betsy

Just as a true believer would find it almost impossible to discuss her faith in an objective manner with a person who clings to self-gratification and all wordly things. Faith does not come if one does not welcome and embrace it. What more if it's a faith that commands giving up worldly pleasures. Of course, it's far easier to justify one's self by attempting to erode or destroy the faith of the believer. Have you notice how a lot of atheists rabidly attacks belief in God....I mean if you don't believe in God, you don't. It's almost like they feel threatened by the mere fact that some do believe in God. Somehow, with others believing in God makes them (atheists) "uncomfortable" in their own non-God belief. Bubber, if you feel uncomfortable, then it must mean there is a war raging inside you. A part of you is screaming that you should believe. You may scratch the surface of what true Christians believe. But there is more to than just reading the words in the Bible. Not all Christians who open the Bible understands the Bible. Not all Christians who open and read the Bible are expected to understand the Bible. Also take note of how I emphasize the word "true".....not all professed christians are actually following the teachings of Christ. Have you read the Bible more than once? Have you joined in any true Christian Bible studies? It strikes me that you got stalled upon reading the list of Commandments... Kidding aside, if you truly would want to discuss the Bible indepth, it's better that you discuss it with someone who understands the Bible well. Btw, there seems to be this belief that having faith does not require objective thinking. It's the non-believers, the moral relativists that doesn't exercise objective thought. It's pretty easy to imagine you've got it all figured out when you beleive that whatever you believe is the truth.

For those of you interested to tune in on that Michael Coren show with Ezra Levant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NQqjNkW21M

Yes. I think it should be like a real judicial court. With necessary credentials and qualifications. And there should be accountability, after all these judges have the power to disrupt lives.

Gay Magazine: Abolish Human Rights Censorship By Ezra Levant on February 11, 2009 10:11 PM "I've noted many time, with admiration, that Egale, Canada's largest gay lobby group, has opposed section 13, the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Here's Egale's chief, arguing against censorship, even against anti-gay "haters". Egale even went further; in the abominable case of Lund v. Boissoin, where a busy-body activist complained against a Christian preacher, and the Alberta human rights commission sentenced Rev. Boissoin to a lifetime ban against him preaching about sexuality, Lund had originally requested that Boissoin be fined, and that the fine by paid to Egale. When Egale heard about this, they advised Alberta's HRC that they were utterly against such censorship, and would not accept the blood money. (Lund then chivalrously requested it for himself, and the commission happily agreed.) In its latest issue, Xtra, the Canadian gay magazine, has "come out" against human rights censorship yet again. Here's the column. Some excerpts: ...the very nature of the right to free speech is that they get to say it. Then, the rest of us get to argue with them, denounce their views, call it drivel — basically, joust with words. But, instead, now folks go racing to human rights commissions and say, "I'm offended." ...we may all have a right to free speech, but no one has a right to be published in the newspaper. A free press means that the folks who own and publish and edit the press get to back those decisions. ...The hate speech provisions create an incentive to bring a complaint, so that you can actually then attract attention to your claim that something is offensive. Sorry, but this is crazy. Human rights commissions should not be censors. They should not be deciding just what words are too offensive for the Canadian public to hear. Imagine how gay presses might have fared over the years with these kind of laws, since lots of Canadians think that the stuff that gay people say is, well, totally offensive." http://ezralevant.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search...;IncludeBlogs=1

SILENCING CHRISTIANS: The Gagging of Stephen Boissoin By Michael Hoffman "Anyone doubting the hatred of Canada's quasi-judicial human rights industry for Christianity should look at the ruthless gagging of a Red Deer, Alberta, Canada preacher Stephen Boissoin. For writing a letter critical of homosexuality to the Red Deer Advocate, he had been ordered by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to pay a $7,000 fine, apologize for criticizing one of Canada's privileged minorities, (homosexuals) and never again in any venue or medium criticize homosexuals. He has, thus, been asked to renounce a key tenet of the Christian faith. In times past, men and women have died rather than knuckle under to political correctness and renounce their faith. Rev. Boissoin is defiant and has vowed no apology and is appealing the outrageous decision. In a decision reminiscent of Red Chinese executing dissidents and then sending a bill for the bullet to the victim's family, Rev. Boissoin was ordered to compensate his persecutor to the tune of $5,000 for the time and effort he'd spent trying to gag the pastor." [This article is from the upcoming issue of the Free Speech Monitor, November, 2008. The Free Speech Monitor is published by the Canadian Association for Free Expression and is available by subscription for $15 (10 issues annually) by writing to CAFÉ, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON, M9W 5L3, Canada.] http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2008...of-stephen.html - 81k –

Kangaroo Canada by Douglas Farrow Copyright © 2008 First Things (August/September 2008). “These commissions (HRCs, for short) were set up in the 1960s and 1970s with the aim of combating discrimination on a practical level. In recent times, however, they have transmogrified into mechanisms for enforcing politically correct ideologies and silencing dissent. “It never occurred to us,” remarks Alan Borovoy, one of the originators of the HRCs, “that this instrument, which we intended to deal with discrimination in housing, employment and the provision of goods and services, would be used to muzzle the expression of opinion.” That is exactly what has happened, through the mechanism of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits hate messages. Under Canada’s criminal code, the incitement of hatred is already counted a crime—but against that charge, truth and good faith are viable defenses, and the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Not so with the Human Rights Act. As James Allan, a law professor in Queensland, marvels: “To be in breach of these hate-speech provisions, you don’t have to counsel violence; you don’t have to urge discrimination; you don’t have to express hatred; you don’t even have to have said or written something that did, in fact, subject some group to hatred or contempt. All that is needed is that your comments, in the view of the sort of people chosen to staff these tribunals, are ‘likely’ to expose someone or some group to contempt or hatred.” Allan, like many other bemused observers, refers to the HRCs as kangaroo courts. Their proceedings display a bouncy ineptitude and, simultaneously, a sinister level of collusion. Take, for example, Richard Warman, a former investigator for the national commission who decided that it was more fun to be the aggrieved victim of a human rights violation. He has filed twenty-six complaints so far, including more than half of Section 13 complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). What’s more, he has a perfect 100 percent conviction rate for these complaints. These quasi-judicial bodies are staffed by political appointees who have neither the qualifications nor the independence of regular judges. Their ad hoc procedures provide no firm rules for evidence; bigoted comments, posted by strangers to websites in foreign jurisdictions, have been judged admissible, for example. No actual proof of harm is required in order to obtain a conviction. Investigations and deliberations are driven by far-reaching, utopian mandates to “reduce discrimination and promote social change.” Rest of article available at: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6260 DOUGLAS FARROW is associate professor of Christian Thought at McGill University and author of several books, including Ascension and Ecclesia and Nation of Bastards . http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/08/first-...roo-canada.html - 97k -

CHRC doesn't like complainant, so Steacy calls the cops! "In April of 2006, Andrew Guille's complaint against Canadian Anti-racist Education and Research Society (CAERS), and their website www.recomnetwork.org was accepted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Although they admit, "CAERS appears to have technically violated section 13 of the Act by allowing postings containing hatred to appear on its website" , it is Dean Steacy's recommendation that the Commission not deal with this complaint. It is apparent that the fact that Richard Warman's buddy Alan Dutton and his CAERS organization were friends of the CHRC, (and on the government dole) was far more important to Mr. Steacy than whether or not they had actually violated the Human Rights Act. The reasons Steacy states that CAERS is a registered charity that "receives funding from both the federal and provincial governments and it has a long history of opposing racism. One of its projects is the operation of www.recomnetwork.org whose purpose is to track and monitor hate crime and provide solutions to racism." CAERS receives government funding so they should be above investigation. But, most frightening of all... The most frightening part of the report from Dean Steacy relates to how the Commission invaded the privacy of the complainant. The Human Rights Act is supposed to protect the complainant from harassment, but we see in the official report that Dean Steacy himself began an investigation of Andrew Guille in an attempt to justify throwing out his complaint. He starts by naming members of Guille's family, and commenting on the unsavoury reputation of Guille's sister, Melissa. Then Steacy writes, "On July 13, 2006, the investigator [steacy] interviewed Sgt. Don McKinnon of the London Police Force." Steacy not only conducted an investigation of an innocent complainant, he went to the police about him! "[sgt McKinnon] indicated that he also has pictures of Mr. Guille partying with white supremacists at several different rallies that they have held in southwestern Ontario." By: Connie Fournier www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1156179 - 95k

How the Canadian Human Rights Commission violates the rule of law By Ezra Levant on March 11, 2008 “this stunning internal Canadian Human Rights Commission document posted by Connie Fournier of Free Dominion. Here's her analysis. And here's mine: Andrew Guille filed a "hate messages" complaint with the CHRC. He complained that a website called Recomnetwork.org, run by an "anti-hate" group, contained hateful messages that contravened section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, by discriminating against people based on race, colour, national origin, religion and sexual orientation. So what happened? Did the "anti-hate" group in question, with all of the bigoted remarks on their website, become the first defendant ever to be acquitted in a section 13 trial? Or did Guille pull a Richard Warman -- slam-dunk a bigoted website and collect a few thousand dollars for bringing the complaint to the CHRC's attention? Neither, actually. The CHRC refused to take the matter to a tribunal hearing, ruling it a frivolous complaint. But look at the grounds upon which this complaint was dismissed: Andrew Guille, said CHRC investigator Dean Steacy, is the "sibling of both Melissa and Chris Guille", who Steacy implies are racist. Steacy -- whose job it is to investigate complaints of bigotry -- indeed conducted an investigation. But not into the website and its hate messages. He investigated Guille himself. Steacy met with Sgt. Don McKinnon of the London Police Force to get the low-down on Guille; he spoke with "anti-hate" activists with their own axes to grind and books to sell. None of this was done under oath; none of this was done with Guille there to cross examine his defamers (or to challenge McKinnon's right as a government employee to disclose Guille's personal information without permission). But even those offensive procedures aren't the point: the point is the CHRC simply wouldn't accept a complaint from someone they didn't like, for the most tenuous and circumstantial reasons. Even if their hunches and their gossip was right -- even if Guille was, himself, a racist -- so what? If a website is bigoted, isn't it the CHRC's job (an immoral job, an improper job, but their job nonetheless) to investigate it? Does the offensiveness of the site in question depend on the character of the complainant? Is the question of whether the Canadian Human Rights Act, a law of Parliament, is violated depend on who brings an alleged offence to the attention of the commission?” http://ezralevant.com/2008/03/how-the-cana...man-rights.html -

Perhaps you need to look past political leanings. So you're saying we should just accept this?

Ezra Levant had exposed the atrocities of the Human Rights Commission in his book titled: "Shakedown". As a guest at the Michael Coren Show, he enumerated several rulings dished out by this quasi-judicial court that are absurdly laughable... and yet scary at the same time for it could easily happen to you or me. Levant said he was able to fight because he had the money to spend and friends from the media that the HRC decided to back off. But a pastor in Vancouver did not have influential friends or the money so HRC easily quashed his rights. This pastor was ordered never to express his opinions regarding homosexuals in public or private, for life! Can you believe that?? Why is this happening in Canada? Why are we letting this happen in Canada? SHAKEDOWN By Ezra levant “My new book about Canada's abusive human rights commissions, called Shakedown, will officially be released on March 24th. I'm pretty excited about it: the informal feedback I've received from book reviewers who received early copies is pretty positive. It was a pleasure to write the book -- it's part of the fight to denormalize HRCs by winning the argument in the court of public opinion. The HRCs hate that: they prefer to operate in darkness, punctuated only by occasional cheerleading stories written about them by ideological dupes in the mainstream media. That era is over. A year ago I made the decision not to let the "lawfare" being waged against me turn me into a sour crank. I knew if my readers could help me cover my enormous legal bills, I could stay positive, knowing I had public support and that if we just kept writing the truth about the HRCs, we'd win in the court of public opinion in the end. My goal was to be, to borrow the title of Mark Steyn's column in National Review, a "happy warrior". I think I've got that tonal balance in Shakedown. There's a good helping of outrage in there. But I think Canada's HRCs are even more laughable than they are outrageous. Frankly, it's easy to mock them. My goal is to get the whole country laughing at them, destroying their false respectability, and pressuring governments to act to reform or repeal them.” http://ezralevant.com/2009/03/shakedown.html - REVIEWED BY REX MURPHY Globe and Mail Update March 27, 2009 at 5:09 PM EDT “Ezra Levant is the No. 1 advocate for, and defender of, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of thought in modern Canada. His story, and the reason he has written Shakedown, began with the now famous Danish "Mohammed" cartoons. Levant made the case that since the cartoons were news, and were alleged to be the occasion that brought about such mayhem, his readers should actually be able to look at the cartoons themselves — to see the items that were said to be stirring such a storm. He was a publisher making a news judgment. In Calgary, an imam, who claims to be a descendant of Mohammed — having first tried to have Levant arrested — made a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Thus began Levant's long, costly, surreal descent into the whirlpool of human-rights investigation and adjudication. In every case brought before Canada's HRCs, the complainant merely launches the action and bears no cost. The "target," if he doesn't not bend and break immediately, has to deal with the extended legal process and its government lawyers and functionaries. It's very costly: $100,000 so far for Levant. As he has said very often: "The process is the punishment." Levant didn't bend or break. Therein lies this tale. Now, some people do not like Levant's style. They say he is too aggressive, too noisy and assertive, that he courts controversy and publicity. They should read Shakedown, and they will quickly realize that anyone less "aggressive" or "noisy" would have long ago been suffocated by the remorseless, inequitable, taxpayer-funded, bureaucratic grinding of Canada's human rights tribunals and commissions. On the matter of his alleged taste for controversy and publicity, again, after reading Shakedown, they will realize that without his ability to withstand controversy and generate publicity, an insidious and largely unaccountable process of diminishing the central concepts of our democracy — freedom of speech, press and thought — would largely have gone unnoticed, and what is far worse, unchallenged. Ezra Levant, for my taste, could be the love child (ideologically speaking) of Noam Chomsky and Ontario human-rights impresario Barbara Hall, but his indictment of the procedures, practices and ideology of Canada's human rights commissions, their Orwellian character, shameless amateurism and overweening reach is simply right. He has their number. He has experienced their practice. He has documented their absurdities and pettiness. And he has — with courage and no little cost — stood up to them in a manner so straightforward and clear that he is positively un-Canadian. On this issue — Liberal, New Democrat, Conservative, Green — it should matter not. Were he to elope tomorrow with Jane Fonda, he would still be right, and I would still support him in this matter. I read Shakedown and I am awed at Levant's persistence and powers of endurance. Aside from the rigours of defending himself over three years, at costs that exceed $100,000 (for a complaint withdrawn almost on a whim toward the end of that marathon), he has also been sued on numerous occasions by his opponents, by members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself, and he has been put under a hail of complaints to the Alberta Law Society — in an effort to have him, for all his pains, disbarred. In any other society, what Levant has endured would be seen and spoken of for what it is: a persecution. I wonder why the lawyers of Canada, particularly those of Alberta, have not seen this blizzard of lawsuits and complaints to the Law Society for what they are: attempts to shut Levant down by other means, payback for being "noisy" and "assertive" and "controversial" and refusing to accommodate the soft tyranny (not so "soft" now that I think of it) of provincial and federal tribunals and commissions. I do not have the space adequately to summarize the arguments and examples that Levant has presented in Shakedown. But I will emphasize that it is a book of argument and examples. Levant is a clear thinker, a very patient researcher (reading the judgments of some of the more ludicrous cases ruled on by these tribunals calls for a mind of granite, a will of iron and a soul of steel) and an advocate of real courage. Some of the particular cases he details — the case of the lesbian hecklers at the comedy club; the case of the Wiccan working at Boston Pizza who didn't like the rock music in the kitchen; the case of the Self-Medicating Pot Smoker who wanted to smoke in the doorway of Gator Ted's, a Burlington, Ont., pub, even though the patrons didn't like it and in Ontario there are those "smoke-free" regulations, leaving the owner of Gator Ted's on the prongs of two bureaucratic forks — are simultaneously absurd and frightening, Kafka dipped in Wodehouse. Welcome to the strange new world.” Rex Murphy speaks freely as a commentator with CBC-TV's The National and host of CBC Radio's Cross-Country Checkup. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...../home -

