Please Pray for Said Musa

Something horrifyingly evil is happening in Afghanistan and it seems that nobody cares. Writing in The National Review, Paul Marshall raises the alarm in "America Quiet on the Execution of Afghan Christian Said Musa."

A terrible drama is unfolding in Afghanistan: There are reports that Said Musa, whose situation I described at Christmas, will soon be executed for the ‘crime’ of choosing to become a Christian. (For background, see here.)

Musa was one of about 25 Christians arrested on May 31, 2010, after a May 27 Noorin TV program showed video of a worship service held by indigenous Afghan Christians; he was arrested as he attempted to seek asylum at the German embassy. He converted to Christianity eight years ago, is the father of six young children, had a leg amputated after he stepped on a landmine while serving in the Afghan Army, and now has a prosthetic leg. His oldest child is eight and one is disabled (she cannot speak). He worked for the Red Cross/Red Crescent as an adviser to other amputees.

He was forced to appear before a judge without any legal counsel and without knowledge of the charges against him. “Nobody [wanted to be my] defender before the court. When I said ‘I am a Christian man,’ he [a potential lawyer] immediately spat on me and abused me and mocked me. . . . I am alone between 400 [people with] terrible values in the jail, like a sheep.” He has been beaten, mocked, and subjected to sleep deprivation and sexual abuse while in prison. No Afghan lawyer will defend him and authorities denied him access to a foreign lawyer.

Any and every human being who is imprisoned, abused, or tortured for the free and peaceful expression of their faith deserves our support, but Musa is also a remarkable person and Christian. In a letter smuggled to the West, he says, “The authority and prisoners in jail did many bad behaviour with me about my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. For example, they did sexual things with me, beat me by wood, by hands, by legs, put some things on my head.”

He added a thing much more important to him, that they “mocked me ‘he’s Jesus Christ,’ spat on me, nobody let me for sleep night and day. . . . Please, please, for the sake of Lord Jesus Christ help me.” (View the full letter here)

- snip -

Newspapers in the U.K. and elsewhere in Europe have reported the story, but with, the exception of the Wall Street Journal and, of course, NRO, American outlets have not found it worthy of attention. The Journal reports that “Afghan officials have been unapologetic: ‘The sentence for a convert is death and there is no exception,’ said Jamal Khan, chief of staff at the Ministry of Justice. ‘They must be sentenced to death to serve as a lesson for others.’”

The U.S. government — reportedly including Secretary of State Clinton — and other governments have pushed for his release, but to no avail.

But the president has been silent, even as we fight a war that has among its goals the creation of a government that conforms to international human-rights standards.

An American president certainly needs to guard and shepherd his political capital, and should not speak out about every prisoner. But Musa himself has appealed to “President Brother Obama” to rescue him from his current jail. And when an obscure and aberrant Florida pastor, Terry Jones, threatened to burn a Koran, not only President Obama but much of his cabinet, as well as General Petraeus, weighed in on the matter.

If the actions of a Florida pastor who threatened to destroy a book holy to Muslims deserved public and presidential attention, then the actions of the Afghan government, ostensibly a ‘democratic’ ally, to destroy something holy to Christians, a human being made in the image of God, also deserve public and presidential attention.

When the absurd Terry Jones incident was unfolding, the charitable interpretation to put on the actions of President Obama and the astonishing number of high officials who spoke out against the proposed Koran-burning was that, although they recognized his constitutional right to free speech they feared for the lives of innocent people who might die in the violence committed by fanatical Muslims. The less charitable interpretation, of course, was that they were all craven and in the process of capitulating one step at a time to Muslim domination.

Well, if the charitable interpretation was true, don't you think President Obama would speak out on this case? If he really was concerned about violence against innocent people, wouldn't he care about this man?

If there ever was a good reason to go to war against Afghanistan, actions like this would be it. If these are our friends, I can't wait to see our enemies. To allow the Afghan government to proceed with this atrocity is an insult to every person who has died in Afghanistan trying to set that country free from religious tyranny.

Meanwhile, in England, They are Throwing Baptists in Prison Again

And the charge is the same old one: preaching the Bible in public.

