35 Replies to “Free Dominion HRC Complaint Withdrawn”

  2. Excellent news,howecer,I do have to agree with some of the comments that we need a self-defense fund set-up know for the next attack,which is coming as sure as liberals lie.

  3. this should never have gotten this far.
    the fact a whining eco-geek publicity seeker was all it took is the real story.
    how about a move across the blogosphere to DELUGE the human rites folks with complaints?
    how about it fellow soldiers in the fight for true rights and freedoms? lets put 5,000 complaints on their desk every DAY and see how they respond.

  5. We now hope they pursue legal cost compensation from either CHRC or Ms. Gentes.
    At least an apology for the character assassination that CHRC “hate crime” stigmatization causes even if one is acquitted or charges withdrawn.

  6. I was away from the internet entirely for a while so I think I missed a bunch. Last I heard Free Dominion had a complaint against them and a whole day to respond. They did not know who made the complaint or what it was about.
    Anyone care to give a summary (Reader’s digest version please) of just what ticked off the unknown complaintant?
    Even if it was dropped this complaint might just be the start of the “Human Rights” internet witch hunt.

  7. I was away from the internet entirely for a while so I think I missed a bunch. Last I heard Free Dominion had a complaint against them and a whole day to respond. They did not know who made the complaint or what it was about.
    Anyone care to give a summary (Reader’s digest version please) of just what ticked off the unknown complaintant?
    Even if it was dropped this complaint might just be the start of the “Human Rights” internet witch hunt.

  8. I was away from the internet entirely for a while so I think I missed a bunch. Last I heard Free Dominion had a complaint against them and a whole day to respond. They did not know who made the complaint or what it was about.
    Anyone care to give a summary (Reader’s digest version please) of just what ticked off the unknown complaintant?
    Even if it was dropped this complaint might just be the start of the “Human Rights” internet witch hunt.

  9. There’ll be charges of this sort again no doubt, it’s a sign of desperation. The reasons are obvious, if you can’t debate or play the game on par the only option for losers is attempt to stifle by suing for dubious cause.
    Should we have much faith in the CHRC?

  11. There is only a hollow victory here, due to the the complainant quitting. I think Miss Gentes quit the case as soon as someone posted her picture and email address. I can only guess at the tone of the emails she received.
    The CHRC is a loose cannon, but does have to nominally follow the law. No complaint means they can’t do anything.
    Next time someone will ensure that they are “firewalled” against the backlash.
    Believe you me, this was only a warning shot.

