Human rights complaint costing Catholic Insight

tinyurl.com/3g2pku

[FONT=arial,helvetica]**Human rights complaint costing *Catholic Insight

***[/FONT]OTTAWA – Catholic Insight magazine has paid $6,000 in legal fees fighting a human rights “hate” complaint, yet no hearing date is in sight.

For a small circulation (3,500 subscribers) conservative specialty magazine, “it has cost us quite a bit,” said the magazine’s editor, Basilian Father Alphonse de Valk.

“We’re getting some donations, fortunately, even though we haven’t done anything,” de Valk said in an interview from Toronto.

It’s not only the money. De Valk said he and staffer Tony Gosgnach have spent an “enormous amount of time” on the issue since they became aware of the complaint against the magazine a year ago.

“We probably spend three days a week, two people, just keeping up with what’s going on in this,” he said.

How long until the RCMP is monitoring sermons? For now the HRCs have to wait for a complaint, but why not take a "pro-active approach?

A bit more information about the Catholic Insight case can be found in this earlier article: catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_772.shtml

I wonder if Canada gives proper weight to freedom of speech.

Freedom of Expression is guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although, since the HRCs aren’t technically courts, and the meetings of the HRCs aren’t technically trials, and the decisions of the HRCs are considered civil and not criminal decisions, then there’s nothing in the HRCs that are impinging on Freedom of Expression in any way.

It’s like a throwaway line I read in a short story years ago: “There is no censorship in Britain. There are simply some stories the press is not allowed to print.”

<><

For all the complaints of the Patriot Act here in the U.S., at least you’re allowed to complain about the government or pastors are allowed to condemn sin.

Doesn’t matter if the charges are civil; infringement on free speech is infringement on free speech.

There is little doubt in my mind that we, as well as the Canadians, are going to have to deal with enhanced efforts on the part of some to silence certain expressions by religion. Obviously, many bishops share that concern. Unfortunately, that concern, and restraint which it encourages, supports and strengthens “cafeteriaism”. If churches are afraid to be forthright about what is, or is not, considered sinful, the faithful can easily be misled by the uninhibited voices of secularism which declare that nothing is wrong that is condoned by the state.

I am currently reading a book that is being considered for banning in Canada. Does that make me a criminal?:cool:

Doubtful, as long as you are careful not to think about what you read. To be guilty of a “thought crime”, one has to actually think.

No, since it’s not YET banned. :smiley:

What book is it, BTW? I’d want to be sure to tell all my friends and family NOT to read it, so they don’t run afoul of the RCMP. :wink:

<><

%between%

I found this on a legal blog, the Volokh Conspiracy:

“Freedom of Speech Is an American Concept, So I Don’t Give It Any Value”:
I’d heard of this quote from a Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator, but I wanted to see the hearing transcript for myself just to confirm that it’s not being misquoted or quoted out of context. I just got the surrounding pages (available here; see PDF page 43 for the quote), and here it is:
MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?
MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.
MS KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.
MR. STEACY: It’s not my job to give value to an American concept.
Later on, Steacy does get a bit less clear:
MS KULASZKA: So if someone claims freedom of speech for what they said, it is rejected out of hand?
MR. STEACY: If somebody is claiming freedom of expression, it is not rejected. As I said, freedom of speech is an American concept, it is not a Canadian concept. If somebody said, “I am doing this because of freedom of speech,” I would equate that to somebody raising a freedom of expression concept.

We’re spoiled here, our First Amendment is unique. Restrictions like Canada’s (starting to catch on in the UK) can only get worse. The whole trick is that the whole “human rights” scam is run by commissions. No judge & jury, no precedent, no rule of law – they just make it up as they go along.

It’s like a throwaway line I read in a short story years ago: “There is no censorship in Britain. There are simply some stories the press is not allowed to print.”

<><

Sounds like Orwell.

Recently, a presidential candidate who will remain unnamed, talked about how people “cling to religion” when economic prospects are not good. Karl Marx, I think, expressed the same sentiment in saying “religion is the opiate of the masses”.

And the sale of opium is illegal, isn’t it, except those entrusted by the state to dispense it according to the state’s regulation.

Empower the enemies of religion, and it’s only a matter of time.

why just because the fear of uncovering the inner:shrug:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.