Ezra Levant asks if it’s a good idea to lodge human rights complaints against anti-Christian expressions?
I think it just legitimizes the illegitimate, but I know others disagree.
Ezra Levant asks if it’s a good idea to lodge human rights complaints against anti-Christian expressions?
I think it just legitimizes the illegitimate, but I know others disagree.
You are right, Jaeger. The thing to do is attack and destroy (legally and politically, for the microcephalic Lefties out there) these HRCs a soon as humanly possible.
There is no safety living in a country where political witch hunts are conducted. Whatever ideology is on top at the moment is irrelevant, sooner or later they are going to come for you.
The -only- justification for filing such complaints is to demonstrate the corruption of the process. To my mind that’s been sufficiently shown already. We have the range on the sons of b1tches, we just need to maintain fire.
When anyone or their beliefs are under attack I find it amusing that they respond with indignation or anger. To me that is a sure sigh of insecurity of not only themselves but their beliefs. No one can insult me because of my beliefs my heritage or my colour because I am confident in what I am. Give them a smile then a dismissive and condescending flick of the wrist as you turn away or talk to the one next to them. That flick of the wrist says more to them than even the best thought out argument.
Jaeger and Phantom are absolutely correct.
Do not legitamize the corruption that embodies any Canadian”human rights body” as they currently exist and function in Canada under their current mandate.
The Harper administration had better neuter and nullify these state enabled monstrosities lest they lose the support they currently have from the right.
Agree 101%. It legitimizes they’re little game of playing god. It will flatter their egos of being arbitraters of our affairs. It only serves to solidify their position. We should give them no credence.
It disturbs me that the people who filed this complaint can’t see this – I wish they would withdraw the complaint instead of willingly playing they’re game.
Yep, the Phantom says it all, “maintain fire.”
By all means, file a charge against Kenny Hotz. He’ll be way more entertaining than Ezra. If there is one person who can smash the HRC, it’s Kenny.
I agree with others that running to the Department of hurt feelings with one’s emotional bobos is just not on.
I am glad this one man is giving it a shot to prove the point that Ezra made that some animals are more equal than others.
Death to the CHRC!
Hey, can a US citizen make a complaint to the CHRC? Just wondering…
The point of the complaint isn’t to win, obviously.
It’s to have the complaint dismissed. Dismissal will constitute proof that the HRCs are discriminatory.
It’s, in my opinion, a powerful tool we can use to further expose them, namely by exposing their discriminatory treatment of some groups relative to others.
Let’s think outside the box. It’s not about legitimizing the HRCs, for they are already, in the eyes of the far left, legitimate, if falsely so. Rather, it’s actually about using them to de-legitimize them in the eyes of the general public. Once we do this, we make it easier for the gov’t to abolish the commissions.
Oh, and my own post, if y’all are interested:
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2008/08/its-lefts-turn-in-kangaroo-court.html
Be sure to read the comments there… it appears that either Kenny Hotz himself or someone pretending to be him might have some “hurt feelings” of his own… look at what he says about my post and see my very brief retort. Heh.
Agree with the comments so far. However, arguably, the effect of the complaint will be to remove any vestige of legitimacy to which the HRCs may pretend. It’s a lose-lose scenario for the left. Either the HRCs will dismiss the complaint (the likely outcome) making it flagrantly clear how corrupt the entire process is or the complaint will be successful making it abundantly clear to any lefties/atheists who may have had any lingering doubt that they’re now in the crosshairs of their own creation — hoisted on their own petard. Imagine the chilling effect on organizations such as the NDP or lefty university professors who spew out endless, vitriolic bile against christians, members of the armed forces, people of British/European heritage etc.
Orlin
I’m not sure about the CHRC but in BC anyone can lodge a complaint as was seen recently by the Mark Steyn trial. (Ontario complainant against an Ontario magazine with almost all of the lawyers and witnesses from out of province as was evidence from anonymous posters from websites all over the world.) Wally Opal our attorney general when asked about this said that they must accept complaints from anywhere. So at the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver if the crowds boo a Muslim athlete, Osama bin Laden watching from his cave could file a human rights complaint and the taxpayers of BC would be obliged to follow through.
