More intolerant tolerance

Back in April, I wrote about a Christian ministry in Canada that had its ability to remain distinctively Christian removed.

Different country, different month, same story:

A British-based Christian charity organization dedicated to aiding those with learning disabilities lost the right to control its own hiring practices after an Employee Tribunal ruled that it was “discriminatory.”

In a weekend ruling by the Tribunal of Abergele, North West Wales, the tribunal said that Prospects, a well-known charitable organization, could not require new or existing employees to sign and agree to a “religious ethos” or statement of faith in salvation through Jesus Christ.

Although the statement of faith did not require any standard of behavior in its employees other than to “work within both the Christian ethos and the policies of Prospects,” the tribunal ruled the charity’s statement of faith illegal because of its use of public funding.

Back in Canada our kangaroo ‘courts’ carry on bouncing on anything that seems to smack of WrongThought….

From here:

9th June – On Friday, the Alberta Human Rights Commission ordered Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public forum. He was also commanded to pay damages equivalent to $7,000 as a result of the tribunal’s November decision to side with complainant and homosexual activist Dr. Darren Lund. The tribunal has also called for Boissoin to personally apologize to Lund via a public statement in the local newspaper.


Most disturbingly, says Boissoin, is that the ruling calls for him to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” Boissoin wondered to what extent the right to freedom of expression in Canada will be deteriorated, stating, “I am not allowed to hold on to my views.”


And here:

Saskatchewan Marriage Commissioner Fined For Refusing To “Marry” Homosexuals
He referred them to another commissioner but that was not acceptable to them

A Saskatchewan human rights tribunal has fined Regina marriage commissioner Orville Nichols $2,500 for refusing to “marry” two homosexual men who approached him for the ceremony in 2005.

Mr. Nichols told the two men, identified only as “M.J.” and his partner as “B.R.” in the court documents, he would not marry them because it went against his religious convictions as a devout Baptist, but referred them to another commissioner, Edna McCall, because he was aware that she would perform same sex marriages.


It’s pretty nifty if not only can you charge ’em after harassing, you can also charge ’em to harass….

A monthly Canadian Catholic magazine of news, analysis and opinion has been burdened by $20,000 in legal costs in the process of defending itself against a campaign of harassment – including a human rights complaint – launched by homosexualist activists.

Fifteen months after the human rights complaint was filed, CI is still awaiting a ruling from the Canadian Human Rights Commission on whether the matter will proceed beyond the investigation stage. In the meantime the magazine has already racked up $20,000 in legal fees, with no end in sight. Wells, on the other hand, has had all his legal fees covered by the state.

De Valk says that not only does he agree with Mark Steyn that, when it comes to human rights commissions, “the process is the punishment,” but he believes the system is “hopeless” and leaves a significant portion of Canadians who hold traditional values “in terror.” This is especially the case, says de Valk, since the various adjudicators who have been put in charge of the commissions, “all seem to come from one crowd.”

“They’re all people who no longer believe in truth, who believe that hatred is whenever you make me feel uncomfortable. They all have the concept of hatred and comfort mixed up. They no longer believe in the reason of law, the rationale of law, and they certainly don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Truth, is a deceptive thing, apparently. In other news, black is now the new white.

Pro-Life Ads Pointing Out Fact that in Canada Abortion is Permitted Until Birth are Ruled “Deceptive”
Suppression of ads called “an attempt to silence the pro-life voice from public discussion”

In a bizarre ruling last week, Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) rejected evidence from Statistics Canada and declared that pro-life billboards which said abortions are allowed in Canada throughout all nine months of pregnancy were “deceptive.”

Joanne Byfield, president of LifeCanada, the group behind the billboards, said the decision was unbelievable. “Our ads simply state the reality in Canada that there is no law restricting abortion at any stage of pregnancy. This ruling says it is ‘deceptive’ to tell Canadians that,” she said.

But enough of all this. John 16 v33 seems appropriate:

“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

This entry was posted in Christian. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to More intolerant tolerance

  1. Dan says:

    Peter do these tribunals in Canada have real power? What if a ministry simply refused to pay the fine, or go to sensitivity training? Or not show up at your interrogation? Can they imprison people, take kids away, take homes away, freeze bank accounts? Have these tribunals been agressively fought against in any meaningful way? And is there any recourse or appeal for remedy of this stupidity? Does the average Canadian care about this incredible loss of liberty and religious freedom? Or are most brainwashed into a vegetative state? My guess is that the same will be tried here in the states, but I sense there will be alot more resistance to it than in Canada.


  2. white rabbit says:

    A msm journalist by the name of Mark Steyn is now up before the Human Rights tribunal so we will soon see if they have real power. I think they do although a Marc Lemire has had some success standing up to them. Until they went after Steyn they had only picked on nobodies all of whom lost. About 35 of them. Human Rights have not lost a case yet. You can visit to get a better picture.

    You ask if the average Canadian cares and I have to reply that they could not care less. In fact they would be the first to turn you in if you had a cigarette when the sign said “No smoking.” Marijuana is OK and abortion is OK and homosexuality and divorce and. well you get the picture.


  3. Warren says:

    Dan, I’m with White Rabbit with respect to how the average Canadian thinks in this area. I also believe that Canada is a more secular society and that there is a significant difference between Americans and Canadians in how Christianity is viewed generally (I’m no expert, but I did live, work and attend church in the US for three years). Many Canadians see American-style Christian fundamentalism as a much larger threat to society than a minor loss of liberty or freedom, and will gladly back any effort to curtail it. It’s ironic in a way, but I think that Canadian Christians will pay the price for the excesses and extremes of American evangelicalism before their American counterparts.


  4. Peter says:

    Dan – what they said. Sorry not to get back sooner…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s