Gomery "Biased"

I first heard this on the radio yesterday. Apparently, Judge Max Teitelbaum has ruled that Judge Gomery was "seduced by the media" and showed an apparent bias before the proceedings had even begun.
[Gomery] became preoccupied with ensuring that the spotlight remained on the commission's inquiry and he went to great lengths to ensure the public's interest in the commission did not wane,"

As though public interest in where their tax dollars went was a bad thing.
What can I say? I think Teitelbaum is wrong and I am very disappointed with this ruling. It exonerates Chretian and the Liberals, as though they never did anything wrong.
What happened to all our tax money then?
Did it just grow legs and walk away?


The United Church: In Trouble

When I woke up this morning to the radio, I thought I heard the broadcaster talking about the United Church of Canada.
Sure enough, I did.
Reverend Connie denBok says to sum up what is wrong with the United Church of Canada, one need look no further than the name of the panel discussion being held tonight in Toronto.
"Shouldn't the United Church Just Throw in the Towel?" is the opening event of a four-day Church-sponsored conference that will look at the future of the country's largest Protestant denomination.

I don't agree with women minister's generally speaking. However, denBok is right on the money.
[denBok] points to Gretta Vosper, a fellow minister who recently wrote a book called With Or Without God, as a prime example of what is wrong. Ms. Vosper, who disdains the title Reverend, said she does not believe in anything remotely Christian, let alone anything religious: not God, not the divinity of Jesus, nor the sacraments or the centrality of the Bible in Church life.
"I cannot really fathom with integrity why she works within the broad spectrum of United Church theology and practice," Rev. denBok said. "But I think Gretta is simply the visible symptom of much deeper malaise."
Rev. denBok said the leadership sets the tone for the kind of theological training that is taught in seminaries, and the result has been a disaster.

Some time ago I sent an email to the local radio station about this very thing. The discussion was on religion and the fact that three United Church congregations in my area have shrunk to such a degree that they are now being amalgamated into one. Here is the letter I wrote at the time:
I am an ardent church-goer and have been my entire life. Both my family and my husband's family are regular attenders. My parents attend a Pentecostal church, his parents attend a Free Reformed church and we attend a United Reformed church (similar to the Free Reform). However, your question regarding the role of church in one's life misses the point. It's not about church attendance but about God and our obedience to Him. We don't just "do church." Our walk encompasses our entire life. We desire to do His will... no easy thing in an age where religion (especially Christianity) is scorned. We aren't just Christians on Sundays, Easter and Christmas. We are to live our lives in a godly way throughout the week. Church attendance provides no benefit whatsoever if one's religion is not put into practice throughout the week. It doesn't make you a better person or less of a sinner. It just becomes something to fill a Sunday.
It's not a social group for peer support.
We attend out of obedience and love for God. We desire to hear His Word (which comes through preaching). We desire to meet and fellowship with our fellow Christians and we are spiritually fed so that we are strong (again, spiritually) for the coming week.
It is no surprise to me that membership of the United Church is in decline. The United Church abandoned preaching the truth a long time ago. As such, God does not bless their efforts. Only churches that preach the truth and are faithful to the Bible experience growth.

(You should have heard the guy read it. I nearly died! He had "that tone." You know, the one that says "I can't believe you said that." He prefaced my comment with "And listen to what she says at the end..." followed by a few seconds of silence after he finished.)
Note what denBok says:
Rev. denBok... said the United Church has moved from being a Christ-centred body to become a "government-sponsored social club" in which all classic Christian doctrines are open to question...
"If we had a medical school that kept turning out graduates who consistently killed their patients, would we not ask some questions about the education?"...
[She] is not expecting a warm reception tonight but feels it is important that someone raise the question on which she believes the entire future of the Church turns.
"We have a huge number of deeply demoralized clergy, congregations dwindling and dying, and either we say, 'Gosh, we've hit a dead end and should consider changing direction,' or we say, 'Our direction has been a good and righteous one and we're not getting anywhere with it and we should shut the whole organization down."

I almost wish I was attending.
It ought to be a fiery night.

Parenting Outlawed! Also coming to a Country near You!

It's not law yet, but what a disaster for the parents in this country if it ever becomes law.

A bill that would expose parents to criminal prosecution for spanking their children has cleared the Senate, bound to reopen wounds still sore from a Supreme Court ruling four years ago.
Sponsored by Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette, the bill passed final reading in the Senate on Tuesday night.
Approval in the upper house followed debate and three days' of committee hearings at which criminal defence lawyers and the Canadian Bar Association argued against the criminalizing impact it could have on parents, as well as teachers and caregivers.
Hervieux-Payette, however, was backed by the children's-rights group that lost the Supreme Court challenge against a provision allowing parents and teachers to strike children for "corrective discipline.'' She said that if the Commons does not pass the bill she will continue to reintroduce it until it becomes law.

In other words, Hervieux-Payette has no regard for democratic process. She doesn't care what parents in this country feel is best for their families. She believes she knows best, and we should all abide by her judgement.
How very Liberal.
And, by the way, Senators are not elected. This woman was appointed at some point. She doesn't speak for anyone but herself, yet she feels she can impose her views of family and parenting onto the entire country.
Again, how very Liberal.
If there was ever an argument for electing Senator's, this is it.
"What I'm saying is every citizen in this country will have their physical integrity preserved," she said in an interview Wednesday, adding she believes she will get the support of party Leader Stephane Dion to pass the bill if the Liberals form a majority government after the next federal election.

Which they won't.
Don't even bother hoping. Dion will never win, especially not a majority.
But even Hervieux-Payette's own caucus is divided over the legislation, which the Liberal Senate majority passed over Conservative objections with no recorded vote.

Read that again.

How does a bill "pass" when there is no vote, but some people still have objections? Pardon my thinking this was a democracy.
The bill proposes to eliminate Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which says any parent, schoolteacher or a person standing in the place of a parent "is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child'' over age two and under age 13 "if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances."
In a split decision, the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that the provision "adversely affects" security of the person for children who would be protected by the Charter of Rights, but only to a limited extent that does not offend fundamental principles of justice.
The majority judgment also rejected arguments that spanking and striking children was "cruel and unusual punishment" and cited safeguards in other Criminal Code sections against abusive or harmful conduct against children.
In response to concerns from the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, Hervieux-Payette modified the bill before final reading to allow "reasonable force other than corporal punishment" to prevent children from harming themselves or other children and from engaging in conduct that would be criminal or "excessively" offensive or disruptive.
That would allow parents and caregivers "to interfere, but they cannot hit them or spank them," Hervieux-Payette said.

So that allows a parent what?
"No, Johnny. We don't do that."
Even before the bill reached the Commons, set to adjourn for the summer, MPs were split.
"I'm a traditionalist," said Conservative MP Daryl Kramp, once an Ontario Provincial Police officer. "I believe that parents should be able to make the decision best for their own family."

And Kramp is right.
The government can barely run itself. It has no business whatsoever dictating how a parent may or may not run their home, how a parent may or may not discipline their child.
Calgary Conservative MP Art Hanger, another former police officer agreed, saying "I believe the status quo is very acceptable."
Liberal whip Karen Redman was conflicted, saying she understood the need to protect children from physical abuse, but also that she believes physical force is sometimes necessary.

And she is totally right.
There is a huge difference between spanking and abuse.
"When I think back, when my children were little, there were times when you smacked them on the bum, but it was a diapered bum and it was as much to get their attention," she said.
Both Kramp and Hervieux-Payette recalled being spanked when they were children, each now staking out a different position on the value of the experience.
"I think it was only once, but I remember it very well,'' said Kramp, who added he could not recall why his father disciplined him but "I learned that when my father said no, he meant no."
Hervieux-Payette, who acknowledged having struck her own daughter once on the arm...

So, in other words, thsi woman is a total hypocrite!
Don't miss that folks! What's good for us was not good for her. She feels the need to impose a mode of behaviour that she did not even adhere to herself.
...said her father spanked her when she was just over the age of two for following a church band for two kilometres in the family's small Quebec village.
"You build a certain fear, in that case it was my father, and certainly it's breaking something between you, even if they tell you that they love you.

Grow up!
You are obviously doing very well in life, Senator. Your father kept you in line and out of trouble. You were well-educated, cared for and taught how to be a relatively upstanding citizen. Maybe you ought to be grateful that your parents did discipline you. Maybe the reason you are doing so well is, dare I say it, because you were disciplined.
The head of the Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, which mounted the Supreme Court challenge against Section 43, argued children should have the same right to protection from physical violence as parents.
"There is a simple, fundamental dignity issue that would say children should be treated as people who are entitled to be free from assault, the same as anyone else,'' said Martha Mackinnon, the foundation's executive director.

