State could take custody of teen homeschooler

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A critical hearing is scheduled in Germany in that nations’ war against homeschoolers to determine whether a family can continue to control the education of its high-performing son, 14.

According to Joel Thornton of the International Human Rights Group, the court hearing Sept. 22 is for Hans and Petra Schmidt, who live in Southern Bavaria.

From their home, the Schmidts have taught their children, Josua and Aaron, for nine years. Josua, 16, recently finished tests documenting his completion of all the requirements of the schooling system, but the fight remains over the future schooling for Aaron, who has been tested as performing at high academic levels, Thornton said.

“This hearing is to determine whether the Schmidts keep the legal custody of their one child remaining in school or have the court take that custody and give it to the Youth Welfare Office,” Thornton said.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108123

When did the Bible become ‘hate speech’?

Four years ago, I wrote an article entitled “Thinly Disguised Totalitarianism” for the religious journal First Things, surveying the erosion of Canadian religious liberty under various regulatory bodies, professional associations and human rights tribunals. I wrote then that “there are no restrictions on freedom of worship in Canada today.” That’s no longer true.

As Ezra Levant details below, the Stephen Boissoin case is an egregious assault on religious liberty, press freedom and freedom of speech. And for those of us who previously underestimated the threat to religious liberty, it serves as a rude correction.

The judgment of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (AHRCC) against the Reverend Stephen Boissoin, a Protestant youth pastor, is a direct violation of his religious liberty. Whatever his “guilt” –and who is not guilty before the human rights commission? — the judgment requires him to write an apology abjuring his views on homosexuality, and prohibits him and the Concerned Christian Coalition from making “disparaging” remarks about homosexuals.

It is not specified what the AHRCC might consider “disparaging,” but simply reading in public — as in a sermon — the Biblical admonitions against homosexual acts is not precluded. Indeed, the scope of the AHRCC order is so wide that it effectively says that Rev. Boissoin may not speak publicly on homosexuality ever again, unless he changes his opinion.

Given that the “offence” was a letter to the editor published in the Red Deer Advocate, the judgment by implication would apply the same restrictions to the newspaper itself. The offence was “causing to be published” the letter, which “was likely to expose homosexuals to contempt or hatred because of their sexual orientation.” In order for something to be published in a newspaper, both a writer and an editor/publisher are required. Had the complainant in this case named the Red Deer Advocate in his charge, there is every logical reason to expect that the AHRCC would have slapped a perpetual ban on the newspaper publishing any “disparaging” stories on homosexuality.

Rev. Boissoin is not the only Alberta clergyman hauled before the AHRCC. In 2005, Frederick Henry, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary, was brought before the commission for writing a pastoral letter against same-sex marriage to his own flock. Before the AHRCC had a chance to find him guilty, Bishop Henry clarified his remarks and the complaint was withdrawn. It is now clear that had it gone ahead, the AHRCC would have ordered the bishop of Calgary not to speak about same-sex marriage ever again.

There have been numerous other cases too, including ones against the Knights of Columbus and Catholic Insight magazine. We can expect more after this most recent AHRCC ruling.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=ceebc006-06cc-4aa8-ad1a-5e3f7f5c8229

Free speech on the ropes

In Canada you can go to jail for offending someone with the truth.

Calling someone a bastard may not be the nicest thing, it may even hurt their feelings, but it may in fact be true, in the technical sense, if the person’s parents were never married. Truth is a great defence. It was truth that saw Oscar Wilde lose in his lawsuit against the Marquis of Queensbury. Queensbury had called Wilde a sodomite by posting a notice of such on a sign inside a prestigious gentlemen’s club in London. Wilde who was engaged in an affair with Queensbury’s son, sued the Marquis but lost because what the Marquis had said was true.

Truth has always been the journalist’s best defence as they seek to expose the failings of politicians, governments or societies leaders. Against a torrent of highly paid lawyers, journalists have always been able to rest on truth. Truth, as the Good Book says, will set you free. Except in Canada.

Those complaining don’t ever have to prove that hatred and contempt actually occurred, just that it is likely to have happened or will happen in the future.

A quasi-judicial process few Canadians have paid attention to over the last few decades is generating much international coverage of late due to at least one high-profile name, Mark Steyn (pictured on home page). The man once called “the columnist to the world”, published everywhere from Oregon to Jerusalem, London to Sydney, is at the centre of a series of complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and two of their provincial counterparts over an excerpt published in Macleans magazine of Steyn’s book America Alone. Steyn is accused of promoting hatred and contempt towards Muslims and of spreading Islamaphobia.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/free_speech_on_the_ropes/?view