America’s religious conservatives are masking their homophobia — and disdain for same-sex marriage — under the guise of “religious persecution.” So goes the argument: By enacting marriage equality, the state will somehow infringe upon the constitutionally protected freedoms of churches. But not only have faith-based bigots failed to prove their nightmare scenario true, now they can look to the north for a little assurance that letting the homos marry won’t infringe on their right to preach hate.
In Canada, former Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin is off the hook for his 2002 open letter called “Homosexual wicked agenda,” where he described gays as immoral as pedophiles and drug dealers. Dubbed a hate crime just last year by the by the Alberta Human Rights Commission, the letter’s writing violated no law, says a Court of Queen’s Bench judge, overturning the ruling. (The original complaint was brought by Darren Lund, who is not gay, but is a former teacher.)
At the time, the commission said it may even have played a role in the beating of a gay teenager two weeks after it was published.
The commission had ordered Boissoin to refrain from making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and to pay the complainant, former Red Deer high school teacher Darren Lund, $5,000 in damages.
Neither order can now be enforced, as Wilson declared them “unlawful or unconstitutional.”
The letter carried the headline “Homosexual agenda wicked” and suggested gays were as immoral as pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps.
Boissoin had argued he was simply commenting on government policy by criticizing homosexuality being portrayed positively in the public school curriculum.
On Thursday, Boissoin said he was thrilled with the judge’s ruling, calling it a victory for “freedom of speech and religious expression in Canada.”
At the time he wrote the letter, Boissoin was a pastor with the Concerned Christian Coalition. He now works in the housing industry.
Lund, who is now a professor at the University of Calgary, said he was disappointed.
“I really think this is a step backwards for our province,” he said in an email to The Canadian Press.
“In my view, the judge’s ruling sets such strict standards for hate speech that this section is rendered all but unenforceable.
So why should, say, the Catholic Church in America be relieved? Because in Canada, there’s an even lesser standard when it comes to qualifying rhetoric as “hate speech.”
That law, the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, says no one shall publish a statement that is likely “to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt” because of their sexual orientation.
And still Boissoin was let off the hook. In the U.S., there is no such law, or anything similar. Yes, incitement to violence is a crime; neither a pastor nor a homeless man can legally call for the assault or murder of another person. But merely expressing your ridiculous anti-gay views? Still kosher, even in a country with harsher limitations on what’s okay to say.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
So just what terrible things did Boissoin even write? “Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds. … From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators. … Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that kissing men is appropriate.” (via)
j
Notice how its never women that are mentioned? It’s ok to be gay as long as it feeds the sexual fantasies of straight men. And by the looks of him thats as close to anything sexual as he’s getting.
Jaroslaw
Note also that he is apparently not in the ministry any longer, but employed in the housing industry.
I’m not entirely sure this ruling is a good thing. I understand the theory that “no such law exists in the USA” so the bigots have less legs to stand on, but if logic and common sense ruled the day, we wouldn’t be having these disucssions would we?
I would just as soon Alberta had ruled against the bigot, got our religious bigots whipped into a frenzy and let the (hopefully) sane majority see how out of control they are. Middle of the road mush isn’t getting us anywhere, is it?
Bill
The longer I am a citizen of this planet the clearer it becomes that any human being that would affiliate themselves with any religion of any kind should immediately be taken out into a field, shot repeatedly to the head, shit upon, and left for the vultures to eat.
God Bless.
(Did that sound bitchy?)
greybat
Yes, a little, Bill!
Russ
Bill –
It happens all the time already overseas. Question though – is the ‘shit upon’ part your personal favorite technique of necrophilia? Freak.
alejandro
fucking alberta! they gave us stphen harper >:(
R. Klune
I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. Boissoin shared his opinion and a big fuss was made about it. His opinion is his opinion and if you expect everyone to accept homosexuality, it will never happen.
The whole thing was blown out of proprtion and the guy who involved the government(Darren Lund) only made it worse for homosexuals, not better.
Stop whining and get on with your life.
Richard
Jaroslaw
Richard Klune – I made the mistake of calling someone an idiot before on this blog; so I’ll try not to do that here and ask you some questions.
Do you think hate crime legislation is easily passed? Do you think someone is wrong to file a complaint to use the law?
Jaroslaw
sorry, I got distracted – but do you think Mr. Lund was trying to make things bad for Gays?
If you’re not Gay, which I’m guessing by the use of the term homosexual, then why are you even on this blog? Friend of Boission perhaps?
holla
I think it’s a good ruling. Hate speech should be limited to direct incitements of violence against identifiable groups of people. Discussing your problems with queers, while hateful, should not be a crime. It should be something we challenge publicly and socially, but not legally. The Human Rights Commission (a quasi-judicial, not always well-regulated body) overstepped itself and the courts have balanced it out again.
R. Klune
Jaroslaw,
Some of your questions are irrelevant. No, not friends with Boissoin and the terminology matters not as does whether I am gay or not.
I think that Lund’s intent was probably good but the method that he used caused more harm than good. Lund obviously loved the publicity that he received, or did at least before the ruling. Plus, everyone wants to feel important and be needed.
I have tried to remain in the middle on this one in an attempt to observe. I have read numerous articles, comments and opinions about Boisson. Years back one was in the Herald and it included comments from gays who said he treated them like family.
My point is that Boissoin got attacked for a letter to the editor that was clearly about his beef with gay activism. I read it a few times and I did not read any violent intent. The debate would have better been left in his little city and not allowed to blow up around the bloody world.
