| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
 StephenBoissoin
Joined: 03 Dec 2007 Total posts: 379 Location: Red Deer, Alberta Age: 42 Gender: Male
|
 Posted: 06/ 10/ 08 11:45 pm Post subject: Conflict of Interest |
 |
|
Consider: The Alberta Human Rights Commission hands out tax dollars in the form of public grants to promote very controversial social issues and at the same time they have the authority to rule on speech and punish opinion via their tribunals. The same applies in every Province.
The Alberta Human Rights Commission offers grants that pertain to diversity, equality and anti-discrimination etc. These grants are made possible via our tax dollars. Before Darren Lund filed his complaint to the AHRC against me, the AHRC approved a grant on behalf of the Alberta P-FLAG (Parents Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays) Faith Society. I discovered this grant on the AHRC website back in 2002 before I submitted my letter. The online documentation that described the mandate of Alberta P-FLAG made it clear that it had an initiative to promote that homosexuality was "normal, necessary, acceptable and productive and has been for thousands of years" to school children and youth. This same AHRC that approved this grant for Alberta P-Flag's hyper pro-gay agenda is the same organization that headed up the prosecution against me and ruled on behalf of pro-gay activist Darren Lund. Considering that the AHRC approved funds for this very controversial initiative, how can they claim and expect anyone to believe that I was provided with an unbiassed hearing and especially, ruling? This alone speaks volumes about the injustice done to me and the illegal activity of these quasi-judicial commissions.
What other legal body in Canada doles out grant money for controversial social issues and has the authority to rule on such important matters of constitutional law at the same time?
Stephen Boissoin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
 |
Peter O'Donnell
Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Total posts: 7995 Location: BC Age: 60 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 06/ 10/ 08 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Ministry of the Interior?
Oh sorry, that's in the other Soviet Union. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| shiva Joined: 13 Oct 2003 Total posts: 3755 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 06/ 11/ 08 2:47 am Post subject: Re: Conflict of Interest |
|
|
| StephenBoissoin wrote: | Consider: The Alberta Human Rights Commission hands out tax dollars in the form of public grants to promote very controversial social issues and at the same time they have the authority to rule on speech and punish opinion via their tribunals. The same applies in every Province.
The Alberta Human Rights Commission offers grants that pertain to diversity, equality and anti-discrimination etc. These grants are made possible via our tax dollars. Before Darren Lund filed his complaint to the AHRC against me, the AHRC approved a grant on behalf of the Alberta P-FLAG (Parents Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays) Faith Society. I discovered this grant on the AHRC website back in 2002 before I submitted my letter. The online documentation that described the mandate of Alberta P-FLAG made it clear that it had an initiative to promote that homosexuality was "normal, necessary, acceptable and productive and has been for thousands of years" to school children and youth. This same AHRC that approved this grant for Alberta P-Flag's hyper pro-gay agenda is the same organization that headed up the prosecution against me and ruled on behalf of pro-gay activist Darren Lund. Considering that the AHRC approved funds for this very controversial initiative, how can they claim and expect anyone to believe that I was provided with an unbiassed hearing and especially, ruling? This alone speaks volumes about the injustice done to me and the illegal activity of these quasi-judicial commissions.
What other legal body in Canada doles out grant money for controversial social issues and has the authority to rule on such important matters of constitutional law at the same time?
Stephen Boissoin |
This is a very good point and reminded me of what in particular ticked me off about the decision regarding the Christian Horizon case. Excerpted from that thread:
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=98865&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
| article wrote: | TORONTO, April 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The ruling by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to force a Christian ministry to the disabled to stop requiring staff to live up to Christian moral standards as a condition of employment threatens the existence of all faith-based charities in Canada. (For more coverage, see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08042512.html) In light of the recent decision, LifeSiteNews.com spoke with the provincial government ministry in charge of such matters and found they showed little willingness or desire to accommodate sincere Christianity in the public sphere.
