Ron Gray’s Letter to the Canadian Museum of Human Rights

 1 Response »
Feb 152011
 

Mr. Arni C. Thorsteinson, Chairperson, Board of Trustees,
Canadian Museum of Human Rights
Suite 500-269 Main St.
Winnipeg, MB
R3C 1B2,
Canada

Feb. 7, 2011
Dear Mr. Thorsteinson:

Last year, I attended the Vancouver public information forum of the Canadian Human Rights Museum, where I received a DVD and documents which invited conference participants to submit ideas for possible inclusion in the Museum.

I want to suggest inclusion of an important dimension that, to the best of the information I have read, has not yet been discussed: the plight of Canadians who have been pilloried and persecuted by Canada’s Human Rights Tribunals. The stories of two—Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn—gained some media attention, primarily because the targets of those cases were media personalities. But there are many more. (I have included a list below.)

My own case is amply illustrative of the deficiencies in the process, and how (in the words of Ezra Levant) “the process is the punishment.”

The story behind my case actually begins in California in 2000, when the two co-editors of The Stanford Law Review decided to devote an entire edition of their quarterly magazine to legal issues surrounding the ‘gay rights’ agenda . They solicited articles from more than a dozen recognized legal and sociological authorities representing both sides of the issue; but when the Review was published in Spring, 2001 it contained only the politically correct pro-‘gay’ essays. One of the two co-editors had censored articles that in any way questioned the validity of the ‘gay rights’ agenda.
The other co-editor took the excluded essays to Regent University Law School in Virginia, proposing that they be published in the Regent Law Review in order to present “the other side” of the issue to legal scholars and the interested public.
The Regent Law Review published those essays in April, 2002; when that issue of the Regent Law Review and the story behind it came to the attention of WorldNetDaily (the world’s largest independent Internet news site), they carried a story summarizing some of the censored essays. In the interests of balanced journalism, before publishing the story WND showed it to PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)—and their comments were included in the WND story.
When I read that story on WorldNetDaily, I felt the information was important to the public policy debate then raging in Canada (this was still before Parliament had passed Bill C-250, the “hate crimes” amendment to the Criminal Code, or Bill C-38, legalizing same-sex “marriage”). So as National Leader of the CHP (the fifth-largest registered national political party in Canada), I reproduced the WorldNetDaily story on the CHP’s web-site. The story was also reproduced on the local web-page of the CHP’s Skeena Electoral District Association.
From its inception, the CHP has had a policy which states:
“It should be beyond the power of any legislative or administrative body to recognize, affirm, condone, or discriminate in favor of identifiably sexually aberrant individuals or groups.”
This policy was put in place because of a wealth of evidence that homosexuality harms society in many ways: where it is being taught in schools as “an acceptable alternative lifestyle”, it is potentially harmful to the children: Dr. Scott Lively, who taught law at Pepperdine University in California, warned school trustees that if their schools promote acceptance of homosexuality as “normal” or “natural”, and if as a result some children are tempted to experiment, and as a result contract one or more of the sexually transmitted diseases that are epidemic among homosexuals, the school boards might be liable. The American College of pediatricians also warned school boards that such programs are harmful to children.
The French Parliament, after more than a year of study, voted not to allow same-sex “marriage” or same-sex adoptions. The Parliamentary committee’s statement on adoption was: “The prupose of adoption is not to give a child to a family, but to give a family to a child.” Numerous studies have shown that children do much better when they have a father and a mother, rather than two same-sex parents. And several recent studies, by homosexual researchers, show that the incidence of domestic violence is markedly higher in same-sex couples than in normal family formations.
The CHP remains the only federal political party in Canada that opposes same-sex “marriage” or civil unions, and/or teaching children that homosexuality is “normal” or “an acceptable alternate lifestyle.” We contend that, since homosexual behaviour shortens life expectancy by as much as 20 years (according to a study conducted in Vancouver in 2000, and reported in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association and in the International Journal of Epidemiology; some experts say homosexual practices impact life expectancy even more severely), it is demonstrably unhealthy; and we in the CHP contend that its recognition and acceptance should not be promulgated in schools, nor by public events like “Gay Pride” parades.