  12. Canada’s Human Rights (sic) Commissions (HRCs) are a national disgrace. They are arbitrary and turn on end all the rules of due process. No self-respecting democracy would allow such a travesty.
    First of all, just about any complaint, no matter how frivolous, is taken as gospel and then the Commission takes on all the expenses and workload of the case.
    Meanwhile, in direct contradiction to the rule of law, the defendant is presumed GUILTY and is required to prove his/her innocence at his/her own, usually considerable expense.
    Once the commission’s kangaroo court, sometimes of ONE person—staffed entirely by left-wing, activist, pro-feminist, pro-gay agenda, anti-conservative, anti-Christian Liberal appointees—has made its decision, it has the considerable power to levy hefty pay-backs to the offended party, as well as fines. (Check out Scott Brockie.)
    As far as I know, the only people to be hounded and harassed by the HRCs are conservatives, usually Christians. The most common complainants, it seems, are disgruntled, bully homosexuals, who say their feelings are hurt. THEIR feelings are hurt? Their behaviour towards those who disagree with them is quite despicable: read their papers, such as Xtra, to see the most juvenile and disparaging—often obscene too—invective against those who disgruntle them. (BTW, I have dear friends who are gay.) Why these activists don’t go after much more repressive religious groups is not a mystery: the HRCs are multiculturalism boosters as well as anti-Christian.
    And consider the traps the activists manufacture in order to entangle fine, law abiding citizens. E.g., (I believe this happened in B.C.) Two lesbians, who were not members of the congregation, requested of the Knights of Columbus (K of C) at an RC parish to use the church hall for their wedding reception. When, on religious grounds—aren’t those supposed to be protected by the Charter?—the K of C respectfully said no (and offered to find another venue and even pay for it, I believe), the two women made a complaint to the HRC. On account of the duplicity and manipulation of the complainants alone, the case should have been thrown out. I believe it is still under consideration. (If anyone knows more about this case, I’d appreciate an update.)
    Like the FD case, because of lots of negative publicity, the case against RC Bishop Henry of Calgary—made by two gay activists who disagreed with a sermon of the bishop’s (sheesh: grow UP, guys!)—was withdrawn.
    These kangaroo courts, which have so much arbitrary power over the citizenry of Canada need to be monitored carefully and exposed. Yes, for justice to be done, shining a bright light into this dark corner of Canada’s body politic is essential.
    (I’ve sometimes wondered why Christians don’t deliberately put themselves in a position to be belittled by some gay activists and then lodge their own complaints. [Actually, ordinary gay activism often does belittle and besmirch Christians, so manufacturing a case isn’t really necessary.] I believe this doesn’t happen because Christians recognize that harassing fellow citizens, with possibly extremely damaging consequences, is neither an honourable nor a charitable thing to do. There are better, more mature, less belligerent ways to deal with one’s problems. [Maybe getting on with your life.] Christians also have a healthy fear of becoming entangled with the star chamber system of the HRCs: seeing as, so far, just about every other right trumps Christianity in the HRCs—and our courts—maybe it’s better to keep one’s head below the ramparts.)
    It’s really heartening to see the blogosphere cottoning on to this huge threat to freedom in this country. Maybe the tide’s beginning to turn. However, we certainly can’t rest on our laurels, as some have rightly pointed out.
    Anyway, Kate, thanks for posting this and, FD, I rejoice with you. I’m just raising my morning coffee: Prosit!!

  13. Great post lookout: The reason Christians don’t put themselves in those positions is the same reason prarie farmers don’t scream for a human rights violation as far as only being able to sell to the stinking wheat board as ontario and quebec can sell anywhere they want. The reason is PRIDE, that is something any one who earns an honest living has over these stinking lieberal theives and it is the only thing they can’t take away. These parisites that push these cases have no pride, own nothing, and live off our tax dollars, they have nothing to lose!

  14. I kept wondering: Why did this even get registered as a complaint at the PKCC (Provincial Kangaroo Court Commission). At the very least, shouldn’t the complainant him/herself be the aggrieved party? Should persons be able to register complaints against the alleged damaged done to 3rd parties? But of course these dangerous bodies need the work so it would be unreasonable to expect them to dismiss out of hand these insidious initiatives.
    We have a similar problem with the SCC: the ability of “intervenors” to make presentations to the court on behalf of 3rd parties turning it from a true court into a PAC (political action committee) or advanced poli-science seminar.
    “Victim impact” statements are another form of intervenor activity which should be totally abolished as the punishment should not be graded according to the intensity of the feelings and/or the dramatic abilities of the victims.
    Hate crime laws INCREASE hatred and cause enormous damage to the polity and should be abolished. BUT, like every other government programme once instituted expect it to be permanent (think of the gun registry and how it will survive even a CPC majority).

