Alberta HRC: Christians have no "human rights"

…while the content and tone of the communications appear on the face of them to be discriminatory, there is very little vulnerability of the target group. The expressions used do not reinforce existing stereotypes, nor do the messages appeal to well-publicized issues. More importantly, however, the medium used to convey the message is extremely suspect, lacks credibility and has a small circulation. The context of the publication is not presented as a debate or any purportedly authoritative analysis and the target group is not vulnerable as, in order for the group to receive the message, the purchase of these would be by an extremely limited audience and only an audience seeking to receive messages such as those conveyed.

…there is very little likelihood of a representation to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt in the context of this particular medium which is unlikely to be taken seriously or credibly by the target group.

…The vulnerability of the target group would be extremely limited, if at all and the audience, including the exposed, would be limited in nature and would only come into possession of these particular CD’s in an overt act of volition on their own behalf.

Got it?

So it doesn't matter if Christians are exposed to hate -- they're not vulnerable. So says Comrade Andreachuk. By definition, she writes, a Christian cannot be the victim of hate speech.

Oh, and if she's wrong? Not to worry -- the CDs were not credible. They weren't authoritative. They weren't popular. And you actually had to open up the CD case to get to them -- they weren't forced on anybody.

Hang on: doesn't that describe just about every single hate speech case prosecuted in this country? They're almost always obscure websites on the Internet, with no credibility and with very little traffic -- except for the agents provocateurs of the human rights industry, trolling for new targets.

Doesn't Comrade Andreachuk's ruling -- by definition! -- suggest that a neo-Nazi could never be guilty of spreading hate, because by definition a neo-Nazi is obscure, not credible, and listened to only by those who seek them out?

Comrade Andreachuk's rationale is a smokescreen, of course. It's made up -- just like the rest of the crap that HRCs publish as "rulings". It's not jurisprudence; it's not coherent; it pretends to adhere to precedent, but it clearly doesn't. It's legal mumbo-jumbo to cover up the bald political fact here: Comrade Andreachuk thinks it's fine to call for the murder of Christians. And this same anti-Christian bigot sentenced Rev. Boissoin to a lifetime of silence about his faith.

Don't get me wrong: I don't think that the filth in Music World should be illegal. I don't think it quite meets the test of incitement to murder -- though it's hard to imagine what more would be necessary. But I wonder if, instead of saying "Kill the Christian", it said "Kill the Jews" or "Kill the Blacks" or "Kill the gays". You could imagine Comrade Andreachuk going nuclear. Well, no need to imagine -- just look at what she did to Rev. Boissoin for merely preaching peacefully.

Let's state the obvious. The human rights industry is full of ani-Christian bigots like Comrade Andreachuk. I am unaware of a single non-Christian ever being convicted of a hate speech offense -- certainly none have been at the federal CHRC. But the HRCs pick on Christians like a bully pulling the wings off of flies, roughing up Toronto's Fr. Alphonse de Valk; the Christian Heritage Party; Calgary's Bishop Fred Henry; and, no doubt, a dozen other martyrs who quietly paid off their tormentors with some sort of plea bargain.

But this case, Johnson vs. Music World, is different even than the HRCs' persecution of Christians. It's a declaration, in black and white that it is legally impossible for a Christian to be discriminated against. You can chant "Kill the Christian", and it's not "hate speech". If you can say that, you can say anything.

It reminds me of the concept of the "unrapeable woman" -- a woman who, because she might be a prostitute or have some other questionable identity, is unable to access the law when she is raped, because the law unfairly assumes that she always consents.

That's what's happened here: Comrade Andreachuk has declared that Christians are "un-hateable". You can say anything to a Christian -- even calling for his murder -- and, like a prostitute crying rape, the Christian just won't be believed.

They're not vulnerable, says Comrade Andreachuk.

What a vile woman she is. What a vile industry these human rights commissions are. What a vile government Premier Ed Stelmach runs that condones this corruption of justice, this state-sanctioned bigotry.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not for the criminalization of filthy music -- though, in this case, a little bit of shaming and perhaps even boycotting would be in order. But for this absolute filth to be approved of by the very same woman who destroyed Rev. Boissoin's right to be a Christian?

I have no vocabulary sufficient to register my disgust and anger.

Perhaps you do. If so, e-mail the minister to whom Comrade Andreachuk allegedly reports, Lindsay Blackett. You might want to ask Blackett -- a Black man himself -- how he would feel about lyrics saying "Kill the Black", and how he'd feel about the HRC saying that's fine, because it's "not credible".

Maybe ask Blackett's boss, Premier Ed "Ed" Stelmach. But given his incoherent support for these anti-Christian bigots in the past, don't get your hopes up.