Publishing the WND article on the CHP web-page was intended to make important articles by sociological and legal experts available to the Canadian public, and to provide peer-reviewed academic support for our long-established policy.
I first learned of the three complaints by an Edmonton activist in December, 2006 when the CHP’s Skeena/Bulkley Valley Electoral District Association faxed me a copy of a letter they had received from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, informing them that a complaint had been filed against them for reproducing the WND article on the Skeena EDA web-site.
Subsequently, in January, 2007, I was informed by the CHRC that the same man had also filed complaints against the CHP National Office; and against me, personally.
The first contact was an invitation by the CHRC mediator for us to enter into mediation with the complainant. I contacted the mediator and said I could alter my travel schedule to come to Edmonton for mediation on Feb. 26, 2007. The CHRC mediator, Mr. Bob Fagan, said he would contact the complainant and let me know. I asked Mr. Fagan to allow me to act (as Party Leader) for all three complaints, and he concurred.
By Feb. 19, the day when I had to leave for meetings of the CHP National Board in Lethbridge, Alberta, I had not yet heard from Mr. Fagan; so I called him to say that it was now too late for me to re-arrange my travel schedule. I then asked that he and the complainant suggest an alternate date for mediation, and said I would try to accommodate them to the extent that my work and travel schedule allowed. I also asked permission to have an observer from the Skeena EDA (as a co-defendant) accompany me.
I received no reply.
At the same time—Feb. 19, 2007—I wrote to Mr. Richard Tardif, Deputy Secretary-General of the CHRC, asking him to explain why he thought the CHRC would have jurisdiction over a registered federal political party and its leader, articulating a long-standing official policy approved by the triennial convention.
To this day, I have had no response from Mr. Tardif.
The next communication from the CHRC to me was June 7, 2007, when Mr. Michel Paré, Director of Alternative Dispute Resolution Services Division of the CHRC, informed me that “since both parties have refused mediation”—which was not true: I had offered to facilitate mediation by traveling from my home in Langley to Edmonton—the case was being turned over to Investigations Branch. (It seemed to me that if the complainant rejected mediation, the complaint itself should be dropped.)
I wrote to Mr. Paré, reviewing the history of the three complaints, and correcting his misunderstanding that I or the CHP had rejected mediation. We were willing to enter mediation, but had heard nothing at all from the mediator. I also sent him a copy of my letter to Mr. Tardif, raising the issue of jurisdiction.
I received a letter from Mr. Paré, dated June 29, 2007, simply stating that the complaints had been referred to the Investigations Division.
However on June 25, 2007 the Skeena EDA of the CHP had already received a letter from an investigator for the CHRC—which they faxed to me. I called the investigator and explained to her that I had not received answers to any of my communications with the CHRC, and that I was still ready to meet with the mediator, and that I was responding to all three complaints. She told me they had previously experienced similar difficulties with the Mediation Branch, and she asked that I fax her copies of all the previous correspondence—which I did. .
The next communication I received from the CHRC was an e-mail from the investigator—dated June 25, 2007, but only received by ExpressPost at my home in Langley, BC on July 13, 2007—asking me four questions. I replied that I did not believe I should attorn to jurisdiction by answering her questions, until the issue of jurisdiction had been settled.
I told the investigator that if the complainant truly felt that the CHP and I were motivated by hate, he should file his complaint with the RCMP under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code.
I had also mentioned to the mediator, when speaking to him Feb. 19, that it seems to me an abuse of the Canadian Human Rights Act to use it as a weapon with which to censor ideas with which one disagrees; his response was astonishing:
“The Human Rights Act is about censorship!” he replied.
I retained a lawyer—Mr. Ron McDonald of Lethbridge, AB—who prepared an extensive brief and forwarded it to the CHRC investigator.

