Friendly tips from the Alberta Human Rights Commission help desk;

Ask the church to get a signed consent form from everyone, parents and children, everyone, stating that they are not forced to attend and are there of their own free will. Later he added that this consent should be drawn up by a lawyer who is familiar with the Human Rights Laws.

Also…

The church needs to contact the police to make sure they do not view the program as bordering on criminal activity—need to show them the curriculum so they know what is going on and do not arrive on the scene.

Today’s decision by the Supreme Court of Canada about defamation law has shifted the balance from plaintiffs to defendants — in other words, towards greater free speech. The court calls it a modernization, which it is — phenomena like talk radio shows, partisan TV panels and the Internet were not around when defamation law was developing (it actually goes back 400 years). It also brings us more in synch with the U.S. approach to free speech, and breaks away from the European model of soft censorship.

RTWT.

Press release;

Maclean’s magazine is pleased that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed the complaint brought against it by the Canadian Islamic Congress. The decision is in keeping with our long-standing position that the article in question, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s best-selling book America Alone, was a worthy piece of commentary on important geopolitical issues, entirely within the bounds of normal journalistic practice.
Though gratified by the decision, Maclean’s continues to assert that no human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial decisions of the nation’s media. And we continue to have grave concerns about a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to say nothing of the inconvenience. We enthusiastically support those parliamentarians who are calling for legislative review of the commissions with regard to speech issues.

More – “I was at the Prime Minister’s garden party this evening…”

Edward Michael George;

Each of the authors rejects the authority of government to censor speech. Each condemns the Human Rights Commissions as illegitimate–as, essentially, kangaroo courts … But each, also, accepts that the accused in the given cases (i.e. Mark Steyn and Stephen Boissoin) have said something “hateful”.
Now, don’t get me wrong: this would be just fine … except that none of these columnists–as per journalistic convention–spends so much as a sentence demonstrating what, exactly, makes the opinions in question hateful! They are united in their easy posturing to the effect that assholes should be allowed to spout nonsense, but they do not so much as dare to doubt that Steyn and Boissoin are assholes and that theirs is nonsense.
What should concern us is not the political toadying at work here, but the trend of journalistic incompetence.

I prefer “malpractice”. Journalists are among the chosen few who hold the power to damage, even destroy the lives of innocent people. They should be held accountable for professional laziness, cowardice and agenda-driven reporting.
Oh, wait….

“It’s time for a new batch of letters – this time asking the MPs how much they would appreciate having their communications monitored by an HRC bureaucrat with an unknown and undisclosed political bias. How comfortable would they feel, knowing that it’s not just the potentially hateful comments of their constituents they need to worry about, but the potential that their responses will be monitored – and potentially – available to their opposing members.”

National Post;

Both she and Ms. Eliadis had harsh words for the growing contingent of bloggers who lambaste the commissions, and have been invigorated by the prominence of the Maclean’s complaints.
Ms. Eliadis singled out one in particular, blazingcatfur.blogspot.com, as “poisonous” for referring to her panel at the conference as a “Texas cage match.”
She said it was evidence of the “appalling tone” that is “illustrative of how badly this debate has gone.”

More material for the poisonous debate – “Take a moment to see how hard Jennifer Lynch, the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, works. She jets off to Africa, at a cost of $5,800; then Geneva, for a mere $8,300, Australia, for a bargain of $7,500. I can’t remember the last time I spent $90 on breakfast, but then again I don’t work for the CHRC.”