Children are already protected from physical violence under the law.
Child abuse is, already, a crime under the law.
Spanking is not violence, neither is it a criminal act (nor should it become one) and it is not child abuse. It is also not assault.
Beating your kid? Now that's a crime! Breaking bones, leaving bruises, neglecting them, starving them, those are all crimes. They are not disciplinary or punitive in nature. Parents who do genuinely beat their kids have something wrong with them. They are not concerned about their kids well-being, and they don't do it as a method of behaviour modification. They do it because they can.
Parents who spank their children have an entirely different motivation, however. Parents who spank their kids are concerned about teaching their kids right from wrong. They are concerned about protecting them from either immediate or future harm. Small children simply do not have the capability to rationalize or think about the potential impact of their actions. As such, logical arguments and repetitive "no's" don't work. A parent must be able to take immediate action. Furthermore, children who are not given proper boundaries simply do not develop properly, be it socially or mentally. Children have to be taught, at a very young age when their brains can absorb the most, how they must behave.
But let's give a practical example, just to highlight what this law means for the common person.
If your child is about to touch the hot stove, such a law would make it illegal to smack their hand.
If your child is about to grab a glass jam jar off the shelf in the grocery store, sending it shattering into a thousand sticky pieces, such a law would make it illegal to smack their hand.
If your child is about to run across the road into oncoming traffic, such a law would make it illegal to smack their bum. But hey, death is ok, right?
If your small child is about to put a stone in their mouth, run off a dock into the lake, grab a nail (rusty or otherwise), walk on a balcony rail, eat a fish hook, climb a tractor, shove a pencil up their nose, hurl a teacup, pick up dog poop or a dead animal, stick their finger in a socket, attempt to drink bleach, grab a set mousetrap, bite their sibling, steal someone's toys, toboggan down flight of stairs holding their baby brother on their lap, you, their parent, will not be allowed to smack either their hand or their bum under this law, which was proposed by one Liberal Senator and not voted on.
And if you are reading that list thinking "But kids don't do those things," it's because you aren't a parent.
Those of you who are parents, are probably laughing, thinking "So it's not just mine!"
If this law is introduce to Parliament, and I will be watching for it, I would strongly urge all parents to immediately contact their MP.

Parental Concern Outlawed! Coming to a Country near You!

What is wrong with people, specifically judges in this country?!?
...A judge in Gatineau, Que., sided with a 12-year-old girl who challenged her father after he refused to let her go on a school trip for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet.

First of all, what is a judge doing even hearing a complaint like this? The girl is 12 years old. Her father punished her for disobedience. That is a perfectly normal thing in this country.
But get a load of what the girl actually did!
The father... cut off her Internet access after she chatted on websites he had tried to block. She then used a friend's Internet connection to post inappropriate pictures of herself...

She post inappropriate pictures of herself.
In other words, this girl is a twelve year old tramp, placing herself in harms way where she is likely to lure predators.
Instead of recognizing that the father in question was trying to protect his daughter from potential harm this moron of a judge decides:
...that denying the trip was unduly severe punishment.

What in the world?!??!!?
This girl could be attracting pedophiles.
She is willfully placing herself in harms way by posting sexual pictures of herself... to say nothing at all of her immodesty and general bad behaviour.
Instead of doing what a judge is supposed to do, that is rule in such a way that the weak and vulnerable are protected, he actually takes her side, says "Daddy is a big meanie. Go ahead and be a tramp. Go ahead and lure those pedophiles."
I feel very sorry for this father.
He has obviously tried to do the right thing and has had a tough time of it.


Good for the Red Deer Advocate!!

Part of Lori Andreachuk's "remedy" for Boissoin was
- That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint.
- That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall request the Red Deer Advocate publish a copy this Order in the Red Deer Advocate and that they request their written apology for the contravention of the Act be published in the Red Deer Advocate.

This order was undoubtedly a colossal mistake, and a mistake I neglected to comment on in my first review of the judgement. Essentially, Andreachuk wants the Red Deer Advocate to publish Boissoin's "apology," which he won't be making in any case.
The Red Deer Advocate is insulted... and rightfully so, I might add.
Behold! the response from their managing editor.
A lot of folks in Alberta and beyond are feeling bruised and abused by the Alberta human rights commission’s conduct in dealing with a letter to the editor that was published on this page six years ago today.
We at the Advocate are among them.
We have had our eyes opened to some state-sanctioned ugliness.
The letter, by a local pastor, expressed love and compassion for some homosexuals, while decrying the activist homosexual agenda of some educators, MPs, judges (and possibly, though not specifically mentioned, Advocate editorialists who have long supported gay rights.)
Stephen Boissoin’s letter promoted a flurry of responses, pro and con, in our pages and two complaints to the Alberta human rights commission against the Advocate.
Both complaints were successfully resolved with no finding of fault, no Advocate admission of wrongdoing, no promise to act any differently in the future.
Darren Lund, a former Red Deer high school teacher now at the University of Calgary, also lodged a complaint against Boissoin. That led to a lengthy, dispiriting process that culminated at the end of May with the rights commission ordering Boissoin:

- to pay two people whom the commission acknowledges were not direct victims of his words — $5,000 to Lund for ridicule and harassment and up to $2,000 to a witness;
- to apologize in writing to Lund;
- to ask that the Advocate publish his letter of apology and the commission’s seven-page Decision on Remedy.

