| Home - Latest News | Introduction | Bayside Prophecies | Directives from Heaven | Shopping Cart | Testimonies | Veronica Lueken | Miraculous Photos | Bible | Radio Program |

The uncommon nonsense of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions

Book review: The Tyranny of Nice – How Canada crushes freedom in the name of human rights...

"Once a country has given itself over to all manner of paganism and sin, it is not long before that country falls into a system of dictatorship, bringing great sorrow, even murder to the masses." - Jesus, May 26, 1979

LifeSiteNews.com reported on November 13, 2008:

If there is any fatal flaw to be found in this handy little volume jointly authored by Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere it is simply this: it runs the risk of not being believed. That is, it may not be believed because most people still abide by the belief that most other people are decent and reasonable chaps, and that being a decent and reasonable chap isn’t an indictable offense.

This conviction of the commonness of decency and reason especially holds true for those who live in modern, Western democracies. For a democracy makes absolutely no sense and cannot function without its cornerstone principle: the notion that common sense is much more common than its opposite – what G.K. Chesterton termed “uncommon nonsense.” This notion is what gives any democracy the fundamental faith that the people (demos), when left to their own devices, can usually be trusted to make decent and reasonable choices.

But in any democracy there are exceptions. Usually these exceptions are found in those who would set themselves up as the ruling class: which is why the citizens of any healthy democracy have a healthy distrust of their politicians and their bureaucrats.

Indeed, in your typical democracy, most of the uncommon nonsense can be found concentrated to a disproportionate degree amongst the elite – the politicians, the bureaucrats, and the intellectuals, who are more often guided by ideology (i.e. balderdash, rubbish) than by common sense. This is why checks and balances (not to mention the political cartoon), were invented.

Canada is no different in this regards. If anything this is more true of Canada than any other democracy: for in the Great White North we have the bureaucrats of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, who, when compared to your average Canuck, are so out to lunch that they remind one of Lig Lury, Jr., the fictional editor of “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” whose lunch breaks became ever more extravagant and legendary in length until one day he left for lunch and never returned, but who, nevertheless, is popularly believed to be on his lunch break still.

That’s how out to lunch the CHRC bureaucrats are. But don’t take my word for it. Read The Tyranny of Nice. 

As the authors of this slim volume reveal, in the disconnected world of the commissions perfectly decent and reasonable chaps – model citizens like Steve Boissoin, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Scott Brockie, Ted Kindos, Fr. Alphonse de Valk and Mark and Connie Fournier, to name but a few – can be prosecuted for no other crime than that they aren’t as liberal and loony as the employees of the CHRC. For having dared to “offend” the sensibilities of one of the protected groups (mostly homosexuals and Muslims), these individuals have had their pocketbooks emptied by legal fees well into the tens of thousands of dollars, their reputations dragged through the mud, and their nerves shot by the strain of “investigations” that span up to half a decade in length.

And all of this without any decent hope of actually winning their case. For up until recently (coincidentally, about the same time the high-profile Mark Steyn case began drawing unwelcome attention to the commissions’ closed-door machinations) the human rights tribunals had a mind-boggling 100% conviction rate for so-called “hate crimes.”

“In the upside down parallel universe that is the Canadian Human Rights bureaucracy,” write Shaidle and Vere, “truth is no defense, intent is irrelevant, one is guilty until proven innocent, and the lucky complainant’s legal costs are covered by the province’s taxpayers – while the accused is obliged to spend thousands on his own defense in the almost certain knowledge that he will lose anyway.”

That may sound like hysteria. It is unfortunate that it is the unadulterated truth, a truth that Vere and Shaidle provide plenty of hard evidence to prove.

Indeed, this humble pair has done a great service for those who are concerned about the future of democratic freedoms in Canada. They have pulled together in one short, easy-to-read, 80-page volume, a goodly portion of the lunacy of the commissions, well documented and entertainingly presented; and the end result is to leave no question that the commissions amount to a serious threat to freedom in Canada and that something must be done about it.

The question, however, as previously suggested, is whether your average reader is prepared to accept what Shaidle and Vere have to offer, no matter how straightforward the facts may seem. Will your average Canuck swallow the fact that their human rights tribunals once decided that requiring an employee at a fast-food restaurant to wash her hands violated her human rights? That they actually wrote, "There was no evidence of: the relationship between food contamination and hand-washing"? Or that asking a patron at a bar and grill not to smoke marijuana in the doorway violated his human rights? Or that a tribunal is currently "investigating" the case of a stand-up comedian who heckled his hecklers because this may have violated their human rights?

