By Jim Coggins

March 2009

According to a CHP news release, the CHRC decided that “the content and context of the material which forms the basis of the complaint is not likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on sexual orientation . . . Accordingly, the file on this matter is now closed.”

Former CHP leader Ron Gray still expressed frustration, suggesting the party has already been “punished” by the process itself. And new research by the CHRC itself raises questions about that agency’s neutrality.

Jim Hnatiuk, recently chosen leader of the Christian Heritage Party, spoke at six meetings on a tour of British Columbia in February, Hnatiuk (left) is pictured here with his predecessor, long-time leader Ron Gray, in Abbotsford February 8. At the meetings Hnatiuk outlined party policies on government finances, family law and health issues. He argued that the Christian community's lobbying efforts and work to elect Christian MPs from other parties hae failed to have any impact, because party discipline keeps those MPs from voicing Christian viewpoints.

A news story about the issue was published by WorldNet Daily. Gray had it posted on the CHP website, and it was posted on a CHP affiliate’s site.

In late 2006, Wells lodged a complaint with the CHRC about the two postings, and also four articles Gray had written. Gray said the articles highlighted research showing that homosexuality “shortens life expectancy dramatically,” and argued that media promotion of that lifestyle could “sentence some young people to an early grave.”

The CHP calls the CHRC’s method of operation “both slipshod and unjust.” Gray offered to meet with Wells on a planned trip to Alberta; but the CHRC didn’t respond until the day he was leaving, when it was too late to adjust his schedule. Gray suggested the meeting be rescheduled, but the next thing he heard was in June 2007, when the CHRC said the case had been referred to an investigator, because both sides had refused mediation.

Gray responded that he had not refused mediation, but again he got no response. Finally, Gray hired a lawyer, who prepared a 3,200-page ‘brief.’ Gray heard no more, until late December 2008 – when he received a letter, dated October 24, 2008, stating that the case had been closed.

Gray contended that the CHRC’s failure to respond to him violates normal government standards for responding to citizens – and that “justice delayed is justice denied.” He also expressed disappointment that the case did not proceed, so that he could appeal any decision to the regular court system, “where standards of evidence matter.” Gray sees this as a missed opportunity “to establish free speech rights.”

The CHP news release noted “the complainant bore no costs at all for filing a frivolous and groundless complaint,” since the investigation and preparation of any case is done by CHRC staff. CHP’s legal costs amounted to $50,000.

Continue article >>

Previous article Mainland round-up	Next article Charges against Chris Kempling dropped
Page 12	Page 13

Wells has also lodged similar complaints against the Roman Catholic magazine Insight; Alberta pastor Stephen Boisson; and journalist Ezra Levant. Gray contended gay lobbyists such as Wells are “using the power of the state to silence critics.”

He noted individuals can be silenced more easily because “most people don’t have the resources to fight such cases.”

He also said the mainstream media have not devoted “a drop of ink” to his case. “In a democracy, everything must be open to scrutiny,” he said.  However, when the statements of political parties are limited by frivolous human rights complaints and “the press won’t cover stories that are politically incorrect, the system breaks down.”  

Christian political scientist John H. Redekop disagrees with what he sees as CHP’s campaign to “legislate Christianity.” But he defended the CHP’s “right to advocate whatever they want,” as long as they do not “threaten the well-being of society.” He added: “We should have very broad liberties. That is how God treats us. God gives us freedom to make wrong choices while pleading with us not to make them.”  

A new CHRC study describes the organization as “an autonomous non-partisan body.” However, it also states the Commission has “advocated for equality for homosexuals from its first days.”

The CHRC’s goal was to prevent “discrimination in employment and in the provision of services . . . on the basis of sexual orientation.” However, the study shows the CHRC also pushed for same-sex marriage, even though this “did not directly engage the Commission’s mandate.”

The study reveals the CHRC saw its role as “moulding public opinion and stimulating policy change,” and suggests that the CHRC was instrumental in changing public support for homosexual rights.

March 2009