Boissoin has no intention of apologizing, as he makes clear in a letter on this page.
The galling presumption of the rights commission to subvert a newspaper’s own judgments over whether, when or where it should publish coerced opinions offers a window into its dangerous thinking. [emphasis mine]
The commission has its own website where it can readily publish any and all of its documents. Curiously though, more than two weeks after its Decision on Remedy was handed down, that ruling was not posted.
The more fundamental and serious defects of the rights commission surround its flawed processes that can lead to repressive and dangerous fallout.
Canada has criminal laws against libel and expressing hatred. Those laws are applied in courts, after police investigations and careful review by skilled prosecutors.
They are argued by lawyers before a judge, in a legal framework with rules of evidence that protect all sides.
The Alberta human rights commission, and others like it across the country, lack these tested and protective structures.
But their findings have the force of law.
The effects of how their processes are applied and findings are enforced endanger free speech and liberty.
The rights commission judged that Boissoin’s words "likely" exposed homosexuals to hatred or contempt. That’s a judgment based on scant evidence and a warped reading of Boissoin’s comments. It was arrived at by ignoring some of Boissoin’s phrases and misinterpreting others.
Lund suggested and the rights commission agreed that "militaristic language" was an invitation to physically assault gays.
But Boissoin used the kind of language that’s an everyday occurrence in political and sporting discourse, and in every time parishioners sing "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war."
It is precisely the kind of language that the saintly Nelson Mandela used in trying to rally Africans to fight the scourge of AIDS.
"There is a need for us to be focused, to be strategic and to sustain the effort until the war is won," Mandala said. "We need... African resolve to fight this war."
Any reasonably sophisticated reader can understand the difference between literal and figurative language. Based on the evidence before us, however, that distinction was lost on the rights commission.
Now, the rights of Albertans to publicly express views that they honestly believe are being constrained not by criminal law, but by fear of being hauled before a rights commission and the certainty of accumulating massive legal bills to defend themselves.
More egregiously, the rights commission not only wants to censure hateful speech (a laudable goal), but to pre-emptively deny some Albertans the right to express their legitimate views on certain topics.
The commission forbids Boissoin from writing "disparaging remarks" about gays — a phrase that has dubious legal weight — and forbids him, in advance, from writing critically about Lund’s involvement in this case.
This is called prior restraint. It’s an abomination in any free and democratic society.
But it’s what Lund sought and what the misguided rights commission has agreed to order.

Joe McLaughlin is Advocate managing editor.

Joe McLaughlin, I salute you!
Consider what would happen if any state body were able to force a newspaper to print something. Consider what would happen if any state body could force a citizen to apologize (and don't miss this! That's exactly what Andreachuk has done). Now combine the two together, a state body which can not only force someone to apologize, but can force any newspaper, radio show, television program, a media outlet of any variety, to aired said forced apology.
What would happen to individuals who refuse to apologize or media outlets who refuse to comply?
Would we still recognize Canada at the end of the day?


A Response to my Letter


When a Christian steps in the public and political arena, the last thing we want to do is to sound like evangelists all of the time spouting scripture in every sentence...

The last thing?
Then how does one explain the responses of people like Peter, Stephen and Paul, whose primary weapon was Scripture?

When David was swinging his sword he wasn't evangelizing at the same time.

This is simply wrong.
When David went out to fight Goliath, the first thing he said was "You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the LORD will hand you over to me" (1 Samuel 17, 45,46)
Scriptural declarations of judgment are still evangelical. They just happen to be on the flip side. As Paul says, we are the aroma of life to one but the stench of death to another. (2 Cor. 2:16)

Just to protect myself, let me clarify that the only sword that I will be swinging in regards to the soci-political battle against the gay agenda is my tongue.

Wrong sword. Ephesians 6:17
As Christians, we really need to understand that this issue is not socio-political. True, there are societal and political aspects to homosexual activism. I could never deny this; it's obvious. How else could EGALE exist? But these are symptoms, not the cause. The issue, as with any sin, is primarily spiritual. As such, we have only one weapon and only one set of armor and neither are of man's design.
Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. (Eph. 6: 14-19)

There are seasons for everything.....

Which is why it's a good thing Paul said to Timothy "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season..." (2 Tim 4:2) Otherwise, we'd wait for a "relaxing" moment or the perfect season to share Christ's message of salvation, and the Word would never be preached.


