Equipping Christians for the Public Square objects to BDBO post

My name is Tristan Emmanuel and I find it particularly distasteful that you would talk about your commitment to Jesus Christ – referring to your “about page” – but then turn around and falsely accuse both WND and myself of misrepresenting the FD CHRC investigation.

First, I do not refer to the FD investigation as a “trial”.

You write:

“HRC tribunals are not trials and no matter how Free Dominion tried to spin this and no matter how this was portrayed by World Net Daily (tying in Canadian practises with The Matthew Shepard bill) by Canadian religious activist Tristan Emmanuel of Equipping Christians for the Public Square”

When you misrepresent the very people you are accusing of “spinning” a story, you lose all credibility.

Not only did I not refer to the FD case as a “trial”, I didn’t even mention Mathew Shepard as you falsely assert.

Furthermore, your insinuation that I’m just writing for a Republican conservative audience is just too funny. I guess that’s how a “Christian centrist” scores points with moderates in the US and Canada?

Who cares who I’m writing for anyway? I’m writing for WND readers many of whom are conservative republicans and independent libertarians. Besides, I didn’t write the piece for it to be a showcase media story anyway. I write for WND readers – and frankly that’s a bigger audience then you’ll ever write for – so I could care less if the media doesn’t decide to do a story on what I write.

And, in case you haven’t noticed…WND is media. Just look at the traffic they generate. Who needs “media” when you’ve got WND!!!

Also, I don’t know what you actually do know about the CHRC, but having supported two victims of the CHRC “investigations” – in Mr. Scott Brockie and Mr. Chris Kempling – I find your cavalier assessment of what does and doesn’t constitute a CHRC “trial” a bit of a joke, and very naive.

Perhaps FD wasn’t at the trial stage, yet. Anyone close enough to one of these “investigations” knows that’s where all things go with the CHRC – to trial, or to a fine. The fact that the CHRC dropped the complaint against FD is a first as far as I know.

And as far as I’m concerned, FD did the right thing by “spinning” the story the way they did – even though they didn’t actually “spin” anything.

But no matter. One thing is for certain: they’re sure glad it’s over—no thanks to you.

So by all means, tell everyone about how your “relationship with Jesus” influences your blog. But at least have the decency to practice what you preach.

Rev. Emmanuel is correct. I certainly do have an obligation to practise what I preach.

The posts I’ve put up on Free Dominion and the Human Rights investigation are here, here, a link here, and a final post here, when the complaint was dropped.

Rev. Emmanuel did not refer to The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal process in his World Net Daily opinion piece as trials.
His column (July 26 – World Net Daily) was written to a US readership.

Now, there are many things I’d like to say about the state of free speech in Canada, but Americans really only need to be clear about three central points.

Tristan Emmanuel did not mention S. 1105 in his July 26, 2007 piece for World Net Daily. He wrote about S. 1105 for World Net Daily on May 29, 2007.

To correct this error on my part I’ve removed the paragraph Tristan Emmanuel references and directed the removal to this post.

(This paragraph referencing Tristan Emmanuel’s column has been removed 17/07/07. The reason for removal is explained here)

I will email Rev. Emmanuel to thank him for bringing this to my attention.