Kenny and Spenny are far and away the biggest idiots on TV today, and that’s quite an accomplishment. Paint drying is more entertaining, and certainly more interesting and useful than their “men as buffoons” theme program.
The latest stunt referred to here is another example of their boring, boorish brand of “humour.” No intelligent person should give a speck of credence to anything either of those two twits does or say.
Perhaps the complainant is showing a turnabout is fair play approach. I understand he is trying to “out” the HRC on this one, to show their religious bias.
Maybe that’s a good thing, then.
Kenny vs. Barbie could be very entertaining.The hrc’s would be probably filing suits over their own trial bacause without a doubt Kenny would go out of his way to offend them all. Imagine someone dressed as mohamhead testifying that he has the right to offend Christians.
“He’ll be way more entertaining than Ezra”
I really doubt that, unless he’s going to get some new material from somewhere. This man is a fool. He’s indicative of a pathetic comedy trend; no sense of humour, just a desire for attention and willing to do anything to get it. I seriously doubt he would challenge the hrc; i think he’d cave pretty quick.
Both arguments are logically compelling, i.e., don’t legitimize the illegitamte vs. demonstrate the hypocrisy when the Christian complaint is inevitably dismissed.
However, I have to weigh in with Jaeger and The Phantom and counsel taking the ethical high ground here, which you compromise when you use this vile state instrument against a fellow citizen who is burdened with the one-sided cost structure we’ve discussed here many times. Put more simply, don’t screw your free speech- exercising fellow citizen to make a political point.
While they are not formally eviserated, I strongly feel that the HRC has already been de-fanged by the hugely negative publicity. Let’s never ever forget that these cats have one, and only one interest: empire building and saving their sorry a**es. Make that two interests. And watch the BC HRC toss the Steyn complaint.
The Phantom: a belated compliment — you’ve been on a hell of a roll lately. Really appreciated your comments on the Greyhound butcher.
It’s a Catch-22 for the HRC’s either way.
If they side with the complainant in this case, it will make it that much easier for Christians to lobby complaints at the drop of a hat against every Tom-Dick-and-Harry who produces something that offends Christianity as they see it. And considering the weight of subject matter that comes into this country or is produced in this country that is specifically designed to offend Christians, it will unleash a tidal wave of complaints that will grind the HRC’s to a complete standstill. They know that they cannot let that happen.
If they toss the case, then it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the HRC’s hold a double standard and that they are a political body and not a human rights body. It will delegitimize the entire body itself and the people who have fought these HRC’s will have the perfect ammo for contending with them.
I think that the people who don’t like the HRC’s and are not happy about this case should just take advantage of the situation: continue the fight against the HRC as a whole and let this situation be a little sideshow gift to your cause without expelling any effort against it. The focus has been on the McLean’s and the Warman issues, which are defining cases here. There’s no need to get distracted by the sideshows until those cases and the issues they raise have been resolved.
Somebody asks you why you aren’t going after the Christian complaining about Kenny and Spenny, you just tell them that you think the HRC’s are a bad idea no matter what, but it’s impossible to go after every complainant. Instead, you have the cases you are focusing on, and until they are resolved, you’re not moving onto any others.
The HRC’s are under attack for their bias (amongst other things); what better pr than taking on that idiot Hotz? His sole and declared purpose was to be offensive! “Guilty!” “Next.” Why on Earth would they turn down this case? It’s a gimme. Win-win for the HRCs.
Don’t let YOUR emotions blind you to tactics; this is risk free for the HRC’s…potentially very expensive for ‘Showtime’ and Hotz. Don’t forget who makes the rules…as they go along.
Actually the “Jesus Sucks” comment is more anti-Hispanic than anti-Christian. Jesus is quite a common name in the Hispanic culture. Maybe someone in the Hispanic community should take the duffus to the HRC. Certainly no Christian should do so. After all as a Christian preacher I know that every sermon I deliver will potentially offend someone within hearing range.
Here’s the biggest problem with his complaint, and a real danger: what if the BCHRT accepts his complaint? They’ll have ammunition, in their public relations war against those who oppose the HRCs; they’ll be able to respond to the accusation that they only go after Christians and people of European descent by saying “Once again, our critics are simply ignoring the facts. Why, just last month we brought hate charges against Kenny Hotz for his hate speech against Christians…”
Etc.