  15. Interesting time line here. The original letter to FD was dated 16 July, and received 18 July (the same day a detailed response was considered due). This means that a letter can go from the CHRC to FD in two days.
    Now it seems that this Miss (and I use that term deliberately) Gentes person asked that the complaint be withdrawn on 17 July, the day after the CHRC letter was written, and the day before it was received by FD. (Which BTW means that Geoff is incorrect in his suggestion above that having her name bruited about publicly caused her to withdraw – in fact it may have been a desire to avoid publicity that prompted her decision to withdraw the complaint before things got rolling. That said, Geoff’s point is still valid – sunlight is a great disinfectant, and publicizing palintiffs’ identities and relevant histories is an excellent tactic.)
    Now let’s assume it was too late for the CHRC to pull the letter out of the Outbound Mail box and that it was already on the way. A “Never mind …” letter could have been prepared and expedited by mid-day on 18 July at the latest (that was a Wednesday) to arrive at FD on 19 or 20 July (a Friday) at the latest. In addition to which, a phone call could have been made to tell FD that the complaint in that letter they may-or-may-not have received was withdrawn and that a letter to that effect would be arriving.
    But this didn’t happen. Nothing was done for a week, and Gentes had to ask the CHRC a second time, on 23 July, to terminate the case. (By now her name WOULD have been made public, and she may well have been quite upset at the Commission.) And even then, it took yet another week for the CHRC to actually do so, generating their “Never mind …” letter on 01 August (which was received on 03 August, another two-day delivery interval).
    Bottom line – this places responsibility for the cock-up squarely with the Commission. Miss Gentes filed the complaint, then reconsidered and asked it to be withdrawn. Too late as a letter had already been issued, but c’est la vie. Had FD received the complaint letter and the “Never mind…” letter (or at least a phone call about it) on the same day, then this whole thing could have been minimized.
    Yes, FD would certainly have posted the fact that the CHRC had been coming after them but withdrew, but Gentes’ name would never have been published (her name was not in the original complaint letter and could have been kept out of the follow-up).
    As it is, the CHRC ends up with a black eye, Miss Gentes ends up embarrassed, and FD (and others) get the dry run that will no doubt prove valuable in the future.
    Those clots at the CHRC couldn’t have done a worse job. Beautiful.

  16. From what I could gather, I dunno if I want those dunces at free dominion assuming they can speak for me as a conservative.
    The proper response to such a provocation should not be a sigh of relief because some liberal ass hat decided to quit.
    The proper response should have been:
    Rope. Tree. Liberal. Some assembly required.
    Morons.

  17. I agree with you 100%, bartinsky. In this and previous threads, many SDA and FD readers alike have demonstrated great pride as befitting their Christian heritage. These true born-and-raised Canadians, often unsurprisingly found in the independent-minded western prairies, are truly inspiring. If there’s one thing that the rest of Canada could use more of, and of which you’ll find in abundance display at FD/SDA, it’s pride — white Christian pride.

  18. Well Doug, if what you state happenened is valid, then I expect this Gentes woman to file a complaint against the CHRC for causing her undue embarassement.

  19. Robby:
    I believe the word you’re looking for is courage.
    Instead of cowering before these quasi-judicial and totally judgmental bodies, we need the courage to present intelligent arguments.
    There are no victories in cowardice on the battleground of ideas.
    The trouble with the concept of pride is that it is frequently a precursor of a non-productive power struggle.
    For example, the HRC is a prideful organization which purports to know how best to run your life.

  20. The dates were interesting – they suggest that Dr. Gentes filed a complaint, got second thoughts when she learned that it would be followed through upon by the CHRC, and then tried to withdraw it. Perhaps she just wanted to sound off.
    Ironically, she probably would have been better served had she had made a complaint to FD directly.

  21. After reading through some of the FD announcement thread, during which I saw the comment of a poster whose sentiments were like mine above, I found out that the poster of the threads that were the focus of the complaint was banned, due to an unrelated administrative matter. (He posted during a time when he said he wouldn’t.)
    This fellow, Bill Whatcott, was banned once before and was let back in once, so he might be back again on FD subsequently.

  22. Doug, my thoughts exactly when I read that there had been a withdrawal of the accusations by the complainant on July 17 AND 23.
    And then the question:
    Why did Free Dominion have to wait UNTIL AUGUST 3 to hear that the charges had been withdrawn? They were left waiting by the HRC for OVER TWO WEEKS before discovering that there would be no case against them.
    As far as I’m concerned, this amounts to harassment on the part of the HRC, intentional or not. The stress of being taken before a Kangaroo Court, where the onus–and expense–was on FD to prove that it was innocent of a frivolous and politically motivated charge would be considerable.
    What was the HRC thinking? Why did it take them so long to let FD know that the complaint against them had been withdrawn two weeks earlier–and withdrawn TWICE?
    Doesn’t the HRC owe Free Dominion an apology, at the very least, and costs if any have been incurred?