To Rev. Boisson

Today I read your letter to the Red Deer Advocate for the first time.
I have to say, I was actually disappointed. I was expecting something completely different, especially given that you are a minister and you work with troubled kids.
Where is God in this letter? You say He stands with you, but the only person you quoted is Edmund Burke! Big deal that is!
Where's the call to true holiness? (And no, moral living is not the same as holiness. Anyone can be moral. Only the regenerate can be holy.) Freedom from sin in Christ? The pronouncement of grace? Scripture? As a minister, you ought to know well that a Christian's first line of defense is not mere words, but the Word! He has given us wisdom that no adversary can resist (Luke 21:15) and yet it does not appear anywhere in your letter.
The Christian's responsibility is to first preach the law which convicts of sin, and then preach the gospel, which is the grace offered us in Christ. You did not provide your readers with a spiritual context. You simply talked about an agenda. Many Christians like to talk about a homosexual agenda. What they neglect to mention is that, according to Scripture, homosexuality is a sin. If they do call it a sin, they don't explain what that actually means. Sin is not just those things we do. It is something fundamentally wrong with us that causes separation from God. Sin stains our entire character and ruins every relationship. A clear recognition of this fact seems to be generally lacking in your letter.
Allow me to explain.
You call on the average individual to "take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness." You ask for the impossible. Surely you must know that such a reversal can only be done by God and not by the average individual, who is utterly incapable of such a thing. Where is the recognition that the average individual is just as lost in their sin as any homosexual and will by no means pray unless God revives their hearts? (Rom 1:18-31, Eph 2:8,9) Heterosexuals who don't know Christ are not more holy just because they aren't gay. Far from it! They just happen to be sinning in other ways. Furthermore, God only heals our land when we humble ourselves, repent and pray (2 Chron 7: 14). Yet where is the call to prayer? Repentance features nowhere in your letter!
Odd thing that, since you are speaking out against a sin.
As you rightly mention in your letter, there are some ministers who say that sexual sin (of any stripe) is fully compatible with God's Word. It is incumbent on us, the good seed (Gen 3:15, Matt 13), to expose this lie. The only way to do that is with Scripture. You cannot simply stack up your word against someone else's and hope everyone buys it. You have to prove it Scripturally (which you didn't do) and wait for God to do the rest through His Holy Spirit.
Having said all this, however, please note that I still think the Alberta Human Rights Commission is wrong. I hope the decision is appealed and over-turned. It is also my prayer that God can use this situation to bring in more of His elect, to His greater glory.

Boisson's Letter to the Red Deer Advocate

Thank you Ezra Levant (again).
I have been trying to find a copy of the letter that started the whole business with Boisson. Here is what he wrote:
Homosexual Agenda Wicked

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.
Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.
My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term "morality."
The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, "I'm just not sure where the truth lies," or "If they don't affect me then I don't care what they do," abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.
Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.
Edmund Burke's observation that, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.
Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, 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.
Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.
Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?
Come on people, wake up! It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.
Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn't rooted in protecting homosexuals from "gay bashing." The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.
Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.
The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.
If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It's time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.

Rev. Stephen Boissoin

I have to be totally honest.
This is not what I was expecting at all... especially from a minister. I was expecting something more like a letter Pure Life would put together.


Income Splitting

This just in from Sara:
Tim Hudak Ontario MPP has introduced Bill 88!...
Bill 88 will be debated on Thursday June 12th at Queens Park....

The text of the bill is available at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario website.
Bill 88 2008
An Act to provide fairness for families by amending the Taxation Act, 2007 to allow income splitting for taxation between cohabiting spouses and common-law partners
Note: This Act amends the Taxation Act, 2007 . For the legislative history of the Act, see the Table of Consolidated Public Statutes - Detailed Legislative History on www.e-Laws.gov.on.ca.

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

1. Subsection 1 (1) of the Taxation Act, 2007 is amended by adding the following definitions:

"cohabiting spouse or common-law partner" has the same meaning as in section 122.6 of the Federal Act; ("conjoint ou conjoint de fait visé")

"individual taxpayer ratio" means, in respect of an individual who has filed a joint election described in section 4.1 for any part of a taxation year, the ratio of the part of the year during which the individual was not a cohabiting spouse or common-law partner to the whole of the year; ("coefficient de déclaration individuelle")

"joint taxpayer ratio" means, in respect of an individual who has filed a joint election described in section 4.1 for any part of a taxation year, the ratio of the part of the year for which the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner filed the election to the whole of the year; ("coefficient de déclaration conjointe")

2. Subsection 4 (3) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:

Tax payable

(3) The tax payable under this Part for a taxation year by an individual who has not filed a joint election described in section 4.1 for any part of the year is the sum of,

(a) the individual's tax payable under Division B for the year; and

(b) the individual's tax payable under Division C for the year.

Same, joint return

(4) The tax payable under this Part for a taxation year by an individual who has filed a joint election described in section 4.1 for any part of the year is the sum of,

(a) the individual's tax payable under Divisions B and C for the year multiplied by the individual taxpayer ratio; and

(b) the tax payable under Divisions B and C for the year on a joint return described in section 4.1 multiplied by the joint taxpayer ratio.

3. Division A of Part II of the Act is amended by adding the following section:

Election for joint return

4.1 (1) An individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner who are both resident in Canada for the whole of a taxation year may jointly elect to file a joint return under section 111 for the part of the year during which they were cohabiting spouses or common-law partners of each other, instead of each being required to file an individual return under that section.

Joint election

(2) To make the election described in subsection (1), the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner shall file a joint election in the form prescribed by the Minister of Finance in the joint return, providing details about the number of days during the year during which the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner were cohabiting spouses or common-law partners of each other.

