Lies and Distortion - Gwen Landolt Parrots The Ezra

It's amazing how the right wingnuts manage to parrot each other. Over at the magazine Catholic Insight, we find "Real Woman" Gwen Landolt whining and snivelling about how the Charter of Rights and Human Rights commission infringes upon her right to be a religious bigot where GLBT people are concerned...and of course, the HRC's are "out of control".

The crux of Landolt's complaint appears to be that because the courts have been persuaded that it is in fact valid to recognize discrimination against GLBT people, they have thereby constricted her rights as a religious person.

The guarantees for religious freedom have, in fact, most often been used to restrict or narrow religious freedom rather than expand it, especially when it has come in conflict with the “equality” rights of homosexuals. The latter’s rights were written into the Charter by the courts and, in contrast to religious rights, have increased and been strengthened step by step by the courts, so much so that, for the most part, homosexual rights now trump religious rights.

Her conclusion that treating discrimination against GLBT people as being just as wrong as discriminating against someone because of their gender, religion or ethnicity somehow impinges upon her religious freedoms is distinctly misguided. Nobody has told Ms. Landolt that she has to renounce her belief that being GLBT is somehow sinful. She is perfectly free to believe that, and few in the world would really care. Of course, for Landolt, and others, it's not good enough for them to believe that GLBT people are sinful, they want to punish by social and legal sanction as well.

It is significant that actual proof of discrimination against homosexuals has never been introduced at any time in evidence in any court in Canada.

Ummm...incorrect, Gwen. Remember the case of Vriend v. Alberta? There is a clear case of government discrimination in a matter, based on an intentional omission in law.

Of course, Landolt completely misinterprets the Vriend decision, and twists it around to being a matter of "judicial activism", as the Alberta legislature had clearly not voted to provide protection to homosexuals in the province of Alberta:

On the basis of this broad definition of equality, the Supreme Court of Canada in Vriend ordered the Alberta government to include sexual orientation in that province’s human rights legislation, even though that legislature had previously voted against such an inclusion. It is noteworthy that the purpose of the Charter was supposed to be to protect individuals from government legislation and policies that discriminated against them; it was not to provide new rights to individuals to be written into legislation. The Vriend decision, therefore, was a twist in judicial activism which strengthened judicial power.

Of course, what Landolt has completely failed to admit and accept is that the legislation in Alberta was at odds with the Constitution. It was not a matter of "judicial activism" at all, rather a recognition that the jurisprudence around S15 of the Charter had already established that S15 was not an "exclusive" list; further other jurisdictions in Canada had already extended legal protections against discrimination to GLBT people.

Further, the Vriend case is quite clearly a matter of government legislation that discriminated against homosexuals. The entire Vriend case centers around the fact that the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission refused to hear the Vriend complaint on the basis that it revolved around the fact that Delwin Vriend was fired for being gay.

Let's be absolutely clear here - the Vriend decision was in fact very much about a provable case of discrimination of precisely the kind that Gwen Landolt is claiming the Charter was intended to protect people from.

Of course, Gwen's happy little fantasy world holds that we all have to bow down on Sundays and worship:

The chipping away of religious freedom began almost immediately after S.15 of the Charter came into effect in 1985 in the R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985][vii]. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the Lord’s Day Act, which required the closing of businesses on Sunday, infringed on religious freedom because religious freedom meant not only freedom of worship, practice, and teaching, but also included freedom from coercion, e.g., that the government could not coerce individuals to affirm specific religious belief, such as, in this case, coercing non-believers to observe the Christian Sabbath. That is, the Court held that non-religious individuals have a right to be free from religious observance.

She is correct in one point here - freedom of religion also implies freedom from religion. Of course, what shreds of rationality are gradually torn away as she progresses down her fantasy path about just how evil it is that legislation that implies a particular religious tradition becomes problematic when you grant freedom of religion to those who aren't followers of Christian tradition:

This interpretation departed considerably from the long established interpretation of freedom of religion, which, heretofore, had meant that one was free to practice one’s religion without interference from the state. In short, the court emphasized the individual conscience and the rights of non-Christians at the expense of the religious rights of communities of believers. It is obvious that Sunday shop closing legislation simply respected the Sabbath observed by the majority of people in society, and protected both shop owners and retail workers from being compelled to work on their day of rest.

