Score One for the good guys!

It would appear that Canadian Human Rights Tribunals may not have the stroke they thought they had:


Sask. high court overturns human rights decision on anti gay ads
The Canadian Press

Published: Thursday, April 13, 2006

REGINA - Saskatchewan's highest court has ruled a Regina man did not violate the human rights code when he published a newspaper ad that criticized homosexuality.

In rejecting the decision of a human rights tribunal, the appeal court ruled that while Hugh Owens' ads were no doubt blunt and upsetting, they didn't violate the code.

Owens was charged after he saw newspaper ads publicizing gay pride week in 1997.

He then published his own ad in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, which featured passages from the Bible that appeared to condemn homosexuality

There was also a drawing of two stick men holding hands surrounded by a circle with a line drawn through it.

A human rights board of inquiry found he affronted the dignity of gays - a decision that was upheld by a Queen's Bench Justice in 2002, but has now been rejected by the high court.

I think as a result of this ruling, alot more people will feel free to speak their minds. This is a good thing.

Speaking of which, I came across this site via SDA yesterday:

A comment on the risible and moronic Human Rights [Reduction] procedure at Comfortable Bed University. The whole thing is supposed to be secret, but of course, in a free society nothing is secret, and we all love whistleblowers who break the code of Omerta. Whom is the secrecy designed to protect? The complainant? If I have harmed her/him, does he/she not want the world to know it, so that society itself may be involved with retribution? The defendant? Like I need secrecy? Does anyone think that I have anything to hide? I have chosen to forgo all my rights to privacy in this case. What can be the problem with that? And I challenge my persecutor to do the same. I welcome a public debate on the issue, and I hereby issue a formal challenge to the complainant to join me at a day and time of her/his choosing, in the Royal Bank Lecture Theatre, for such an event. Maybe this policy of secrecy has everything to do with protecting complainants when their frivolous complaints are dismissed. That person bears no costs or reprisals under the current policy. Mandated secrecy in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings is intrinsically unjust. Open the windows and let the sunlight it. It is, after all, the best disinfectant.

This guy's got balls and needs as much support as can be mustered. Drop him a note if you can and thank him for standing up to the PC thought police.