It really does seem like a card game. A race card will trump a gender card, a gay card trumps a gender card and a radical cult card cancels the lot.
Can someone explain to me what human rights commissions are for?

Can we stop calling them the Human Rights Commission? They don't value basic Human Rights.

Osumashi Kinyobe

The top card of all is the "puppy card". The rights of house pets trumps all in this retarded game.

"This is proof that the Official Jews have made a grave mistake in being Canada's loudest defenders of HRCs."

This has always been my point regarding the left and the interest groups who support them. It is inevitable that the groups with conflicting ideals (ie. gays and Muslims) will turn on each other. It has already happened to the Joo's. I wonder why any Joo would vote Liberal/NDP or Democrat considering the venom these parties spew in their direction.

I think I know the answer as to why these groups with conflicting ideals find themselves under the same political tent. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

It is my opinion that the professional activists do not have the interests of the people they claim to represent at the forefront of their priorities. The proof is in the pudding.

Let's just wait for Mr. Warman to come to the rescue of the Gay community and file a complaint at the Federal CHRC.

Wonder which feminist will rise to the challenge of defending women from such hatred and contempt.

I'm betting on Mallick.

My contention is that the threat to "the West" does not come from Islamism but from the west itself.
If not even we, the west, dares to defend "Western" values, these values are doomed.
Again, Islamism is not the problem, it is the west itself.

Well, I wouldn't be that basic, Johann. We can't ignore that a fundamentalist ideology is a threat both to the West and to any nation or people that follow it.

As for the CHRC, note that this set of unelected, appointed, unaccountable pencil-pushing social engineers, ruled against the Rev. Boissoin for his scripture-based chastisement of gays. It ruled that he can never, ever, ever, even in private communication, say anything 'contemptuous' of gays.

But we have here, a Muslim declaring that they ought to be killed - and - the HRC approves it. They actually said that his writing does not 'provoke hatred or contempt'. But the document calls Christianity a 'religion of lies', says Jews 'spread corruption and chaos', says that homosexuals and lesbians 'should be exterminated in this life'. Declares that men are superior to women, declares that slavery is acceptable, declares that democracy is unacceptable, that 'freedom is a false concept'.
(All from Ezra Levant's post on this).

So, I don't get it - how can they justify this contradictory treatment of Rev. Boissoin and Al-Hayiti?

The CHRC is afraid of Radical Islam.

This illustrates, as Shaken has implied, that ultimately, leftists respect only one law and that is the law of the jungle. The strong survive, the weak are trampled. Radical Islam gets a free pass because radical Islam poses a material threat i.e. the risk of serious injury or death to anyone who stands against it. Christianity being a religion of self-restraint poses no such risk to the lefties so the lefties feel free to attack it, all the while posing as brave crusaders for human rights as a cover for the grovelling little cowards they are in reality. The ultimate irony is that, of course, the lib/lefties will be the first ones fed into the very meat grinder they are helping create.

I would call this a double standard, except apparently no standard exists.

I call this beneath contempt is not enough, these over paid idiots should be fired "Right F$%ng Now" and kick their asses out of Canada.

Thanks for bring Ezra to your audience, Kate. :-).

Johan i Canada: I do agree with a substantive portion of what you say. While innumerable Chinese workers toil diligently away screwing heads on dolls, or assembling electronics that we crave, we in Canada have a growing cadre of individuals who sit around and drink sparkling water at conferences, ever growing their own industry, which is solely producing useless activity (eg HRC).

ET - I agree. This is simply incomprehensible.

The only way such a situation can be rationalized is if viewed outside the context of human rights, but rather in the context of a greater power struggle.

The HRCs, NGOs, "community activism" etc, are simply being used as tools to put the power to change our society outside the hands of the majority of mostly sensible citizens and their elected representatives.

The people who created these tools might have had noble goals, but in the past generation their tools have been taken up by other hands as a means to an altogether different end.

These tools are now part the strategy used by a group of people who do not believe in democracy, who believe that they somehow "know better", who are certain that the average citizen is an idiot who can be easily and safely misled, and who have decided to work "inside the system" to effect stealthy change that they would not be able to effect in an open manner and through public discourse.

Once they get some power though, its naked abuse becomes more readily seen. The process is far more advanced in Europe, as evident in the ever growing powers of the EU, increasingly nondemocratic, increasingly at odds with the wishes of the citizens and at war with the politicians who still dare to oppose its march.

What a load of B.S. Even the worst fiction writer would never dream of writing as lame and inconsistent a story as what comes out of the CHRC. You would need to be a J-school ethics prof to even come near this level of incompetence.