The problem with Landolt's argument is that her reasoning is deeply flawed. What Landolt has missed is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies equally to all Canadians, regardless of their faith; and further fundamental individual freedoms such as freedom of religion mean that a law whose fundamental premise is based on a particular religious tradition (and the "Lord's Day Act" was clearly such a law) is on very weak ground. Further, the Charter and the Constitution quite clearly do not recognize any single faith tradition as being primary in Canada.

We then find Landolt repeating the usual whines about cases like Brockie and others which I have already addressed in some detail. Amusingly, I'd like to know what's so offensive about printing letterhead for a gay organization that it caused Mr. Brockie to find his "religious sensibilities" offended. Of course, I wonder what would happen if the tables were turned, and a printer refused to print something with overtly christian symbols plastered all over it?

Oh yes, she tries valiantly to rescue the Boissoin case from the toilet:

Stephen Boissoin, a Baptist Minister in Alberta, published a letter opposing homosexuality in a local newspaper, The Red Deer Advocate. This letter was an expression of Mr. Boissoin’s deeply held beliefs on the issue, and ran under the subheading “Homosexual Agenda Wicked”.

Boissoin's letter was no "religious" letter. Give me a break. That letter was filled with enough distortions, outright lies and falsehoods to make any self respecting Christian blush with embarrassment with the myriad ways it breaches fundamental tenets of the ethics of that faith.

As if Boissoin's letter would have provoked any kind of rational discussion, Landolt points to this tidbit on the matter from a Gay publication:

Significantly, according to the homosexual newspaper, Xtra West (December 6, 2007), the complaint against Pastor Boissoin was opposed by the homosexual lobby group, EGALE, which issued a press release on the case stating “that debate was the best method for dealing with homophobia (sic)” and that “sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

Debate is fine. Boissoin was not opening the door to any kind of debate. Period. His language alone made it clear that he wasn't seeking debate, but was making a call to arms against GLBT people. Landolt conveniently ignores the fact that while the furor was boiling around Red Deer in the weeks after Boissoin's letter was published, a gay youth was severely beaten. While the connection is difficult to prove, the temporal coincidence cannot be ignored.

What Landolt and others need to recognize is that matters of faith are just fine - nobody has a problem with the fact that some faiths consider GLBT people "sinful". That doesn't give anybody the right to marginalize, discriminate against, or abuse someone else simply because "their faith tells them that the Other is an evil sinner". Period. It's amusing how "religious freedom" seems to imply for these people that includes discriminating against GLBT people in both law and life.

Like Ezra's tirades against Human Rights tribunals, Landolt's claims are rooted in a sense of entitlement. Her rights supercede the rights of others. Landolt is perfectly free to believe what she wishes. She is not, however, free to simply impose her religious beliefs on every body else. When she, and others like Charles McVety get it through their heads that individual freedoms are just that - individual - then they might just start to realize that they are free to their beliefs, but that freedom does not extend to imposing their beliefs and values upon others.

Shorter Ezra Levant:

Because Richard Warman keeps filing human rights complaints that Ezra disagrees with, the CHRC is an invalid, rogue organization.

Of course, in Ezra's fevered imagination, there is no due process wrapped around the CHRC complaints process, and every complaint that Warman makes is slavishly granted by the tribunal. I've already pointed out how Ezra has distorted the reality of the situation to suit his own ends.

I won't speak to the merits - or lack of them - in Warman's complaint filings - it's actually quite secondary to Ezra's real goal, which is to ensure that Ezra has the absolute right to spew whatever crap about whomever he so chooses - just so long as he stays on the legal side of libelous.

Of course, what Ezra conveniently doesn't tell people in his grandiose tirades about the CHRC is how half-truths that don't fall into the heading of libel can be used to demonize entire populations - quite legally under the comparatively narrow definition that applies in libel law.

