December 04, 2009

Alberta Judge Overturns Human Rights Commission, But Doesn't Go Far Enough
— Gabriel Malor

After a seven-year legal nightmare, an Alberta judge overturned the decision of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal that an anti-gay letter to the editor from former pastor Stephen Boissoin was hate speech.

Boissoin wrote that he was declaring war on the "homosexual machine" that was "spreading their psychological disease." He cautioned that gays were "recruiting" children and warned parents: "Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?" He said people who support gays are as immoral as pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps.

So...not a great guy. But that shouldn't be criminal. In fact, not only shouldn't it be criminal, it should be protected from civil interference from the government. The Canadians aren't there yet.

The judge knocked down the Alberta Human Rights Commission ruling, but only because he thought the letter didn't go quite far enough to be considered "hate" or "contempt." He thought the letter had a "more benign tone" than other examples of prohibited speech.

That's not really a victory for free speech. Still, there are some good points. The judge stripped the Human Rights Commission of the authority to order people to "cease and desist" making "disparaging remarks" about gays. Similarly, the judge noted that the Human Rights Commission's requirement that Boission apologize for the letter is beyond its authority and that it couldn't force a newspaper to carry the apology. The judge assailed the Commission's "prejudgment" and "prejudicial" treatment of Boissoin.

There's also this, from the guy who complained to the Commission in the first place, Darren Lund:

"In my view, the judge's ruling sets such strict standards for hate speech that this section is rendered all but unenforceable.

Not a flaw, jackass.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:17 PM | Comments (50)
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The idea that people have freedom of speech is a very UnCanadian idea.

Posted by: Tom in Korea at December 04, 2009 06:33 PM (+gX1+)

2

"So...not a great guy."

Whatever Gabe

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 04, 2009 06:39 PM (H7Rlw)

3

Whatever Gabe Posted by: Jim in San Diego

Don't stop there, Jim. Enlighten us.

Posted by: Iskandar at December 04, 2009 06:47 PM (u1pln)

4 Dude, I'm so going to drive to Toronto and roll me some queers!

Posted by: Truman North at December 04, 2009 06:49 PM (XH/G8)

5

Gabriel was going fine until he had to dump that PC disclaimer in there Iskandar.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 04, 2009 06:49 PM (H7Rlw)

6

The idea that someone's ideas or opinions are not legal because SOMEONE ELSE decrees them to be hateful is a very very very dangerous path.

Posted by: gus at December 04, 2009 06:53 PM (MaqIC)

7 smartphones is laptop batteryguy. TROLL.

Posted by: Derak at December 04, 2009 06:53 PM (9MkfZ)

8 I'll take a decision that functionally destroys the statute in lieu of one that specifically destroys it, if that's all I can get.  Still, it would be nice if free speech weren't regarded so lightly by our frosty neighbors.

Posted by: Reginald Wingate at December 04, 2009 06:56 PM (fDWFP)

9

<<This is not represent the benefit of all the people>>

Sense make, not you..

Posted by: gus at December 04, 2009 06:58 PM (MaqIC)

10

Reginald, they aren't against FREE SPEECH, they are against SOME FREE SPEECH.

 

All animals are equal, some more equal than others.

Posted by: gus at December 04, 2009 06:59 PM (MaqIC)

11 1 This is not represent the benefit of all the people.

Posted by: smartphones

What the hell are you morons smoking, allowing an advertising trollbot get first?

Posted by: Truman North at December 04, 2009 07:04 PM (XH/G8)

12 Gus! Gul dern it anyway! H'ain't seen ya fer a while! (me been missin').
Have at it. Set the tone. Me at the ready.

Posted by: Derak at December 04, 2009 07:08 PM (9MkfZ)

13 This charade of Canada being an independent country has lasted long enough. Merge them into Montana, I say. Maybe throw them a senator and 3 congressmen.

Posted by: Tushar at December 04, 2009 07:11 PM (PGSXB)

14

Boissoin wrote that he was declaring war on the "homosexual machine" that was "spreading their psychological disease." He cautioned that gays were "recruiting" children and warned parents: "Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?" He said people who support gays are as immoral as pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps.

He's probably right. If I remember correctly, elementary school books in California teach acceptance of the gay lifestyle.

I'm against that so does that mean I'm not a great guy?

Posted by: Alex's Cabin at December 04, 2009 07:17 PM (42fRu)

15 Jim, it's not a "PC disclaimer". Gabriel honestly believes that some of the stuff Stephen Boissoin said about gays was obnoxious and untrue. He also honestly believes that it should be legal to act like a lying jerk. The solution to Boissoin's rant is a well-reasoned counter-rant, not an arrest.

Posted by: Zimriel at December 04, 2009 07:18 PM (04p0/)

16 The fact that Darren Lund was even contacted for comment enrages me.  That jackass filed the AHRC complaint, and even though he is not gay, and they couldn't find any real victims, he was awarded cash in damages as part of this shameful farce.

Rent seeking loser.  Gah!

It is so strange. Alberta is the most conservative jurisdiction in Canada, and they can't get this kangaroo court abolished or restrained even here.

Or, as illustrious comrade smartphones always says, "This is not represent the benefit of all the people."

Posted by: Delicious Lead Paint at December 04, 2009 07:21 PM (5Ykni)

17

I don't know that it won't ultimately lead to where you want it, Gabe.  Authoritative rulings from judges appear to settle an issue on the surface but sometimes they make it worse (see vs. Wade, Roe).

The most persuasive argument in favor of free speech is that no one can be a fair determiner of speech that goes too far.  So the judge is making that the argument.  No legislative body will be able to enumerate what speech is too far.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 04, 2009 07:23 PM (ItSLQ)

18 I agree with Gabe that this pastor is not a great guy. I should point out that I'm an evangelical who believes the biblical message that homosexual behavior is sinful. But this pastor is violating the far more important commandment to love everyone. The normal Christian teaching (apart from liberal churches) is to love the sinner, hate the sin.

I believe Christians turn a blind eye to much that the Bible calls sexual sin while focusing a lot of ire against homosexuals. This only turns them off to the gospel, so it's counter-productive.

As for the legal side of this, it's amazing to me that Canadians allow Islamic hate speech which incites violence against "infidels" but go after law-abiding citizens who happen to be rude jerks. I guess that's what makes them Canadians, not Americans.

Posted by: Shooter McGavin at December 04, 2009 07:24 PM (cxGtL)

19 i hate the canadian human rights commission. i watched the videos ezra levant made when he was dragged before them for blaspheming a moslem. ( iirc all he did was quote the moslem's own words. ) levant went on the offensive and left the 'investigator' looking like a fcking idiot. canada needs to stop trying to orchestrate everyday human behavior and that includes hating some sob who needs a good ass kicking and is lucky to just get words.

Posted by: nyc redneck at December 04, 2009 07:25 PM (mItME)

20 The solution to Boissoin's rant is a well-reasoned counter-rant, not an arrest.


Indeed. This has become a rarefied concept. Let's make it popular again!

Posted by: Derak at December 04, 2009 07:25 PM (9MkfZ)

21 I'd hate to see what Obama and his gang are cranking out for textbooks these days. This is going to be a real problem down the road. Propaganda for all his liberal/leftist causes will infintrate all segments.  See if that I am wrong.

Posted by: mystry at December 04, 2009 07:25 PM (kmgIE)

22 Hmm, common sense is starting to break out. Wonder what 2010 will be like.

Oh, and if you can't condemn the sin, how do you save the sinner?

Posted by: Iblis at December 04, 2009 07:29 PM (UQCPr)

23

Gay Pride, Islamo Pride, Oba Ma pride, Mexicali pride, Native American pride, All on hats and shirts for us to see.

White Pride?  Haters

Posted by: lowest strata at December 04, 2009 07:32 PM (+deAS)

24
Oh, and if you can't condemn the sin, how do you save the sinner?

Well, for instance, Jesus was fond of dining with outcasts. The Pharisees were always aghast that he would eat with "tax collectors and prostitutes." So he befriended them, but was always solid in his moral teachings. He didn't harshly castigate them--he saved his most vehement criticisms for the Pharisees themselves.