False declaration

(3) A joint election filed under subsection (2) is invalid if the Minister establishes that any individual has knowingly or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence made a false declaration in the election.

Tax payable

(4) The tax payable under Divisions B and C for the year on a joint return described in subsection (1) shall be the tax payable under those Divisions by reading,

(a) references to an individual as references to both the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner;

(b) references to the individual's tax base and taxable income for the taxation year as references to one-half of the aggregate of the taxable income of the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner for the year; and

(c) references to the individual's income for the taxation year as references to one-half of the aggregate of the income of the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner for the year.

4. Subsection 9 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out the portion before the formula and substituting the following:

Tax credit for spouse or common-law partner

(3) If an individual is entitled to a deduction under paragraph 118 (1) (a) of the Federal Act for a taxation year and if the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner have not filed a joint election described in section 4.1 for the year, the individual is entitled to a tax credit for the year for a spouse or common-law partner calculated using the formula,

. . . . .


5. This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.

Short title

6. The short title of this Act is the Fairness for Families Act, 2008 .


The Bill amends the Taxation Act, 2007 to allow individuals who are married or who have a common-law partner in a taxation year that ends on or after December 31, 2009 to file a joint income tax return with their spouse or common-law partner for the part of the year during which they cohabit with their spouse or common-law partner. To file a joint income tax return in that way, both individuals are required to file a joint election to that effect in the joint income tax return.

If you support this bill, contact your MPP right away. It will be debated tomorrow.

Rights Tribunal "Unfairly" Criticized

Thus spake Donald Crane of the Vancouver Sun.
A few facts are in order.

Or so he tells us.
First, the tribunal does not seek out victims on which to impose its view of moral rectitude...

Then how does one explain the ongoing criminal investigation by the RCMP which involves allegations of entrapment and Internet identity theft? As a lawyer, Mr. Crane ought to know well that entrapment does involve a certain level of "seeking out."
It simply does what the legislature has required it to do which is to receive and adjudicate complaints under the Human Rights Code.

What a spin this is!
The CHRC was never intended to deal with the type of complaints it currently handles. The CHRC was intended to deal with low level complaints in order to free up the court system. It was not intended to deal with "hate crimes" or "exposure to hate" or "thought crimes" or "hateful intentions" as it now does.
Anyone who doubts the need for such restrictions should review the large body of human rights cases

Indeed, they should.
Unfortunately, intelligent individuals will come to the very opposite conclusion of our good Mr. Crane. A thorough review of recent human "rights" cases will reveal that due process of law is frequently ignored, complainants do not even have to show up in order to win their case, there need be no victim in order for there to even be a case, the CHRC frequently far over-steps the boundaries laid out for it, and there is now, apparently, such a thing as a thought crime in Canada. Furthermore, an intelligent individual will find that not only is truth not a defense, but neither is freedom of conscience or religious expression. Such things are merely a "guise" for intended hate.
Under our code, and under the circumstances of this complaint, the tribunal had no choice but to give all parties a fair opportunity to be heard...

A fair opportunity? Then why was council for the defense forbidden to ask about the complainants political views? Said views are highly relevant to the case at hand, especially since certain elements within the CIC have called for the annihilation of Israel and have declared any Israeli adult a viable target for terrorist attacks.
There is, however, nothing in the process that warrants the vitriolic attacks against the tribunal which have appeared in the press.

The Human Rights Tribunal, in every province, is not only worthy of so-called "vitriolic attack," but of severe scrutiny down to the very last bureaucratic detail.
Mr. Crane, if you are so certain that the HRC operates within its mandate and has never done anything worthy of criticism, then why don't you go and dig up every case ever examined? I would like to know their conviction rate... and don't tell me they don't convict. That they view their sentences as remedial and not punitive is of no account. The HRC punishes the wallets of hard working, middle class Canadians who do no more than stand up for their religious views. How many cases are dismissed? How many people are found not guilty? How many people are forced to pay out, and to what amount?
Ironically, I found the above piece when I was looking for a story on the RCMP investigation of the CHRC. Such a piece has yet to appear.
And Crane complaints about media vitriol against the tribunal.


Harm no one? That'll be $7000 please

I found this interesting tidbit on the case of Rev. Boisson. Here are the relevant ruling and remedy.
Pay close attention to what you read.
Paragraph 10 of the "remedy" states:
In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward seeking redress by the contravention of the Act by Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.

Read that again.
There is no victim in this case.
I would like to know how there is even a case without a victim.
Now, flip over to the ruling, paragraph 357.
Having considered the Charter and the balancing of the freedoms set out in the Charter, I have interpreted the Act in a manner which respected the broad protection granted to religious freedom.

