Sunday, January 23, 2011

A Gay 'Rights' Trifecta

"It makes no sense that Mr. Lusk could be acquitted in a Quebec court and then found liable for moral and punitive damages in front of a human rights tribunal," Mr. Angers said. "These tribunals are just in another world."

That's a pretty good summary of the situation after the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal fined a man $12,000 for saying a bad word:
The case against Mr. Lusk, a retired lieutenant colonel of the Canadian Forces, stems from an April 2004, incident in which Mr. Thibault is alleged to have driven recklessly down their street in the Montreal suburb of Pointe Claire while neighbourhood children, including Mr. Lusk's son, were playing road hockey.

A witness testified that Mr. Thibault had run a stop sign and driven at high speed toward one of the kids, nearly hitting the child. . . When Mr. Lusk heard about the latest encounter with Mr. Thibault, he decided to take the matter up with his neighbours.

Messrs. Thibault and Wouters allege Mr. Lusk showed up at their home yelling and hitting their metal gate, an accusation Mr. Lusk steadfastly denies. The couple said Mr. Lusk accused Mr. Wouters, who had not been in the car, of driving dangerously and endangering the lives of his children, calling him a "f---ing faggot." . . .

Police also charged him with assault and uttering death threats, but he was later acquitted.

Still, the Human Rights Tribunal, using surveillance footage of the encounter captured by cameras Messrs. Thibault and Wouters had installed on their home, ruled "by a preponderance of evidence, that the defendant, by his behaviour, his comments and his attitude, has violated the rights of the plaintiffs, on the basis of their sexual orientation."
I really don't know where to start. This is a grave injustice. First it was a matter between neighbours. It's pretty common for neighbours to have disagreements, and it is a father's responsibility to protect his children. I can't imagine the police treating this type of complaint seriously under any other circumstances.

Second Mr Lusk was acquitted of all charges related to the incident. We have a constitutional right not to be tried twice for the same crime so the Human Rights tribunal seems to be tramping all over Mr Lusk's rights.

Finally, I came across the story via a comment on my last post about the disturbing pace our rights are being eroded in the name of 'human rights.' That post referenced a court ruling that marriage commissioners cannot op out of performing marriage ceremonies for same sex couples and the silly censorship of the 1980s hit song Money for Nothing. That makes 3 decisions in one week that tramped on the rights of individuals in favour of the gay lobby.

I suppose now is the time for a disclaimer. I have nothing against gays individually or as a community, but when our basic rights are trampled on to appease a vocal minority we must stand up to protect them.


hunter said...

Gays are people, and contrary to liberal HRC opinion, they can be a$$holes too. A REAL court acquitted him, the HRC had no business opening up the case again. They are kangaroo courts and should have no power to overturn a REAL courts ruling.

Where is the Conservative government now? Have they no power to rein in these phony tribunals?

Anonymous said...

They have had 5 years to do so. If they were going to disband these kangaroo courts or render them toothless then they've had plenty of time.

The only reason we are still seeing farcical judgements like this is that the "conservative" party is obviously ok with it.

Peter said...

Don't be too fast to condemn the Conservatives. Folks tend to scream bloody murder and not look at the fact that they are in a minority. The chances of disbanding the HRC's are zero unless they are in a majority. Its a sad fact of life that the country is still run by liberals, a residue of years of Liberal social reengineering. Want to see results? Give Harper a majority.

Anonymous said...

Yes, granted, in a mnority gov't disbanding the HRC may not be possible.

But it IS possible to to tamper with regulations and appeal processes enough to transform this threatening monster into a laughable ineffective gaggle of impotent paper shufflers that can do no harm.

The fact that this body is still handing down decrees like this after 5 years of CPC rule indicates that the CPC doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

Anonymous said...

The irony for how Gays want to have things both ways is obvious in my example of the well know gay Comedian in Toronto that makes a living bashing Christians and is pro-Choice and pro Same-gender marriage to mock the Church and every non-gay marriage in canada as knuckle dragging dinosaurs.
But this gay activist just happens to have a Parent in a Long-term care centre that is a Catholic based non-profit centre for anyone that meets the Means-tests to get in.
So while this Gay activists hates almost everything tied to catholics because it's oppressive and not Liberal enough, several Federal MP's that are Liberal's do support this Care centre during Elections as do the Provincial MPP's. So how ironic that the same gay activist that hates the Catholic Church and triditional marriage will put their Parent in a care Centre set-up by a Catholic family under their tenets to help others no matter what their faith is.

Oh the irony, kinda like Svend Robinson when he crusaded for equal treatment under the Charter as a Homosexual until he was caught stealing a $60'000.00 item and THEN he wanted Special Treatment as a homosexual that was driven to steal the item from the years of Homophobia in canada.

The HRC's have more Powwer than real Judges and our Courts.