Which is why I am very happy to bring you this:

EDMONTON – A Court of Queen’s Bench judge has ruled an anti-gay letter written by a former Alberta pastor in 2002 was not a hate crime and is allowed under freedom of speech.

Justice E.C. Wilson overturned a 2008 ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Commission that the letter by Stephen Boissoin that was published in the Red Deer Advocate broke provincial law.

At the time, the commission said it may even have played a role in the beating of a gay teenager two weeks after it was published.

The commission had ordered Boissoin to refrain from making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and to pay the complainant, former Red Deer high school teacher Darren Lund, $5,000 in damages.

Neither order can now be enforced, as Wilson declared them “unlawful or unconstitutional.”

The letter carried the headline “Homosexual agenda wicked” and suggested gays were as immoral as pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps.

Boissoin had argued he was simply commenting on government policy by criticizing homosexuality being portrayed positively in the public school curriculum.

On Thursday, Boissoin said he was thrilled with the judge’s ruling, calling it a victory for “freedom of speech and religious expression in Canada.”..

There’s an interesting dissection breakdown of the judgment here, which some of you might enjoy.  Rebekah sees the judge as having a very active sense of humour and a complete and utter contempt for the Alberta HRT ruling.  I don’t know if I would go that far but to each her own.

I can tell you that the court found that the so-called “hate speech” section of the Act is not some vague, general prohibition against speaking badly about someone but is only directed at eliminating statements which are also likely to cause others to engage in any of the discriminatory practices listed in the Act.  As opposed to speech that might lead to violence, which  is rightly governed by the criminal law power reserved solely to Canada’s federal, not provincial, governments. 

And “hate speech” is not actionable unless it actually influences someone to a hateful or discriminatory act or is likely to do so. In other words, it must be linked to actions.  It ”applies only to hateful expression that itself signals an intention to engage in discriminatory behaviour, or seeks to persuade another person to do so”.

For any so-inclined, the actual decision can be found here.

My point is simply this – as much fun as it may be to blast Canada’s human right laws sometimes, so far the system appears to be working as advertised. First, poor old Ezra Lavnt is successful in defending the hate speech complaint brought against him. As were Mark Steyn and MacLeans. And I’m pleased to report that there hasn’t been much anything heard from Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal lately, either. Which, thankd the Lord for that last one.

So now you know the rest of the story.  And like I’ve said before, don’t count us out.  It ain’t over ’til it’s over.

The official findings from the the U.S. Veteran Administration’s Congressionally mandated “Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses” were released on Monday, Nov. 17th, 2008.

Executive summary: it’s sure ain’t psychosomatic or psychiatric in origin.

Well, duh.

Among it’s conclusions:

“Evidence strongly and consistently indicates that two Gulf War neurotoxic exposures are causally associated with Gulf War illness: 1) use of pyridostigmine bromide (PB) pills, given to protect troops from effects of nerve agents, and 2) pesticide use during deployment.”

and

“Gulf War illness is associated with diverse biological alterations that most prominently affect the brain and nervous system. Research findings in veterans with Gulf War illness include significant differences in brain structure and function, autonomic nervous system function, neuroendocrine and immune measures, and measures associated with vulnerability to neurotoxic chemicals.”

and

“A question often asked about Gulf War illness is why some Gulf War military personnel developed chronic symptoms during and after deployment, while others who served along side them remained well. It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body. The enzyme paraoxonase (PON1) circulates in the blood and hydrolyzes organophosphate compounds such as pesticides and nerve agents, converting them to relatively harmless chemicals that are then excreted. Individuals who produce different types and amounts of PON1 differ, sometimes dramatically, in their ability to neutralize different organophosphate compounds.

For the full pdf (it’s large – 450 pages, 7Mb):

http://sph.bu.edu/insider/racreport

Former Nova Scotian Cheryfa

“I want millions, seriously,” Ms. Jamal said Wednesday in a telephone interview from her Mississauga, Ont., home.

“I know it sounds greedy, but I don’t care. I want millions for what the kids have suffered and how much we’ve aged in this process.”

Perhaps the poor dear is a little confused. While it’s true that Herman Kaglik, Donald Marshall and Guy Paul Morin were all awarded in excess of $1 million as compensation in wrongful conviction settlements, those men were actually wrongfully convicted and spent from four to ten years in jail for crimes they didn’t commit. And, by the by, Norman Fox only recieved a paltry $275,000 after spending 10 years in jail. Maybe your man is more in line with Richard Norris and Wilfred Truscott ($507,000 and $36,000, respectively).

