No, but apparently that is not the case at Canadian Human Rights Commission HQ. There are still fools there who are trying to justify their rather arbitrary scapegoatings of Canadian citizens (they prefer to go after that tribe known by its enemies as Poor, White, Christian T----; and they seem deferential to the tribe known as lEgalistic jewZZZ, Righteous and Articulate). When you scapegoat someone, and then forever after the event, you should NOT have to "justify" the bloody action. It should be taken for granted as a necessary sacred and unquestionable act, the road to peace, order, and good government, in conformity with the divine commands recognized in your culture's daily lived myth and ritual. The hate mongers MUST be punished or all hell will come to the country.
When the Aztecs slaughtered and consumed annually their tens of thousands of sacrificial victims they didn't have to pretend to advance sophisticated legal arguments to justify the act. No, everyone simply "knew" it was what the gods demanded (though no doubt there were codes to insure proper respect for due process, such as how to skin and process the victims for the feast). And no doubt some of the victims were convinced to believe their deaths were divinely required. It was necessary that some should die for the good of the cosmic order. And being drugged and dressed ceremonially before having your chest ripped open before an adoring crowd was arguably a better fate than being surprised by a war party, refusing to be taken prisoner, and so being quickly bashed to death, most unceremoniously, by an Aztec battle club fixed with numerous obsidian blades.
For some reason, I am reminded of what David Bowie said after viewing film of the Nazis' Nuremberg rallies: Hitler was the first rock star!
So what the heck does the Canadian Human Rights Commission think it is doing? You can't live half-assed in the world of arbitrary sacrifice (the choice of victim, admittedly , is never purely random since one must always be able to claim the victim gives off some sign of sacred import) AND in a world of rule of law according to a carefully-evolved constitution, centuries old, that has had good reason to claim it respects the individual and his rights, and to insure that "justice" is not arbitrary.
No you have to make a choice. Apparently they don't get this. They think they can be modern and Aztec at the same time. Chief of "Human Rights", Jennifer Lynch, has told Parliament: "When I arrived as the new chief commissioner 10 months ago, I was pleased to join a modern organization well structured to undertake its mandate and supported by an enormously talented and dedicated staff." That's almost mythic, and that's why Ezra rocks, in his latest blog:
Ignore for a moment the double jeopardy here – that Rev. Boissoin was prosecuted by the Alberta HRC, and then again by the CHRC, something that would never happen to, say, an accused murderer, but happened to an accused pastor. Look at what the CHRC’s investigator and political commissioners recommended: that Wells’s complaint against Rev. Boissoin be prosecuted by the CHRC.And let there me no doubt: Ezra's contempt is rightly and successfully communicated. Pick up your obsidian clubs, Jennifer and crew, because we're not going to be your willing victims in the name of "human rights".
Think about that. The CHRC’s investigator has recommended that I be let go for the exact same act of hate speech that Rev. Boissoin committed – and he wasn’t let go.
Just in case the double standard wasn’t clear enough, as paragraph 21 notes, I even declared that I was willfully committing a hate crime.
How does the CHRC justify this double standard? In a single, vacuous sentence. See paragraph 28: “In [the Boissoin] complaint, the letter appeared in a different context”.
Boissoin’s column appeared in the Red Deer Advocate – a mild and mainstream newspaper, as part of a broader debate. It was the heartfelt view of a Christian pastor. I simply reprinted it as an act of defiance. Yet Boissoin was the one sent on for prosecution?
Paragraph 31 says I was let go because my publication of the column wasn’t in a “forum which espouses extreme views of hatred”. Right. Neither is the Red Deer Advocate.
Paragraph 32 indicates that I knew the column was a “hate crime”, and Rev. Boissoin didn’t. Right – so I willfully promoted “hatred”, as opposed to Rev. Boissoin.
But for sheer creative writing, look at paragraph 33: Dagenais invents a new test for section 13 hate speech cases. She says my publication was “more likely” to promote a debate than to promote hatred. Is that the new test? Something can promote hate, but if it also promotes debate, then it’s not hate speech? They’re making this stuff up as they go along, and it’s not hard to guess why: Rev. Boissoin was poor, powerless and easy prey for them. I’m a noisy troublemaker, and Rob Wells is forcing them to deal with me. Still, exactly the same excuse could be used for Rev. Boissoin – we know for a fact his column led to a great debate.
Let’s do it again, with gusto
I’m disgusted with Rob Wells – he’s just as despicable as Fred Phelps. But he’s just an individual bigot, and he's got the freedom to utter his filthy speech. What’s truly appalling, though, is how he’s turned the CHRC into his personal anti-Christian inquisition – going after the Christian Heritage Party, Rev. Boissoin and Fr. de Valk. Without the CHRC’s aid and comfort, Wells would still be driving around Edmonton in his hatemobile, a pitiful, angry, junior Fred Phelps. But, thanks to Jennifer Lynch and the rest of the team at the CHRC, the taxpayers of Canada and the laws of Canada have been hijacked, yet again.
So let me publish the same illegal words again. And let me do it for a different reason.
I’m not publishing these words as part of any “debate”. I am publishing them for the express purpose of promoting contempt – contempt for Rob Wells, and contempt for his gophers at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
I’m publishing it to promote contempt for Jennifer Lynch, the chief commissioner of the CHRC who presides over an anti-Christian inquisition, and for all of the other commissioners – David Langtry, Robin Baird, Roch Fournier, Sandi Bell and Yvonne Boyer – who have joined forces with the real bigots of this country, people like Rob Wells, and even the corrupt thugs working at the commission who gaily join neo-Nazi groups like Stormfront, with the commissioners’ full approval.
I have contempt for them, and I wish to spread it to all of my fellow Canadians.
Jennifer Lynch: like most bullies, you are a coward who picks on penniless pastors like Rev. Boissoin. Why don't you come and get me?