In the 17th century it was a common occurrence, of course, for Puritans to be imprisoned for preaching the Bible in the open air. John Bunyan, for example, was imprisoned on November 12, 1660 and spent most of the next 12 years in prison for preaching the Bible. He was eventually released and became a famous and popular preacher and pastor - and author of Pilgrim's Progress, which he first conceived while in prison. So throwing Baptists in prison for preaching the Gospel didn't work out so well for the legions of Hell and newer, more modern, infernal strategies were developed. But old habits die hard.

In the Daily Telegraph of May 2, 2010 we read:

Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships.

The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Wokington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.

Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.

Mr McAlpine, who was taken to the police station in the back of a marked van and locked in a cell for seven hours on April 20, said the incident was among the worst experiences of his life.

“I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know," he said.

“My freedom was taken away on the hearsay of someone who disliked what I said, and I was charged under a law that doesn't apply.”

Christian campaigners have expressed alarm that the Public Order Act, introduced in 1986 to tackle violent rioters and football hooligans, is being used to curb religious free speech.

Sam Webster, a solicitor-advocate for the Christian Institute, which is supporting Mr McAlpine, said it is not a crime to express the belief that homosexual conduct is a sin.

“The police have a duty to maintain public order but they also have a duty to defend the lawful free speech of citizens,” he said.

“Case law has ruled that the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual conduct is sinful is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society."

Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith.

During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.

After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.

The street preacher said he told the PCSO: “I am not homophobic but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator”.

He claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”

The preacher then began a 20 minute sermon, in which he says he mentioned drunkenness and adultery, but not homosexuality. Three regular uniformed police officers arrived during the address, arrested Mr McAlpine and put him in the back of a police van.

At the station, he was told to empty his pockets and his mobile telephone, belt and shoes were confiscated. Police took fingerprints, a palm print, a retina scan and a DNA swab.

He was later interviewed, charged under Sections 5 (1) and (6) of the Public Order Act and released on bail on the condition that he did not preach in public.

Isn't it great to know that the police are making the street safe for little secularists in Britain and not getting distracted by right-wing calls to focus on Muslim terrorists, street gangs or other innocuous little over-hyped so-called "dangers to society?"

I wonder if we might have a mild word of concern from the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was heard preaching at Easter that Christians are not really being persecuted in Britain like in some parts of the world where they are actually thrown in prison:

The Archbishop of Canterbury today condemned the "overheated language" used to describe Christian suffering in Britain as a coalition of religious groups launched a campaign to protect what they see as the country's religious heritage.

Rowan Williams told a congregation at Canterbury Cathedral that "wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness" combined with a "well-meaning and completely misplaced anxiety about giving offence to non-Christians" should not be mistaken for persecution. - - snip - -

t was not the case that Christians were "at risk of their lives or liberties in this country simply for being Christians", Williams noted. "Whenever you hear overheated language about this, remember those many, many places where persecution is real and Christians are being killed regularly and mercilessly or imprisoned and harassed for their resistance to injustice."

Dr. Williams' legendary patience apparently prevents him from getting all excited about a little thing like a man getting thrown into jail for preaching the Gospel. He was, after all I suppose, just a Baptist.

UPDATE:
A nice blog post title from Christine Odone at her Daily Telegraph blog: "Homosexuality is legal. Christianity should be too." But it does raise the question no one wants to discuss: "Is it possible for both to be legal? Maybe they are mutually exclusive and one must win and the other must lose." An ominous thought. (I'm not saying I think this is true; but I think a certain version of it might be. It is possible that the ideology that wants to defend, advance and impose pro-homosexual thinking is inherently and completely of the anti-Christ. In that case, read the Book of Revelation to see how things turn out.)

British Government Continues Jihad Against Christians

This item from the Catholic News Agency has an update on the Christian nurse who was ordered to remove her cross by the NHS.

A Christian nurse in Britain lost a discrimination claim on Tuesday after fighting a policy that barred her from wearing her crucifix to work.

Shirley Chaplin, 54, was told by the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital last year that the crucifix she has worn for almost 40 years on the job without incident needed to be removed for “health and safety reasons.”

Chaplin refused to comply and consequently took the hospital to an Employment Tribunal which ruled on Tuesday that Chaplin is not facing discrimination, as it asserted that all employees are treated equally. Under the Trust's current uniform policy, however, one can wear a hijab for religious reasons but not a cross.

