint against Ezra Levant has swung his opinion ’round and set it against the HRCs, more or less.

But he still doesn’t get it entirely.

“Is it safe to say you miscalculated the public response?”

Syed:

It was not a miscalculation. I honestly believed at the time that, in Canada, if you felt offended by something that had been said about your religion or identity, this was the way you resolved the issue.

Incredible. 99% of Canadians had never even heard of the HRCs before he brought his complaint against Levant, and most still don’t know what they are. But Syed knew all about them. So where did he get this wacky idea?

Based on what I’d seen in the media and read on the internet, I thought this was a process that brought the parties together to set things right. I had seen, for example, that other groups, including members of the homosexual community, had done it.

Well, thanks again, gay activists, for your absolutely fabulous contributions to Canadian life! This is right up there with amyl nitrate and French bulldogs.

Yeah, gay activists‘ complaints against Christians who dare to publically express their Christian beliefs has brought people together all right — now more straight people hate gays than they did before! Brilliant…

And congratulations to an orthodox Muslim imam for taking a page from the gay agenda manual. I’m sure your co-religionists will be thrilled to learn who inspired you. Will Syed be the token “righteous straight dude” grand marshall at the next Pride Parade?

What a country. Syed, your Order of Canada is on its way.

…

Anyway, Syed’s newfound objections to the HRCs has more to do with this kind of elitist snobbery than with Enlightenment principles. He tells Maclean’s:

Basically, it’s a bunch of bureaucrats: some of them are lawyers, but for the most part these are people without a great deal of legal training. They have neither the ability or [sic] the means to deal with these sorts of issues.

And make no mistake — Syed wants “these issues” “dealt with”. Hooooo yeah.

I’ve never been a fan of the old saying “enemy of my enemy is my friend” — I’ve always preferred http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20030929.html”>”enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy” myself — and I’m willing to grant that imam Soharwardy is a fair-weather ally at best. It’s good that he’s swung around to set his opinion against the human rights commissions, but it would seem that his transformation is only one of self-interest.

And self-interest is a fickle sail indeed with which to run any ship.

David Cameron’s remarks aside, not all is well in Britain. This may just be the most insane thing I’ve ever heard, and it doesn’t even have anything to do with Islam!

A council has been accused of discriminating against homosexuals over plans to clear undergrowth from a notorious gay cruising spot.

Bristol City Council wants to prune bushes and remove cover from an area known as the Downs to improve the landscape and encourage rare wildlife.

But its own gay rights group has opposed the move, claiming that cutting back the bushes was “discriminating” to homosexual men who used the area for late night outdoor sex known as dogging.

To which, I think, the best comment that can be made is:

…it would be a THREAT TO GAY RIGHTS if you made it harder for them to bone each other where children may come across them. I just don’t think I’ve ever beheld a more perfected set of priorities in my entire stupid bigoted American life.

Lawn and garden maintenance is now an anti-homosexual hate crime in England. It is more important that gay couples be provided with underbrush in which to hide their late-night sexual antics than it is for a town council to arrange for someone to trim the verge on public property.

Some things are just to absurd to be fiction. This one is totally going in the “Asteroid Overdue” category.

Update: Ace sums it up rather well: “Britain is the Florida of Europe.”

As much as I realize that Vox Day is being facetious, I feel that I should point out that it’s highly unlikely that Richard Dawkins would ever be hauled before a human rights commission in Canada. Not because he is a foreign national — I’ve no doubt that the commission wouldn’t hesitate to prosecute a case against someone simply because they aren’t a Canadian citizen (I’m half-tempted to file a complaint against Dick Cheney to test this theory) if in fact it fit their agenda — but because, well, it wouldn’t fit their agenda to go after a noted scholar of atheism, especially on behalf of disaffected Christians.

I wonder how long it will be before someone in Canuckistan reports Richard Dawkins to one of these human rights commissions; he has almost surely made far more disparaging remarks about Jews, Christians, and Muslims than Stephen Boissoin ever made about homosexuals or Mark Steyn ever made about Muslims. The whole thing is appalling to anyone who supports human freedom, of course, but it would be extremely ironic to see Dawkins forced to publicly apologize “for his views on Judaism” and refrain from disparaging the religious faithful by a godless secular organization. Perhaps then he might see that connection between atheism and totalitarianism that he just hasn’t been able to locate yet.

The Jewish angle seems more workable, but I still doubt the prospects of succcess; I honestly can’t see such a radical, left-wing organ of the Canadian state as the CHRC (or any provincial HRC, come to think of it) going after a modern champion of secular thought.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

All those atheists who assert that raising a child as a Christian is tantamount to child abuse should be salivating over this court case:

A ruling from the Virginia Supreme Court, if it goes the wrong way, could yank a 6-year-old girl from the Christian home her mother has created and set her up to be “paraded as a political trophy of the homosexual community in Vermont,” according to a lawyer who argued the case before the court today.

…

Among the precedents developing in the case is whether one state can force another to recognize its “same-sex” arrangements or whether states’ sovereignty will prevail. Also at issue is the acceptance as valid Christian values parents use to raise children.

“That’s true. Janet Jenkins, in court documents in Vermont, argued because [Lisa Miller] prays for her daughter and her well-being, and even prays for Janet, that in fact that is not in the best interests of Isabella. She [Jenkins] says because Lisa prays for her daughter, and tells her she’s praying to do God’s will, Janet has taken the position that … Christianity is harmful to children,” Staver told WND.

I guess we’ll get to see where American courts really stand on the issue of freedom of religion, won’t we?

And pace what I asked Joel earlier, here we have yet another example of a non-Christian (the article doesn’t say, but I for one am relatively certain that Janet Jenkins is secular) attempting to deny a Christian a fundamental human right — the right to worship. Whither the Constitution?

Update: Welcome, Steynians! Binks is absolutely right; people who share Richard Dawkins‘ thinking are probably salivating over this case.