Consider: The Alberta Human Rights Commission hands out tax dollars in the form of public grants to promote very controversial social issues and at the same time they have the authority to rule on speech and punish opinion via their tribunals. The same applies in every Province.
The Alberta Human Rights Commission offers grants that pertain to diversity, equality and anti-discrimination etc. These grants are made possible via our tax dollars. Before Darren Lund filed his complaint to the AHRC against me, the AHRC approved a grant on behalf of the Alberta P-FLAG (Parents Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gay) Faith Society. I discovered this grant on the AHRC website back in 2002 before I submitted my letter. The online documentation that described the mandate of Alberta P-FLAG made it clear that it had an initiative to promote that homosexuality was “normal, necessary, acceptable and productive and has been for thousands of years” to school children and youth. This same AHRC that approved this grant for Alberta P-Flag’s hyper pro-gay agenda is the same organization that headed up the prosecution against me and ruled on behalf of pro-gay activist Darren Lund. Considering that the AHRC approved funds for this very controversial initiative, how can they claim and expect anyone to believe that I was provided with an unbiassed hearing and especially, ruling? This alone speaks volumes about the injustice done to me and the illegal activity of these quasi-judicial commissions.
What other legal body in Canada doles out grant money for controversial social issues and has the authority to rule on such important matters of constitutional law at the same time?
Stephen Boissoin (Source)
See how it works? Extort money from Christian pastors, give the money to Gay Lobby groups, and then call it “human rights”.