Jim Brown
OneNewsNow.com
September 28, 2007
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/09/passage_of_hate_crimes_measure.php
A spokesman
for the Family Research Council (FRC) says the "hate crimes"
legislation passed by the Senate yesterday poses a major threat to Americans
who publicly express their opposition to homosexuality. He is also denouncing
the successful effort to attach that legislation to the Defense Authorization
bill.
Yesterday, on a 60-39 vote, the
Senate attached an amendment to the Defense Department's spending bill that
would expand hate crime law to include crimes motivated by gender, "sexual
orientation," or disability of victims. Sponsors of the measure, Senators
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Gordon Smith (R-Oregon), argue their
amendment helps "fights terrorism at home." But Senator John Kyl
(R-Arizona) says his colleagues who tacked the hate crimes measure to the DoD
bill demonstrated "an utter lack of seriousness about our national
defense."
Tom McClusky, FRC's vice president
of government affairs, says the measure does not belong in a Pentagon spending
bill. He says he is disappointed it garnered 60 votes, but grateful that is not
enough support to override a presidential veto.
"[Still] it's just shameful the way that the Democratic leadership
is using the defense bill, [which is] a bill where there should be a debate
about Iraq and about the spending of the war," says McClusky.
"Instead, they're trying to turn the Defense Department and our armed
forces into some sort of social experiment."
According to the FRC spokesman, the Kennedy-Smith amendment is an
assault on free-speech. He points out that already, several websites -- he
cites those of pro-homosexual groups Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and
Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) as well as that of abortion
advocate NARAL Pro-Choice America -- label groups like his as terrorist
organizations.
"How soon are they going to be naming churches as terrorist
organizations, and using a lot of these laws to put down Christian speech and
calling the Bible 'hate speech'?" he asks. "We're seeing it not just
in other countries, but we're also ... seeing it today in different cities and
also on college campuses [in America]."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57872
The issue of such legislation has Christians,
conservatives, constitutionalists and 1st Amendment advocates in the United
States alarmed.
Said the CWA (Concerned Women for America) in an
analysis of the plan: "We live in a world where even the Bible is being
deemed 'hate' literature. Christians have already been jailed for upholding
traditional morality in public places, and if hate crime laws proliferate, the
freedom to speak one's mind will be limited to those who celebrate and promote
homosexuality."
Already in the United States, Catholic Charities of
Boston halted all adoption operations in the state after being told under
Massachusetts' pro-'gay' nondiscrimination law, only agencies that placed
children in homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state.
The www.StopHateCrimesNow.com website features the testimonies of those who have
had first-hand experience with local so-called "hate crimes" laws in
the United States. A 75-year-old grandmother describes how she was jailed for
testifying about the Bible.
The CWA has cited several Canadian cases, where such
legislation already is law. There Dr. Laura Schelssinger already has been
rebuked and James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" and the late Jerry
Falwell's "Old Time Gospel Hour have been warned after broadcasting their
religious opinions about homosexuality.
Schlessinger's opinions about homosexuality violated
the human rights provision of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' code of
ethics, the nation's Broadcast Standards Council determined.
"It is the view of the Councils [two regional
councils weighed in with the same verdict] that what the host may innocently
describe as 'opinion' in fact and in law amounts to abusively discriminatory
comment based on the sexual orientation of the identifiable group about which
those statements were made," the organization concluded in censuring
Schlessinger.
"It is the view of the Councils that the host's
argument that she can 'surgically' separate the individual persons from their inherent
characteristics so as to entitle her to make comments about the sexuality which
have no effect on the person is fatuous and unsustainable," it
added. "The sexual practices of gays and lesbians are as much a part of
their being as the color of one's skin or the gender, religion, age or
ethnicity of an individual."
"All that matters [under such plans] are the
delicate feelings of members of federally protected groups," Michael
Marcavage of RepentAmerica.com, has told WND. "Truth is not allowed as evidence
in hate crimes trials. … A homosexual can claim emotional damage from hearing
Scripture that describes his lifestyle as an abomination. He can press charges
against the pastor or broadcaster who merely reads the Bible in public. The
'hater' can be fined thousands of dollars and even imprisoned!"
Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth, noted that in Canada and France both, legislators
have been fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. Three years ago, a
Swedish hate crimes law was used to put Pastor Ake Green, who preached that
homosexuality is a sin, in jail for a month.
"And recently, a British couple told how they
were denied the chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian
faith might 'prejudice' them against a homosexual child put in their
care," LaBarbera added.
In England, the CWA reported, Anglican Bishop Rev. Dr.
Peter Forster of Chester was investigated by police for saying homosexuals "could
and should seek medical help to 'reorient' themselves."
London Telegraph columnist Peter Simple then warned:
"That the bishop should be threatened with prosecution for a perfectly
reasonable, if debatable, suggestion will strike people still in their senses
as a bad joke, a case of that stale old cliché, 'political correctness gone
mad.' Unfortunately it is much more serious than that. Here are the
unmistakable beginnings of state thought control."
Kennedy 'humiliates' soldiers to further homosexual
rights
Claim
military rife with 'bigotry' used to justify hate-crimes amendment to defense
spending bill
Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore., have trashed
the collective reputations of millions of U.S. military service members in order
to advance their "hate crimes" legislation, which would make it a
crime to utter a negative opinion about homosexuals or their lifestyle, a
pro-family group says.
The U.S. Senate yesterday approved an amendment by Kennedy and Smith to
install in federal law a ban on such expressions of religious and personal
opinion. The amendment was added to the Department of Defense Authorization
bill, which is needed to keep funding worldwide U.S. military operations.
"[The] senators humiliate[d] our brave men and women in uniform by
alleging that America's military is a haven for bigots committing 'hate
crimes'," said Wendy Wright, the president of Concerned Women for America.
"The Defense Authorization bill has been twisted to shamelessly
smear our military. Alleged crimes by military members are already prosecuted,
so the point of an amendment accusing military members of committing 'hate
crimes' is to create the perception that America's military is rife with
violent bigots," Wright said.
"It's extremely telling that Sens. Kennedy and Smith had to go back
to 1992 to find an example to exploit (the already-prosecuted case of Navy
seaman Allan Schindler) to claim that a federal law must be passed to address
rampant bigotry in the military," added Shari Rendall, director of
legislation and public policy for CWA.
"Sens. Kennedy and Smith are shamelessly impugning the character of
our brave soldiers in an effort to push their agenda, forcing President Bush to
veto legislation that is crucial to America's national security," she
added.
The "hate crimes" plan has been afloat in Congress for a
number of years, and in recent months had percolated to the top of the agenda for
many representatives and senators who advocate for homosexuals.
To make the plan pertinent to the military spending plan, the senators
cited the immediate need for such remedies in the military.
"As I have said in the past, the military is not immune to the
scourge of hate crimes in our country. In 1992, Navy seaman Allen Schindler was
brutally murdered by his shipmate Terry Helvey in Okinawa, Japan," Smith
said.
The CWA noted that Smith neglected to add that Helvey was convicted of
his crime and now is serving a life sentence in prison.
Kennedy's suggestion for a reason to support the "hate crimes"
plan was a different case, in which a prosecution already has begun. Yet, he
said, "We cannot let another day, really hours, go by without this
legislation," the CWA said.
The Senate on a 60-39 vote added the amendment that expands hate crime
laws to include crimes motivated by gender or "sexual orientation."
Opponents said the "hate crimes" plan ultimately will fail.
"The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the
defense authorization bill. This bill will get vetoed," said Sen. Lindsey
Graham, R-S.C.
"I think it's shameful we're changing the subject to take care of
special interest legislation at a time like this," added Sen. John Cornyn,
R-Texas.
Other senators argued that the federal government should continue to
allow states to prosecute crimes.
"Absent a clear demonstration that the states have failed in their
law-enforcement responsibilities, the federalization of hate crimes is
premature," said Sen. Orrin hatch, R-Utah.