Raj Dihr, the prosecutor for the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal in the case, explained to LifeSiteNews.com that the Christian ministry in question - Christian Horizons - was not permitted an exemption under the human rights code which would permit it to hire only Christian staff who were willing to live according to fundamental Christian moral precepts. The reason, he explained, was two-fold. First, he said, the organization was serving the general public, and not restricting its services to Evangelical Christians, and secondly, in the opinion of the Tribunal (a single adjudicator by the name of Michael Gottheil) adherence to the tenets of Christianity as set out by the Evangelical group was not seen as necessary in fulfilling their services to the public.
Of course, from the perspective of the ministry their whole raison d'être was ministering to the disabled as Christians. Christian Horizons (CH) describes itself as "an evangelical ministry seeking to reach out with Christian love to people with disabilities." Forbidding them to require staff to be Christian would thus effectively end their ministry.
Since CH is the largest provider of community living services in the province, providing care and residential services to 1,400 developmentally disabled individuals with over 180 residential homes across Ontario, (not to mention emplyoing 2,300 individuals) the ending of its ministry would present no small problem for the provincial government, which provides $75 million annually to CH for its services. That reality, however, seems not to have dawned on the provincial government.
Julia Sakas, Communications Assistant to Madeleine Meilleur, the provincial Minister of Community and Social Services, spoke with LifeSiteNews.com about the matter. Although the government wants "to see that those clients continue to receive services and that those services will not be disrupted," she said, "anything that would be determined as discriminatory would not be tolerated."
"We expect our provincial organizations that are funded by the province to uphold the province's shared values and those are that we don't discriminate and we respect the law and we respect the same from our agencies," said Sakas. One requirement, she explained, would be that employment contracts would not "infringe on the right to live one's lifestyle as one chooses." |
Now, think about that. "the province's shared values". As decided by whom and with what kind of definitive and demonstrable consensus?
And, as you say, it is particularly maddening that many of these "groups" have used taxpayer money to fund their silent and insidious takeover. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fourhorses
|
| Posted: 06/ 11/ 08 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent point, Stephen.
At the federal level, the CFIa (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) was born because Agriculture Canada was found to be in a conflict of interest position, providing both advocacy and enforcement.
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MAUS Joined: 13 Jun 2008 Total posts: 4 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 06/ 14/ 08 6:16 am Post subject: Re: Conflict of Interest |
|
|
| StephenBoissoin wrote: | Consider:
What other legal body in Canada doles out grant money for controversial social issues and has the authority to rule on such important matters of constitutional law at the same time?
Stephen Boissoin |
Mr Boisson, I am supprised you did not know...why Status of Whymen of course.
And the CBC of course.
Prior to the cuts in funding for "advocacy" and a denormalizing campaign by men's rights activism groups, the maligining and vilifying of men received more Canadian taxpayer funding than Josef Goebel's Propaganda ministry ever received.
But you have the right idea Reverend Boisson in terms of effective counter strategy.
It took a long time to convince MRAs that their efforts to refine ideological arguementation were never going to prevail over the dogmatic and the doctrinaire. I advised them to stop thinking in terms of "they". If "they" exist then "they" have names. My strategy consists of the following steps;
(1) Determine what are "they's" names.
(2) Determine where "they" get the money to buy lunch today
(3) Undermine "their" credibility at source of funding
(4) Save the ideological ammunition for routing "their" retreat.
It has been my observation that monetary donors are very generous and even a little naieve and gullible when it comes to financial support of what they have the impression is a noble cause. But if it is ever made known to them that their trust was betrayed and the funds were misused, they tend not to forgive that, no matter how good the spin doctors are at portraying the cause as being noble.
Abandon all hope of converting the politically correct through reason and arguementation. Oh you might win over the occassional fence sitter who has a smidgeon of honest intellectual curiosity, but these are not very numerous.
The vast majority of people are sheep and will conform quickly to whatever change you manage to bring about.
But when taxpayers are really offended by how their tax dollars are put to work, THEN you have power and influence that is strong enough to challange the culture of fear that Political Corrections Canada has created in our parliment and our legislatures.
Has the concerned taxpayer federation been brought in on this? If not I would suggest it should be. That being said, one of the principals of MGTOW is that to suggest is to volunteer..so...if nobody else has thought of it I will see about getting them in the huddle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Conflict of Interest |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