Late in 2008, the CHRC informed me that the investigator had concluded that the complaints against me and the CHP were without foundation, and the file had been dropped.

I want my case, and others like it, to be included in the Canadian Museum of Human Rights, so the public can be informed of how CHRC mishandled a spurious complaint, and that their incompetence cost me 2 1/2 years and $51,000; and seriously impaired my service to the CHP during those years.

It is also important that the Canadian public know that, while all the complainant’s legal fees and other related costs are covered by the taxpayer, the defendant—whether guilty or innocent—must bear his or her own expenses. And, outrageously, the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits lawsuits against the Commission or the complainant to recover expenses in a vexatious complaint.

Of course, I’m not alone. Here’s a partial list of those whose human and civil rights have been impaired by the quasi-judicial powers of Canada’s federal and provincial human rights tribunals:

Christian Horizons in Ontario
Scott Brockie in Toronto
Ezra Levant in Calgary
Bill Whatcott in Saskatchewan
Calgary Street Church (Art Pavlovski, Pastor)
Stephen Boissoin in Red Deer
Will Goertzen in Yellowknife
http://christiangovernance.ca/chrgov-news/homosexuals-vs-christian-businessman-another-human-rights-commission-persecution
Chris Kempling
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html
BC Knights of Columbus
Calgary RC Bishop Fred Henry
Kari Simpson of the Citizens’ Research Institute (and now RoadKill Radio)
Manitoba, Sask & Nfld Marriage Commissioners
David Hauser in Port Coquitlam (fired by Costco)
Students in BC since June, 2006 (Corren Agreement)
John diCicco in Kamloops
Catholic Insight magazine
Ontario Catholic School Boards
Parents in Hamilton-Wentworth (Ontario)
Mark Steyn & Maclean’s magazine
Marc LeMire
Linda Gibbons
Don Spratt & Cissy von Dehn
Diane Hakskett
Hugh Owens
Vancouver Rape Relief Society
Mark & Connie Fournier, proprietors of Free Dominion website
Dagmar and Arnost Cepica, owners of Beach View Bed and Breakfast, PEI
Susan & Les Molnar, Grand Forks B&B owners

On the other hand:
From Ezra Levant’s blog:
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has rejected a human rights complaint filed against a radical Muslim imam who published an viciously bigoted book about gays, Jews, women, Christians—and even called for the murder of “infidels”.
Marc Lebuis, the publisher of the Quebec blog Point de Bascule, filed a complaint with the CHRC back in April, after reading Islam or Fundamentalism. (You can see a copy of the book in its entirety here. (It’s in French.)
The book plainly meets all the tests of section 13, including the jurisdictional test—it was written by a radical Muslim cleric here in Canada, named Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Al-Hayiti, and it was published on the Internet by him, too.
More importantly, Al-Hayiti’s book seethes with hate. According to Lebuis’s careful notes, it included statements such as these (Ezra Levant, who compiled this list, says he has included only a portion of them):
Homosexuals
• Homosexuals and lesbians should be “exterminated in this life”
• “Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded”
Infidels
• Most Infidels “live like animals”
• “sending our sons and daughters to the schools of the Infidels has devastating effects on their beliefs, their behavior and their character. For the children of Infidels are the most pervert children. At a very early age, they adopt the behavior of their parents “
Men are superior to women
• “men are superior to women and better than them”. In general, “men have a more complete intellect and memory than women”
Muslim women are superior to Infidel women
• “The veiled Muslim woman is a light in the darkness of the 20th century, she carries the torch of modesty, of chastity and of Islamic values”
• “male Infidels will not be happy with us until our women are in their beds, in their magazines and in their dancing clubs !”
• “If a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man … their marriage is invalid, in fact it is adultery”
Muslims are superior to Infidels
• “… a Muslim must never put his brother in Islam at the same level as an Infidel. In fact, to place Infidels at equality with Muslims is one of the greatest form of ignorance and injustice”
• “The rule is that the most disobedient among Muslims is better than the most virtuous, the most polite, the most honest and the most loyal among the Infidels”
Christianity
• “It is because of this religion of lies, which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery”
Jews
• Jews “spread corruption and chaos on earth”
• Most Jews “seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing”

Slavery
• “owning slaves is not prohibited”
• “Allah has allowed men to marry two, three or four women, but one who fears he will not be fair can marry only one or have slaves.”
Democracy is contrary to Islam. Jihad is a duty of sedition
• “Democracy is a system in total contradiction with Islam”
• “… freedom is unknown in Islam, it contradicts Islam, therefore it is a false concept”
• “[freedom] serves to justify corruption” and “stooping to the lowest levels of bestiality”
• “Anyone who leaves Islam, cut his neck”
… in an Islamic state, Christians and Jews can keep their religion but they must pay a sum of money, the Jizyah. “The purpose of the Jizyah is to humiliate and punish Infidels to encourage them to accept Islam.” The other Infidels (Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc.) have no options but to accept Islam or be killed.”

Such a publication goes far beyond “fair comment”, and (unlike the WND story reprinted by the CHP) has no supporting peer-reviewed evidence to support its statements. Yet the CHRC rejected the complaint (perhaps cowed by the memory of the violence that resulted from the Danish cartoons which Mr. Levant had the courage (unlike any other Canadian news media) to publish.

The Canadian Human Rights Museum will be severely impaired in telling the full story of the fight for human rights in Canada if these stories are not included; their exclusion would leave the Museum as a one-side propaganda instrument. I know you do not want that to happen.