Really? Then how is the very next statement even possible?
However, I have found that this protection does not trump the protection afforded under the Alberta human rights legislation in s. 3. to protection against hatred and contempt. I also take the view that s.3(2) required a balancing of these freedoms afforded to individuals under the Charter, with the prohibitions in s. 3(1) of the Act. In this case, the publication’s exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter. It cannot be the case that any speech wrapped in the 'guise' of politics or religion is beyond reproach by any legislation but the Criminal Code.

So, religious motivation for a comment is merely a "guise" for hate. Potential "exposure" to hate (note that this means that the comment does not have to be hateful itself) trumps freedom of religious expression.
Now, I ask you, how does this provide a "broad" protection for religious freedom?
Andreachuk finds, for herself, in paragraph 355 of her ruling that
I do not find that the province, through this legislation, is attempting to reach beyond its mandate.

This is a curious thing, to find oneself not reaching beyond one's mandate. Surely this ought to be done by an outside, objective observer. In any case, if she is not reaching beyond her mandate, how was the finding of paragraph 354 possible?
While the evidence of the beating of the gay man two weeks after the publication of the letter was indirect, I find in addition, that there was sufficient nexus to conclude circumstantially, that the two matters may be connected.

So, any connection was merely circumstantial. Furthermore, as I already commented, Andreachuk admits in her "remedy" that there is no victim. So, how is she not reaching beyond her mandate if there is, technically speaking, no case? How can you have a case without a victim? Better yet, look at the "evidence" she accepts (also in paragraph 354):
I also accept the evidence of Dr. Alderson, who reported that in reading Mr. Boissoin’s letter, it caused a surge of personal fear in himself and that he had talked to hundreds of people in the gay community about Mr. Boissoin’s letter and all were horrified and fearful...

Where these "hundreds" of gays subpoenaed to appear before the commission? Did she hear the testimony of "hundreds" of gays who felt fearful as the result of a letter to an editor?
I also like this "finding" in paragraph 351:
Mr. Boissoin’s letter is, on the face of it, a critique of the homosexual agenda which he alleged existed in the school system in Red Deer, Alberta. His statement that "our children are being victimized by repugnant and pre-mediated strategies," his statement that "our children are being recruited, subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system, under the fraudulent guise of equal rights" is, in fact, a criticism of the school system in Alberta in Red Deer, which, in my view, is within the provincial domain...

Why use a phrase like "on the face of it?" Is his letter to the editor not what he says it is? Andreachuk finds Rev. Boisson criticizes the Alberta public school system. So what? We have the right to criticize our government, our school systems, the police, the court systems and a host of other publicly funded institutions. Why should this be a "finding" of hers?
In paragraph 350, Andreachuk "establishes" the commissions jurisdiction.
The article of Mr. Boissoin is, in fact, a matter of local and private nature related to, albeit perhaps somewhat indirectly, the educational system in Alberta.

So, his letter to the editor, criticizing the public school system, which he has a right to do, makes this her problem.
Secondly, I find that there is a circumstantial connection between the hate speech of Mr. Boissoin and the CCC and the beating of a gay teenager...

Secondly, she finds an unprovable connection between a letter to the editor criticizing the school system and the beating of a teen. Apparently, this also makes it her problem to deal with.
Without evidence of a crime as captured in the Criminal Code, after finding this letter is likely to expose people to hate and or contempt, there is a void in jurisdiction...

Now, as soon as Andreachuk made this "finding" she ought to have come to the realization that there was, in fact, no problem for her to deal with. Instead, she makes this bizarre conclusion:
Not taking jurisdiction would mean that inciting hatred would be acceptable up to the point that a crime occurs as a result of it.

Not taking jurisdiction would mean absolutely no such thing. There was no connection at all between the beating of the teen and the letter criticizing the school system. To call the letter what it was: an angry letter, was the only appropriate course of action. In any case, if the beaten teen was the implied victim of the letter (the only possible conclusion if we are going to say that the letter resulted in a crime), why was he or his family not compensated? Why did Lund receive the funds instead?
Ms. Andreachuk not only reached well beyond her mandate, she denied Rev. Boisson benefit of law and due process. But, given that she works for a Human Right's Commission, this ought to surprise no one.
The faster these commissions are brought low, the better for all of us.

Mainstream Media: Unreporting Itself into Total Irrelevancy

Check your morning news. Pick your favorite source. CBC, Globe & Mail. National Post. Whatever.
See anything about the CHRC investigation by the RCMP? No? Neither do I.
Meanwhile, this is going on:
Key testimony from the March 25th Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing in the Warman v. Lemire case has been redacted from the official Canadian Human Rights Commission transcript...the official transcript produced by the CHRC omits embarrassing testimony about the CHRC's conduct... The deletion was discovered by the respondent in the case, Marc Lemire, who painstakingly compared an audio recording of the hearing with the CHRC's written transcript.

