What is happening to Canada?
So Ed Stelmach's "conservative" government now believes that if it can't convince a Christian pastor that he's wrong, it will just order him to condemn himself? Other than tribunals in Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China, where is this Orwellian "order" considered to be justice?
This is like a Third World jail-house confession -- where accused criminals are forced to sign false statements of guilt. But the thing about jail-house confessions is that they at least pretend to be real. The forcible nature of them is kept secret. Not here: Andreachuk just comes out and says it: you're going to say you're sorry, even if you aren't.
That's a bizarre "remedy". It's meaningless, other than as a thought crime. We don't even "order" murderers to apologize to their victims' families. Because we know that a forced apology is meaningless. But not if your point is to degrade Christian pastors.
What will happen to the pastor if he refuses? Who will end this madness?
Wow. I guess the HRC's charter is to squash human rights.
I don't use the word often, but these HRC's are truly scary. I sort of expect these things from China or Russia, but to see them in Canada is frightening.
My grandfather owns some property in the Maritimes, and I've always enjoyed summer holidays on those windy shores, and I never felt like a stranger in a strange land or that I had to watch what I say or to whom I said it. Now I do.
Ah, Ezra - what the heck does Premier Ed Stelmach have to do with the ruling of a low-level bureaucrat in an organization generally loathed by his party? I think a lot of the nuance of this case has been lost in Mr. Levant's blog post, not that I generally agree with the human rights commission. Trying to tie this to the current government, though - ugh. Suffice it to say that Mr. Levant's antipathy towards the Stelmach government has some of the same flavour of Rush Limbaugh's attitude towards John McCain.
what the heck does Premier Ed Stelmach have to do with the ruling of a low-level bureaucrat in an organization generally loathed by his party?
From the HRCM Act creating the Alberta HRC...
The Lt Gov appoints the chief commissioner (section 15). The Minister prescribes payment for commissioner's service (section 15). Funding is granted by the legislature and controlled by The Minister (section 13).
Question, if the organization is loathed by the controlling party of parliament, why do they fund the organization? If it is fundamentally good but poorly run, then why doesn't the controlling party change the leadership of the HRC via its authority to appoint commissioners? If all else fails, what prohibits The Minister from refusing to pay for the HRC?
For others, I recommend reading the act. The "Effect of Act on provincial law" is chilling, particularly when you read the prohibitions. Here is the very first code of conduct:
(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt
In other words, you can't do anything resembling "speech" that someone else feels is discrimination. Taken to the logical constraints, an emblem on a door showing a stick figure with a skirt cannot be used to discriminate between who can or cannot use the restroom facilities within.
Some may think I'm kidding about the restroom, but I'm not. How do I know? Because it took another sub-section to declare that the act does not apply to the display of a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation displayed to identify facilities customarily used by one gender.
By my reading, handicap signs are discriminatory and prohibited by this act.
Soon it will be a capital crime to offend (Islam being the prime example.) Christians are told not to be quick to take offense; To turn the other cheek. The result is one of two things. They are fools that should defend themselves better or God will ultimately protect them.
Most people see them as fools.
The apostle Paul took the legal route.
The rest of us may not be as able.
Thanks for keeping us informed Rand.
If thinking is a crime you commit multiple felonies.
>> What the heck does Premier Ed Stelmach have to do with the ruling of a low-level bureaucrat in an organization generally loathed by his party?
> Question, if the organization is loathed by the controlling party of parliament, why do they fund the organization?
Because they have to be seen to be doing something; that is, they have to pretend to be moderates. Alberta has had uninterrupted conservative rule for considerably longer than I've been alive, so they definitely assented to the AHRC, but Alberta also has an environment minister, and that doesn't mean they're pro-environment.
Fair enough Ashley, but that doesn't mean others can't, in writing, hold the government accountable. Then again, we are talking about Canada and Alberta, both created HRC's, so maybe you can't hold them accountable in writing.
Fortunately, we still have some freedoms south of the border, so I'm free to ridicule the stupid HRCM Act and anybody who supports the Act or HRC.