June 18, 2008
Pressure Continues to Mount for Amendments to Human Rights Commission
“Here is a little known fact about Canada. It is today a country where you can say or write things that are true and yet still be brought before a tribunal.
“That tribunal can fine you; it can order you to pay money to the people who complained about your words; it can force you to issue an apology; it can do all three.
“That’s not all though. The people who complained will not need to hire a lawyer.
“Their costs will be picked up by the state, by the taxpayers.
“You on the other hand, will have to hire a lawyer to defend yourself.
And there will be no award of costs at the end, so that even if you win, you will still be out of pocket to your lawyers tens of thousands of dollars.
“Of course, you will not win.
“Why? Because in the entire history of these Canadian tribunals, hearing these cases, those people like you who have been hauled before these tribunals have never won - not one single time [on cases citing Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act - the hate crimes provision].
“The complainants always win.”
James Allan, University of Queensland Professor of Law
In a major development in late May, Conservative MP Rick Dykstra (St.
Catharines) put forward a motion that could mark the beginning of decisive changes to the corrupt practices within Canada’s human rights
Commissions.
As a Member of Parliament’s Justice and Human Rights Committee, his motion calls for an investigation into the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), including how the thought crimes provision (Section
13 of the Human Rights Act) has been applied and interpreted.
This is great news!
If passed by the 12 member committee when it meets again, this motion will allow for the establishment of an investigation, possibly as soon as this fall!
A public scrutiny of the CHRC and section 13 of the CHRA is long overdue considering the avalanche of continued abuses by human rights commissions across the country.
TAKE ACTION
Your voice is needed to speak out for freedom of speech and religion!
Mr. Dykstra needs your help to build momentum and support for this critical Justice Committee motion.
Write to your MP, the Justice Minister and the Liberal and NDP Justice Critics. Ask for their support for this vital investigation. A carbon copy of your personalized letter will be sent to Mr. Dykstra and your provincial justice minister.
I) Meet the Victims of Human Rights Commissions
“[Boissoin] has to publicly humiliate himself, by publicly declaring his contrition -- a contrition he does not feel -- and his abandonment of his deeply-held religious beliefs.”
“Other than tribunals in Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China, where is this Orwellian ‘order’ considered to be justice?”
“This is like a Third World jail-house confession -- where accused criminals are forced to sign false statements of guilt. We don’t even ‘order’ murders to apologize to their victims’ families. Because we know that a forced apology is meaningless. But not if your point is to degrade Christian Pastors.”
Ezra Levant
Stephen Boissoin
“An Alberta Human Rights Commission panel has ordered a former Christian youth pastor to apologize in the pages of the Red Deer Advocate for a 2002 letter to the editor he wrote opposing homos_xual* activism.
“In a May 30 decision, AHRC panelist Lori Andreachuk also ordered Stephen Boissoin, 41, to request the Advocate publish her judgment against him.
“She has also imposed a lifetime ban on ever speaking or writing ‘disparagingly’ about homos_xuals* – in the media, on the Internet, in speaking engagements or in emails….
“Andreachuk also ordered Boissoin to pay complainant Darren Lund $5,000 for ‘pain and suffering’ even though Lund is not a member of the
homos_xual* community. He must also pay one of Lund’s witnesses up to $2,000 for her expenses.”
Orville Nichols
A Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal has fined provincial marriage commissioner Orville Nichols $2,500 for declining to perform a “marriage” ceremony for two men. “The pair filed the human rights complaint against the commissioner, Orville Nichols, despite the fact that he referred them to a commissioner who would perform the ceremony and the wedding went ahead….”
The solemnization of marriages is a provincial responsibility.
Only three provinces, B.C., Alberta, and PEI, have recognized modest accommodation of conscience and religious rights with respect to marriage commissioners or their equivalents, according to a 2006 article in the Canadian Bar Review.
Newfoundland, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have mandated commissioners to perform ceremonies, without any accommodation of conscience.
“http://www.1clicklobbyist.ca/sendstudionx/link.php?M=349651&N=54&L=246
Christian Horizons
On April 25, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decreed that Christian Horizons, the largest provider of residential services for developmentally disabled adults in Ontario, must pay $23,000 plus two years’ wages to a lesbian employee who had been dismissed for violating the Evangelical Christian agency’s moral code which requires employees to uphold the basic tenets of Christian morality, including abstinence
from s_x* outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Tribunal Transcript:
http://www.1clicklobbyist.ca/sendstudionx/link.php?M=349651&N=54&L=248
National Post article:
http://www.1clicklobbyist.ca/sendstudionx/link.php?M=349651&N=54&L=249
Catholic Insight
“In February 2007, Rob Wells, a member of the Pride Centre of Edmonton, filed a nine-point complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that Catholic Insight had targeted homos_xuals*….”
“Wells’s complaint consists of three pages of isolated and fragmentary extracts from articles dating back as far as 1994, without any context.
Catholic Insight counters that these isolated quotes are not meaningful without the contexts of the articles themselves from which they were culled; in fact, most of them are even out of context from the sentences from which they were taken.”
Their legal expenses, in defence of this human rights complaint and other actions launched by activists, have reached $20,000.
Christian Heritage Party
“Canada’s Christian Heritage Party and its leader, Ron Gray, are being taken to the Canadian Human Rights Commission [by Rob Wells who launched the Catholic Insight complaint] over commentary and opinion related to how the government and society should treat homos_xuality.* And Gray says he’s been told directly by an employee of the Human Rights Commission that the Canadian Human Rights Act is ‘about censorship.’”