Posted by: Shooter McGavin at December 04, 2009 07:34 PM (cxGtL)

25 I seem to recall a Mark Steyn column about an anti-flag burning amendment a couple years ago. My google-fu skills aren't quite what they should be after a 650mL bottle of Baltic Porter, but I remember that he came out against it, basically saying that unfettered free speech allows us to clearly identify who is an asshole.

Ah, here's the key sentence.

http://tinyurl.com/yh86wke

"if Democrat senators want to make speeches comparing the U.S. military to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge, they should be free to do so. It's always useful to know what people really believe."

I second Shooter McGavin's comment, btw.

Posted by: Chuckles at December 04, 2009 07:37 PM (yBxEW)

26 25
Oh, and if you can't condemn the sin, how do you save the sinner?

Well, for instance, Jesus was fond of dining with outcasts. The Pharisees were always aghast that he would eat with "tax collectors and prostitutes." So he befriended them, but was always solid in his moral teachings. He didn't harshly castigate them--he saved his most vehement criticisms for the Pharisees themselves.

Posted by: Shooter McGavin at December 04, 2009 11:34 PM (cxGtL)

He also pulled an intergalactic "Chuck Norris" on the temple money changers.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 04, 2009 07:44 PM (H7Rlw)

27

@20: canada needs to stop trying to orchestrate everyday human behavior ...

...you too will know our pain...the liberal thought police are running wild in the good old U.S. of A.  You guys can't even produce a good movie or TV show anymore without a dose of behaviour modification in it...

Posted by: CanaDave at December 04, 2009 07:46 PM (hS0i0)

28 Ezra Levant needs to get some appreciation for this, he dug this abomination up last year and has pushed relentlessly to shine some light on these roaches.  

I like Ezra's call to arms: Fire.Them.All.  

He in fact republished Rev. Boisson's letter on his blog, not because he agrees with the content but because he wanted to highlight the anti-Christian hypocrisy.  Sure enough, a CHRC complaint was filed, then dismissed under what Ezra called "The Jewish Exemption".


Posted by: Delicious Lead Paint at December 04, 2009 07:56 PM (5Ykni)

29 "In my view, the judge's ruling sets such strict standards for hate speech that this section is rendered all but unenforceable."

I'll bet that he just wants to 'slhap that judge justh soooooooo thsilly'.

Posted by: GarandFan at December 04, 2009 07:59 PM (ZQBnQ)

30

for the record, darren lund is not gay, he is a professor with the University of Calgary, he brought the Human Rights complain on behalf of the gays that might otherwise have their feelings hurt as a result of the Rev's letter.

that's how the Human Rights racket works, you don't have to be in the agrieved group to launch a complain.  as a matter of fact, the majority of the section 13 human rights complain in Canada were launched by one Richard Warman, a former employee of the Human Rights Commission.

 

Posted by: canuk at December 04, 2009 08:27 PM (LN9Ve)

31

Check out Ezra Levant on youtube. He makes these commissions look like kangaroo courts. That lawyer bitch that seemingly runs the HRC for Alberta did my divorce for me and made more money on it than my ex. She's a very well paid rottweiler.

The Mark Steyn HRC gong show is there also.

Warman has made HRC complaints into an income stream. Looks like Steyn's case might end this garbage.

HRC have overstepped their bounds and should be eliminated.

Posted by: chicocano at December 04, 2009 08:59 PM (2n5cq)

32 OT Just watched about as much as I could stand of Al Gore being interviewed by David Letterman.  It would have been easier to watch if Letterman had dropped trou bent over the desk and let Gore gore him.  If I ever compiled a list of people I could not stand these two would be on the top.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at December 04, 2009 09:05 PM (RQ+qN)

33 "It would have been easier to watch if Letterman had dropped trou bent over the desk and let Gore gore him."

Kindly point me to the brain bleach station.  Thank you.

Posted by: Delicious Lead Paint at December 04, 2009 09:14 PM (5Ykni)

34

Kindly point me to the brain bleach station.  Thank you.


