OK, kiddo! Here are all the fantastically amazing posts tagged with Human Rights Commission
Bill Whatcott, Canada’s most strangely obsessed anti-gay activist, will soon be the subject of quizzical contemplation by Canada’s highest court.
Whatcott was fined nearly a decade ago after distributing hateful, anti-gay fliers in Saskatchewan, but won an appeals court ruling in February on the grounds that distributing fliers is part of his freedom of expression.
The fliers really weren’t very nice. “Our children,” one pamphlet reads in part, “will pay the price in disease, death, abuse and ultimately eternal judgement if we do not say no to the sodmoite desire to socialize your children into accepting something that is clearly wrong.”
“Sodomites,” another read, “are 430 times more likely to acquire AIDS and three times more likely to sexually abuse children.”
It should go without saying that all the pamphlets were really, really, really wrong—factually and morally. So, unhappy with the appeals court ruling, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Comission asked the Supreme Court to visit the case, and they agreed.
Now, having the same level of legal understanding as… let’s say a massive, multinational corporation, I remain utterly clueless as to what the Supreme Court will find. Personally, I feel that freedom of expression is an important right, but I don’t think that necessarily means you can go around making all sorts of wacky, unfounded accusations that gay people are bringing about the children apocalypse. Sounds a lot like slandering an entire minority to me, and I hope that’s what Canada’s provisions against inciting hatred are meant to prohibit.
One thing’s pretty clear to me, though. This guy is gay-obsessed. I mean, I’m actually gay and I still don’t have as much gay-on-the-brain as this guy. Off the top of my head: In addition to crafting and distributing hysterically nutty pamphlets, Whatcott once lead Regina’s Gay Pride parade with anti-gay signage, picketted outside private Planned Parenthood clinics declaring the workers there to be “disseminators of AIDS,” and even ran for mayor of Edmonton with a completely anti-gay platform. “As your mayor,” his official platform opened, “Bill Whatcott is committed to protecting Edmontonians from homofascism.”
Right. Well, here’s hoping the Supreme Court will protect us from whatcottcrazyism!
Will Goertzen, a landlord in Yellowknife, signed a one-year apartment lease for a young gay couple last year. Three weeks before the couple was set to move in, Goertzen discovered they were gay. He re-listed the property without notifying the couple, rented it to a different family, stole the couple’s $1,150 damage deposit, and left them for homeless.
Scott Robertson and Richard Anthony had to stay with various friends and keep all of their belongings scattered about different locations until they secured a new apartment. They got their damage deposit back only after taking Goertzen to rental court. Now the case is before the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission.
Astonishingly, Goertzen is outright admitting that he denied housing, stole the damage deposit, and left the couple homeless because they were gay, saying that he recognizes the “supremacy of God over the Charter or Rights and Freedoms.” “[Homosexuality] isn’t natural and it’s a crime against nature,” Goertzen told an adjudicator at a human rights commission last week, “I can definitely not have a part in it.”
Religious freedoms exist in Canada, but all that means is that the government cannot dictate which deity or deities you are allowed to worship; it does not—and has never—granted the power to circumvent Canada’s laws or our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Both of which, indeed, explicitly forbid housing discrimination based on sexual orientation).
I’m not surprised some people are under a different impression, mind you. Saskatchewan has proposed a law that lets civil marriage commissioners refuse their public services for gay couples, and Alberta has just enacted a law that forces teachers to halt any discussions of sexual orientation until they receive parental permission from each parent, lest it offend their personal religious beliefs. Religious freedom is fast becoming a convenient carte blanche; a way to eschew personal responsibility, ignore or erase the rights of gay people, and nullify Canada’s guarantees of equality. Goertzen’s despicable behaviour is just a natural extension of this.
It’s time for mainstream religious people who realize that what Goertzen has done is wrong both in the legal and moral sense to stand up and say this is not acceptable.