Lund created an opportunity for Boissoin and for anti-gays to unite and since Lund did so, I believe that you can see a movement has grown and one that is not for gay rights but instead for Christian rights for a lack of a better term. The fringe element like Lund and other gay rights activists who act like he did causes more harm than good. There are many non-breeders who feel this way. Is that term more appropriate?
From what I can tell, Lund did manipulate, distort facts, lie and even go as far as slander and libel. I agree with his desire to enhance tolerance but I disagree with how far he went. He went too far and misconstrued the whole meaning of tolerance.
Again, I am for freedom of speech and sometimes within it, people say things we hate and hurt our feelings. That my friend is an essential element of freedom of speech and we need to get over it and get on with it and stop playing the victim card.
Richard
Canadian
The amount of whining here is amazing! Boissoin is free to spout his anti-homosexual views just as most of you are free to spout your anti-God views (to read the one post above advocating violence is frankly unconscionable). Get a grip people. This is a free country. Do you want to be fascists? Park the persecution complex (if you want that, go to the Islamic world). This had everything to do with an entrepreneurial guy named Lund using a quasi legal system to make money for himself (while using public money to initiate his claim). Kudos to Boissoin. Long live freedom of speech!
Canadian
Steve Boissoin’s website for the interested:
http://www.stephenboissoin.com/
Freedom lover
Here is a copy of the infamous letter:
http://www.stephenboissoin.com/letter.html
How about this comment from Steve’s website:
“If I hate what you say, I’ll accuse you of hate.”
We must NOT allow freedom of speech to die in Canada! This comment is sadly true…If we can’t tolerate someone else’s opinion, do we really believe in freedom?
Jaroslaw
Freedom Lover – I will concede “hate” crimes and “hate” speech may lead us down a slippery slope of diminishing freedoms. STRESS THE WORD M A Y.
However, logically, rationally, why does someone need to express hate for another group? Does freedom really include this? Isn’t the hater impinging on the freedom of the “hatee”? Another thought – the hater is free to “hate” internally all he wants – he is not required to associate in any way with hated groups. So why does he have to make a statement about it?
Further, disliking someone is different from hate and most hate crimes legislation that I’ve looked at (which admittedly is not all) talk mostly about incitement to HARM another person or make them socially outcast. What is wrong with preventing that?
Jaroslaw
R Klune – I missed your response – you know, every story has its intricacies and I understand what you’re trying to say, but I still disagree with it. I have no way of knowing that Lund did all the things you say (lie, slander)which I would not of course defend if he did….. but no one seems to be disputing Boission said some pretty nasty things.
And I have the right not to like it. The AHRC said it was a violation and it may have even influenced a beating. Or that means nothing to you? Don’t say “words are just words” – if they had no effect, why do all companies spend billions on advertising?
As to giving bigots a forum, or ammunition, and Lund causing more harm than good: that is a bullshit reason not to call homophobes on the carpet. They need no ammunition as has been more than amply proven on this blog not to mention hundreds of other media sources. Check out some of the religious right websites. Gaybashing is a cottage industry with them.
Victim card? There may be an element of that sometimes, but think of the alternative. When great injustices are done, the people always say “but you didn’t complain about it, how were we to know anything was wrong?”
dan
R Klune – On what grounds do you believe that Lund manipulated distorted facts or lied? You have no idea who he is or all that he and his family have been through. He has spent his whole life fighting for equality for minorities. From starting the STOP program in schools (Students and Teachers Opposing Prejudice) to trying to stop hateful rhetoric such as Boissoin’s.
I also really don’t see how this could possibly have made Lund any money?? He has spent thousands of his own money pursuing this and what does he have to gain for it? Death threats, people requesting he gets fired from his job, accused of lying by people he is trying to defend?
This is a joke!
Re-read the letter and replace homosexual with Jew or Black Person. How do you think this would have went if that were the case?
Tam Gorzalka
”Because in Canada, there’s an even lesser standard when it comes to qualifying rhetoric as “hate speech.”: That law, the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, says no one shall publish a statement that is likely “to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt” because of their sexual orientation.”
That legislation isn’t actually specific to Alberta, but to all of Canada. It did come about because of an Albertan. Delwin Vriend was an AB teacher fired for being gay. When he went to the Alberta Human Rights Commission to complain he was told that sexual orientation wasn’t protected. He ended up having to take the province to the Canada Supreme Court, which eventually changed laws across the whole country. Alberta was the last province to recognize the changes. And even then, they didn’t do so in writing (what you see above) until 11 whole years later. Which they only finally did because they were backdooring actual ANTI GAY legislation that now makes it so that schools (all K to 12) in Alberta can’t talk about sexual orientation, sexuality or religion without parental consent and if a teacher ignores this they can be charged with a human rights complaint.
This makes my home province the only place in North America with such a law.
I am however extremely shocked that the Alberta Human Rights Commission would be less conservative than the national one. Good thing that my province is working on taking away most of the power of the Commission, then. *cough*
H. Skor
@Bill: While I can understand feeling that way, please realize that there are plenty of faithful people out there who have open hearts and open minds, and who don’t judge people based on their sexuality. People who speak out for the gay community because it’s the right thing to do. Don’t damn us all for the actions of a (very vocal) few.
And Jaroslaw . . . calling someone out for being straight and reading Queerty is absolutely absurd. How is judging someone for being straight any better than someone judging you for being gay? Yes, there will be lurkers who come on this site to harass, criticize, and incite, but most straight people (myself included) who visit this site do so because we care about our society and ALL the people in it.