Watch 4 episodes of House and call me in the morning.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at December 04, 2009 09:35 PM (RQ+qN)

35 Excellent prescription, Ohio Dan.  Probably less paperwork involved, anyways

Posted by: Delicious Lead Paint at December 04, 2009 09:54 PM (5Ykni)

36 #36 that is one hilarius handle you have there.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at December 04, 2009 10:00 PM (RQ+qN)

37 36 that is one hilarius handle you have there. Posted by: Ohio Dan

Heh thanks.  I was just reading an article warning parents about the danger of kids ingesting paint in older homes, it can cause a loss of 5-10 IQ points.  And I couldn't help but think that kids who eat paint are probably not geniuses to start with.

Posted by: Delicious Lead Paint at December 04, 2009 10:16 PM (5Ykni)

38 BTW, "lund" is Hindi for "penis". Thought you should know

Posted by: Zimriel at December 04, 2009 10:57 PM (04p0/)

39 Well, currently we don't have to worry about "hate speech" here. The Supremes have already said that the speech laws are unconstitutional.

Too bad they ruled that the "hate crimes" were not unconstitutional as well.

Posted by: Vic at December 04, 2009 11:16 PM (CDUiN)

40 Cleanup on aisle 41?

Posted by: qrstuv at December 05, 2009 05:54 AM (0yN7E)

41 Honestly, it's like the spammers aren't even trying anymore.

Posted by: NR Pax at December 05, 2009 06:35 AM (+UhmW)

42 At least smartphones adds its opinion to the mix.  Sheesh.

Posted by: Delicious Lead Paint at December 05, 2009 06:52 AM (5Ykni)

43 So...not a great guy.

That is as offensive and objectionable as what he said to about half the population, Gabe. Just so you know.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 05, 2009 07:42 AM (PQY7w)

44 Saying he's not a great guy is as offensive as calling supporters of gays "as immoral as pedophiles"?

Get. The fuck. Out.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 05, 2009 08:20 AM (Mi2wf)

45 "That is as offensive and objectionable" Saying "X isn't a great guy" is AS offensive as what he said? You continue to amaze, CT, you nasty little Savanorola, you.

Posted by: Knemon at December 05, 2009 08:38 AM (cDp5Z)

46 To a great number of people that is, yes. Because you're effectively saying "what you believe and base your faith upon is a lie."

Think about it a while.

I know you've been raised to believe that anyone who thinks homosexual behavior is sinful is some kind of insane monster, but try to step outside that box.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 05, 2009 09:39 AM (PQY7w)

47 Because you're effectively saying "what you believe and base your faith upon is a lie."

You  base your faith on believing that gays are recruiting children and that those who support gays are as immoral as pedophiles?

I think we've come to the root of a problem here, but...well, shit that's so not a description of any variation of Christianity I've ever heard of. You base your faith on issues about gays? What?

The Bible has dozens (hundreds?) of admonitions relating to proper behavior for straights or married couples (presumed straight, back in the day). It has a handful of admonitions about gays. But you've based your faith on the gay stuff?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 05, 2009 11:55 AM (Mi2wf)

48

remember- it's adam and eve not adam and steve.

homosexuality = closed system = fail.

Posted by: A. Sulliven (limey) at December 05, 2009 12:35 PM (0tAgj)

49

i oppose gay marriage but i do not consider it a disease but i do consider it weird...........................Garbiel Malor is awesome

 

let the gays have civil unions

Posted by: B35toMotherGaston at December 05, 2009 01:46 PM (94Ssm)

50

Queers love to say, "I would not wish this on anyone."

Meanwhile setting your kids up with FagPorn Literature (see post by the Boss).

Lastly, Some may question my judgement because I like to smoke pot rather than drink.  Fair enough.

I question the judgement of someone who sees a mans hairy asshole and still maintains a boner!

Posted by: Cpl. Hudson at December 06, 2009 10:35 AM (Bs8Te)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
94kb generated in CPU 0.0359, elapsed 0.2325 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.186 seconds, 178 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.