Or, if this whole thing turns out differently, I could just start a religion of my own…
- Yellowknife landlord says he tore up gay couple’s lease over fear of God [Winnipeg Free Press]
- Gay couple left in cold by landlord [CBC News]
Bill Whatcott, Canada’s most hysterically obsessed anti-gay activist, does not have to pay $17,500 in fines after successfully challenging a Human Rights Tribunal ruling in Saskatchewan.
Whatcott was fined in 2005 over a “clear pattern or practice of disregard for protected rights,” sparked largely over some insane, anti-gay fliers.
The ruling was upheld by the Court of the Queen’s Bench in 2007, but the appeals court overturned the ruling, saying that the fliers didn’t violate Canada’s hate speech laws by inciting hatred and violence, and were therefore protected by freedom of expression.
Hey, I guess that means the Bill Whatcott flier collection fundraising effort for GLBT organisations is still on!
Edmund Bro and Keith Scott, two gay, physically disabled, HIV-positive tenants in West Vancouver, have won their case with the Human Rights Tribunal over an abusive and homophobic landlord. Each tenant was awarded $15,000 to compensate for their year-and-a-half of relentless harassment from Michael John Moody and his son, Guy.
The Human Rights Code in British Columbia forbids, among other things, discrimination based on disability, sexual orientation, and source of income. Moody, being the sampling type it appears, decided to violate as many of these as possible. In addition to constant verbal harassment, he physically assaulted the two disabled men, demeaned their reliance on disability benefits, and even refused to conduct repairs on the property.
Bro and Scott moved out, of course, leaving Moody free to rebuild his property as a summer spot for anti-gay lobbyists.
- Gay tenants win B.C. Human Rights Tribunal complaint [Straight.com]
Kari Simpson, an anti-gay lobbyist, has lost her Human Rights Complaint against the B.C. Education Ministry, which she claimed had not done enough to help schoolchildren who “suffer from homosexuality and other dysfunctional sexual orientations.”
The amusingly dumb complaint argued that B.C. schools were actively denying students access to “sexual re-orientation therapies.”
No such students joined in on her class-action complaint.
The reparative conversion therapy that Kari refers to, incidentally, has been discredited and condemned by the entire professional medical community, denounced as being actively harmful to healthy development of individuals. Organisations that have gone on record to oppose the ineffective practise include The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Medical Association, The American Counselling Association, The American Psychiatric Association, among several others.
When I first wrote about Kari’s complaint in March, I said that she likely knew all of this and intended to lose her own complaint, setting herself up for a ridiculous form of martyrdom to a tiny, but obsessive audience of anti-gay activists. Sure enough, she wasted no time playing the victim card, announcing that the decision has laid “the groundwork for a case of systemic discrimination,” and that the Human Rights Commission “conveniently assisted” her to that effect.
Essentially, the complaint—in addition to wasting time and resources from people who have real human rights complaints to launch—was just a selfish attempt to leverage attention and spread the weak myth that gay people don’t exist; that they’re just dysfunctional straight people who need help escaping their sin.
It’s the same, failed strategy with these anti-gay lobbyists. Kari feels no need to stop and reflect on why no student covered by her class-action complaint enthusiastically joined the endeavour, because she knows that no such student exists. It’s all just pretend compassion, used for selfish, political ends.
Orville Nichols, a Saskatchewan civil marriage commissioner, has lost his anti-gay appeal of an earlier ruling by the provincial Human Rights Commission. Nichols was fined $2,500 in 2007 for refusing to perform his public services for a gay couple. He then fought the ruling in court, arguing that his private religious beliefs entitle him to discriminate and refuse public, non-religious services to gay people. A non-religious violation, if you will.
Civil marriage commissioners are licensed by the government to conduct marriage ceremonies for couples that do not wish to have a religious wedding. Since the ceremonies are secular and commissioners aren’t representatives of their private religious beliefs, they are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as everyone else.