(You can check Levant's post on the matter for more info.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you consider this newsworthy? I do.
In the first place, the CHRC banned all media from attending the hearing. Then, they refused to release a public transcript. When they were finally forced to commission a transcript (which was leaked), it was edited in order to protect certain individuals.
One of the most powerful organizations in Canada, and one that is supposed to be for our benefit, is lying to the public about its behaviour at every turn. When they aren't lying outright, they lie by way of omission.
And where is the media, the great shapers of societal though, the defenders of free speech, truth, justice and the Canadian way?
Nowhere to be seen at all.
By the time this story finally hits the news, everyone will already know all about it. The media will not have so much as a single interesting, original or new point to add to the matter. They will just be repeating yesterday's news... and probably not very well at that.



If anything shows just how badly the CHRC needs to be completely overhauled, it is their recent handling of the Mark Steyn case as compared with their handling of a case against a Catholic friar.
Apparently, Julian Porter, counsel for Maclean's, was not permitted to question the B.C. director of the Canadian Islamic Congress about the organization's conduct. His questions were "inappropriate" according to tribunal judges yesterday.
I would like to know why such a cross examination should be deemed inappropriate, when the views and behaviours of certain CIC members is well known.
Meanwhile, Fr. Alphonse de Valk, a Basilian priest, is under investigation by the CHRC on account of his expression of the Catholic Church's official teaching on marriage during a marriage debate. Through the course of the debate, de Valk stated that homosexual marriage is a sin.
So, if I understand correctly, it is acceptable for the CHRC to punish a priest for his religious convictions, but the political sentiments of an extremist may not even be questioned.
The Conservative government would do well to completely restructure the CHRC. Something has gone horribly awry with their understanding of free speech. Why is it ok to charge a priest who teaches his faith but utterly ignore the views of those who have actively called for the death of an entire nation? Which one is actually hateful, or do they even know anymore? The CHRC is so wrapped up in its own ideological bias that it utterly ignores what the law does and does not say!
And by the way, where is the media on the criminal investigation of the CHRC?


The Globe & Mail vs. Religion

Quarter of Canadians don't believe in any god, poll says!! Or does it?
Actually, it does not.
The poll says:
72 per cent of respondents said they believed in a god, while 23 per cent said they did not believe in any god. Six per cent did not offer an opinion.

A quarter would be 25%.
Nice spin though. Very secular. Very atheistic. Not the least bit subtle about any bias with respect to religion. Down with those fundy Christians who make us feel bad about our sin and offer us the healing balm of God's grace.
Just what I expect from the G&M.
But, I'd like to point out that "god" (small "g" with good reason) refers to pretty much any benevolent spiritual being that may or may not be in control of the universe at any given time. The reality is that significantly fewer actually do believe in God.
If you have time, take a look at the lengthy discussion going on in the comments section. It's pretty much what one expects. Atheists a plenty, not an independent or unique thought among them. All Christian bashing. Multiple Flying Spaghetti Monster references.
Ten thousand years, and not much changes.
The fool says in his heart "there is no God." Psalm 14:1


CHRC under Criminal Investigation: Canadian Media mum?

I mentioned yesterday the fact that the CHRC is under criminal investigation. When I read it, it struck me odd that I hadn't heard anything about it as yet. Then I looked around online to see what I could find and I only found one article.
One article only, and it's from the Washington Times.
The criminal investigation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission is probably the biggest story of the day, and only an American paper cares enough to write about it. How is this possible? The CHRC has been stamping out free speech left and right, and not a single Canadian media outlet is writing anything this investigation.
The details:
The complaint comes in response to accusations that investigators with the commission had hijacked the Internet account of an unsuspecting third party in order to post Internet messages to neo-Nazi Web sites...

Entrapment, anyone?
While the tribunal upheld the commission's initial refusal to discuss its investigation tactics, a higher court forced the disclosure upon appeal...
An employee with Bell Canada... was subsequently subpoenaed. The employee then connected the "Jadewarr" pseudonym to the personal Internet account of Nelly Hechme — a 26-year-old woman living near the commission's main office in Ottawa.

So, basically, the CHRC uses other people's Internet lives to do their dirty work. But it gets better.
Miss Hechme's Internet access had been encrypted and could not have been easily hacked, she said.

So, in other words, they didn't do this easily. Someone took very deliberate steps to steal her Internet life.
Ironically, the investigation comes at a time when the Mounties are appealing a Tribunal decision against them.
The Tribunal recently ordered the Mounties to pay $500,000 to Ali Tahmourpour, a police cadet who accused the Mounties of discrimination after being expelled from their training program. The Tribunal also ordered the Mounties to give Mr. Tahmourpour another chance to join.

The world we live in.
Listed on BlogsCanada Blogarama - The Blog Directory Powered by Blogger FeedBurner Blogging Tories
Southern Ontario Conservatives