Sincerely,

Ron Gray
#37, 2315 — 198th Street
Langley, BC
V2Z 1Z1
(604) 534-3319
rongray@telus.net

Cc: The Hon James Moore,
Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Copies to media

Notes on a Speech to Catholic Women’s League, Port Moody, January 25, 2011

 1 Response »
Jan 312011
 

By Terry O’Neill

Good evening. Thank you Louanne. Thanks to all of you. What a privilege to be here tonight to be the inaugural speaker at St. Joseph’s new chapter of the Catholic Women’s League, whose new motto, I am given to understand, is, “The St. Joe’s CWL: Not your mother’s Catholic Women’s League!”

Actually, this reminds me of the time when my mother was with an organization called the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, or IODE for short. Well, over time, the members came to conclude that their name was more than a little dated and fusty, and so they started to brainstorm about a new name, perhaps with the same initials, but standing for something else. Well, after much discussion and study, they couldn’t come up with anything, so they decided to simply stick with the initials, IODE, and have it stand for nothing! Let’s hope the CWL doesn’t follow the same path!

I recognize many familiar faces in the audience tonight. It’s great to see you all here this evening.

What an exciting time for you. So much to look forward to, so many things you can do.

#1 [read from the CWL’s “I belong because” doc]

Tonight, I want to concentrate on the part of your mission that talks about “making a difference.”

There are, indeed, many problems to tackle. So, in way, it’s a time of opportunity. To defend and promote Catholic values within a popular culture which is decidedly not Catholic!

It’s easy to see the big problems. We all know them. From legalized abortion and the increasing acceptable of prostitution, to the scourge of Internet pornography and rampant drug use, we Catholics have our hands fall because our Christianity compels us to stand up for truth, to fight evil, and to change the world for the better.

We live in a wonderfully rich age, but in a way we’ve become decadent. The glamorization of, essentially, sin is seeping into so many aspects of popular culture. Just look at this apparently uncontroversial ad I found in a recent newspaper:

#2 [read from Volvo ad “There’s more to life than a Volvo. Like raising a little hell with 300 horses, spanking corners with your all-new sport-tuned chassis, and feeling a little dangerous in a car tricked out with safety technology. That’s why you drive the all-new NAUGHTY Volvo S60. Introducing the all-new NAUGHTY Volvo S60.” Why is it that sin sells?.. etc.]

But the very fact we are here tonight speaks very strongly to the idea that we want a different world. A better world.

One of my favourite writers is GK Chesterton: “A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.” – Everlasting Man, 1925

And so, in swimming against the popular currents, the CWL is showing that Catholic women are, indeed, very much alive.

But what exactly is it that you can and should do. Well…

#3 [read from the list of CWL resolutions on everything from fighting prostitution to fighting obscure chemicals in plastics.] I can’t blame you if you feel overwhelmed.

I’d suggest that, instead of fighting against dangerous chemicals or bottled water [#4 aside here – info in recent BC Catholic suggesting it’s a sin not to recycle your plastic], that you get radical! And by radical, I’m referring to the deeper meaning of the word, which is that to take a radical approach is to get to the ROOT of the issue.

And, in my mind, there’s nothing more helpful, and no better guide to getting radical than the prayer we say every Sunday, the prayer for the reverence for Life. – our commitment to protecting, fostering and celebrating human life, from the moment of conception until it’s natural end.

This prayer flows directly from the Church’s commitment to the Culture of Life.
You’ve probably heard many references to the “Culture of Life” But what does it mean?

#5 [Pope’s Culture of Life in Wikipedia:
The expression owes its origins to Pope John Paul II, who first used it in a tour of the United States in 1993. Speaking to journalists at Stapleton International Airport near Denver, Colorado, the Pope denounced abortion and euthanasia, stating that “The culture of life means respect for nature and protection of God’s work of creation. In a special way, it means respect for human life from the first moment of conception until its natural end.” Cardinal Bernard Law reiterated the theme, urging Americans to “spread the culture of life over the culture of death”.

One possible source for this philosophy is the Didache, a first century Christian document which exposes the doctrine of two ways: the way of life and the way of death. This work is part of the Church’s Magisterium and has often been cited by Popes.

The Pope returned to the theme in April 1995 through the encyclical Evangelium Vitae Gospel of Life:
“In our present social context, marked by a dramatic struggle between the culture of life and the culture of death, there is need to develop a deep critical sense capable of discerning true values and authentic needs.”]

For the past two decades, my career as a journalist and a community activist has been propelled by my commitment to furthering the culture of life in our society.

Many of my articles in the National Post, for example, are actually rooted, in part, in a desire to educate Canadians about the proper relationship between humans and the natural world – a relationship that radical environmentalism and animals rights activists have skewered.

  • Note recent column about trans-oceanic dog Dog Rescue.
  • Note recent column about the crusade for Sacred Salmon.
  • Tell story of Last Eden from Time magazine from the mid 1990s (in which a place so remote that it was not inhabited by humans was said to be an Eden. Whereas our traditional understanding of “Eden” is that place where humans and nature live in perfect harmony, not “Eden” is bereft of humans. Frightening implications if one extends the logic.

“Great truth,” Chesterton once said, “can only be forgotten and can never be falsified.”

If the truth about human life has, indeed, been forgotten, it is our job, then, as educators teaching about, and activists promoting authentic human rights, to remind people—and, indeed, to remind the entire popular culture—of the many profound truths they have forgotten or which have been deliberately hidden from them.

We may whisper it in their ears. Or we may shout it from the highest mountain tops, but remind them we shall. Think about that word “re-mind” for a moment. We throw it around casually, reminding our kids to clean up their rooms; reminding ourselves to pick up the groceries and dry cleaning. “Remind” sounds pretty mundane when used like this.

But look at what it can also mean when you really look at the MIND part of the word. When we talk about re-minding the culture about the buried truths surrounding life issues, it can be said that we are talking about finding a new way to give them BACK their minds. They once had minds, they lost them, and now we are going to “RE-mind” them.

That’s a pretty big – and pretty important job, I’d say. So, in “re-minding” the public, we’re not just causally suggesting that they take a passing look at these issues. We are aiming to bring their minds back to life.

And don’t you just love the sound of that last phrase: Back to Life. Back to the understanding that life begins at conception. Back to the appreciation that every life has intrinsic value.Back to the recognition that life should not be ended to further someone’s personal convenience. Back to the realization that life is precious.

This is not a little job. This is not something of little importance. It is the vital issue of our time. And when we talk about vital, we once again find ourselves looking at another so-very important word that is deeply connected to everything we do: Vital, a word whose definition includes something that means “full of life.” … It all comes together, doesn’t it? …

So, when we “re-mind” people, we are bringing their minds back to Life. And we are doing this because it is Vital work – work that is FULL of Life.

On the activism side of what my life these days, I sit on the advisory board of Pregnancy Concerns, here in Coquitlam. And I now chair Signal Hill.

Signal Hill’s mission is to deliver clear and supportive education on life issues to all people, helping them make informed and life-affirming decisions. And to reach that goal, we have two main areas of focus: education and targeted media.

On the educational front we do presentations directly to students, community and church groups. We also develop and distribute printed and multimedia materials for schools, pharmacies, doctors’ offices and other strategic locations.

In high schools, we can tie in Human Development with sexual integrity and other life issues like suicide. By showing that we value life in all phases, we are showing society that we are consistent and compassionate, from the beginning of life right to the end.

Between our presentations and our training of teachers, our message has reached more than 4,000 students over the past year alone and we are just getting started.

On the targeted media side, Signal Hill develops and places TV ads, on-line ads, billboards, print ads and other media. With your help we will also be developing a series of educational videos, launching a Google Ad campaign and developing smart-phone applications. We are embracing technology in order to more effectively reach our target audience and because new technology and social networking tools allow our efforts to be more measurable and targeted.

Signal Hill went through a big change a few years ago, in which it transformed itself from a traditional pro-life organization into a completely new, re-branded, re-focused and re-energized society dedicated to what is, essentially, a new way of communicating our important, life-affirming message.

Instead of the old way of directly instructing people about what was moral and immoral, legal and illegal, we—essentially—decided to start telling STORIES designed to reach people’s hearts, with the clear hope that our non-judgmental, educational, and human-rights oriented approach would eventually change their minds.

Here I turn once more to the great English writer and apologist G.K. Chesterton …

“Reason is always a kind of brute force;” he wrote. “Those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of ‘touching’ a man’s heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.”

Signal Hill has committed itself to touching people’s hearts!

There is no better illustration of the effectiveness of this approach than the story that’s told in the documentary film Beyond the Gates of Splendor, which my wife Mary and I watched the other night.

[Tell the story of the documentary, which recounts how five Christian missionaries went to the Amazon jungles in the early 1950s, and the five husbands were murdered by a savage tribe they were attempting to contact, but the five wives and their young children stayed on (nearby) and eventually made contact, and brought light to the savage world. Women touching people’s hearts to change the world for the better.]

A great example of how touching people’s hearts will and can change their minds. And a true manifestation of the triumph of the Culture of Life over a Culture of Death.

Don’t think for a second that a new CWL chapter in little old Port Moody can’t achieve the same great success in the jungle that is our popular culture.

God’s speed as you go forward.

Thanks and good night.

 Newer Entries