Israel will cease firing and is staying on in Gaza. I bet Hamas wouldn't be able to resist the temptation.....they'll throw a few rockets. Then Israel will say: See? (then bomb the rest of Hamas). That ought zip the lips of UN for a while.

It can be really said that Iggy's performance was without any pretense IF he did not know who Mercer is, and if he didn't know he's on tv being viewed by millions of voters Iggy's trying to impress. I guess this is just another "reality"-tv. I'd say the only sure thing here is that Iggy's moving to Stornaway. I'm not even sure if his moving day was not scheduled to coincide with Mercer's schedule. But I must say he's definitely better than Dion.

THEN the Canadian taxpayers should say F-you all and demand the heads of the refugee board!

If they have courage, then they would have done their great stand (for what they believe is right) right there in the USA. They wouldn't be here hiding and cowering and asking us to get involved and fight their fight for them. Not only did they desert their duty and their own country in time of war....but they saw to embarrass it as well....plus attempt to create a tension between our countries. Thanks God it's him and not that low-class Chretien and his band of merry air-brained women, who'll no doubt tap-dance on the US flag with glee!

Unjust - depending on whose side you're on, I presume?

Ahhhh...the plot thickens. A disgruntled ex-sailor. Did you desert the navy, btw? And what is this so-called "illegal" in this war?

As it should. I don't think they even need to open any books to come to that conclusion. It's plainly just so sensible. Anyone who can't see that doesn't deserve to sit on the board!

Peter, if any war a state enters into will be a just war, then that means there are no un-just wars!

Wow. Talk about rubbish! There goes principles and accountability down the drain. I guess word of honor is something that don't exist in your world....and signing a contract means nada. I like that...."it is their duty to desert."

For them, it may be a rational thing to do. Desperate measures for desperate men. But for us, it will be a stupid thing to do. If we should open our door and give help and succor to anyone, make it to those who truly indeed need our help. Let's not tie up our system and waste our time and resources to something so worthless like this. This smug attitude is so nauseatingly hypocritical. So typical of the self-annointed, self-indulgent delusional bleeding hearts of today. You folks need not go far. No need to strain your eyes if you truly bleed for the angst and sufferings of others. We have our own homeless and poverty-stricken people, right here in our midst. Our very own. Don't waste your talent.

This is Canada. That's why we're deporting Iraq war deserters. How the USA wants to run their military has nothing to do with us.

