Ezra Rocks

Do we need more evidence that the "human rights" world view is an ill-considered intellectual scam, based on a taken-for-granted, incurious, worship of much-sought-after victims, a religious desire that corrupts the rule of law?

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.

Stop.

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?

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".

Unbelievable: Alberta "human rights" official endorses Maoist thought policing

Thanks to the Stephen Boissoin case, an American Christian youth worker, who gives seminars promoting sexual abstinence, is worried if some of his portrayals of homosexuality as a sin is going to land him in trouble with the law when he comes to speak at an Edmonton church. Boissoin recounts the story at Free Dominion.

So the American phones up the Alberta Human Rights Commission. And some bureaucrat effectively tells him that he should get participants to sign consent forms. But even then, if one of his audience then goes public with "homophobic" views, say at school, then a teacher could lay a complaint against the youth minister.

Basically, a kid in school doesn't have a right to his opinion. If he questions homosexuality, the teacher can brow beat him until he gives up the name of a preacher, or whomever, who dared to communicate traditional Judeo-Christian views on homosexuality. The preacher can then be hauled in front of a "human rights" tribunal and, like Boissoin, banned from making "disparaging" comments about homosexuality and forced to make a public "apology"

What's more, the American teacher is advised to run his course by the police, to check for "hate crimes".

This is pure Maoism. In Canada, today. Fire. Them. All.

HT: Four Horses

Too bloody angry to post

I don't like writing when I'm full of anger. If we write to defer our resentment, as I think we do, we perhaps write meaningfully (at least for others) when we have already deferred anger sufficiently to come to some kind of lucid observation on what it is we need our language to transcend. That, of course, is something we often fail to live up to. But it is no reason to silence a man for life.

Anyway, what has me royally steamed these last few days is the humiliating order of an anti-individual, neo-Maoist in Alberta by the name of Lori Andreachuck (if you don't know the story, see Ezra Levant's comments here and here and here) who would effectively silence and ruin the life of a Christian pastor, banning him from speaking on one of the central concerns of the Judeo-Christian worldview, and of deep personal concern to this pastor.

For writing this letter in 2002, Stephen Boissoin has been passed with a legally binding order (ignoring which could lead to his imprisonment) that is entirely unconscionable in a free and democratic society. In other words, there is no way this is constitutional if Canadian law is still in the hands of sane people, since according to our Charter all laws must be consonant with the needs of a "free and democratic society."

As I wrote in the comments at the National Post, I think it is time for Canadians to start thinking seriously about organizing civil disobedience in opposition to the kangaroo courts of the "human rights" tribunals:

Whatever you may think of Boissoin's righteous certainty about the wrongness of homosexuality and the degree of tolerance in the Christian's "love the sinner but hate the sin" (personally, I think there is a lot of tolerance in that, since loving ourselves but hating what we sometimes do is how most people understand their own humanity), there can be no doubt that Andreachuck and Lund have demonstrated a far greater degree of self-righteousness and intolerance than Boissoin.

As Ezra says, to pass this order on a Christian pastor is effectively to ruin his life, permanently. And this for a passionate letter to the local paper.

But to effectively ban all discussion of the possible consequences of different sexual and familial practises (the future of which is something no one can know: we are all making more or less educated guesses in the laboratory of history, and no one, despite the arrogance of Gnostics like Andreachuck and Lund, has special knowledge of what will prove successful and what not, whatever the very real historical lessons remembered in the Bible's conflict with the widespread pederasty and polygamy of the ancient world) is outrageous to a whole other level. It is positive madness for a once free and open society to try and close off huge and fundamental topics of conversation. It is a sign of a society that has become too scared of itself to go on, too frightened of our shared freedom, as if it is unthinkable that we might never have to stop thinking about and defending what we hold dear, as if it is too outrageous that we can never live in certainty about our life choices and must have constant maternal affirmation from the Andreachuck's of this beastly realm. What kind of pansies does she think we Canadians are?

There really aren't words to express the sickness and the complete lack of justice or common sense in the action of the Alberta (and other) Human Rights Fascists. This kind of public humiliation is exactly what they did in Mao's China and the stories of ruined lives are now all about us here in Canada for anyone with the real empathy to look, listen, and learn.

I am utterly disgusted that this is happening in my country. Let there me no doubt that I am ready and willing to engage in civil disobedience alongside anyone targeted by these "human rights" fascists. And I suspect there are every day more and more who feel the same. Any politician who thinks this outrage will just fade away with time had better think again.

Act now or live in the shame of history. As it presently stands, Ed Stelmach is a &$#*@ Maoist, as is Gordon Campbell, Harper, and most of the so-called "conservative" leaders in this country.

I will be at the central branch of the Vancouver Public Library tomorrow night, like every Thursday, 7-9 pm in front of Blenz Coffee (look for the guys with the blue scarves), and open for discussions on the logic of civil disobedience, as an occasionally necessary activity in a free and democratic society.

We might also talk about the kind of organizations we need to see emerging in Canada to focus the fight against the "human rights" world view. We might begin asking, for example, who will join us in setting up picket teams to blockade the entrance to buildings where our deeply evil kangaroo courts will meet in future? Whatever you think of my or Boissoin's views on sexuality, none of us is free in a society where we can be given gag orders for life for offending the sensibility of some bureaucrats and activists. No one is free in a society where people are forced to make public apologies, against their will, for the views they hold. Mao killed and ruined tens of millions of lives in China where just such forced rituals of "apology" and public humiliation were a central tool of the most oppressive mental domination; how many will our Canadian Maoists kill and ruin before we stop them? Among my Chinese-Canadian friends who have recently immigrated, there is a high frequency of stories about families ripped apart, members killed, by the Maoist/police state evil... will the nightmare continue?

I will have more to say on all of this when I get my bearrings. We really do need a way to better understand why those who claim to be fighting for love and tolerance can be so deeply intolerant and hateful. Christians have a right to their Biblical and patriarchal religion. No one has a right to feel their way of living is beyond public criticism. No one is wise enough to judge when language is too passionate that it might expose someone else to hate. Language, even violent language, acts to defer our violence, even when it doesn't succeed for long. Those who would silence in the name of keeping the peace can only take us to the dead (and usually very violent) end that all tyrannies eventually reach. Andreachuck and her many comrades in genteel Canadian authoritarian stupidity need to talk to some Ukrainians about Stalin.

Thankfully, Boissoin is not caving in to these tyrants and so we will all have a chance to stand with him against the law that is clearly indefensible to people who know what freedom is:

In regards to the recent absurd ruling by the AHRC, let me be clear, I will never apologize regardless of the consequences and I will not pay fines unless failing to do so prevents my ability to appeal. I stand by my right to have an opinion and to equally express that opinon in private and in the public square. I will exercise that God given right as long as I live.