So, consequently, he lost his appeal… Not that he had much of it to begin with. Snap!
The Alberta legislature has passed a bill that requires teachers to receive parental permission before discussing or acknowledging topics of sexual orientation in the curriculum, or else face being brought before the Human Rights Commission for violating parental rights.
This means, very soon, teachers will be at risk of being brought before a tribunal if they acknowledge gay issues without first taking care to selectively evacuate students from the classroom. Not only does this send a terrible message to gay students—that topics about their lives pose such a profound hazard that their classmates’ attendance must be filtered based on privilege—but it enables and reinforces schoolyard bullying through that same knowledge.
So how did such a controversial bill pass so effortlessly? The wordsmithing employed by its supporters offers some clues. In the comments section of a National Post article I linked to on Friday, a supporter of the bill wrote: “The core issue here is who has the right to shape the minds of children, individuals or the State.” This simplification is a real eye-opener. Are those the only two options that supporters see? What about, say, the students being able to shape their own minds?
By the time students are old enough to be introduced to sexual education in the curriculum, they are citizens of their own right. For a guardian to forcibly bar a student from hearing information and viewpoints other than their own is not only narrow-minded, but irresponsible. Astonishingly, though, it seems bill proponents don’t view students as inquisitive minds that are capable of forming their own views; rather, they are seen as a form of human property for whom it is the exclusive right of the guardian to indoctrinate as they see fit. It is no wonder, then, that these parents see open classroom discussions and the analysis of opposing viewpoints as an affront to their plan—a way to undo the views they wish to force into their child, unchallenged via the careful censorship of information.
In this light, it actually begins to make sense that, since some parents wish to coercively inbue uncontested beliefs into their child, they project that same behaviour onto the state. Anti-bullying programs and lessons that include acknowledgement of gay persons, they think, must be part of some agenda to brainwash and take control of the younger generation. Why, I bet they even think my subliminal messages and short-wave thought injection gun are being used for more than just corporate advertising.
Still, what a sad day for education and enlightenment in Alberta.
One of Canada’s largest anti-gay lobby groups is seizing on Alberta’s Bill 44, a proposed amendment to the Human Rights Act that would disallow teachers from mentioning or discussing gay topics in front of students that did not receive parental permission.
The bill is ominously vague—a point which has piqued the interests of Brian Rushfelt, head of Canada Family Action Coalition. “It’s up to the parent to make [the legislation] as broad or narrow as they want,” he said, adding that neither “the schools nor the government should be the ones to put parameters on it and say it’s only sexuality classes or only evolution classes or only religion classes.”
Anti-gay lobby groups have been actively opposing measures to prevent the bullying of gay students for years, but now may have a new tool beyond the mere lobbying of school boards to get what they want. Parents, according to Rushfeldt, should file human rights complaints against teachers who promote tolerance of gay students so that the boundaries of the new law can be broadened. Broadened, of course, in a means befitting only to those crazy enough to devote time to this nonsense.
This proposed abuse should be enough evidence for even supporters to reconsider the bill, but the real flaw lies within its intended uses. The effect of this legislation is to always postpone discussion of gay rights, student reports on gay historical figures and role models, anti-bullying campaigns, and sexual education information until all parents can be consulted. But parents who want their children to be able to actively examine different sides of issues as they arise, who wish for spontaneous discussion to be encouraged, whose lives—if they are gay—will now be treated as a topic so dangerous that all discussion of it must be halted until every student’s family gives their blessing to proceed, and who would have to see their child’s fellow classmates ushered out into the hallway when their family is up for discussion, would have no say in any of these matters if Bill 44 passes.
Although, come of think of it, this bill may have its uses, too. Why, I actually heard of a teacher once explaining that her name was changed to “Mrs. so-and-so” because she had just married her husband. Can you imagine? Flaunting her heterosexuality and the myriad bedroom implications it entails to the whole class! And don’t even get me started on lessons that contradict the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
- Parents must get say in all teaching, group says [Calgary Herald]
Alberta is amending its Human Rights Act with a provision that will force school teachers to exclude any student whose parents object to the acknowledgement of sexual orientation in classroom discussions. Failure to pull a student from such a discussion—even ones that arise from student questions—could result in a human rights complaint.