I don't think so. I don't side with the lunatic VIOLENT bullies. (See my cites above that back up my comment). My decision is not through knee-jerk reaction strictly motivated by hate. I give my sound reason why I've made this decision. I don't think I ramble nonsense and spout off incoherent idiotic remarks. My view is objective and simply practical. You just don't like what I'm saying - that's all. Even your response right now is quite lame. You know I'm right. It's so simple to see why I believe Israel. Just take a look at what's happening all over the world.....whenever these people have their protests. Israel is right. They can't keep putting up with these type of loonies. Why should they? With Hamas gone, the world will be better for both Israel and Palestine. Hamas is using its own people as shields. So tell me, why do you keep supporting something like Hamas?

The topic asks: "how low can Israeli supproters sink." Funny how the numerous incidents cited in some media only demonstrates the kind of barbarism Israel had to endure. These scums have been imported and now are scattered all over the world. I would like to think the author of this topic made a typo error. He must be asking about the pro-Palestines. How come anti-Israelis are so prone to violence? Even when they live smack in the middle of a civilized society. This is nothing new. We've seen these type of violent protests before - ALWAYS FROM THE SAME TYPE OF PEOPLE. The Anti-Israelis. The anti-USA. The anti-semites. ------------------- "People who have been at the pro-and anti-Israel demonstrations in London have been producing some absolutely horrifying descriptions and images. On Harry’s Place pictures (such as the one here from Indymedia) capture the violence and thuggery of the left/Islamist alliance." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-...gly-indeed.html "Tens of thousands of demonstrators marched in cities across Europe and the Middle East on Saturday to protest against Israel's offensive in Gaza, with sporadic clashes with police as some rallies turned violent. " http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054252.html "The demonstration calling for an immediate end to the Israeli attacks was the biggest of at least 18 organised across the country. It saw clashes outside the Israeli Embassy between protesters and police wearing riot gear. Police made several arrests, claiming protesters made repeated attempts to break through the barriers and throw missiles outside the embassy in south Kensington." http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/P...115196923?f=rss "Around 500 people who had gathered for a legal demonstration in support of Israel outside the Norwegian parliament were attacked Thursday evening by some 1,000 pro-Palestinians, police told AFP. "Almost immediately there was a large degree of aggression from the counter-demonstrators," Johan Fredriksen of the Oslo police said late Thursday. The anti-Israel demonstrators threw Molotov cocktails, rocks and eggs, and burned Israeli flags, he said. They also threw fireworks into the crowd and at police, who responded by blanketing a large swath of downtown Oslo with tear gas. Those arrested were reportedly mainly pro-Palestinian demonstrators aged between 16 and 20. Windows were smashed and other property damaged along Oslo's main Karl Johan shopping street. According to media reports the clashes were the worst in the Norwegian capital in more than 20 years." http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653467,00.html

What's being an American citizen got to do with it?? Are you suggesting had she been a Palestine who had a bright orange jacket and mega-phone, it would've been alright?? Being an American does not mean your life is more valuable....not in my view. See? You're heaping all the blame on the driver when the simple fact of the matter was that Rachel should not have placed herself before that bulldozer. Are you saying nothing wrong with drunk drivers driving as long as they got their vehicles painted bright orange and that the other vehicles and pedestrians can see him coming?

Oh puhleeeez.... The cops and soldiers all know the nature of their jobs and the risk that comes with it. That's their job! Is it legit or legal for Corrie to be there at all? Where did she sign up? I imagine Rachel Corrie knew the risk of what she's doing, considering the very volatile situation in that region. Perhaps she mis-calculated the response. Perhaps she's just too naive. Romanticising the situation like you seem to do. Distortioned and clouded sense of judgement. She's young.....Prehaps a troubled person....who knows. I keep visualizing the foolish game of "chicken." You don't stand in front of a bulldozer. Period. Human error can be a factor....or machine mal-function. Anything can happen. Same way as you don't play with guns. Especially loaded guns. Or you don't drive while you're drunk! Or skidoo in the back mountains of BC when you're warned not to. By the way, by comparing Corrie with our soldiers....are you suggesting our soldiers are irrational?