Well, it’s that time of day again, when I talk about all the people who have been talking about Jennifer Lynch and her wonderful multi-coloured commission – with gratuitous mention of the various other commissions and commissioners currently mucking about in the Dominion.
Second off, Michael Coren writes about Jim Corcoran’s complaint against several members of the Catholic Church before the OHRC in the National Post’s Full Comment section: The faithful don’t challenge the faith:
It did, as it were, have to happen. A human rights body taking on the Roman Catholic Church. In this case the issues are still murky and confused, but it appears that an openly gay man who has been living with his partner for 19 years has been dismissed as an altar server in his Peterborough, Ont., parish. Several long-standing parishioners complained, and local Bishop Nicola De Angelis, one of the gentlest and kindest priests you are likely to meet, decided that the situation was inappropriate.
The man in question, spa-owner Jim Corcoran, claims that while he is homosexual he is celibate and a devout Catholic who observes Church teaching. Not, it seems, so devout and so observant of Church teaching that he is prepared to accept with Catholic humility and self-control the decision of that very Church to terminate an entirely voluntary (if important) position. Instead, he has appealed to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a secular body that has habitually ruled against individual Christians and, some would argue, is in direct conflict with Roman Catholic teaching and pursues a pugnaciously anti-Catholic agenda. These are hardly the actions of a faithful Catholic in good standing, which leads one to wonder if there is more to this story — and to Mr. Corcoran.
Any serious Catholic knows of people who faithfully attend Mass but cannot receive Communion, let alone be an altar server, because they are waiting for an annulment or face some other obstacle. Nonetheless, they accept Church teaching; they love and follow the Church. For Mr. Corcoran to lash out at the Church because it refuses to bend to his will indicates, at best, a somewhat weak faith, and, perhaps, utter hypocrisy.
As a result of Mr. Corcoran’s actions, Bishop De Angelis and 12 parishioners could face financial penalties, and be forced to defend their actions — and the basics of Catholic theology — before an increasingly delegitimized tribunal. More significant, the challenge will establish a precedent of whether the Roman Catholic Church in Canada is allowed to behave as the Roman Catholic Church.
This is not really about homosexuality or Scripture, but about the separation of church and state. This is important, because it is invariably the left, social activists and gay leaders who are some of the most vociferous supporters of human rights commissions, and the strongest opponents of Catholicism. These are people who lecture about the concept of church and state separation and insist that organized religion not interfere with state policies. (By that logic, they should also argue that state policies should not interfere with organized religion.)
Third, Ezra Levant’s latest piece lambasting Jennifer Lynch’s penchant for denial has been re-printed by the Frontier Centre For Public Policy, here, and by Information Policy here, if you’re interested. Meanwhile, the International Free Press Society picks up on Ezra’s post calling Jennifer Lynch a not-to0-particularly-honest-person.
Fourth, a Pro-Life group has gone to the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission based upon being refused advertising by Fredericton Transit. The whole story, via the Daily Gleaner, here: Pro-life activist fighting city on refusal to print anti-abortion ads:
The Fredericton Right to Life Association says it wants Fredericton Transit to apply the results of a Supreme Court of Canada decision and amend its transit advertising policy.
In the fall of 2008, the city refused to sell the local chapter of the national anti-abortion organization advertising space because it deemed the advertising political commentary.
The local right-to-life organization has appealed the city’s decision to New Brunswick’s Human Rights Commission, arguing it’s discriminatory.
It also appealed to city council as a whole.
In May, city council upheld its transit manager’s decision and reaffirmed the refusal to carry the paid advertising on the basis that it was political in nature.
But last week’s decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which struck down a similar decision by a British Columbia transit authority, has given the local group additional weight to its case, said Thaddee Renault, a pro-life activist.
Renault filed the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission complaint, and documentation is now flowing among all three parties – the commission, the city and Renault.
“They submit and then I rebut, so it might be awhile,” Renault said. “But with that (Supreme Court) decision, it might expedite things.”
Read the rest here. I’ve actually talked about this before – although obviously not this specific case, because it just came up. But I’ve talked about the so-called ‘right to advertising’ before, and I’ve come the conclusion that, in fact, there is no such thing.
Finally, of national anthems and HRCs ( scroll down ); Closet Conservative takes on Haroon Siddiqui for some previous writings; did you know that the CHRC has jurisdiction ( scroll down ) over Vancouver’s Ports; Barbara Hall’s old mayoral crowd is keeping itself relatively busy; and too much Kool-aid for Jennifer Lynch: