Hello everybody

[Ben Kenobi]

1: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester

Both of these definitions suit what the HRC did to Stephen Boissoin. He was harrassed with the intent to punish and destroy him, and annoyed with the persistant HRC demands. He was fined a considerable amount for the crime of expressing his opinion that homosexuality is wrong.

Yeah, you see, unfortunately you've already agreed earlier in this thread that Anglo-Saxon common law takes precedence over Biblical teachings, so this Reverend, in common with all other citizens of Canada is subject to the laws of the land. That being the case, this cannot be harassment, since he's merely being asked to obey the law- just like everyone else who is a Canadian citizen.

The law provides for religious freedom - the freedom to express one's religious convictions without punishment from the state. Ergo - the 'mandate' of the HRC is actually contrary to the provisions of the Common Law, when it attacks people for their religious convictions.

I'm not particularly interested in what or whose you imagine the better claim to the throne was- I'm interested in what 'usurp' means- and by no stretch of the imagination did Elizabeth I 'usurp' the throne of England. I refer you to the Succession Act of 1544, of which you appear to be lamentably ignorant.

Heh, there's at least three different wills of Henry VIII, one of which excluded Elizabeth from the secession entirely. Of course she eventually came to the throne - as I mentioned the Percy claimant was executed by Henry VIII, and Lady Jane Gray (who's claim comes from the Percy's), was also executed. Everyone who had a claim from the Plantagenets that did not go through Elizabeth of York, was either imprisoned, executed or swore allegiance and forfeited their claims. That's the definition of 'ursurpation' to come to a throne which was not yours.

The Tudors were double usurpers - in taking the throne away from actual heirs to the throne and by dating their claim to the original usurper who triggered the whole thing, Henry IV.

[molly bloom]

You know, when NYE says you have a point - that says something, Molly.

What he said about you, precisely, was this:

Ben is being a bit hysterical

which pretty much agrees with how I view your unproven repeated claims about how Canada is supposedly 'persecuting' the Roman Catholic faith.

Resting your 'argument' (repetitive shrieks would be a more accurate description) on the example of a Reverend being invited to obey the law by a government body is not all convincing, lacking as it does evidence for persecution or harassment or motivation on the part of either the Government as a whole, or its specific agents.

See, I'm quite sure that a Government with armed forces, a secret service, the R.C.M.P. and local police forces would be able to persecute the Roman Catholic population of Canada if it really put its mind to it.

Or is it your claim that Canada is so ineffective as a state it can't even get a decent witch hunt organised ?

[molly bloom]

Both of these definitions suit what the HRC did to Stephen Boissoin.

But only in your opinion, and not in law or fact. You don't seem to grasp that simply because you repeat 'harassment' doesn't make it so- you actually have to show that harassment took place,. So far, you haven't.

He was harrassed with the intent to punish and destroy him

I'm sorry, but do you actually have this 'intent' in writing ? Do you have a government official saying this on record ? If not, then leave the mind reading to the end of the pier shows, unless you have evidence of intent- and not assumptions.

The law provides for religious freedom

And other laws provide that people can't be libelled or slandered (even by Reverends) and other laws prevent (or seek to prevent) cruelty to animals and provide protection for minors- so we don't see religious types or cultists making animal sacrifices on Yonge Street or carrying out child marriages in Saskatoon- no matter what their particular religious books or practices may recommend.

Even religious freedom has its limits.

[molly bloom]

Heh, there's at least three different wills of Henry VIII, one of which excluded Elizabeth from the secession entirely.

I'm aware of what happened in Tudor times. You're really not a better historian than me, no matter how much you might delude yourself.

Lady Jane Gray

Oh, wait, was that the same Lady Jane Grey who was used to attempt to USURP the throne from Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I's predecessor and half-sister ?

Why yes, it was.

That's the definition of 'ursurpation' to come to a throne which was not yours.

No it isn't, since Elizabeth I was hardly in a position to usurp the throne from people who had died before she was even born. The Papal Bull states that SHE usurped the throne- if she did the same as Lady Jane Grey, then from whom was she taking the throne ?

Note- Lady Jane Grey and her faction attempted to USURP the throne from the rightful monarch- Mary I Tudor.

The simple answer is, that following her half-sister and an Act Of Parliament, Elizabeth I peacefully ascended the throne of England- and no amount of pseudo-casuistry from you makes it usurpation on her part.

The Tudors were double usurpers - in taking the throne away from actual heirs to the throne

Yeah, boring and irrelevant.

[Ben Kenobi]

which pretty much agrees with how I view your unproven repeated claims about how Canada is supposedly 'persecuting' the Roman Catholic faith.

Apparently, you missed the part where NYE said that the HRC have overstepped their mandate - particularly in prosecuting those for the 'crime' of expressing the opinion that homosexuality is sinful. Last I checked the Catholic church teaches this to be true.

Reverend being invited to obey the law by a government body

That a reverend is being asked to comply with the state and deny his own faith is chilling. He should never be asked to do so, under the Common Law which protects his rights to freedom of religion and expression.

See, I'm quite sure that a Government with armed forces, a secret service, the R.C.M.P. and local police forces would be able to persecute the Roman Catholic population of Canada if it really put its mind to it.

Massive fines and arresting someone for failing to comply with an unconstitutional requirement amounts to the same thing.

Or is it your claim that Canada is so ineffective as a state it can't even get a decent witch hunt organised ?

That's what they are doing with the HRCs, they are doing a massive witch hunt of all the dissenters - people who disagree with state policy. Especially the leaders and especially the religious leaders who have the temerity to express their opinions publicly.