  23. This was always a tempest in a teapot. These complaints are legion. They are directed at sites of various ideological hues – right and left – by their ideological opponents – left and right. It is very seldom that anything comes of it. I don’t know why everyone got so excited. I can only assume that they were unaware of these facts.

  24. People,please dont apoligize for Gentes.She is not some 8th grader that doesnt know any different,she is a proffesser at the U of S and thought that she could get away with it.You never know what happened in her work place.All these kind of people should have to publish their E mail and home address.

  25. BATB asked:
    What was the HRC thinking? Why did it take them so long to let FD know that the complaint against them had been withdrawn two weeks earlier
    Because every bureaucrat knows that to act quickly is to suggest that perhaps there wasn’t enough work for the staff to do, whereas the delay suggests they are very busy and fully utilized. When thinking of the bureaucracy and how it functions it is quite literally impossible to be too cynical.

  26. Couldn’t Free Dominion take the HRC to court for harassment, pain and suffering, etc?
    The premise of these HRCs is faulty, in that their very basis for existence is grounded in subjective feelings. Feelings of being discriminated against, of being ‘hurt’ etc.
    Translating one person’s subjective feelings into an objective fact is already a suspect action. How do you translate an individual feeling of being ‘hurt’ into an objective scale of universal validity?
    Then, trying to find the ‘objective cause’ of this new ‘objective fact’ is equally ambiguous.
    How could we have set up courts/commissions that are based completely and totally around qualitative emotions. And given them such powers over our lives?
    Of course, they immediately move into corrupt systems of power, where the incumbents have enormous personal power over individuals. And, because they deal only in qualitative subjective emotions and decisions, there can’t be any appeal – which would be another qualitative subjective decision. Insane.

  27. The HRC seems to have very little to do with actual “Rights” or Humans.
    I read a report that stated what we already knew for a long long time now , the actual valid cases that go to Court or result in a ruling for a violation of a Human Right was roughly 5% of the Alleged complaints.
    And of course the current majority of whiners within the failed 95% that have oodles of time on their hands are Muslims that cry “Islamophobia” or “Racism” as if Islam is a Race of People and not a facsist death-cult open to all yahoo’s with a chip on their shoulder.
    Sadly though, the Handicapped that just want fairness and equal access to buildings so they get get jobs are the ones that suffer from the long line of Muslims in front of them that try to demand equal status to “Race” as a People in hope of the Pot-O-Gold in canada like Maher Arar got for what his Lawyer said Jordan and Syria did to him.
    BTW
    There is still a youTube video of Nihad Awad from CAIR praising Arar for getting his $12 Million dollars from Canada and finally confessing that CAIR supports the Arar’s and has supported them since 2000 when the FBI watched him at his home near the Boston Airport where he also attended a radical Mosque with Al-Qaeda suspected Jihadists recruiting muslim youth for suicide mission around the World.
    CAIR’s Mr.Awad was finally ID’d as the Nihad mentioned in a report about a Hamas-based Muslim group raising funds in the USA for Palestinian terrorist groups to buy weapons , CAIR had denied any ties to Hamas or Terrorism funded and avoided any Public links to Maher Arar who was alleged by the USA to be tied to Hamas and CAIR’s terrorism ties.
    During the O’Connor Inquiry over Arar it was revealed that Maher lived in the USA and Canada just prior to 9/11 and he was about to get a Job at the “Holy Land Fund” charity which is still frozen by the FBI and now linked to CAIR and Nihad Awad and Hams and Terror funding and Immigrant smuggling into the USA and Canada.
    Check it out for yourself folks, Arar’s very own website posts his original $30 million dollar claim against “JORDAN” for allowing him to be Kidnapped by Arabs after he deplaned from the USA and was to meet his wife and kids to fly back to Canada , Arar’s lawyer made it clear that it was Jordan’s fault for kidnappers that tortured him in Jordan and then drove Arar back to his homeland of Syria where he was still wanted on a Warrant for being a Draft-Dodger at 19 that fled to Canada as a refugee.
    Arar quickly applied for a gun permit in Canada and was approved around 1992 which was just 3 years after the Jihad in Montreal by Gamil Gharbi who murdered 14 female students before his suicide to be with Allah , the Inquiry transcripts are on the Internet still and show how Arar quickly married to stay in canada and didn’t tell his wife about the Gun permit he had
    nor his home in Boston .
    The HRC is a tactic by people to use Financial terrorism on Businesses that find it cheaper to pay off whiners like Arar rather than pay the costs for a long and dragged out Court case where they lose merely by the Public perception of Corp’s beating up the little guy , Arar wanted $400’000’000.00 from us for what Jordan and Syria did to him but when the facts came out over possible ties to Al-Qaeda it was Arar that asked for $30’000’000.00 Out-Of-Court to settle it, then right befor the O’Connor report Arar’s lawyer asked for $25 million , but alas…this slam-dunk case was then settled for $10 million
    to save Canadians from the costs to go to Court against this Muslim that milked the Media and had the NDP on his side all the time they sued us Taxpayers.
    Arar was never proven Innocent, O’Connor onlt stated that NO Evidence proved any ties to Terrorism or Terror goups in canada , and the Arar’s hadn’t committed any Crimes in canada.
    Pretty simple legal Comment that balances the Inquiry so either side can claim a victory.