The White House already has expressed concern that there already are
local and state laws that address such crimes, and the federal law is
unnecessary.
The "hate crimes" rules were passed as a separate measure in
the U.S. House this year, but Bush previously has indicated such a proposal
would result in a veto.
The issue of such legislation has Christians, conservatives,
constitutionalists and 1st Amendment advocates in the United States alarmed.
Said the CWA in an analysis of the plan: "We live in a world where
even the Bible is being deemed 'hate' literature. Christians have already been
jailed for upholding traditional morality in public places, and if hate crime
laws proliferate, the freedom to speak one's mind will be limited to those who
celebrate and promote homosexuality."
Already in the United States, Catholic Charities of Boston halted all
adoption operations in the state after being told under Massachusetts'
pro-'gay' nondiscrimination law, only agencies that placed children in
homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state.
The www.StopHateCrimesNow.com
website features the testimonies of those who have had first-hand experience
with local so-called "hate crimes" laws in the United States. A
75-year-old grandmother describes how she was jailed for testifying about the
Bible.
The CWA has cited several Canadian cases, where such legislation already
is law. There Dr. Laura Schelssinger already has been rebuked and James
Dobson's "Focus on the Family" and the late Jerry Falwell's "Old
Time Gospel Hour have been warned after broadcasting their religious opinions
about homosexuality.
Schlessinger's opinions about homosexuality violated the human rights
provision of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' code of ethics, the
nation's Broadcast Standards Council determined.
"It is the view of the Councils [two regional councils weighed in
with the same verdict] that what the host may innocently describe as 'opinion'
in fact and in law amounts to abusively discriminatory comment based on the
sexual orientation of the identifiable group about which those statements were
made," the organization concluded in censuring Schlessinger.
"It is the view of the Councils that the host's argument that she
can 'surgically' separate the individual persons from their inherent
characteristics so as to entitle her to make comments about the sexuality which
have no effect on the person is fatuous and unsustainable," it
added. "The sexual practices of gays and lesbians are as much a part of
their being as the color of one's skin or the gender, religion, age or
ethnicity of an individual."
"All that matters [under such plans] are the delicate feelings of
members of federally protected groups," Michael Marcavage of RepentAmerica.com, has
told WND. "Truth is not allowed as evidence in hate crimes trials. … A homosexual
can claim emotional damage from hearing Scripture that describes his lifestyle
as an abomination. He can press charges against the pastor or broadcaster who
merely reads the Bible in public. The 'hater' can be fined thousands of dollars
and even imprisoned!"
Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth, noted
that in Canada and France both, legislators have been fined for publicly
criticizing homosexuality. Three years ago, a Swedish hate crimes law was used
to put Pastor Ake Green, who preached that homosexuality is a sin, in jail for
a month.
"And recently, a British couple told how they were denied the
chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian faith might
'prejudice' them against a homosexual child put in their care," LaBarbera
added.
In England, the CWA reported, Anglican Bishop Rev. Dr. Peter Forster of
Chester was investigated by police for saying homosexuals "could and
should seek medical help to 'reorient' themselves."
London Telegraph columnist Peter Simple then warned: "That the
bishop should be threatened with prosecution for a perfectly reasonable, if
debatable, suggestion will strike people still in their senses as a bad joke, a
case of that stale old cliché, 'political correctness gone mad.' Unfortunately
it is much more serious than that. Here are the unmistakable beginnings of
state thought control."
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Priest investigated for quoting Bible
Targeted under human rights law where no
defendant ever cleared
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Pete Vere,
a canon lawyer and Catholic journalist, has reported on the prosecution of
Father Alphonse de Valk, a pro-life activist known across Canada, by the
Canadian Human Rights Commission – "a quasi-judicial investigative body
with the power of the Canadian government behind it" – at CatholicExchange.com. "What
was Father de Valk's alleged 'hate act'?" Vere wrote. "Father
defended the [Catholic] Church's teaching on marriage during Canada's same-sex 'marriage' debate, quoting extensively from
the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's
encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And
like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of whom
are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an
exclusive union between a man and a woman," he wrote. The new
case comes just as columnist and author Mark Steyn, and Maclean's magazine
which published an excerpt from his "America
Alone" book, are on trial before the British Columbia Human Rights
Tribunal for similar "offenses." "We
know under the Supreme Court of Canada [and] under tribunals of this country
that there are reasonable limits [to freedom of expression,]" Faisal
Joseph, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Steyn dispute, said in a
LifeSiteNew.com report. That case
revolves around Joseph's claims the defendants depicted Muslims as "a
violent people" with a religion that is "violent." In the new case, Vere raised the question that Canada now
considers morality a "hate crime." "If one, because of one's sincerely held moral
beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of
same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered 'hate'?" he asked. Vere wrote that the response he got from Mark van
Dusen, a spokesman for the federal human rights prosecution office, shocked
him. "We investigate complaints," Vere reported
van Dusen told him. "We don't set public policy or moral standards. We
investigate complaints based on the circumstances and the details outlined in
the complaint. And … if … upon investigation, deem that there is sufficient
evidence, then we may forward the complaint to the tribunal, but the hate is
defined in the Human Rights Act under section 13-1. "Our job is to look at it, compare it to the act,
to accumulate case law, tribunal and court decisions that have reflected on
hate and decide whether to advance the complaint, dismiss it or whether there
is room for a settlement between parties," van Dusen told Vere. What is shocking about that, Vere wrote, is the
admission that unjustified complaints can be dismissed, yet the case against de
Valk has continued now for more than six months. "In other words, individual Jews, Muslims,
Catholics and other Christians who, for reasons of conscience, hold to their
faith's traditional teaching concerning marriage, could very well be guilty of
promoting hate in Canada. The same is true of any faith community in Canada
that does not embrace this modern redefinition of one of the world's oldest
institutions – a redefinition that even the highly secularist France
rejects," Vere wrote. De Valk, who publishes the "Catholic
Insight" magazine that "bases itself on the Church's teaching and
applies it to various circumstances in our time," is accused by a
homosexual of promoting "extreme hatred and contempt" against
homosexuals. Vere said, however, the priest is simply following the
teachings of the Bible and the examples of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XV
by stating that Christians must love homosexuals and treat them with dignity
due humans. Besides the complaints against the priest and Steyn,
other cases already have substantiated the Canadian precedent that Christian
beliefs can be evidence for convictions. In 2005, a Knights of Columbus council was fined more
than $1,000 for refusing to allow its facility to be used for a lesbian "wedding,"
and before that printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for declining to print
homosexual-themed stationery. Also, in Saskatechewan, Hugh Owens was fined
thousands of dollars for quoting Bible verses in a newspaper and London,
Ontario, mayor Diane Haskett was fined $10,000 for refusing to proclaim a
homosexual pride day, Vere enumerated. Bishop Fred Henry has described the situation as
"a new form of censorhip and thought control." Those are the same
words leading Christians in the United States have used to describe the most
recent "hate crimes" plan before the U.S. Congress, which
specifically targeted for elimination criticism of alternative sexual lifestyles. Vere also warned that in the Steyn case, the bottom line
is that a Canadian human rights tribunal now is "attempting to prosecute a
case against an American resident, based upon what an American citizen
allegedly posted to a mainstream American Catholic website. What passes for
mainstream Catholic discussion in America is now the basis for a hate complaint
in Canada." But the United States is not immune to such work,
either, he noted, citing the New Mexico photographer fined $6,600 for refusing
to meet the demands of a lesbian to take pictures at a "wedding." Also, California has set in state law a ban on
introducing anything but "positive" information about alternative
sexual lifestyles, including homosexuality, in its public school. Vere's warnings were followed by one from Grace
Harman, who noted on the website's forum: "It would appear that Canadian
law is discriminating against people on the basis of their religious faith, or
perhaps discriminating against God himself, who gave us the laws of nature and
purpose of life." Alberta Pastor Fined $7000 and Ordered to
Publicly Apologize and Remain Silent on Homosexuality Says he
won't apologize - "I stand by what I said." Will appeal decision. By Tim
Waggoner OTTAWA,
June 9, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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. The remedy
order demands the pastor to pay $5,000 to Lund personally for the "time
and energy" he has expended and for the "ridicule and
harassment" he has faced. Combined with that financial burden, Boissoin
must also pay up to $2,000 in expenses to one of Lund's witness, provided
she produces records of such costs. Boissoin
was first hauled before the Human Rights Commission to answer to a complaint
filed by Lund, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary. Lund made
his complaint after Boissoin published a letter to the editor in the Red Deer
Advocate, in which he denounced homosexuality as immoral and dangerous, and
called into question new gay-rights curricula permeating the province's
educational system. "Children
as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically
and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the
public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights,"
wrote Boissoin in the letter. In an interview,
Boissoin told LifeSiteNews.com that he's under attack not only for his letter,
but more significantly for his beliefs. "The
point I am trying to make here is what's being attacked at the core is what I
believe, according to my personal beliefs and my religious beliefs." 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." The pastor
also maintained that his beliefs are founded not on hate or malice, but derive
from a personal concern for the family and society rooted not only in faith,
but also in science. "I am
not allowed to hold my views, but the Lunds of the world are allowed to bring
gay ministers into schools, they are allowed to present scientifically baseless
teachings to kids that people are born gay." "I am
all for tolerance, I don't want to see anyone who calls themselves homosexual
be discriminated against," added Boissoin. "At the same time I
believe it is a behaviour, there is no scientific proof that anyone is born
gay, but these teens are taught in our school systems that that is the way it
is, that people are born homosexual." Boissoin
then addressed the potential implications of what he called a scientifically
baseless pro-homosexual curriculum being taught in schools. "When you deem
something acceptable, you increase the likelihood that they will participate in
that, and that's a great concern to me," he said. Boissoin
also accused Lund of considently defaming him in another local newspaper, which
either refused to publish Boissoin's rebuts or edited them severely. He
concluded by commenting on the Remedy order and the entire ordeal, which over
the last six years has consumed tremendous time, energy and money - both from
the pockets of taxpayers and Boissoin. "Absurd
- beyond absurd. I will never make a public apology; I stand by what I said. My
context has never been taken into consideration. Lund's context has always been
taken into consideration." This will
not be the last edition to the Boissoin story as he admitted to
LifeSiteNews.com that he "will be appealing to an actual court of
law." Boissoin's
is the latest in the string of actions by human rights commissions at both the
national and provincial levels which have the nation in an uproar over the
threat to freedom of speech and freedom of religion posed by the human rights
commissions. Alberta's Conservative Government Sought
Conviction of Christian Pastor for "Hate Speech" "The
lion's share of the responsibility for this Christophobia must rest with
Premier Ed Stelmach and his Progressive Conservatives": Ezra Levant By John
Jalsevac EDMONTON,
Alberta, June 16, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Social conservatives across Canada
are up in arms over the recent ruling by the Alberta Human Rights
Commission (AHRC) against Christian pastor Steve Boissoin, who was accused of
propogating "hate speech" by writing a letter to the editor of the
Red Deer Advocate outlining his disagreement with the homosexualist activist
agenda. However,
many Canadian conservatives might be surprised to find out that Alberta's
"Progressive Conservative" government, under Premier Ed Stelmach,
played an key part in the Boissoin case - and not, as many might
expect given the party's "conservative" nomenclature, to defend
Boissoin's right to express his religious beliefs, but rather to seek his
conviction for hate speech. In the
ruling (the full text of which can be found here: http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/LundDarren113007Pa.pdf) by adjudicator Lori Andreachuk,
under the list of "Interveners" is named the Attorney General of
Alberta, who was represented by lawyer David Kamal. According
to the ruling, Kamal argued before the human rights tribunal, on behalf of the
Attorney General and the government of Alberta, "that Mr. Boissoin's letter
is discriminatory" and that, for the purposes of conviction, "Mr.