The HRCs are illegitimate. Those who opposes them should not legitimize them or their communist style, big state silenceing powers, and should not give them more business — flying around at $3,000 a pop, staying in expensive hotels, dragging this case out for months — at taxpayers’ expense.
Fire. Them. All. Shut them down.
Nope I personally would rather eat my right hand than file a complaint at HerrHRCs across the land. I don’t have dialog with my trash (HRC) I kick it to the curb, there’s no way I’d give them any ligitimacy or respect. If others feel they can score a point by filing a complaint I can only shrug and hope it doesn’t hurt our cause.
Actually I like the idea. Flood the system. File so many complaints in the HRC that the system shuts down. This is a bizarre type of “civil disobedience”, but the basic idea goes back to Ghandi and MLK: give the kangaroo courts so many cases that they physically can’t do the work.
Wouldn’t it be possible to report the each HRC to all of the others? For example, if I find something the OHRC has done to violate 13.1 can I not report them to CHRC, AHRC, BCHRC etc?
If I were to do this to each would they be in a conflict position to pass judgments on each other? Is it possible to tie the system into knots rather than leverage the system using Conservative political capital?
I don’t know, what’s so bad about turning the tables and face it with anti-Christian/white/Jewish/male complaints you could probably melt down their fax machines in a week.
Just what would they do with that? If nothing else endless calls demanding where they are in the process, when’s the hearing, who is the case manager, when’s my deposition, yada, yada, yada, would provide lots of hilarity and disruption.
Every time some local Islamist utters death-to-Jews on the airwaves he needs to get fax’d as a complaint. If the issue is their biases let them explain why that would get a pass. How about anti-white rap lyrics, the anti-male utterances of rabid feminists, and, I like this one, what’s with the evil Joker in Batman wearing white-face? You could really have fun with this and bury the CHRC’s under a mountain of paper. Go for it.
Except the Human Rights Legislation does not protect everyone in Canada….only minorities. I wouldn’t be surprised if the HRC refuses to hear the complaint.
I thank one and all for the kind comments.
Canadian Sentinel said: “It’s, in my opinion, a powerful tool we can use to further expose them, namely by exposing their discriminatory treatment of some groups relative to others.”
CS, I know you oppose the existence of the HRCs and view this at a tactic to help end them. The problem I have with this tactic is twofold.
First, it assumes the people staffing the HRCs are utter morons. All they have to do to screw you up is take one (1) of these cases. They they appear nobly even-handed, and erase their entire previous record of corruption in one shot. I doubt even the IMBECILE HRC manager who was debating Ezra in that video of his is so hopelessly stupid he couldn’t figure that out.
Second, there’s plenty enough people out there who think the HRC is a -fine- idea, if only it was managed better. You let the public get the idea this thind could work if we just fiddle with the dials a bit, and it will never ever go away. It’ll be like the income tax.
We can’t give them a chance to clean up their act, or we will be re-fighting this with the new and improved Ministry of Love in 20 years from now.
They are a danger to both the health of this nation, and the freedom of each one of us. They need to be shut down, in disgrace, ASAP. Burnt to the ground and sown with salt, never to rise again.
I’d like to live in a country where the Catholic church can refuse to marry same sex couples in their establishments, and Kenny can fly his asinine banner both on the same day. I don’t think that’s too much to expect, give that that is exactly what we’ve had up until recently.
Christians who support the HRC complaint should ask themselves: Has the Muslim response to similar petty provocations helped or damaged the global image of Islam?
WWJD?
Let it slide.
Would a labour day protest on parliment hill do anything?
OK, Phantom, I confess to my capriciousness and not thinking it through as well as you have. I conclude you are right. It is better to let them stand with their 100% record of bias rather than give them a disingenuous opportunity to take on a few egregious anti-Christian cases so they can say “see, we really are advocates for the whole community” which is a sham.
I thank my lucky stars for our First Amendment, so far it has provided a firewall against these little fascists from the left and God knows they’ve tried to disassemble it with nothing like the success they’ve had on free speech in Canada.
HRC’s do not belong in any Democracy, that’s the bottom line.