Is there anyway the Alberta preacher can use this ruling to overturn his unjust punishment? If so, could it allow the real courts put a leash on the HRC industry? It is obvious that the politicians are unwilling to intervene.

I agree with Shaken. The HRC knows that the office bunker keeps them safe from Christian preachers, small business owners, magazine editors and other "radical" Canadians but not it may not be "Allah Akbar" proof.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/010104.html

Ezra better be careful or he will find himself in front of a tribunal for repeating these words.

Very interesting points made by Geert Wilders's address in Jerusalem, and he seems to 'get it.'

I read his speech on the blog Gates of Vienna, but I believe Kate has already referenced him in an earlier posting.

It's unbelievably sad how our media seem to judicially avoid stating the obvious, and we are left to search the internet to learn that a few brave voices such as Steyn, Levant, Rushdie, Wafa Sultan, Hirsi Ali & our very own Kate are among the few brave enough to point out our impending self-immolation.

The apathy of Western Civilization is staggering. The stupidity of their people to bend over and be metaphorically sodomized by the unwashed masses still living in the seventh century, beyond belief.

It seems pretty obvious. The HRC is a radical Islamist organization. Who else would do what they're doing?

Oh yeah, cowards, they'd do that too.

Pat

Of course! The puppy card!
As said before, the human rights commissions will gladly attack Christians, Jews and small business owners because they know the backlash will be minimal. Annoy a Islamist and watch your back!
The left do not want the law of the jungle, in my opinion. Whether they will admit it or not, they depend on Christian attitudes, hard work ethics, vaccinations and other things they deplore about regular people. They are enormous sooks who are angry for no good reason.
As for the West destroying itself, sure. As long as we tolerate the intolerable, we will be on a steady course of self-destruction.

What if Rev. Boissoin converted to Islam? Then maybe he could start all over again without fear of the HRC's.

Investigate the HRC and you may very well find some Saudi Arabian influence lurking in the shadows. This has become far too openly one sided in the Muslims favor to be called coincidence anymore.

Certainly there is the crazy liberal left agenda to corrupt Judeo Christian values, but something smells far more basic and primal. Me thinks the stink of bureaucratic corruption which almost always boils down to money.

The HRC finds a catholic priest writing (peacefully) about his stance against homosexuality “guilty as charged”. A radical Imam associated with a known death cult who advocating the murder of gays and other identifiable groups is “innocent for lack of evidence”.

Where are the cops when you need them?

Indiana Homez at December 17, 2008 12:21 PM....

Except for your uninspired use of the term "Joos" to categorically lump a hugely diverse range of people into one side of your argument.... that's exactly how the HRCs got their wheels.

Activist lefties have been using the old line of BS that "ALL" Jews are victims of some kind of institutional and cultural bigotry. All well and good as long the counter institutions they insisted were necessary remained agreeable and compliant with that point of view. Terrific for the victim industry hustlers out scrounging for taxpayer dollars to feed their little greedy little mouths and overinflated egos.

Remind's me of why I can't stand Kinsella's posturing and hysterics.... He's one of them.

However, once those HRCs got to be institutions in their own right their members simply began to behave as if their right to exist was sacrisanct and became solely focussed on justifying their existence, preserving and exercising their power as an end unto itself.

And now the passing of the stereotypical New York LIberal Jew from the forefront of the Lefty Activist ranks and the subsequent filling of that vacuum by something far more odious in the form of our modern batshit crazy and doesn't have a clue lefty activist, there is a ready tool that will be used against everyone who does not fit the mold of being the Victim Of Fashion amongst the moonbats.

Get the point? Our society is what they view as the problem.
"We" are the enemy.

HRCs were never about justice they were and remain about undermining our culture.

The facade of defending the victims of our society is nothing more than a false justification for their existence and the smoke screen that is supposed to cover their actions.

The Ghost of fancy pants Trudeau and his dangerous followers will never stop abusing and undermining the freedoms our fore fathers fought and died for. The deranged minds that make up these un-elected, unaccountable thought police should be put through a serious de-programming campaign. The CHRC thought police seem to make it up as they go. They continually abuse and take away the freedoms and thoughts of only a select group of Canadians, banishing their right to express themselves, while giving certain tribes an elevated protection that is not shared or equal with all. The cult of followers who make up thses contemptable CHRC thought police are a disgrace, mindless facist wanna be's. They are full of hatred and contempt, disguised as self rightious do gooders who put their Jackboots on one foot at a time, when they are in fact mindless facist cultists,full of duplicity and contridictions. They actually create hate and abuse where none existed. Like anything Disco Dictator Trudeau created, it is an affront to democracy and freedom for ALL, in fancy pants Trudeaus Canada some tribes are more equal then others,and organizations like the CHRC are there to inforce this warped sense of entightlment

"Christianity being a religion of self-restraint poses no such risk to the lefties so the lefties feel free to attack it"

Given the choice, the weak-willed will always lean towards that which appears to be the path of least resistance in society. In other words, "How can I get along in my life with the least friction?".