[Ben Kenobi]

But only in your opinion, and not in law or fact.

Not just my opinion - it's right there in the Charter of rights and freedoms - protection of freedom of expression and religion.

you actually have to show that harassment took place.

I've already shown how the state has harrassed Boissoin according to your own definition. You keep arguing that because the state *didn't* do X, X isn't persecution. You never address what the state *did* do to Boissoin.

but do you actually have this 'intent' in writing?

that the lengthy, stressful and expensive seven year legal battle over his letter to the editor has ended in his favor.

The Alberta Human Rights Commission had ordered Boissoin to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public forum, commanded him to pay damages equivalent to $7,000 to complainant and homosexual activist Dr. Darren Lund, and called for Boissoin to personally apologize to Lund via a public statement in the local newspaper.

Seven years! For writing a letter to the editor!

And your argument is that it isn't state-sponsored and state funded persecution. When it got to a real court - the real court overturned the Alberta Human Rights commission. But he never should have been charged.

As for Dr. Lund:

He spent a lot of time and effort last year trying to kill the Operation Christmas Child fundraising efforts in Alberta's schools, because, spirit-creator-Allah-God-Jehovah-Gaia-Vishnu forbid, they have a Christian connection. And after the whole sorry Human Rights Commission fiasco we know how Dr. Lund feels about Christians.

And it's not yet over.

The homosexual activist who has pursued Alberta Pastor Stephen Boissoin on a complaint of discrimination since 2002 has re-launched his campaign after a December court defeat, taking his case to the Alberta Court of Appeal

He noted that Lund's case against him will likely end up taking 10-15 years and cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And that doesn't qualify as persecution? Apparently Canada isn't a free country.

And other laws provide that people can't be libelled or slandered (even by Reverends)

Did Boissoin mention Lund at all? How does he have standing to argue that he felt "hurt" by a letter that never addressed him in any way shape or form?

and other laws prevent (or seek to prevent) cruelty to animals and provide protection for minors- so we don't see religious types or cultists making animal sacrifices on Yonge Street or carrying out child marriages in Saskatoon- no matter what their particular religious books or practices may recommend.

So how does the expression that homosexuality is sinful warrant the same limitations? Hurt feelings aren't the same as child sacrifice (which btw is permitted in Canada). Plenty of folks in Canada practice sex selection abortion if that is what their culture supports. They are free to abort all the girls the want.

As for Child marriage -that's actually been protected in Canada - as with the folks in Bountiful. And from what I can see - the UK permits people to have up to 4 wives.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm aware of what happened in Tudor times.

Apparently not if you'd brush aside the Percy's and their claim to the throne of England.

You're really not a better historian than me, no matter how much you might delude yourself.

I was testing you to see just how good you were. You failed. There's a solid argument against mine - but you didn't find it. For someone who's a supposed professional, I'm disappointed.

So the answer is, not a very good historian at all. I made a very important mistake in my earlier post. I checked back and noticed the mistake, but decided to leave it in anyway to see if you would notice. Apparently not.

Lady Jane Gray Oh, wait, was that the same Lady Jane Grey who was used to attempt to USURP the throne from Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I's predecessor and half-sister ?

Is it usurpation if you have the senior claim?

Elizabeth I was hardly in a position to usurp the throne from people who had died before she was even born.

But she did usurp it from the rightful holder whom she also executed. She was excommunicated after she executed Thomas Percy.

The Papal Bull states that SHE usurped the throne- if she did the same as Lady Jane Grey, then from whom was she taking the throne ?

Thomas Percy.

The simple answer is, that following her half-sister and an Act Of Parliament, Elizabeth I peacefully ascended the throne of England- and no amount of pseudo-casuistry from you makes it usurpation on her part.

Casuistry, which is why the throne left the tudors in the first place. Henry VIII is one of the few monarchs of England who has no links at all to the monarchy today, whereas the Yorks still do. Same with Henry IV, btw.

Yeah, boring and irrelevant.

"I don't like actual evidence so I'm going to handwave it away...."

[The Mad Monk]

WE MUST DISSENT

[Asher]

Ben brings shame to every cause he celebrates.

[kentonio]

I was testing you to see just how good you were. You failed. There's a solid argument against mine - but you didn't find it. For someone who's a supposed professional, I'm disappointed.

You should have used that excuse the time you didn't realize there was more than one Mary in the period, you might have convinced at least one person that you weren't an idiot.

[notyoueither]

I didn't say the HRCs have overstepped their mandate. I said there are problems with how they are constituted and things they do. Part of the problem is their mandate(s).

They are not staffed nor presided over by people with any significant degree of legal training. They should not be allowed to hear cases revolving around such essential rights as expression.

Prosecutions are paid for, the defence is on the accused's nickle. There is at least one individual who has worked with an HRC and filed many complaints against people he has problems with.

My overall impression is that of a bench overrun by large marsupials even though they do do some good things.

[Ben Kenobi]

You should have used that excuse the time you didn't realize there was more than one Mary in the period, you might have convinced at least one person that you weren't an idiot.

There's three - Mary Stuart, Mary Tudor, Queen of France, and Mary Tudor, Queen of England.

[Ben Kenobi]

My overall impression is that of a bench overrun by large marsupials even though they do do some good things.

Agreed. I don't believe there's any requirement at all, other than knowing the right people to become one of the commission.

[Karryluis5]

Hi! I am Karryluis, It is my pleasure to be here. I like to share all my Ideas and Knowledge with people. That is my hobby and it is the best way of discussion. Thank you. I will Enjoy this Forum Community membership.

[b etor]

^^ You guys, s/he left because no one welcomed her/him.