The NHS Trust argued that the crucifix and and chain could cause Chaplin or others harm if a patient caught hold of it, yet the nurse's offer to have a metal clasp inserted on her chain so it could easily be removed in such situations was rejected. The Trust suggested that the nurse wear cross earrings or “hide” the crucifix by pinning it on the inside of her uniform pocket.

Chaplin has worn the crucifix, a gift, since her confirmation in 1971. She intends to appeal Tribunal's ruling.

“I am disappointed, but not at all surprised by the decision of the Tribunal today,” she said in reaction on Tuesday. “It was obvious from the very start that the Trust would use every tactic possible to get itself off the hook. The Trust changed its defense several times and each time we were able to counter it with a sensible argument but this did not prevail. The Trust may have won the legal argument today, but its reputation has been damaged as the moral argument was won before I even entered the Tribunal.”

“I have had a huge amount of support from the British public, many of whom view the actions of the Exeter Trust with amazement,” Chaplin added. “It is extraordinary that the Trust can spend what must be tens of thousands of pounds defending their position, when at the same time they are making cut backs which affect patients every day.”

“What the Trust doesn’t realize,” the nurse continued, “as it seeks to enforce its uniform policy in the way it has, is that it sends out a very clear message to Christians working in the Trust or considering working for the Trust in the future that they will have to ‘hide’ their faith. The message is clear: Christians whose faith motivates their vocation and care of patients do not appear to be welcome at the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust.”

“When employers or Government start to censor the conscience and convictions in this way it is a first step towards the demise of democracy,” she charged.

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which helped represent Chaplin, said on Tuesday that “The extent to which the Trust is prepared to stop Mrs. Chaplin manifesting her religious beliefs is remarkable. We hope that the Employment Appeal Tribunal will reverse today’s decision and allow Mrs Chaplin to wear her Cross visibly, in the same way that doctors and nurses of other religions can manifest their religious beliefs.”

The most telling line is that Muslim nurses are allowed to wear a hijab for religious reasons but Christians may not wear a religious symbol. Secular liberals keep stating that, since Muslims will only constitute 10-15% of the population of Europe by 2050 there is no danger of them taking over. But that thinking presupposes that they need 51% to take over. But I see no evidence to suggest that they would need those kind of numbers, given the craven way the British government already bends over backwards to accommodate Muslim sensibilities.

When a determined and unified minority confronts a flaccid, unprincipled government weakened by relativism and made soft by materialism, guess who wins? If they are already using the government as an instrument of jihad against Christianity and against Israel, then in the future, when their numbers double or triple, we can expect Islam to become the de facto protected religion and all other religions to be pressured and persecuted.

Don't bother saying it will never happen; it already has begun.

Rowan the Lost and His Circular Firing Squad

Here is a hard-hitting article by Peter Hitchens on the lackluster leadership of "Rowan the Lost" as broken Britain stumbles toward the complete rejection of its Christian character and heritage. [My comments in square brackets and in bold]

"Do we have to wait until the hate-filled mobs storm into Canterbury Cathedral and drag him from the pulpit before the Archbishop of Canterbury grasps that Christianity is in danger in this country? [Short answer: apparently yes!] Nice, furry, mild and useless, Dr Rowan Williams chose this Easter week not to protect his Church, but to rebuke several bishops who had rightly warned of the swelling rage against the Church. [It is a bit much to ask him to fight the leftist establishment that rules Britain; after all, he is a life member of it.]

No doubt he is right to point out that Christians elsewhere suffer more. I would like to hear more protests from 'human rights' campaigners against the nasty treatment of Christians in the Muslim world, not least under the rule of the Palestinian Authority which many leftist Christians idiotically admire. [Quite right, but it is doubtful that Williams had those places in mind. He is not entirely against Sharia Law, after all.]

But so what? In those rough neighbourhoods, under the grudging scowl of Muslim so-called 'tolerance', this has been the case for centuries. Here, things are and ought to be different. [And we ought not to forget this fact.] Dr Williams is the head of the Established Church in England. The laws of this country, the shape of its cities and countryside, its language, morals, literature, architecture, family structure and politics are all based upon Christianity.

Take it away and it will be like removing the mortar from a great building, leaving its bricks and stones loose and trembling in the storm to come. [A valid point: if you think it is bad now, it could be worse.] And yet there are many people who want to do this. In this Century of Selfishness, Christianity is an annoying obstacle, with its infuriating insistence on active unselfishness and its unalterable rules which say that there are some things you just cannot do, like for instance murder unborn babies and walk out on your marriage. [This is getting down to hard, cold reality.]

Last week, there was yet another case of someone being in trouble for being a Christian, in an officially Christian country. I collect these incidents: preachers arrested and fined; nurses disciplined for offering to pray for patients; registrars disciplined for declining to officiate at homosexual civil partnerships; adoption societies forced to close because they will not place children with same-sex couples. Just 30 years ago, they would have been unthinkable. Another few decades and Christianity will be against the law. [That is, if you think in terms of the trajectory in which society is heading. For some reason, many people have a curiously static view in which they expect the status quo to go on forever and are surprised when it does not.]

I expect that before long there will be cases of teachers being fired for resisting compulsory sex education in primary schools. Last week's example was that of a nurse, Shirley Chaplin, badgered by superiors for wearing a crucifix on a chain.

Does anyone really believe that she would have been pestered by authority if she had worn a Muslim symbol on a chain round her neck? Does anyone believe that a Muslim preacher would have been put in the cells, and fined £1,000 - as happened to Shawn Holes in Glasgow - for calling homosexuality a sin in a public place? Each of these cases lets others know that they had better be careful, and makes many faithful Christians fear that they may have to choose between their faith and their livelihood. [The chilling effect is real and may even be affecting Williams himself.]

Does Dr Williams even know about the oppressive new codes of practice in the professions and the public sector, which compel employees to adopt the new secular faith of 'Equality and Diversity'? Now the Archbishop has strangely chosen this weekend to attack his fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic church. They must be beginning to wonder how long they have got before they are arrested. [He is upset that the Pope is willing to take in Anglican traditionalists when he thought he had them over a barrel. How is he supposed to impose sodomy and women bishops when the pope gives harassed priests and bishops a choice for heaven's sake?]

Yet nobody seems to ask, in all the justified fury against Roman Catholic priests who have disgraced themselves and wounded others, an interesting question. Here it is. This Easter weekend, a film was released into British cinemas called 'Kick-Ass', which features an 11-year-old girl, Chloe Moretz, who speaks in filthy language and wears outfits obviously designed to sexualise her. [Here is where it gets good.]

I find this repellent, disgusting and immoral. Yet this film, which members of Britain's exciting post-Christian elite helped to make, is receiving generous praise in the liberal media. Why? If this isn't the corruption of the young, then what is? Yet I have no doubt that those who defend this sewage are in the ranks of those howling at the Pope for supposedly condoning priestly child abuse (which he doesn't). [OK, the bluff of the leftist media has been called. Will they condemn child sexual exploitation when it is not done by a priest? Don't hold your breath waiting for the editorials, op ed pieces, headlines and outrage.]

Phooey. What they hate is not the abuse, which happens in liberal state institutions just as it does in the Roman church. What they hate is the Christian church. [The inescapable conclusion.] And at the moment they are winning the argument partly because the Church won't fight back with any spirit. Dr Williams seems actually to be on the side of the anti-God battalions."

___________

HT: Virtue Online

One final comment: it is possible to hate Christianity and to hate child abuse. It is also possible to hate Christianity and to use child abuse as a handy weapon to assail Christianity. Some people fit into the first category and some into the second. One can respect those in the first group. But Hitchens has provided the means for telling the two groups apart. Do they restrict their ardor over to oppose child abuse to cases involving the Church or not?

Should Christians Become More Strident?

In her blog at The Daily Telegraph today, Christina Odone suggests that Christians ought not to be so passive in the face of increasing persecution for their faith. Her post is entitled: "In face of persecution from the chattering classes, Christians need to be as strident as Muslims."

"Afraid to be a Christian? Who can blame you? The authorities, the media and the chattering classes are forever trying to run you down. We don’t have to brave the Colosseum, with its rapacious lions; we don’t have to wear an identifying badge; or meet in secret – yet.

But there is no doubt that many are afraid to be Christian. They will watch anxiously today as Shirley Chaplin will fight the NHS in an employment tribunal. Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust has tried to ban Mrs Chaplin’s wearing a cross, claiming it was dangerous. (Who staffs this Trust? Vampires?) Mrs C refused to take off the cross and is now battling for her right to wear a symbol of her faith. Some of the highest ranking Christians in the land have come out in her favour – and widened the debate to the persecution of all Christians in this country.