These, of course, are merely some of the oddest cases the CHRC has agreed to hear, which in their bizarre novelty reveal just how disconnected the commissions are. But there are, of course, the much more dangerous and equally unbelievable cases: the one where a Christian pastor was fined and told to apologize to his accuser for having expressed his disagreement with homosexual "marriage" in a letter to the editor of a reputable local paper; or the one where one of Canada's most widely read magazines had to answer for having published an excerpt from a book that was on the New York Times' best-sellers list at the time; or the one where a Catholic magazine had to defend itself merely for having defended the Catholic Church's teachings on the morality of homosexual behavior.

Will these things be accepted, or will the average reader merely react with suspicion, wondering if Shaidle and Vere are not making things up, or presenting only one side of the story? This is, in my opinion, a valid concern. The Human Rights Commissions are so far left of the majority of Canadians, that many will have a hard time swallowing the claim that a government agency really is doing what this government agency has been doing for years. It seems such an improbable story, especially when so little mention of it has been made in the mainstream media, which is perhaps the only other institution in Canada that is almost as loony as the CHRC.

Interestingly, if you had asked me these questions only a few days ago I would have said with conviction that most Canadians were not prepared to accept the thesis of The Tyranny of Nice. But things have changed since then. Last weekend, at the Conservative Party convention, well over 90% of the 2,000 delegates present voted to significantly curtail the powers of the human rights commissions to prosecute “hate speech.”

On the face of it, this isn’t a revolutionary step. The resolution is non-binding, and Conservative higher-ups have consistently shown a startling resilience against taking notice of the elephant in the living room. However, the overwhelming support from grassroots delegates for motion P-203 revealed that, despite the deafening silence of the mainstream media, and despite the total inaction from the higher-ups, everyday Canadians are starting to wise-up to the CHRC racket.

That this is so is largely thanks to out-of-the-mainstream writers and journalists such as Pete Vere and Kathy Shaidle, not to mention better-known figures such as Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, who have been anything but demure in their criticisms of the commissions.

Indeed, Mark Steyn himself penned the introduction to The Tyranny of Nice. The ten bucks the book costs is well worth it just for the introduction alone, which is guaranteed to offend the CHRC bureaucrats, and to make the rest of us who still have our humor gland intact laugh out loud.

The Tyranny of Nice is an excellent and necessary book, a first step in educating Canadians and non-Canadians alike on the threat of the human rights commissions and what can be done about them. Buy it, read it, and, most importantly of all, act on it.

As Vere and Shaidle conclude, “Canadians … must come together and abolish Canada’s human rights racket. They must do so before the damage inflicted upon our nation’s social fabric becomes irreversible. …

“To quote Levant: Fire. Them. All.”

Indeed.

To purchase your copy of The Tyranny of Nice, go to http://www.thetyrannyofnice.com

********

Essay centers on current "moral anarchy" and general inability of society to see it, even those who embrace morality

The tyranny is upon us but we're too compromised to see it says Michael O'Brien...

"Once a country has given itself over to all manner of paganism and sin, it is not long before that country falls into a system of dictatorship, bringing great sorrow, even murder to the masses." - Jesus, May 26, 1979

LifeSiteNews.com reported on March 14, 2008:

Canadian Catholic author Michael O'Brien has made available to LifeSiteNews.com his latest essay which centers on the current "moral anarchy" and the general inability of society to see it, even those who embrace morality. The blindness, he says, is due to compromise.

O'Brien quotes Plato referring to states in which an excess of freedoms severed from responsibility have degenerated into open anarchy, which in turn precipitates tyranny. He asks: "But what about a 'republic' in which moral anarchy reigns in a matrix of prosperity, order, and apparent civic freedom? Can democracy be undone spiritually without a shot being fired within its frontiers?"

"Indeed it can; indeed it is happening. Yet the psychology of perception, our own unrecognized consciousness-shift from the moral cosmos to the materialist cosmos now surrounding us, tells us that our situation is basically stable. We admit there are problems, even serious problems, but we feel confident that our freedom is intact, and that all grave threats come from exterior sources.

"Ours is a self-blinded condition, a willing cooperation with the very thing that is killing us -- a slow and complex process that involves many pleasures of bodily and emotional appetite and the more dangerous pleasures of intellectual and spiritual pride.

In his preface to The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis writes: "The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see the final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice."

"Who are these people? Did we elect them? In all probability we did, and we did so because they understood human nature sufficiently to offer us many apparent 'goods' in a package-deal containing the great evils that are an essential part of their agenda.