  30. Arar was never proven Innocent”
    yo, rog…. you have it severely backwards.
    ’tis for the gubbamint to prove GUILT, not for the defendant to prove innocence. any logician will readily state you cant prove a negative.
    1223 somewhere in england: “pruve ya didnts doos it sirrah or off you go to the gallows”
    2007 somewhere in canukistan: “no proof of guilt so the case is dismissed”
    see the difference?

  31. pokemon, you’re right: citizens shouldn’t have to prove their innocence: it’s up to the state to prove their guilt! So, you might be interested, then, in my above post, of August 5th at 9:47 a.m., where you’ll see that what you suggest happens in Canada often doesn’t.
    Canadian Human Rights (sic) Commissions assume the guilt, at face value, on the say-so of the complainant, of the defendant. Then that person–minus the resources of the state given to the complainant–is expected to prove his/her innocence. “Severely backwards” as you note. Read what I’ve written about this.

  32. The offensive part about this story is the nature of this atrocity itself. The HRC is a rights destroying body that oppresses the free speech rights of Canadians.
    What this story (and others like it) does is to instil fear into the public. Legal defence is expensive. This is a way for commie leftards to crush dissent and stifle debate.
    The complainant has no consequences. She isn’t required to pay the legal costs of the organization she oppressed. There is no cost to harass opponents and force them to spend money they often don’t have defending themselves against and ideological opponent.
    This is a body for leftist tyranny, not human rights and it should be abolished.

  35. You’ve got it, Warwick!
    BTW, the HRCs also research the case on behalf of the complainant only–not using the procedural rules of evidence–and then CHOOSE the members of the tribunal to adjudicate the case.
    “Star Chamber” is not too strong a term to use to describe these repressive, arbitrary, strong arm of the state travesties.
    Canadians, look out!
    Yes, the HRCs should be altogether abolished. And, as long as the Conservatives are in power, the Court Challenges Program (CCP), a Liberal slush fund to pay the considerable costs of litigation, HAS been abolished. The Program, administered by–wait for it–left-wing, often homosexual activists, only gave funds to left-wing groups and individuals using the Charter to socially engineer Canada into a country our parents and grandparents wouldn’t recognize. The feminist and homosexual court cases, which have turned Judeo-Christian virtues on their head in this country, were largely funded by the beleaguered Canadian taxpayer, via the CCP.
    With this fund now gone, the feminists and homosexuals have had their litigious wings somewhat clipped and the courts have lost opportunities to promote their favourite, ideological, anti-tradition, anti-family, anti-Christian agenda.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation