Here's pretty much all the "factual" information for readers to base their decision upon. I believe most folks will just believe what the MSM tells them to believe, if this is all the information they're given:
He distributed flyers in Regina and Saskatoon in 2001 and 2002 railing
against information about homosexuality that was being taught in the Saskatoon
public school system and at the University of Saskatchewan.
No indication of exactly what the man actually said so we can judge for ourselves whether the way he has been treated is just. Just vague, generalized, open-to-the-imagination reporting. Nice job, eh? Comprehensive. Informative. Fair. Balanced. NOT.
Note the word "railing". Boy, talk about avoiding using judgemental, pejorative words and just reporting what happened. But then again, we know the MSM has an agenda to manipulate the public perception with such judgemental words. Couldn't they have simply used the word "criticizing"? And there's a lot of factual information omitted there, too. So don't we want to know the rest of the story?
Seems to me that the effect of this little MSM report is to demonize the man in the mind of the guillible, impressionable reader. What else will folks think, when they (most folks, actually, as they're too busy and/or unmotivated to dig deeper for the rest of the story from other sources) depend essentially wholly on the MSM to tell them what's going on? The MSM knows that they're not likely to be challenged in any way significant enough to cause them to worry, so they regularly report in such manipulative ways. I think Joseph Goebbels would be very impressed with the subtle-but-massively-effective propagandizing of today's Free World media.
Now, here's the World Net Daily report. It's far, far more comprehensive and may tend to make you feel outraged at what happened to a Canadian man for exercising his human/Charter right to freedom of expression, which was taken away by what's pretty much an agency of the Far Left, paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Imagine that... violating political correctness imperatives and ending up with your rights taken away and fined many thousands of dollars by an illegitimate kangaroo court which seemingly only goes after folks who are politically incorrect!
A lifetime ban on public criticism of homosexuality was upheld against a
Catholic activist in Canada by his province's superior court.
Like I've said in the past, the Left is always taking away the human/Charter rights of Christians (And, yes, it happens in Canada, too; not just in America and Europe). Imagine that: the state apparatus orders you to never, never again express your opinion on a particular topic. Imagine that!
In Canada. I didn't make this up.
Bill Whatcott was fined 17,500 Canadian dollars by the Saskatchewan Human
Rights Commission in a complaint by four homosexuals who charged he "injured"
their "feelings" and "self respect" in pamphlets denouncing the "gay lifestyle"
as immoral and dangerous, Lifesite News reported.
Ever hear of anyone being treated like that for hurting the feelings of Catholics by calling them "intolerant" and "mean spirited" and so on? I never have. Interesting. Some peoples' feelings are important; others' are not? Is this what is meant by "human rights"? Treating different groups of individuals differently according to politically correct dogma?
So... exactly what did the man actually say? What was so horrendous that it justified the revokation of his human/Charter right to freedom of expression? (I always thought that rights couldn't ever, ever be taken away, as I see rapists, murderers and terrorists having their rights reinforced, not reduced and certainly not taken away!)
Whatcott says his pamphlets used "verbatim" a text from a
classified personal advertisement in a local homosexual publication that said,
"Man seeking boys … age not so relevant."
Imagine that... having your rights taken away by some "commission" for criticizing a homopedophile's classified ad suggesting that potentially underage boys meet him for certain activities! Isn't soliciting sex with minors a serious crime? What's wrong with "railing" against pedophiles advertising their desire to meet young boys for illegal activities? And what was done to bring the homopedophile to justice for this crime? Anyone know anything about that?
LifeSiteNews noted Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren
criticized the tribunals as "kangaroo courts" and "star chambers" with
"quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country
... in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn."
There's a petition being circulated to urge the Prime Minister to abolish such fascist organizations or at least revoke their illegal/unconstitutional powers. I'd recommend at least ending their taxpayer funding completely.
After all, what do we have REAL courts for? When people break the law, they're entitled to due process, a fair trial, representation, not summary judgement and sentencing, like in Communist China, Islamofascist Saudi Arabia, Mugabe's brutal Zimbabwe, Castro's fascist Cuba, etc...
Is Canada a "just society", as promised by the exalted Pierre Elliot Trudeau when he announced his "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"?
I say no. Canada isn't a "just society" as long as such things happen, as long as rights are taken away for being politically incorrect, for angering some folks...
I thought freedom of expression was sacred; that one's freedom to say what one wanted was constitutionally protected from revokation, no matter whom it offended or angered.
After all, the day will come when people will have their rights taken away for offending the government... in fact, I think that happened already, and I've seen it happen to people who offended the previous Liberal regime... like reporters ending up getting suspended or fired for negatively reporting on the Liberals/Prime Minister Chretien, or even suspended for merely saying something unflattering about the government, like calling it the "forces of darkness" in an email to a witness (the case of Terry Milewski).
While some folks may not particularly agree with some of the things he says, or find his language needlessly provocatively strong, fair minded folks will not agree with revoking his right to say what he wants. Because everyone else has the same right to counter his speech with their own! Now the "everyone else" has the right to speak against him, but he's been silenced! This is NOT just!
More power to him for pushing ahead with his appeals. He should have the support of all, including even homosexuals and pedophiles, who understand that they, too, could have their right to free speech someday taken away by a state apparatus with new, different politically-correct imperatives. But I predict that they'll continue with the delusion that their kind of political correctness is eternal, that their Far-Left ideology will only spread and strengthen. But that's their right. Being deluded isn't a crime, after all. If they want to see people they hate lose their rights, that's their problem. Taking away anyone's rights tends to backfire on those who do the taking-away. Look at what happened to the Nazis of Hitler. Look at what happened to Saddam Hussein. Look at what happened to the Taliban. Look at what will eventually happen to the Far Left (it happened to the Soviet Union).
If we don't support this man in his fight to get his rights back, we may end up hurting ourselves in the long run; we may lose our own rights. Even my strongest ideological opponents (and you know who you are), after all, swear to me that they'll fight for my right to say what I want, even if they detest what I say. So I hope they'll put their money where their mouths are, and not prove themselves liars. I hope they'll blog in favor of this man's rights, and not support those who claim "offence" and not be apologists for any phony "human rights" kangaroo-court organizations.
"Human rights". This is amazing, isn't it? The Far Left can be anything they want and get away with it simply by self-labelling their organizations with the warm-and-fuzzy words "human rights". Just as the Chinese Communists call their regime "The Peoples' Republic" and how the North Korean tyrant calls his regime "Democratic". And there's also the "American Civil Liberties Union", whose agenda largely includes persecuting Christians and litigating to take away their rights based on the Big Lie of "separation of church and state".
Finally, it bears mentioning that the Charter is self-abrogatory, just like Islam. Trudeau's Charter is defective in that it offers a loophole of indeterminate nature and size to the state apparatus for the purpose of revoking or limiting rights. All it takes is for a court or kangaroo court to sophistize an excuse for doing so! It's so open to interpretation as to be dangerously unjust and potentially fascist. But then again, we know what Trudeau's true ideological beliefs were... they were closer to the beliefs of the likes of Fidel Castro, Karl Marx, Mao Tse-Tung et al...
When Trudeau announced the words "Just Society", what did he really, really mean? Is it like calling Red China the "Peoples' Republic"? Like calling the former East Germany the "German Democratic Republic"? Like calling Kim Jung Il's North Korea the "Democratic Republic of Korea"? Like calling the Liberals (who are only "liberal" some of the time) the "Liberals"? Like calling the New Democrats (who are only "democratic" some of the time) "Democrats"?