"The very quality of our cooperation with the terms of the deal should tell us something about ourselves: we have come to accept as normal a complicity, albeit reluctant, with the most hideous crimes and endless self-justifications fostered by our governments, which have become aggressively materialistic in political philosophy (where there is any conscious philosophy at all).

Our compliance is not enforced by starvation or the threat of torture chambers, but is rooted deep in the psyche, neo-Pavlovian and passive, for there are few things that condition human judgment as powerfully as security and dread, pleasure and the fear of pain, real or imagined.

"In the 21st century tyranny has mutated into a new form of "soft" totalitarian materialism that is promulgated and enforced not through jackboots or concentration camps, but through cultural and economic pressures of unprecedented power.

O'Brien quotes Pope Benedict XVI telling politicians to avoid the seductions of false "lesser evil" arguments.  Such arguments, he says, end "in the spread of the conviction that the 'weighing of benefits' is the only method of moral discernment, and that the common good is synonymous with compromise . . . In reality, if compromise can constitute a legitimate balancing of different particular interests, it becomes a shared ill whenever it involves agreements that are harmful to the nature of man." Benedict concludes his remarks with the warning of Christ that "if salt loses its flavour, it is good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot."

 O'Brien continues: "What is now occurring globally is a new wave of the original forces that launched the tide of the French Revolution, followed by successive revolutions that increasingly secularized the human community. Then came the great waves of the Communist revolution, Fascism, and so forth, wave after wave that reshaped human societies and institutions-indeed the very perceptions of life itself. We are presently in the midst of the worst and most dangerous wave of all, the tsunami of worldwide Materialism.

"Resistance will cost much in terms of sacrifice, for it asks men of good will and good conscience to stand firm in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds . . . The manifestations of the struggle vary from continent to continent, but are the same in essence: mankind is presently involved in a worldwide war against the eternal value of the human person."

"(S)wiftly we fall into fractures between the interior and exterior life, forgetting (or never having learned) that individuals and nations alike cannot long sustain two contradictory modes of interaction with the world: for example, one set of rules about human life for domestic policy, and a different set of rules for foreign policy. The interior and the exterior should be one, as well as positive and morally true, otherwise disintegration follows.

"You are presented with a choice. Threatened by a foreign leader with a Koran in one hand and in his other a nuclear weapon, you can choose to elect as your own national leader a figure with a Bible in one hand and in his other a nuclear weapon. Which of the two would you want to determine the future of the world? Oh, and as a supplementary detail, both of them are willing to drop the bomb on the other.

"Recoiling in horror, you might then turn to an alternative set of candidates, thinking you must now elect a leader who, like you, abhors nuclear weapons. He may or may not have a Bible in one hand, but it is more likely he will have The Humanist Manifesto (a sacred text of Materialism) in one hand and a suction tube in the other.

"Are these our only choices?" says O'Brien. "If so, this is no choice at all. It is a piece of deadly theater."

To read O'Brien's full essay click here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008_docs/SignofContradictio... (pdf document)

******** 

Prophetic warnings of Pope John Paul II:

The Tyrant State...

The following excerpt is from Pope John Paul II's encyclical, The Gospel of Life:

There is an even more profound aspect which needs to be emphasized: freedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.

This view of freedom leads to a serious distortion of life in society. If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another. Everyone else is considered an enemy from whom one has to defend oneself. Thus society becomes a mass of individuals placed side by side, but without any mutual bonds. Each one wishes to assert himself independently of the other and in fact intends to make his own interests prevail. Still, in the face of other people's analogous interests, some kind of compromise must be found, if one wants a society in which the maximum possible freedom is guaranteed to each individual. In this way, any reference to common values and to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost, and social life ventures on to the shifting sands of complete relativism. At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life.

This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people—even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the "common home" where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenseless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: "How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practiced: some individuals are held to be deserving of defense and others are denied that dignity?" When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34).  

- Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), #19-20, March 25, 1995.

"Learn a simple lesson from the past, My children. When the morals of a country start to go down into darkness, and the teachings turn from God to man, that country will soon be ended. First the spiritual life and then the material life of your country shall be destroyed." - Jesus, October 2, l976

"A country is known by the moral values, My children. In the history of your world, if you consult and look, My children, you will find that your country and many in your world are now proceeding along the same course taken before the fall of an empire!" - Our Lady of the Roses, February 10, 1976  

Directives from Heaven... https://www.tldm.org/directives/directives.htm

D23 - Abortion PDF
D158 - America the Beautiful PDF
D224 - Restore America to One Nation Under God   PDF
D308 - Christianity in public life