Comments on: Canadian Courts To Hear Queer Case http://www.queerty.com/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/ Free of an agenda. Except that gay one. Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:17:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Religious Gay-Bashing May Be Off Limits in Canada | Open Excess http://www.queerty.com/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15305 Religious Gay-Bashing May Be Off Limits in Canada | Open Excess Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:51:25 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/news/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15305 [...] a man named Stephen Boission’s published an open letter in the Red Deer Advocate that had the following. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, [...] [...] a man named Stephen Boission’s published an open letter in the Red Deer Advocate that had the following. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, [...]

]]> By: nycstudman http://www.queerty.com/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15086 nycstudman Tue, 17 Jul 2007 02:18:35 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/news/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15086 speedsausage: you've done your research obviously. But I still say, looking at the law as you lay it out that, at least in terms of our 1st Amendment, it's way too broad. #3b could theoretically apply to everything from Disney's The Little Mermaid to Will & Grace. We'd be left with everyting at the level of Barney & Sesame St. All art and speech involves hatred on some level. speedsausage: you’ve done your research obviously. But I still say, looking at the law as you lay it out that, at least in terms of our 1st Amendment, it’s way too broad. #3b could theoretically apply to everything from Disney’s The Little Mermaid to Will & Grace. We’d be left with everyting at the level of Barney & Sesame St. All art and speech involves hatred on some level.

]]> By: George Bubble http://www.queerty.com/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15078 George Bubble Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:30:00 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/news/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15078 And thanks, Speedsausage, it's good to know the actual facts of the case. In light of the criteria listed there, which are actually much stricter than I had imagined, it seems like this Boissoin will probably lose. 3(1)a is pretty obvious. Gays are certainly a class of persons, and if Boissoin's statements do not contain an intention to discriminate (and to discriminate against those who do not discriminate), what does? Moreover, Boissoin's statement would certainly bring contempt and hatred to gays within the religious community over which Boissoin evidently wields some authority. Presumably this would violate their religious rights. Also, his statement about same-sex families alone is enough to convict him. I fully expect he'll be convicted. And I doubt it will have any noticeable impact on Canadian society. His guilt will hinge on his having issued the statement in his capacity as a person of authority, and for actively propagating the statement, which demonstrates his serious intention to violate the rights of other citizens. This won't affect guys sitting around in bars. It won't even affect pundits and commentators, who have no inherent authority. Nor will it affect people of authority who confine their hatred to unofficial pronouncements. Just my prediction, but whatever. And thanks, Speedsausage, it’s good to know the actual facts of the case. In light of the criteria listed there, which are actually much stricter than I had imagined, it seems like this Boissoin will probably lose.

3(1)a is pretty obvious. Gays are certainly a class of persons, and if Boissoin’s statements do not contain an intention to discriminate (and to discriminate against those who do not discriminate), what does?

Moreover, Boissoin’s statement would certainly bring contempt and hatred to gays within the religious community over which Boissoin evidently wields some authority. Presumably this would violate their religious rights.

Also, his statement about same-sex families alone is enough to convict him.

I fully expect he’ll be convicted. And I doubt it will have any noticeable impact on Canadian society. His guilt will hinge on his having issued the statement in his capacity as a person of authority, and for actively propagating the statement, which demonstrates his serious intention to violate the rights of other citizens. This won’t affect guys sitting around in bars. It won’t even affect pundits and commentators, who have no inherent authority. Nor will it affect people of authority who confine their hatred to unofficial pronouncements.

Just my prediction, but whatever.

]]> By: George Bubble http://www.queerty.com/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15076 George Bubble Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:10:40 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/news/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15076 I'm against one possible interpretation of one possible result. I don't see this as a simple issue of free speech / no free speech, because both extremes are intolerable in practice. In order to say whatever one wants, one has to be prepared to accept responsibility for the results of one's words, especially if one is in a position of authority, or if one's words are likely to harm someone in a particularly vulnerable position who is unable to adequately respond. Admittedly, this is a very bad case to test such an issue. It's unlikely that many people take the guy's words seriously. So I doubt the decision will have a deep or far-reaching effect on the underlying issue. I’m against one possible interpretation of one possible result. I don’t see this as a simple issue of free speech / no free speech, because both extremes are intolerable in practice. In order to say whatever one wants, one has to be prepared to accept responsibility for the results of one’s words, especially if one is in a position of authority, or if one’s words are likely to harm someone in a particularly vulnerable position who is unable to adequately respond. Admittedly, this is a very bad case to test such an issue. It’s unlikely that many people take the guy’s words seriously. So I doubt the decision will have a deep or far-reaching effect on the underlying issue.

]]> By: speedsausage http://www.queerty.com/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15075 speedsausage Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:00:43 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/news/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15075 Agreed, this isn't landmark. Probably the most significant case involving freedom of speech was R. V. Keegstra (Canadian Supreme Court) which upheld sections of the criminal code prohibiting the unlawful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group as constitutional under the freedom of expression provision in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The issue here is did Boissoi violate the Alberta Humand Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. I think the relevant section is: 3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or (b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject. Decide for yourself Agreed, this isn’t landmark. Probably the most significant case involving freedom of speech was R. V. Keegstra (Canadian Supreme Court) which upheld sections of the criminal code prohibiting the unlawful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group as constitutional under the freedom of expression provision in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The issue here is did Boissoi violate the Alberta Humand Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. I think the relevant section is:

3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.

Decide for yourself

]]> By: nycstudman http://www.queerty.com/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15047 nycstudman Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:09:40 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/news/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15047 I'm agin it. Canada's laws are much more restrictive than ours, but it's a sword that cuts both ways, to wit: They interdict porn from US if it has anything remotely offensive, like implication of incest. I’m agin it. Canada’s laws are much more restrictive than ours, but it’s a sword that cuts both ways, to wit: They interdict porn from US if it has anything remotely offensive, like implication of incest.

]]> By: George Bubble http://www.queerty.com/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15045 George Bubble Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:03:35 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/news/canadian-courts-to-hear-queer-case-20070716/#comment-15045 I'm not convinced that this is a landmark anything. If Boissoin were accusing Canada's Jews of drinking Christian blood, the argument could be made that he is exercising his free speech. But (ignorant as I am about Canadian law) I'm fairly sure he would be convicted of libel, defamation, hate speech, or some variation on that theme. Boissoin is basically accusing gays of committing crimes. He is certainly making unfounded statements that could reasonably be expected to provoke hatred and violence against the gay community. I'm not entirely sure whether he should be found guilty or not. My point is that if he is, it won't really prove anything, because it isn't an issue purely of free speech. It isn't his opinion that is being censored - it's his decision to present defamatory lies as a result of that opinion. At any rate, that's how I see this. I’m not convinced that this is a landmark anything. If Boissoin were accusing Canada’s Jews of drinking Christian blood, the argument could be made that he is exercising his free speech. But (ignorant as I am about Canadian law) I’m fairly sure he would be convicted of libel, defamation, hate speech, or some variation on that theme.

Boissoin is basically accusing gays of committing crimes. He is certainly making unfounded statements that could reasonably be expected to provoke hatred and violence against the gay community.

I’m not entirely sure whether he should be found guilty or not. My point is that if he is, it won’t really prove anything, because it isn’t an issue purely of free speech. It isn’t his opinion that is being censored – it’s his decision to present defamatory lies as a result of that opinion. At any rate, that’s how I see this.

]]>