Harper knows it, he will have to take action and no doubt will when the opportunity presents itself. It’s on the horizon, a majority is looming. If not, this country is LOST. No democracy can exist without basic freedoms for the majority of it’s citizens.
It’s not about some disgruntled minority individual or group accusing a person or people on any perceived offense, no matter how far fetched.
We have to delve further into the Charter of Rights as well which makes some more equal than others which the likes of the HRC’s feed from. This is all thanks to the worst PM we’ve ever had, P. Trudeau.
A few questions for any passing lefty eyeballs: what is it with you people that your moral equivalences accomodate fascism and you think it is a virtue? Is the model of repression of free speech from the Islamic world, the Hitler and Stalin world before it, a permissible symmetry to welcome into the West? China “detained” their dissidents this week and has stated that the internet censorship will stay in place during the Olympics, any of that state censorship ever make you think about the CHRC’s as inappropropriate in a free society? An incremetal slide into fascism?
Just curious.
I ran a religious message board for 8 years. This convinced me that you cannot have honest, meaningful interreligious dialogue if you do not allow people to have their say, even if it’s grossly offensive. Once you get past the offense, people can learn to like each other. And that’s one of the goals: to develop relationships so that you can tolerate differences (I know that sounds so bleeding heart, but it’s true).
Religious censorship is counter-productive to a society that wants true tolerance.
It’s certainly a timely and meaningful question. I say yes, and I’d chastise Christians for not using HRCs sooner. You’re in a gun fight. You have a gun. You do not drop the gun. You use the gun. Anything less is suicidal.
Had Christians used HRCs years ago they might’ve already been shut down by now. In practice, I believe that HRCs simply do not investigate cases that involve Christian defendants, that they ignore or delay such cases, which explains the current situation. I suspect hundreds if not thousands of complaints by Christians over the years have been ignored.
Bad, bad move. Understandable, sort of–but bad.
HRCs don’t care why they have power–they care *if* and *that* they have power.
A world of wide-ranging victims lining up for service is the stuff of their fondest dreams.
You’re in a gun fight. You have a gun. You do not drop the gun. You use the gun.
Bad analogy.
How about: your assailant is tying you up.
You don’t ask for more rope for more victims.
Purge them before they purge you.
Good comments everyone – phantom said it all though IMO. “…maintain fire”.
Western Canadian at August 3, 2008 12:08 PM:
When anyone or their beliefs are under attack I find it amusing that they respond with indignation or anger. To me that is a sure sigh of insecurity of not only themselves but their beliefs. No one can insult me because of my beliefs my heritage or my colour because I am confident in what I am.
Of course WC is exactly right.
Anything other than that is more or less succumbing to the will of the terrorist.
However is one tempted to engage the fascist/socialist organization as CHRC, it should not happen. The temptation is great, though they should not be able to find a way to say that they treat everybody equally. This would only be a show trial if there ever was one.
Grew in a communist ruled country where show trials were the main show on the radio for some time in the fifties, the rhetoric and syntax used was not unlike the pronouncements of the “human rights” commissions of today’s Canada.
It is not clear if the conservatives are willing to do away with the totalitarian setup, save one Member of Parliament with enough guts to speak out, that was once a conservative and is liberal today.
Don’t give them (the socialist, fascists and such) the chance to broadcast their idiocy to the more rather than less agreeable general population that could not tell what is today’s date.
As usual, EBD is correct. You want to starve them, not to
flood them. They can handle floods, indeed, they want one.
It’s the starvation that they can’t handle, already.
A groys gesheft zol er hobn mit shroyre: vus er hot, zol
men bay im nit fregn, un vos men fregt zol er nisht hobn.
The original question has two answers: one is a political one and has been well answered by most of the previous commenters. The other answer is theological. This answer also points to not participating in a HRC complaint – but for completely a different reason.
Many have heard of the phrase “turn the other cheek”. Perhaps it would be helpful if the same idea of suffering were presented in a slightly different manner. One could choose several different passages; I will select only 4:
II Corinthians 11
23Are they servants of Christ?–I speak as if insane–I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death.
24Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes.
25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep.
26I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren;
27I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.
28Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches.
29Who is weak without my being weak? Who is led into sin without my intense concern?
30If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness.
31The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.
I Corinthians 4
9For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.
10We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor.
