The new censorship.

1: ALBERTA MAN AWAITS 'HATE SPEECH' CHARGE VERDICT

Calgary -- In a case described by major media as "pivotal" for free speech, a Red Deer, Alberta evangelical pastor is awaiting the decision of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission following a complaint laid by a University of Calgary teacher. Darren Lund charged that Stephen Boissoin engaged in "hate speech" and fostering hate through a 2002 letter to the Red Deer Advocate newspaper.

Lund also suggested the beating of a 17-year-old homosexual youth shortly afterward was a direct outgrowth of the publication of Boissoin's letter, which attacked the "wicked" homosexual agenda. Boissoin later launched an unsuccessful $400,000 defamation suit against Lund in response.

If found guilty, Boissoin could be forced to apologize and pay a fine of up to $10,000.

One of Boissoin's lawyers, Gerald Chipeur, said the matter is "probably the most significant constitutional case involving human rights legislation that has ever been considered in Alberta." It has the potential to silence political debate on homosexuality, he said. Boissoin's lawyers also contended that freedom of religion and the press would be jeopardized through a guilty verdict.

Homosexual rights groups, Christian lobby groups and the Alberta government all weighed in on the case, the latter in support of Lund. In 2005 Calgary Bishop Fred Henry appeared at a legal defence fundraiser for Boissoin. More recently, the Canada Family Action Coalition called on Premier Ed Stelmach to "stop the misguided actions against freedom of speech." The National Post newspaper (July 21, 2007) editorialized that the claims against Boissoin should be dismissed: "He is angry with gay activism in schools and has little or nothing to say against gay adults who don't promote their orientation by means of educational policy."

Boissoin told the commission during a three-day hearing his letter was meant to "create spirited debate in the community ... I do not hate the homosexual. I hate the practice." University of Calgary professor Barry Cooper concurred, saying that Boissoin's statements did not constitute hate speech, although they may have been crude and offensive.

The commission's decision is due by September 20 (various sources).

2: CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE FACED HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Ottawa -- A popular Canadian internet discussion board billed as "the voice of principled conservatism" had a complaint filed against it with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for allegedly "communicating messages on the internet that are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of religion, race, national or ethnic origin and sexual orientation." However, the complaint, filed by Montreal college teacher Marie Linte-Gentes, was dropped soon after it was filed.

FreeDominion.ca boasts more than 2.1 million visitors and serves as a place for conservatives to communicate, strategize and plan. The postings in question were made by well-known activist and Edmonton mayoralty candidate Bill Whatcott.

One of them, found by the complainant between April and May, 2006, said: "I can't figure out why the homosexuals I ran into are on the side of the Muslims. After all, Muslims who practise Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals."

Connie Fournier, one of FreeDominion's administrators, said while the experience was stressful, it did generate benefits for both the site and Canada's conservative movement as a whole. "It was a good dry run," she said, pointing to the high likelihood that FreeDominion's opponents will use human rights commissions in the future to try to shut the site down.

News of the complaint prompted an outpouring of support for the site from across the country, including almost $3,000 that was raised for a legal defence fund within one week of the reception of the complaint. Other responses were also being discussed, including a rally or campout outside the CHRC offices in Ottawa.

The matter has attracted the careful attention of conservatives in the U.S., who are contending with intimations of "hate crime" legislation being enacted federally there. The leading U.S. internet news site WorldNetDaily.com has published a lengthy piece on the Canadian situation, including Fournier's warning to the U.S. to "look at this and see what's happening. You have to fight this with all that you have."

Elsewhere on WorldNetDaily, the Canadian leader of Equipping Christians for the Public Square, Tristan Emmanuel, has characterized those advocating hate crime laws as "arrogant elites ... who want power and control and who are prepared to stuff political correctness down our throats even if it means muzzling free speech ... Don't let them set foot in your country" (LifeSiteNews, July 19, Aug. 3, 2007; Globe and Mail, July 25; WorldNetDaily.com, July 25 and 26, 2007).

3: HPV VACCINATION: A THREAT TO FAMILIES JOHN B. SHEA, M.D., FRCP(C)

In the fall of 2007, the Ontario government will offer 84,000 grade eight girls free vaccination with the human papilloma virus (HPV).

Three other provinces have announced they want teenage girls vaccinated. HPV is believed to cause most cases of cancer of the cervix of the uterus. Infection is caused by promiscuous sexual intercourse. Many people have applauded the four provincial Premiers. Recently, however, researchers at McGill University in Montreal have stated that there are many unanswered questions about this vaccination.

Question 1:

There are approximately 19 high-risk types of HPV that can cause cancer. Gardisil, the new vaccine, contains only two that cause cancer, type 16 and 18. A study done in 2006 on female university students show that only 14 of 78 infections with high-risk type HPV were due to type 16 and 18. The remaining 64 were due to other high-risk HPV types. It is not clear how long the vaccine will remain effective.

Question 2:

Some fear that vaccination of young girls for HPV will cause them to develop a false sense of invulnerability that may result in an increase in promiscuous sexual behaviour.

Question 3:

Gardisil has been researched for only a short period of time and the research has included few girls in the 9-15 year age group, the target group for vaccination.

Question 4:

The vaccine's long-term risks are unknown and there is no clinical evidence that it will in fact reduce the incidence of cancer of the cervix. A recent editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association stated that "the vaccine is reported to be of limited efficacy and safety."

Question 5: Medical profession

It is well known that smoking tobacco is the main cause of cancer of the lung. The medical profession, quite appropriately, vigorously warns everyone not to smoke tobacco.

It is also well known that the spread of infection by HPV and by the human immunosuppressive virus (HIV) is caused by promiscuous sexual intercourse. The medical profession in this latter case however has failed to promote chastity, which they quietly admit is the only sure way of not becoming infected. Instead, physicians champion the use of a condom, a practice that they know cannot guarantee complete protection from infection. This oxymoronic medical counsel has helped create the impression that smoking is totally politically incorrect and unacceptable, but that sexual promiscuity, even in adolescence, is somehow, unavoidable, even normal!

Warning

Parents should carefully consider the risks and benefits of HPV vaccines before they agree to have their grade eight children vaccinated. A young girl who is vaccinated may interpret her parents' consent as a scandalous vote of non-confidence in her moral character. She may also interpret such consent, rightly or wrongly, as parental endorsement of promiscuous sex.