Boissoin's letter need only likely cause others to engage in prohibited
practices." All that is needed for Boissoin's conviction,
stated Kamal, is for the AHRC to deem that Boissoin's letter may
cause others in the community to discriminate against homosexuals: "No
link to actual discriminatory acts need be established in this regard." Kamal also
argued, on the government's behalf, that "Mr. Boissoin's letter contains
messages that have the effect of enhancing discrimination against homosexuals
living in central Alberta. The messages as asserted by Mr. Boissoin add to the
misperception of gay people as being inherently evil. Further, Mr. Boissoin
condones the mistreatment of gay people through his message creating an
atmosphere that is conducive to discrimination." The
representative of the Attorney General also stated that there is evidence
linking Boissoin to a violent attack that took place against a homosexual
several weeks after the publication of Boissoin's letter. The evidence of the
link, said Kamal, consists of the fact that the victim (not the attacker)
mentioned that he had read Boission's letter, and said that the letter did not
make him feel safe. Ezra
Levant, one of the foremost experts on and opponents of the human rights
commissions, claims to have read almost every ruling issued by the Alberta
Human Rights Commission since the year 2000. In a blog post about the Boissoin
case, Levant observed that government interference in HRC cases is practically
unheard of, to the point where Levant states, "I can't recall seeing
another case in which the Government of Alberta intervened." (http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/i-accuse-alberta-premier-ed-st...) Obviously,
then, writes Levant, it was a high priority for Alberta's conservative
government to seek the conviction of pastor Boissoin for speaking his
religious beliefs. "Kamal was sent to bring the Progressive Conservative
government's views," says Levant. "To be clear: Kamal wasn't a lawyer
at the HRC. He was sent by the Department of Justice; he was sent by the
Attorney General; he was sent to express the political views of the Province of
Alberta." In
particular, Levant takes to task the Attorney General's argument, as stated in
paragraph 222 of the AHRC's ruling, "that if people were allowed to simply
hide behind the rubric of political and religious opinion, they would defeat
the entire purpose of the human rights legislation." "Stop
for a moment to take that in," says Levant. "Political and religious
opinion is just a cover; just a 'rubric' - and one that stands in the way of
'the entire purpose' of human rights legislation. Well, we can't have that. The
Progressive Conservative government of Alberta, through their lawyer David
Kamal, says we have a choice: political and religious opinion or human rights
legislation. Premier Ed Stelmach chooses human rights legislation." One
particularly disturbing fact about the government's decision to ditch
precedent and take the rare step of intervening in the Boissoin case, observes
Levant, is that HRC adjudicators are not appointed for life, but can be removed
or reappointed by the province's government. "So when the
Progressive Conservative government that appointed her [adjudicator Andreachuk]
came in and told her their view, you can be damned sure Andreachuk paid very
close attention. "She
did, of course. She convicted Rev. Boissoin - and then went on to humiliate
him." Hence, as
far as the result of the Boissoin case is concerned, Levant writes, "I
blame Darren Lund, the for-profit persecutor of Christians. I blame Andreachuk,
government censor. But the lion's share of the responsibility for this
Christophobia must rest with Premier Ed Stelmach and his Progressive
Conservatives." Levant
concludes his post on the government's interference in the Boissoin case by
encouraging concerned citizens to write Premier Stelmach and express their
disagreement with his government's decision to intervene in the Boission case. "Ask
him how he feels about his new title: Ed Stelmach, anti-Christian bigot."
The Alberta government, which created the human rights commission, has ultimate
authority over the Commission and its mandate, rules and who is appointed to
the commission.
The Boissoin decision has added further fuel to the fire of the already
heated campaign against Canada's human rights commissions, with many Canadian
conservatives adding the decision to the list of grievances that they say prove
that the commissions are staffed almost exclusively by liberal,
anti-conservative and anti-Christian activists.