This new provision is similar to Bill 208, a failed private member’s bill headed by Ted Morton, which would have forced teachers to issue warning slips to parents before discussing same-sex marriage in class.
What a novel idea, though! Barring students from hearing or discussing any information that parents disagree with. As if the Debate Club wasn’t uninteresting enough.
Kari Simpson, an anti-gay activist, has filed a complaint against the B.C. Education Ministry for not doing enough to help students who “suffer from homosexuality and other dysfunctional sexual orientations.”
The bizarre complaint goes on to allege that schools simply aren’t turning enough gay students straight. As Simpson puts it:
Sexual re-orientation therapies have helped thousands of individuals recover from such dysfunctional orientations. School counsellors are being denied the tools to be effective advocates for students in need of sexual re-orientation help and they should have access to resources and training that will equip them to properly counsel students.
Gee, that’s just awful. Think of all those thousands of poor, suffering gays that were denied their right to re-orientation by that callous school board.
Odd, though, don’t you think, that this human rights complaint had to be filed by a Christian activist instead of just one of those thousands of suffering students who were denied a gay cure. (Though, frankly, the only suffering I’ve ever endured as a gay person is from people like Kari.)
See, what Kari already knows—but chooses to ignore—is that all peer-reviewed research into reparative conversion therapy for gays has not only shown that it’s completely ineffective, but that it’s demonstrably harmful to one’s well-being. That’s why every respected medical and professional organisation has gone on record to condemn the very idea, including The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Medical Association, The American Counselling Association, The American Psychiatric Association, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
If I had to take a gander at it—which I don’t, but it’ll be fun—I’d say that Kari is filing the human rights complaint for two reasons. First, the Human Rights Commission has a history of protecting the rights of gays, and a small subset of religious activists feel it’s at their expense. By launching a destined-to-fail complaint she is setting herself up for some kind of hilarious martyrdom for a tiny, but delightfully obsessed group of nuts, which she can then use to further criticize the commission. Second, she gets a venue in which she can repeat the myth that there’s really no such thing as gay people to begin with: just straight people who need help escaping their sin.
Disingenuous compassion has been a failing strategy for these activists for years. This time won’t be any different. It’s just too bad that she has to waste valuable time from the people who have real human rights violations to report.
Alberta is the only province in Canada that does not explicitly include protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation in its human rights code. This, despite a ten-year-old Supreme Court ruling stating that provinces must not exclude gays and lesbians from their human rights legislations.
Rachel Notley, an Alberta MLA, has now brought the matter up in the legislature, calling out the government for its embarrassingly slow response to the court ruling. “Why,” she asked, “does the government continue to give a wink-wink, nudge-nudge to homophobes and gay-bashers by refusing to include sexual orientation in our human rights code?”
Great question, Rachel.
Just last year, Premier Ed Stelmach said that the human rights code would not be updated to include sexual orientation in that legislative session, calling the process “complicated.” Now, Lindsay Blackett, the Minister responsible for the human rights code and the first black cabinet minister in Alberta, has said the same thing for this legislative session, announcing that updating the human rights code would be a “knee-jerk response:”
We do not make changes to legislation… or make amendments to any particular body just because of the whim of one particular individual in this House.
I guess avoiding a knee-jerk response justifies a plain ol’ jerk response. Isn’t politics just the classiest?
Here’s the thing: this issue is not just the wishes of one lone MLA—it’s the wishes of the Supreme Court of Canada, and Alberta has no excuse for letting this go unattended since 1999, when Rosie O’Donnell hosted the Grammys that debuted Ricky Martin—and only one of them was suspected of being gay.