Doing so tacitly endorses the status quo. Who broadly establishes the status quo, I wonder?

Faced with two giants, who would you rail against - the one who could smite you in an instant for criticizing him/her or the one who is understanding.

Fear is a great motivator for some people.

Well, I posted on this, too.

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2008/12/human-rights-commission-ok-for-muslims.html

Excerpts from my commentary in the post:

Again, we witness the submission of the Hard Left to Islam, and its abandonment of the human rights of everyone else.

What'd I say? That the Hard Left is dangerous? Well, aren't they, saying that a certain kind of person is allowed to incite murder against people on the basis of their being members of "identifiable groups"?

Rather like when Hitler decided that it was ok for "Aryans" to incite hatred and murder against others...

Oh, just listen to the silence of the gays now, in the face of this frightening development... for they wouldn't dare anger the Muslims by protesting against the hateful "Human Rights" Commission, who has declared that gays have no human rights and are to be abandoned whenever Muslims say to kill them! Can't blame the gays... they obviously want to stay alive...

Am I being divisive, pitting one group against another? No, I am not. The Muslims and the Hard Left do it all by themselves, and quite well, obviously. I guess they'll effectively force homosexuals and other radical sexual folks to shut up and go back into the closet... gone will be those colorful parades, gone will be those butch dykes on bikes, those flamboyant, skinny male hairdressers and waiters and so on and so forth... and don't be surprised if, one day, all females must dress much more modestly... or else...

The HRC is afraid of this case because of the much larger issue.

The elephant in the room is the entire Islamic ideology.

This nutcase isn't saying anything that hasn't been printed already in the Quran, Sira and Hadiths. He isn't advocating anything that his prophet didn't already.

If they prosecute this filth, it won't stop there. It's quite possible his source material would become public and the courts would finally have to deal with it.

Afterall, it is the ideology, as clearly stated in the trilogy, that doesn't just incite, but commands Muslim supremacy, misogyny, racism, bigotry, hate and murder.

No. They don't want to go there.

OMAG

i USED JOO'S TO AVOID FILTERS AND HRC CASES, NOT IN DISRESPECT.

It's clear that what we actually have here is a Canadian Human Lefts Commission.

I posted the following on Ezra's site yesterday, I'll put it in here too:

" ...the majority of the references in 'Islam or Fundamentalism' are to 'infidels', 'miscreants' or 'western women'. These are general, broad and diversified categories that do not constitute an 'identifiable group' under Section 13 of the Act. As we have also mentioned, the extracts that identify groups on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination (homosexuals, lesbians, Christians, Jews) do not seem to promote 'hatred' or 'contempt' according to the criteria set forth in the Taylor case."

Yeah, the hypocrisy here from the CHRC is astounding, and disgusting. If "Muslims" are an identifiable group, then "infidels", a.k.a. non-Muslims, are surely not too hard to identify? The commission managed to "read in" homosexuals into the human rights law in the Vriend decision of 1998; why wouldn't they do it here with "infidels"? I've made the point before that the term "infidel" is racist, used just like the n-word with regard to blacks, the various epithets against Jews, etc.

The hatred in the book excerpts comes through loud and clear, but the CHRC treats it differently because it's not from a Christian source -- and that is the epitome of discrimination. S.13 is arbitrary law, to be used against political "enemies of the state" to crush dissent, as I've said repeatedly. And Christians are the enemy of the CHRC (not to mention vice versa). It's all straight out of 1984.

"The rule is that the most disobedient among Muslims is better than the most virtuous, the most polite, the most honest and the most loyal among the Infidels"

Substitute "Aryan" for "Muslim" (and "non-Aryan" for "infidel") in any of the book's statements of this nature to discover the most obvious analogous mentality.

There's a great editorial about this fiasco in today's National Post.

The last sentence is worth the price of admission: it's a zinger that pulls no punches: "But until those people [coterie of HRC bureaucrats] are properly turfed out of their jobs, perhaps the CHRC could be a little less overt in their bias against conservatism and Christianity."

Yeah!