The human rights laws in Canada came into play because the issues that they address are not adequately covered by legal concepts such as libel. The kind of remedies available are relatively limited - why? Because the very issues being dealt with are often much more vague than is appropriate in a court of law. Lastly, the option does exist to appeal a decision to the courts.

Contrary to Ezra's repeated claims of a lack of due process, there is in fact a process in place and one that is largely balanced to keep the vast majority of cases from going much beyond initial investigation. It is a sad statement indeed that a lawyer with Ezra's professional background not only cannot see that, but seems so blinded by ego and ideology that he will not admit that there's a lot more to the picture than his strident claims of censorship.

The End Of An Era

The creator of Dungeons and Dragons passed away yesterday.

Boingboing has a great interview from 2003 posted.

It's been years since I last played D&D (or any of its spawn), but Gygax's imaginative construct made a contribution to my own formative years that cannot be ignored. The game itself was a wonderful escape from the often near-insanity of adolescence, and provided an amazing creative outlet for me.

I fondly remember scraping for weeks and months to get the money together to buy the source books for D&D and countless hours spent designing adventures and worlds in which to host them. None of the stories we created would make great literature, but they were immensely enjoyable in the moment.

In keeping with the more common themes of this blog, D&D was no stranger to controversy, with many religious groups speaking out against the game. That debate fascinated me, and was in some ways my introduction to just how badly people will twist reality to suit their dogma.

Rest In Peace, E. Gary Gygax - you will be missed.

What The Hell Was That?

Last night's election results are very disappointing. Rewarding a long-time incumbent party that has a relatively new leader at the helm with an increased majority is miles from what I would have expected, and even further from what this province needs.

The problem isn't a PC majority - far from it, I had expected that. However, no government works well when it has no opposition to speak of. Alberta is heading into a period in which it will be all the more critical for the government to act in a balanced and reasoned fashion. Without an effective opposition and a sense of balance in the legislature, we run a very high risk of damage worse than that which Don Getty visited upon us.

To judge from the numbers being bandied about, it appears that voter turnout was around 41% (give or take), meaning that 59% of Alberta voters didn't even bother to make their mark. To me that means that 53% of 41% decided to vote for the status quo. (If you do the math, that means just over 20% of Alberta's population actually voted PC)

Sadly, this kind of depressing number feeds into the apathy cycle, and to some extent self justifies the voter who says "nah, why bother?" when asked if they voted. In so many ways, the 'Fat, Dumb and Happy' state that the economic boom has created for many voters has resulted in a laissez-faire mentality that fails to engage in the issues.

This election was the first election in some years where it looked like Albertans might actually vote for something other than "Ralph, because he's such a regular guy". Unfortunately, none of the party leaders managed to find a "key issue" to play on, and that allowed the status quo to continue.

My guess, short term is this:

Stelmach gets to hang on for four years. (* sigh *)
Kevin Taft is likely gone within six months. (* Disappointing, I actually think Taft has some good ideas - and has been the strongest leader the Liberals have had for years *)
Brian Mason is history. ( No great loss - Mason was a good "second in command" to Pannu, but as leader didn't do so well )
The WrAP party will turn in on itself and we will see something else representing the rabid social right-wing in this province inside of two years.

Turning To Libel Chill

How interesting. Harper now wants to claim libel over the Chuck Cadman bribery affair.

As is typical for a micromanager, he wants to control everything, and when something starts to get out of his control the first tool he reaches for is the threat of libel action.

He doesn't come clean on the issue, he doesn't provide a sane explanation for the events that are apparently so well documented. No, instead, we find Harper pulling from the Lyin' Brian toolbox, and threatening lawsuits. This coming from a man who spent much of the previous election promising Canadians a more open, honest, accountable government, and has delivered Truly Awful Government instead.

If we wish to talk about libel, perhaps we should be taking a closer look at the 'attack ads' that Harper's bunker has been lobbing at Dion.

Craig Chandler Campaign Literature

Chandler's campaign literature is an amazing collection of logical contradictions.

Of course, the contradictions stem from Chandler's blithe assumption that the only "kind" of voter that lives in Calgary Egmont is a "conservative voter".