So, yeah, if updating the human rights code is truly complicated and requires cascading updates, then say so—say unabashedly that it was a mistake to ignore it, that you’re on the case now, and that it will be in place soon. But, frankly, I don’t think it’s complicated, especially since the courts must already interpret the human rights code as if sexual orientation were present. Alberta has a long history of institutionalized homophobia by the government, and dragging their feet on updating the human rights code—while continuing to introduce homophobic legislation—gives me reason to suspect that they’re just being… What’s the most recognizable word for it?
Let’s say: “Alberta-governmenty.”
A human rights complaint has been filed against the Capital district health authority for insensitive comments made toward a gay patient and his husband.
The complainant says that a cardiovascular unit nurse repeatedly referred to his husband as a “friend,” despite multiple corrections, and another in the neurological unit said that the patient shouldn’t mind joining a room with three female patients because he’s a gay male.
While I’ll agree the comments are insensitive, from what I understand about the complaint, the Human Rights Commission likely won’t hear this case—and rightfully so.
Insensitive comments are always unfortunate, especially when combined with an exasperating hospital stay, but if a human rights settlement were awarded for every gay partner called a “friend” or “roommate” instead of “boyfriend” or “husband,” each city’s gay village would be situated atop a scenic hill with swans.
The Human Rights Commission has an important role in assuring equal employment, housing, and services for gay people, and the criminal code protects against genuine hate speech, but this situation falls under neither umbrella. Since the HRC has traditionally been an important ally in protecting the rights of gay people across Canada, anti-gay groups have been pushing to limit its powers. Frivolous filings, even if they aren’t ultimately heard by the HRC, can only lend support to that movement.
So, in this situation, me and my “roommate” suggest a phone call with the health authority and an open letter in the paper. It can do more than you’d think.
- Gay couple files rights complaint [Chronicle Herald]
Orville Nichols, a civil marriage commissioner from Saskatchewan, is going to appeal a $2,500 fine he received for refusing to do his job for a gay couple. Nichols claims that performing a non-religious, civil marriage for the gay couple violated his religious beliefs.
Marilou McPhedran, the Chief Commissioner of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Commission explained the case matter-of-factly:
To allow public officials to insert their personal morality when determining who should and who should not receive the benefit of law undermines human rights in Saskatchewan beyond the issue of same-sex marriages.
Succinctly and correctly put.
Nichols’ services are on behalf of the government, not his church. Religious officials acting within their own church are free to decide to whom they provide services (many churches refuse to marry inter-faith couples, for example), but it is not correct to claim this freedom applies to followers performing their public duties. Frankly, I think it’s a stretch to claim that one’s religious beliefs forbid anyone from interacting with same-sex couples at their job in the first place.
Connie Heintz, a Christian worker at a shelter for developmentally delayed adults, has won a human rights case against her former employer.
After Connie’s co-workers at Christian Horizons discovered she was a lesbian, she was forced to quit, describing the work atmosphere as the “worst time of my life.” She was harassed, threatened with dismissal, and falsely accused of abusing the residents she was caring for. Connie, who is deeply religious, was awarded 18 months of her old salary as compensation.
Anti-gay groups are already up in arms; A LifeSite article was quick to accuse the human rights tribunal of stifling religious freedom—once again, under the assumption that gay people and religion are somehow mutually exclusive. I contest that. Connie was a devout Christian who cared deeply about the underlying mission of the organisation. For her employers to claim that having a gay employee in their ranks is somehow against their faith is a stretch. (Unless, of course, Jesus decreed something I’m not yet familiar with: “Thou shalt fireth the gay ones like a grain is shed from its stalk, for they be not fit to care for thy developmentally delayede adultes.”)
Christian Horizons receives public funds from the government and is contractually required to follow Canada’s human rights laws.
And a gentlemanly hat tip to Matt Guerin at Queer Liberal for the story.