Or maybe not. Norris and Trescott were actually convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. Your man wasn’t. Neither were they implicated in a terror plot in a post 9/11 world. Trust me, Cheryfa, when I say that many Canadians would be much more sympathetic to the ordeal that you and your family experienced if the first words out of your mouth weren’t “I Want Millions, Seriously”.

Seriously.

And as to your comments about not really missing Halifax, as it “would be very difficult” for you, “dressed how [you are] to go about [your] day” here”, let me tell you this; although there aren’t a lot of women wearing full veils here, it’s highly unlikely that you would be harassed or otherwise disturbed as you went about your daily business. In case you hadn’ t heard, Maritimers tend to be friendly folks.

But wait, you know that, seeing as how you use to be one, right? Come to think of it, maybe you are better off where you are.

And best of luck with that lawsuit, eh?

 Cross-posted at Free Falling

As always, some quality leaders seem to have made it, some politicians made it, and some downright heinous choices seem to have been made.

Oh, and let’s not forget the many fine leaders who got shafted. Could it be just an April Fool’s? Please?

Thx to Uncle Jimbo and Chap. I liked it, and now it’s your turn.

“Can you control him?” asked McFadden.

“Oh of course,” Clinton replied.

Forget the tragi-comic personal history aspects of this, for a moment. It’s stunning to see her so ignorant/tone deaf that she obviously doesn’t understand the response her statement (combined with her existing image) elicits from at least 70% of the men in this country.

The global shock of 9/11 created broad international concern at the time that no country could remain immune to similar attacks from terrorist groups in the future; a consensus rapidly emerged that joint international action was required to eliminate such groups and their sanctuaries wherever they werel ocated. President George W. Bush unambiguously demanded that all countries align themselves as “either with the U.S. or against it” in the struggle. Canada initially responded to the challenge by mobilizing air and naval forces and then secretly sent Joint Task Force Two (JTF2) troops to Afghanistan in late 2001. A larger contingent of 750 Canadian soldiers was then sent to Kandahar in February 2002 for a period of six months. Afghanistan became a symbolically key state in the broader effort to deter radical Islamic jihadism, particularly given its past role as host to al-Qa’ida under the Taliban.

Seems like such a long time ago now. Almost a lifetime, in some ways. Funny how, as I recall, not too many had much trouble with the whole idea of the US invading Afghanistan to rout out the Taliban after 9/11. And I don’t recall many, if any, having any problem with the idea of Canadian troops deploying to Afghanistan to do our part. Admittedly, Iraq was always a different story. But not Afghanistan.

So where are we now, over six years later and with 2,500 Canadian soldiers in country? Depending on who you want to believe, and how recently they were conducted, polls would tell us that anywhere from 50% to 60% of Canadians feel that our troops should be brought home as soon as possible. And why is that? Well, it might have something to do with the 78 young men and women that have been killed in a country so far away from home. Might. Yeah, right. Just might.

READ MORE

The global shock of 9/11 created broad international concern at the time that no country could remain immune to similar attacks from terrorist groups in the future; a consensus rapidly emerged that joint international action was required to eliminate such groups and their sanctuaries wherever they werel ocated. President George W. Bush unambiguously demanded that all countries align themselves as “either with the U.S. or against it” in the struggle. Canada initially responded to the challenge by mobilizing air and naval forces and then secretly sent Joint Task Force Two (JTF2) troops to Afghanistan in late 2001. A larger contingent of 750 Canadian soldiers was then sent to Kandahar in February 2002 for a period of six months. Afghanistan became a symbolically key state in the broader effort to deter radical Islamic jihadism, particularly given its past role as host to al-Qa’ida under the Taliban.

Seems like such a long time ago now. Almost a lifetime, in some ways. Funny how, as I recall, not too many had much trouble with the whole idea of the US invading Afghanistan to rout out the Taliban after 9/11. And I don’t recall many, if any, having any problem with the idea of Canadian troops deploying to Afghanistan to do our part. Admittedly, Iraq was always a different story. But not Afghanistan.

So where are we now, over six years later and with 2,500 Canadian soldiers in country? Depending on who you want to believe, and how recently they were conducted, polls would tell us that anywhere from 50% to 60% of Canadians feel that our troops should be brought home as soon as possible. And why is that? Well, it might have something to do with the 78 young men and women that have been killed in a country so far away from home. Might. Yeah, right. Just might.

READ MORE