Consider the following:

If you hire me as your MLA, I understand that I report to you and that your views will be represented

Followed a paragraph or so later:

As your MLA, my intention is to vote with the PCs when they act like conservatives, and when they act like Liberals, I will remind them of their roots

So...just how does this man think he's going to represent the moderate voters, which are fiscally moderate and socially quite liberal? Or perhaps he has forgotten that many in this province today are old enough to remember Peter Lougheed's government - and that represents the "roots" of the PC party far more than the absolutist conservatism of the federal Reform Party. I suspect that many of the points on his policy page are "code phrases" that only bear meaning for people that subscribe to Stephen Harper's dishonest social conservatism backed and defined by Charles McVety and his allies - meaning that there are quite likely a lot of issues which are not "open for consultation", unless I miss my guess. (Or conveniently, all he'll hear are opinions that match his own - not unlike )

Of course, he also likes to claim that he is the "trigger" of a "great exodus" from the Alberta PC party. If there's an exodus of any sort happening, it's likely got more to do with a lot of people turning away from the party after starting to realize that the leadership selection process was not what it was represented to be. I'm sure that for a few, Chandler's nomination was the "straw that broke the camel's back", but Chandler just isn't that significant a figure outside of Egmont - and only there because he's chosen to try and be a candidate there.

Last, and perhaps most telling is the bottom of the page - which contains not a picture of the Candidate, or any kind of slogans, but instead appears to have been sold off to supporters as paid advertising space. (One of the ads belongs to one Vicki Engel, who I suspected was a little to cozy with Chandler to be anything other than a puppet candidate. While some might applaud Chandler's "innovation" in selling advertising space on his campaign advertising, it also sends a rather worrisome message - namely that he is for sale to the highest bidder.

Straw Polling in Calgary Egmont and Fish Creek

I drove through the ridings of Calgary Egmont and Calgary Fish Creek this morning, and the "sign poll" was rather interesting.

Calgary Egmont is a riding which is going to be interesting on Monday night. It has an unusual number of candidates running in it - a total of six from various parties.

The real race here is between Jonathan Denis and Cathie Williams, with Craig Chandler doing his best to play spoiler - hoping to at the very least split the PC vote. It's obvious that Chandler's been running hard, and he certainly has a lot of lawn signs out there - if that translates into actual votes, Denis is in serious trouble, as it looks distinctly like Chandler may have taken quite a few of the PC votes away. (I'm sorry to say that I didn't see enough NDP or Green Party signs to suggest they are even factors in the vote this time around)

Of course, given that it's probably less than 10% of the homes that have signs in front of them, the undecided vote (estimated to be over 25% of voters still) is going to decide just what form change takes. Personally, my preference would be Cathie Williams in this race. Her leadership on the Calgary Catholic School Board was impressive, and she strikes me as being capable of being an even-handed, rational MLA.

Denis represents the status quo, and he seems to be a weak candidate in this race, with the PC party's organization having been well shook up by Chandler's machinations last year.

As for Chandler, he's demonstrated repeatedly by his actions that he represents nobody except himself. If you see things his way, great. If you dare differ with the man, don't expect to get much traction. His claims of "unifying" people are highly suspect when you recognize how quickly he switches his tune. Last fall, he was asking citizens to vote PC in the coming election; today, he's telling us to vote for him as an independent candidate? His past actions on a variety of fronts leaves me wondering just how well he's going to represent anyone other than himself.

Calgary Fish Creek is shaping up to be much more intriguing than I had expected. From the amount of signs on people's lawns, Heather Forsyth could be in serious trouble. Laura Shutiak has obviously been running a very aggressive campaign, and people are hearing it.

I personally lost a great deal of respect for Ms. Forsyth when I got her response to this letter I sent her - which more or less blew my concerns off as she had already decided to vote for Morton's bill to enshrine bigotry. Her response was essentially "piss off, I've already decided", instead of actually engaging the issues I raised about the legislation.

Sign wise, I'd say that Shutiak outnumbers Forsyth quite significantly, BUT, the number of signs overall is quite small - probably around 5% of homes at most. To me this suggests that there is a huge undecided vote in the area, and possibly a great deal of apathy as well.