High time, too. Prejudice against the majority faith is everywhere: from the BA check-in counter to the school, from the hospital ward to the Town Hall. In fact, it’s even in church. When I was invited to speak at St Martin in the Fields for a Christmas Carol Service two years ago, my speech was banned as deeply offensive. I had written about persecution, injustice and fear.

Had I been describing the suffering of blacks during segregation in America, or the unfair treatment of Indians under the Raj,or the plight of British Muslims after the Britain’s 7 July bombings I would have been welcome. But I was describing anti-Christian bias.

Our culture has grown increasingly hostile to God and his followers. Support for a minority faith – Judaism, say, or Islam – is justified when that faith is regarded as essential to ethnic identity. But when that faith is the majority faith, the faith, predominantly, of the white middle classes, then the standard reaction is of hostility.

The same liberal chattering classes who will spring to your support if you are campaigning on behalf of gays, Muslims or women will turn a deaf ear or worse, issue abuse, if you are agitating on behalf of Christian rights. This explains why even high-profile figures like Tony Blair and Jeremy Vine have admitted they were wary of coming out as Christians.

When even these people think twice before revealing their links, what hope is there for the rest of us ?

Perhaps there is a solution. We should be more like Muslims, who are self confident, strident and constantly haranguing authorities if they suspect an anti-Muslim bias. No one dares mess with them."

My question to, my readers, is this: "Do you agree or disagree with her?" Traffic to this blog has been increasing of late but very few people have been commenting (other than Peter Dunn, to whom I am grateful). So I'd like to hear from you. What do you think? Should we be marching in the streets? Should we be demanding that ordinary Christians be treated with respect and not marginalized?

The situation in the US is not as bad as that in the UK, but if you don't see warning signs I think you are naive. The situation in the UK is not as bad as it was in the old USSR, but things are heading south very quickly and appear to be slated to get worse before they get better. After all it is the leader of the Conservative Party in the UK who was recently banging on the Archbishop of Canterbury to make his Church more (ugly phrase warning!) "gay friendly." If those are the conservatives, you can see why the Socialists currently in power remind one of the third-century Roman emperors.

Anyway, what do you think? If it a matter of either marching and demanding or else going underground, which is best? Have you personally experienced persecution? Do you know anyone who has? How did you (or they) handle it?

UPDATE:
Here is a story from the Telegraph entitled: "Senior bishops call for end to persecution of Christians in Britain." There are some notable names missing from this list of bishops.

"Get Ready for Persecution" Says UK Cabinet MInister to the Churches

From the Catholic Herald in the UK comes this story about the impact of the Equality Bill, which is currently being pushed forward in the final months of Labor's rule before the next election, which will almost surely result in the defeat of the Blair-Brown monstrosity:

"A government Minister has predicted that the Equality Bill will create a torrent of hostile legal actions against the Church.

Michael Foster, the Minister for Equalities, admitted that the legislation would open the floodgates to a tide of sexual and religious discrimination cases. He advised the Church to start preparing to defend itself in the court from such people as ideological secularists who seek to squeeze religion from the public sphere.

“Both sides [the Church and the secularists] need to be lining up [their lawyers] by now,” he told journalists. “Government is used to the fact that its legislation should be challenged. People feel very strongly about these issues. We can’t do anything about this and we wouldn’t want to.”

. . .

Nor did he deny claims made by the Catholic bishops that the Bill would allow non-Christians who work in church premises to sue for victimisation if they were offended by crucifixes on walls. Instead, he said he thought such a scenario “unlikely”, even though an atheist last month successfully sued the Italian government over its policy of having crucifixes in schools."

The Equality Bill marks the nadir of church-state relations in Britain, as can be seen by the fact that even the Archbishop of Canterbury is criticizing the Labor government he normally supports. With this bill, the focus moves from creating space for non-Christians to be tolerated in the sense of having full civil rights to putting pressure on Christians to conform to the new secular, liberal orthodoxy or face persecution.

"The Bill represents a low point between the churches and the Government and its debate in the Lords came just days after Anglican leader Dr Rowan Williams accused Ministers of treating religion as a “problem”, an eccentricity practised by “oddities, foreigners and minorities”.

