Defending the family, marriage, morality, Christianity, freedom of speech and the fundamental principles of western civilization has become a "dangerous" job.
In the last few months a barrage of attacks against Canadian individuals and institutions has emerged as the new 'conversational' tactic of anti-civilization activists.
The latest two incidents have been provoked by the same individual who has filed complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission claiming that people engaging in homosexual behaviour have been "offended". The complaints were against Ron Gray, leader of the Christian Heritage Party (CHP), and against Fr. De Valk, editor of the Catholic Insight magazine. In both cases the individuals attacked could not be more compassionate and understanding of the homosexual condition, but their compassion, policy suggestions and news reports have been interpreted as an "offence."
First of all, we need to stand firm in defense of freedom of speech and do our best in support of these particular institutions and individuals.
The CHP is a federal political party. If a political party loses its freedom to analyze, report, argue or object to government policy, in polite and sensitive terms, then Canada has already lost its democratic freedom.
The Catholic Insight magazine is a bastion of morality and an orthodox defender of the Catholic faith. Would an attack to a Jewish or Muslim publication be tolerated by Canadians?
if Canada is indeed a "democracy" and if the people supposedly enjoy freedom of speech, then why the polite and compassionate expression of ideas is even considered as grounds for a complaint? If any "hate" had been expressed by such organizations, surely these would have been charged under the newly enacted federal "hate legislation" (Bill C-250).
These attacks are obviously tactics used to slow down and discourage the diffusion of ideas contrary to the homosexual activist agenda.
They are also a proof that the Canadian governments who created and continue to support these commissions in every Canadian province, in addition to the federal Human Rights Commission, are wasting taxpayers' money in maintaining a duplicate quasi-juridical structure with the powers of fining and punishing individuals without going through formal legal proceedings.
Not only these particular cases should be immediately dismissed, but the whole concept of 'commissions' replacing the legal juridical structure is dangerous and undemocratic. Such commissions, as politically appointed by the governments in power, fly in the face of basic democratic principles, which require the independence between the Legislative and the Judicial branches of any government.
The policy of the Family Coalition Party already calls for the abolition of the Ontario HRC, as a duplicate, costly, undemocratic and dangerous institution.
Previous cases (e.g.: Boissoin, Brokie, Hall, Kempling, Owens, Steyn) are examples of the real damage and disservice to freedom perpetrated by these commissions.
Do Canadians even know about these cases?
- The major Canadian media rarely report "politically incorrect" news.
- The Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC), another federal institution created for the purpose of "regulating" (i.e. limiting) freedom of speech above and beyond criminal law, has contributed to keeping Canadians generally ignorant about anything that does not fit the politically correct Canadian "culture".
- Churches and charitable organizations are generally afraid of speaking out, in fear of losing their "charitable status". Now political parties and independent news media are in danger of being silenced.
- It does not seem that any of the governments in power or any of the major political parties are ready to act. Their position of power is based on "control", rather than on freedom of expression and fair elections.
Will Canadians, who normally show little interest in voting at election time, now recognize the real attacks to their freedoms, while they are 'asleep at the wheel' of Canadian democracy? Who is going to inform them? Who is going to speak for them?
What kind of a country are our children going to inherit?