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?