Neil Addison, a barrister and expert in religious discrimination law, said it was “completely misleading and untrue” for the Government to claim that the Bill simply consolidates existing law.

“It is not, it is changing it,” he said. “The trouble is that the Government is passing vague legislation and then saying ‘well, the courts will sort it out’,” he added.

“But the law should be as certain as possible. Courts should not become the arena in which these issues are fought out. The Government and Parliament should make policy instead of fudging it, waiting for the courts to make the decision and then saying ‘it has nothing to do with us’, which is what is happening.

“The Equality Bill is a very dangerous piece of legislation because it is unclear.”

Old Christian England is writhing in her death throes and the "Brave New World" that is being born is a post-Christian wasteland of materialism, individualism and hedonism policed by an increasingly aggressive and controlling nanny state.

Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights

This is the title of a new bestseller by Ezra Levant published by McClelland and Stewart.

For years, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its provincial counterparts have been acting as "thought police" persecuting ordinary Canadians without regard for the basic principles of Canadian law for their politically incorrect speech. But when they went after Ezra Levant for publishing the Mohammed cartoons in the Western Standard and then took on MacLean's Magazine for daring to publish exerpts of Mark Steyn's book, America Alone, they found they had overstepped their boundaries and the pushback they received was something they were not used to receiving. The resulting media coverage was a fire storm and brought these commissions under the spotlight for the first time. Eventually, the controversy has made this book a Canadian bestseller.

Here is a clip from the Michael Coren Show that gives you an idea of why the AHRC is now sorry they messed with Ezra Levant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv3gimI2G_A

Both Steyn and Levant eventually had their cases dropped, which is not to say they won exactly. Both had to pay legal costs to defend themselves and neither received any compensation for having been drawn through a wringer. Their cases were atypical because in 91% of these kangaroo court complaints, the target cannot afford a lawyer and the HRC does not provide legal aid. Murderers fare better in our legal system because if they cannot afford a lawyer the court appoints one for them free of charge. This is why most people settle "out of court" even though they are innocent. Its the same reason small business owners pay protection money to the mob. It's not fair, but under an unjust system it is the path of least resistance.

This is exemplified by the contrast between the case of the Calgary pastor, Rev. Stephen Boisson, who was convicted by the Alberta Commission for daring to express an anti-homosexual activity position in a letter to the Red Deer Advocate. He was fined and told never to speak against homosexuality again for the rest of his life. Ezra Levant re-published Boisson's original letter to the editor, in support of Boisson, and literally dared the HRC to charge him. They refused. Levant, who is Jewish, by the way, comments:

"That's a double standard. It's a violation of the rule of law: I shouldn't be above the law, and Reverand Boisson shouldn't be beneath it. If he's guilty, I am too. If I'm free to publish his words, he should be too. That's why this case was the perfect lab experiment: All the factors were 'controlled' except one variable - the political power of the defendant. . . 'There is only one reason for [the discrepancy in treatment]: the CHRC is anti-Christian, and thus you excuse in me what you condemn in Rev. Boisson . . . I note that the CHRC has never once prosecuted a 'hate speech' complaint against any non-Christian, though there is plenty of non-Christian bigotry in Canada. . . . But you'd rather pick on a seventy-something Catholic priest for publishing a newsletter. That's why you're letting me go - I'm not a weak, penniless Christian clergyman.'" (Shakedown, 215-6)

Thankfully, Levant and Steyn have been stirring the pot to the point where some real heat is being put on these obscene parodies of "human rights" commissions. In particular, Section 13 of the legislation on the basis of which they exist, the famous "hate speech" clause, has come in for particular concern, since it has become the basis for prosecuting thought crime.

The mentality of these folks is revealed by a statement made by Dean Steacy, the senior Section 13 hate speech investigator for the CHRC, who said "freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value . . . It's not my job to give value to an American concept." (Shakedown, 201) Perhaps Dean Steacy has never heard of Section 2.b. of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads in context as follows:

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

These kangaroo courts are being investigated by the RCMP, the Privacy Commission and Parliament. We are still far from their abolition, but progress is being made. Details are in the book. Buy it. Read it. Make the abolition of these commissions an issue in the next Federal or Provincial election.

Here is Ezra Levant's blog: http://www.ezralevant.com/