11To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless;
12and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure;
13when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now.
14I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children.
15For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
16Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me.
I Peter 3
14But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED,
15but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
16and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.
17For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.
18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
I Peter 4
12Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you;
13but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation.
14If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
15Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler;
16but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.
17For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
18AND IF IT IS WITH DIFFICULTY THAT THE RIGHTEOUS IS SAVED, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE GODLESS MAN AND THE SINNER?
19Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.
Yeah Brent, but look, as soon as you invoke the Turn The Other Cheek rhetoric, someone is going to invoke the An Eye For An Eye, Tooth For A Tooth rhetoric. In the end, it doesn’t even matter if they’ve got the classic argument correct, because this is not a metaphysical argument, this is not a theological argument, this is not an epistemological argument, this is not a logical argument, this is not even an axiological argument. This is a political argument about fraud, and oppression, and authoritarianism, and totalitarianism.
This is an argument which we are having with power-hungry Benthamites who are trying to deny Mill’s clearly demarcated limitations of ideological utilitarian utopianism. And so once again we see that the perpetrators of this fraud need to be starved, and not fed, and classic theologic scripture doesn’t have much to do with it other than metaphorically; it is the modern scriptures of fradulent power-mongers and their bureausclerotic apparatchiki that are the enemy here. They are the ones who are preventing we citizens from addressing the issues of our time.
There’s no personal danger in poking fun at Christianity; the guys who came up with this stunt knew that full well.
So, as a gesture, it’s a completely wasted effort and merely silly posturing.
Now, flying an aircraft over Toronto with a statement offensive to Muslims – that would take guts.
Sorry for the delay Vitruvius. I was examining the photos from the particle accelerator Paul posted.
I appreciate your passion in stating the problem and I happen to agree with your analysis as far as you have described the problem. However, there is also the question of the response to the problem. There is a general response that I hold to when I view myself as a (relatively speaking) disinterested third party. I see that as being primarily political and thought I made clear in my first sentence my agreement with the consensus in the thread. Whereas I understand that others may also view the question as political when they are a (relatively speaking) disinterested third party, for me there is also a specific response when I am more personally the target of the issue.
and classic theologic scripture doesn’t have much to do with it …
Respectfully, and gently, I do not think you could be in more error with this statement. Like others, I have given a personal opinion on the question as to how I would respond. I think you can see that some of the sufferring given in the examples can be described as natural hardships; yet most of it is at the hands of humans and the most severe of it is through some sort of political apparatus. Therefore these examples bear very much on the situation simply because they describe the response for a Christian in the face of sufferring including both insults from individuals and injustice due to a political process. The hardships described here through the political process make the both the prank by these hooligans and the HRC process very mild in comparison.
I repeat that I agree with your characterization of the problem. If your response is different than mine, I still thank you for your efforts, Yet, for my response, I defer to Someone else.
Respectfully submitted.
I’m cross posting this from Reader Tips, where I put it yesterday, not realizing this thread was open:
“Re the ‘Jesus Sucks’ controversy: as an observant Christian, I’m offended by the banner, but, what else is new? Jesus can take it and so can I. In fact, those most hurt by this prank are the bigots who get a kick out of it: Lord, have mercy.
“Charles Lewis’s National Post article is the way to respond to this juvenile prank.
“On the other hand, legitimizing the HRCs in any way is a very bad idea. What if these weasels ‘rule’ on what Canadians are ‘allowed’ to say about Christianity and Christians? Help! It’s none of their bloody business: these fascists have no jurisdiction to make such a decision. Anyone who might want them to do so—Skoreyko?—is sadly mistaken: we need to delegitimize these kangaroo courts, not give the bloodsuckers any more illegitimate authority or taxpayers’ hard earned $$.”
I’m glad to see that the consensus seems to be to avoid involving the HRC altogether and to GET. RID. OF. THEM. ALL.
Democrats in the US thought it was a good idea to have a special prosecutor who could publicly investigate the president while he was in office. Kevin Starr investigated Clinton. Democrats are less enthusiastic today about the special prosecutor.
In competitive politics, use the rules and tactics that are legally and ethically available, even if they are unjust. It produces the fairest outcomes in the short term. It is also the quickest way to get more just rules in the long term.
I agree with Surecure.