Unlike the individuals and organizations cited above who are the victims of HRC complaints, the two individuals below had the fortitude to bring forward human rights applications for judicial review in attempts to have their religious rights accommodated in the work place.
So far both applications have been denied.
Susan Comstock
Last month, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Treasury Board of Canada employee Susan Comstock’s appeal for a diversion of her mandatory union dues on conscientious grounds. “Through a provision of her collective agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), she had sought to divert her mandatory union dues to charity because of the union’s direct and active support for same s_x* “marriage,” and its zero tolerance policies against what it termed homophobia and heteros_xism.* In her application, she argued that this advocacy violated her conscience as a Roman Catholic and was therefore unacceptable.”
Kevin Kisilowsky
In October 2004 all marriage commissioners in Manitoba were issued a letter stating that if they were not willing to perform wedding ceremonies for same gender couples they were to resign their positions.
At least 12 commissioners resigned after the province introduced this policy.
Marriage commissioner Kevin Kisilowsky, 36 at the time, refused to resign. Instead he fought to defend his religious freedom by filing a complaint in 2004 with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, arguing that the province was discriminating against his religious beliefs by forcing him to conduct marriage ceremonies that went against his Christian faith. The commission agreed to investigate his case.
During the investigation, the provincial government argued that Mr.
Kisilowsky’s refusal would cause “undue hardship,” although no evidence was supplied by the government to back up this claim. The HRC investigator acknowledged that the Government’s actions discriminated against Mr. Kisilowsky, however in 2006 his complaint was dismissed.
The Provincial government then revoked Mr. Kisilowsky's commissioner's license.
“Kisilowsky is now appealing to the Court of Queen’s Bench, and has said he will take his case to the Supreme Court if necessary.”
II) Update on MP Keith Martin’s Motion to Remove Hate Crimes Provision
You’ll recall that Liberal MP Keith Martin introduced Private Members’
Motion M-446 in order to draw attention to abuses that have been taking place in provincial and federal Human Rights Commissions.
His motion specifically calls for the removal of the controversial hate crimes provision Subsection 13 (1) from the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of Journalists, and PEN Canada are on record as supporting the repeal of this section.
Unfortunately, Mr. Martin drew such a low number in the “lottery” for private members’ business precedence that it is unlikely that his motion will receive first reading prior to the next election. (He drew number 118 and since the Conservatives came to power two and a half years ago Parliament has given first reading to less than 70.)
Undaunted, on June 2 Mr. Martin introduced another Private Members’
motion to keep the spotlight on Human Rights Commission abuses.
Hi new motion M-503 states, “That, in the opinion of the House, the government should hold public hearings as part of a review of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its tribunal.
Thank you Mr. Martin for your continued efforts to draw attention to attacks on our freedoms!
III) Good News! MP Rick Dykstra’s Motion for Investigation into CHRC
After considerable silence on the issue for some time, the federal Conservatives are actively working to initiate an investigation into the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).
In May, MP Rick Dykstra put forward a motion to the Justice & Human Rights Committee to conduct an investigation into the practices of the CHRC, including how the thought crimes provision (Section 13 of the Human Rights Act) has been applied and interpreted.
As a member of this committee, Mr. Dykstra has the ability to bring motions directly to the Justice & Human Rights committee, thus bypassing the long process Mr. Martin’s motions are having to endure in the House of Commons.
Mr. Dykstra’s motion states:
Whereas concerns have been raised regarding the investigative techniques of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") and the interpretation and application of section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act (the "Act"); and
Whereas the Commission operates independently and reports to Parliament;
Be it resolved that the Justice and Human Rights Committee examine and make recommendations with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in particular:
a) review the mandate and operations of the Commission;
b) Review the Commission's application and interpretation of section 13 of the Act;
c) Solicit and consider oral submissions from the Chief Commissioner and oral or written submissions from other interested persons or organizations;
d) Submit a report, including any proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act arising out of the results of the Committee's inquiry.
IV) Federal Justice Minister Supports Investigation
After saying little about the controversy for the last six months, Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has recently spoken out briefly on the subject of Human Rights Commission reform.
In a letter sent to a voter on May 30 Mr. Nicholson wrote:
“I would like to inform you that my caucus colleague Mr. Rick Dykstra has tabled a motion that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examine and make recommendations with respect to the CHRC, including its mandate, operations, and interpretation and application of provisions relating to section 13 of the CHRA, which addresses hate messages. I look forward to that review.”
We are grateful that Canada’s Justice Minister supports a review of the CHRC.
Now we need the Justice Committee to support Mr. Dykstra’s resolution to begin the process.
Take Action:
We are quick to criticize government when they are headed in the wrong direction.
Let us be even quicker to commend when they are headed in the right direction!
STEP 1 – Send your Letter of Support to Ottawa!
Write to your MP, the Justice Minister, and the Liberal and NDP justice critics to let them know of your support for an investigation into the CHRC. A carbon copy of your letter will be sent to Mr. Dykstra and your provincial justice minister.
All it takes is 5 minutes to make a difference.
STEP 2 – Inform Others!
Forward or print this newsletter to inform others.
STEP 3 – Call your MP
Follow-up your letter with a phone calls to your MPs office, or better yet sit down with him, or her, this summer.
STEP 4 - Call Mr. Dykstra’s Office and Thank Him!
(613) 992-3352 phone, or Fax (613) 947-4402.
0 comments:
Post a Comment