- Woman hopes court victory will help others [The Record]
- Tribunal rules on employee lifestyle and morality statement [Press Release]
Fred Henry, the Calgarian bishop who refused holy communion to politicians that supported gay rights and announced that same-sex marriage “is the worst betrayal of children I’ve ever seen—even moreso than the Church sex scandals,” is now calling to completely overhaul the Human Rights Commission.
The HRC, he says, is “being used as a sword” in an “ongoing pattern […] to penalize the expression of unpopular opinions.”
Well, if by “unpopular opinions” he means directly comparing gays to adulterers and prostitutes, then I suppose he’s half-right. Fred Henry, you see, had two complaints served against him in 2005 for doing precisely that; though, despite his uncaring words and an indignant attitude, the complaints were dropped.
So what demonstrable harm has the HRC caused that must be reversed? Henry offers no examples other than some pending complaints that have yet to be heard by the tribunal. Not terribly compelling evidence considering that anyone can file a complaint regardless of how likely it is to be upheld.
- Bishop Henry says human laws slay rather than shield [Western Catholic Reporter]
Bill Whatcott, a hysterical anti-gay activist, male nurse, and former mayoral candidate, must pay a $17,000 fine for violating human rights after an appeal of a 2005 ruling was denied.
Whatcott was fined two years ago for what the human rights tribunal called “a clear pattern of practice of disregard for protected rights.” The complaint was launched against him in retaliation of a mass mailing that called gay people pedophiles and child molesters. He was found guilty to having incited hatred, but refused to pay the fine (and unwittingly raised money for some truly worthwhile causes).
As the mere thought of gay people being right makes all of Bill’s eye capillaries burst, he has vowed to bring his case to the provincial appeals court.
Incidentally, Bill was in the news earlier this year for his unusual campaign to run for Mayor in Edmonton’s October municipal election. His platform was based almost entirely on an anti-gay agenda, but included promises to alter zoning bylaws to prohibit abortion clinics, dismantle Edmonton’s hate crime’s unit, and end all funding for animal shelters and the arts.
He lost spectacularly.
- Whatcott’s appeal dismissed [Star Phoenix]
- Saskatchewan anti-gay crusader loses human rights appeal [Edmonton Journal]
Late last month, the Alberta Human Rights Commission ruled that an anti-gay letter written by Stephen Boisson, a former member of the Concerned Christian Coalition, violated provincial human rights codes.
Now, I wrote about what I thought about the case when it was brought in front of the commission, and clarified those thoughts a little a few weeks later in a very special mail bag segment. Now that the case is concluded, I thought I’d share some more thoughts.
I’m not sure how easily understood this is unless you are one of the people threatened by the letter, but being called “as immoral as pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps” and then having a call to action issued against you as open-ended as “take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness [of the] homosexual machine” is scary. Unlike Boisson, I firmly believe that being gay is neither a choice nor an alterable trait and support activism that seeks equal rights grounded by this view. From this perspective, the letter is somewhat of a doom sentence. If my “wickedness” can’t be reversed, what remaining steps are left to stop me? Would anyone take the letter’s instruction to heart? Perhaps someone did, as a violent anti-gay attack occurred two days after the letter was published.
But what about from Boisson’s perspective? He doesn’t believe gay people exist: only straight sinners. Did he really call for the violence that occurred after his letter’s publication? There’s only circumstantial evidence linking the two, though the letter probably helped foster an environment where a physical attack was considered an appropriate action by the perpetrators.
Here’s the tricky thing. The letter was strongly worded, but vague—a meticulously constructed plan to assert territory in a legal grey area. Whether or not it calls for outright hatred and violence depends on the reader’s interpretation.
Ethically speaking, should the letter have been written? Absolutely not. It was an unnecessary and consequential assertion; a total confusion of one’s right to do something and the right thing to do.
Should one be fined for writing such a sufficiently vague letter, though? I’m still conflicted—not that it matters much. The issue has been decided, hasn’t it?
