In 2006, a poll taken of religious values indicated that only 37% of Canadians feel that religion is “important” to them. The presumably secular if not Atheist or at least a-theist population has grown to accept intolerance to the point that it is now institutionalized. Hate speech laws have been instituted and are now being implemented in just the manner that has been predicted. Certain groups are now protected from all criticism, and critics are being punished by the state.
In recent enforcement, an evangelical pastor named Stephen Boisson was forced to recant and fined $5,000. His crime: expressing the Biblical perspective of homosexuality. He was forbidden from expressing this view point in the future. And he was forced to apologize to the activist who claimed being “hurt”.
Others are similarly under attack by the Human Rights Tribunals this one in Alberta, but also in Ontario, where, according to the Catholic Exchange,
’Ontario Human Rights Commission fined Protestant printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for declining to print homosexual-themed stationary. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined Hugh Owens thousands of dollars for quoting a couple of Bible verses in a letter to the local newspaper. And Mayor Diane Haskett in London, Ontario, was fined $10,000 plus interest for declining to proclaim a gay pride day.”
“Nor have Canada’s bishops been spared. Bishop Fred Henry, one of Canada’s most outspoken defenders of the sanctity of life and marriage, was brought before a human rights commission for upholding Catholic moral teaching.”
“In 2005, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined a Knights of Columbus council over $1,000 dollars for declining to rent their hall to a couple for a lesbian marriage ceremony.”
Clearly homosexuals are given more moral credibility than pastors, priests, Bishops, Mayors, or anyone else who crosses them. In fact it is legally conceivable now that Catholicism itself is a hate crime in Canada, and punishable by the tribunals.
Now the Canadian tribunals are attempting to bring punishment to an American that commented on a Canadian Catholic blog.
As one respondent said, perhaps the Catholics in Canada will file similar charges of undue hate discrimination.
Perhaps these charges should be filed against all those who express a preference for secularity which is hurtful to Catholics. That would amount to 63% of Canadians, some 20,981,444 offenders, according to Canada’s Population Clock. A wounded minority should receive $10,000 per offense, a tidy sum.
There is no doubt that only certain classes will enjoy such intolerant protection under Canada’s hate laws. Other classes must kiss their religion and their freedom of speech and thought goodbye. And this is the totalitarian result that is completely expected, when thought and opinion and morality are declared criminal activities.
UPDATE: July 4, '08
The charges against the Catholic Church were dropped today. The reasons given seem to avoid the issue of whether there was hate, and centered more upon the internal nature of the publication and the lack of opportunity to discriminate. Charges can be refiled in the regular court system.
2 comments:
The problems with the Human Rights Tribunals in Canada are real and extreme, but they're unrelated to Atheism. Just try being critical of a religion, such as Islam, like Mark Steyn or Macleans magazine. Fortunately, the Tribunal dismissed the complaints against him today (June 29, 2008), probably due to backlash and outrage from the media and Canadians in general. This was not the first example of a religion (in this case Islam) defending itself with the Human Rights Tribunal.
The issue here is freedom of speech and the misguided power the Tribunal wields.
I'm sure you would find most Canadians, atheists and theists alike, hanging their head in disgust at the current state of affairs.
You seem to be saying that because only 37% of Canadians feel religion is important to them that Atheists somehow "rule" Canada. That's absurd, but not as absurd as then saying that those atheists are somehow working to eliminate free speech.
The BCHRT (tribunal) declined to hear the case. This indicates to me that the real thrust of the tribunals might not be to protect anyone other than certain specific special groups, specifically homosexuals, for one.
Would the case have been dropped if the plaintiffs were homosexual? The case brought by homosexuals against pastor Boisson and the Catholic priest were not dropped. This shows likely discrimination, based on religion, at work. The populace rolled over during the persecution of religious tenet, then came to life when religion was the accuser.
Canada already had hate laws that were instituted in the 1950's to protect Jews from anti-semitism. Violations of these laws go through the normal court system. The tribunals don't even offer the even-handness and protection for the defendant that are present in the original hate laws. This apparently is the reason that the Steyn issue went to the tribunal and not to the court system.
Steyn's case shows the unanticipated consequence of such tribunals; they should apply equally. But they don't. They should provide protection for the unjustly accused. But they don't. The tribunals on-line "Rules of Prodedure" do not mention juries or peers; the tribunal is engaged in morality ruling by one or three judges. How the judges are appointed is unclear from the Rules.
When a group of judges presumes to perform morality judgements over religions, it is not likely that they are motivated by any other philosophy than a-theism.
The tribunal has been forced to show its colors in the Steyn case. Such a fault should have been anticipated when the tribunals were created.
Post a Comment