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has agreed to hear a case from a lesbian couple who claims they were refused a house because they’re gay. Although the couple had signed an offer for the property, they say that the seller, Alexander Berry, backed out once he discovered they were lesbians. Berry said he didn’t know the two women were a couple and changed his mind because of the short time limit on their agreement. The property was sold to a young family two days after the gay couple had signed the offer.
While the case isn’t scheduled to be heard until the 15th, Berry tried to get the complaint dismissed, arguing that he didn’t fall under B.C. human rights jurisdictions because he’s Albertan. The tribunal rejected his request.
So, knowing how these things normally work, I think we can expect a decision to come as early as November, 2014.
- Rights body will hear pair’s case [The Province]
- Man refuses to sell Vancouver home to gays, couple alleges [Xtra]
Oh, oh! I was waiting for the day that someone would dare keep a gay man away from his mall!
You heard right; a Gay Pride Group is speaking with the Ontario Human Rights commission after the Downtown Chatham Centre Mall shut down their booth, which was to be part of a larger mall-approved AIDS support event.
Mall officials were quick to dismiss discrimination charges, claiming that ousting the gays was part of a larger mall policy to not allow political or religious groups (neither of which I’m certain describes Gay Pride—but, whatever).
Strangely, though, it has been noted that the mall regularly allows the Christian group Salvation Army to fundraise there—often accompanied by municipal politicians. Alan Durston, Mall manager, had an… uh, interesting explanation.
We’ll allow some groups to come in to fundraise, but they don’t preach their religious beliefs to anybody else, which is the difference between gay pride or the Mormons or whichever other group.
Yeah, those gays are so annoying—preaching their religious beliefs to those who don’t want to hear it. Not at all like the Salvation Army (who, according to their own website, “is an evangelical group dedicated to preaching among the unchurched people”), accompanied by right-wing politicians…
Uh, oh—hold on. I injured my eye while rolling it just now… I should tend to that… Well, until Wednesday folks!
- Gay group has gripe with mall over eviction [London Free Press]
Bill Whatcott, a nutty Saskatchewan nurse, lost an appeal to have his nursing license un-suspended this week for defaming the health association Planned Parenthood. Whatcott was picketing Planned Parenthood’s Regina office in 2003, harassing their patients, shouting derogatory slogans, and calling the workers there “sodomites,” “murderers,” and “disseminators of AIDS.” Charming lad, no?
Of course, this suspension isn’t anything new to Billy, as he’s been fined multiple times in the past for inciting hatred toward gays, including $17,000 just last year for mailing out flyers jam-packed with his own brand of magical fantasy facts like: “sodomites are 430 times more likely to acquire AIDS and three times more likely to sexually abuse children.”
Now, there’s no word on how Billy did on his bedside manner courses back in college, but I’m guessing it might have been in the… oh, D, maybe D- area.
Lindsay Willow is a gym teacher. She is also a lesbian. One fine September, Ms. Willow was busy organizing an equipment storage room with a student helper. After the room was all tidy, they both washed their hands and stepped into the hallway. The end.
Oh, wait, no; I forgot to mention—one more thing happened. A minor detail, really. You see, at that moment, a fellow teacher saw the two leaving the locker room and, because Ms. Willow is gay, presumed her to be a child molester! He then presented outlandish allegations to his colleagues, the principal, and, of course, the police. The former two believed the loony yarn without any evidence whatsoever, and Ms. Willow was severely disciplined.
Sound unbelievable? Well, it happened! The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission announced last week that Ms. Willow was falsely accused of molestation based solely on her sexual orientation. The tribunal then ordered the Halifax Regional School Board to deliver a full written apology and monetary compensation for their prejudiced nonsense. Because, you know, there’s no heartfelt apology quite like a court-ordered heartfelt apology.
As for the moral of the story, let this be a lesson to all the gays out there: Never wash your hands.