1) Stephen Boisson's language was found to be relatively mild compared to the kind of messages employed to set the hate-speech standard.
2) It was noted that the case was about a single letter, not an extended sequence of hate-speech messages:
...which is odd, because I was under the impression that the letter was republished several times afterwards, perhaps on the Concerned Christians website.
3) The kicker seems to be that the assault on a gay youth--which supposedly came about as a result of the letter, and was committed by (among others) an associate of Mr. Boisson who had been exposed repeatedly to the contents of the letter--is treated as alleged, and the evidence drawn from its circumstances as here say. I was under the impression from the original HRC case that none of this (other than the implications for Mr. Boisson's case) was in doubt.
4) In any case, the judge found that the law was misapplied in Boisson's case, and not that it was invalid. A reference was made to the Lemire constitutional challenge, about which the judge wrote
So obviously that case won't serve as anyone's anti-HRC silver bullet.
11 comments:
In fairness to Mr. Boissoin's case, no charges have ever been laid in that assault.
It is alleged to have been connected by virtue of the timing between Boissoin's letter and the assault.
Factually, that connection has not been established. The original AHRC ruling acknowledged this, but went on to state that the connection was likely and should not be ignored in the context.
And also, I thought, because one of the assailants was from B's teen mission, and was exposed quite heavily to the letter (by B's reading and rereading of it).
The inferred causal connection in the Boissoin case is something we speech warriors (tm) picked up on and criticized strongly.
So Lemire isn't a silver bullet, but this is still a pretty good result. After all, the judge accepted at least one of our arguments.
Stephen Boisson's language was found to be relatively mild compared to the kind of messages employed to set the hate-speech standard.
Just replace the word "Homosexual" with "Jew" and I'm sure the decision would have been different.
Even if charges were laid, as long as no convictions happened, it's "alleged". The judge isn't personally casting doubt on the assault. That's the way legal opinions are written. If something wasn't established beyond reasonable doubt in court, it is "alleged".
In regards to the alleged assault. The supposed victim was given my letter by the reporter.
There was no complaint filed with the RCMP at any time. There was no investigation. No witness at the hearing, no agent for the witness and no resporter.
A former 'client' from my youth centre claimed that she heard me talking about the boys that did it. The facts are that she may have heard me speculating as to who may have done such IF it even happened. The first I heard about it was in the paper. My youth centre dealth with at-risk youth and I had a strong partnership with the RCMP. I was actually a volunteer Restorative Justice Facilitator with them. I was always on the look-out for teens at my facility that may be involved in a crime.
Those that know me and worked with me, were in absolute disbelief that sich a malicious accusation could be made.
The RCMP offered to testify but our application to the court for them to do so was declined.
The judge did knew that the accusation was way out of line and without credibility.
Lund had an agenda and attempted to win at all cost.
Oh, I'm sure the people who know you were shocked and appalled by the accusations. Your kind always are when held to account.
Why don't people actually get the facts on this case. Read the legal brief submitted by Stephen Boissoin and the judges decision:
http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/uploads/Bo...
http://stephenboissoin.com/downloads/scan013_2009...
Find out who Steve was and is. You will not find single bad word written about him by any one who actually knew him then or knows him now. And he was a well known youth worker at the time. He had given everything he had to helping troubled kids, including many gay kids. No one who knows him would accuse him of hurting a fly.
This case was based on the allegation that a gay teenager had been assulted because of the letter. There is no evidence this ever happened. No police report was ever filed. The alleged victim was never identified to the commission or the court. Someone??? took a teenager to the Red Deer Advocate to complain about the letter. Darren Lund, an anti-Christian activist, was a high school teacher in Red Deer at the time, who wanted to bring a United Church minister into the school to teach the kids that the Bible was wrong about homosexuality. Steve had every right to respond. He saw the evidence every day of the harm that promiscuity and lack of moral context regarding every kind of sexuality was having on kids. He had every moral and Charter right to respond to government policy in the public schools.
Steve's letter may have been strongly worded and have offended some people, but Darren Lund could have responded by writing a letter himself, but instead, he went home crying and got Big Brother to come take the other kids lunch money. Probably in the range of $200,000 in expenses for Steve. And a ridiculous order from the "Human Rights" Tribunal that Steve pay $5000 to Lund, a non-victim for his whining and suffering and apologize to Lund publically for his deeply held religious beliefs. Even serial killers can not be ordered to do this (maybe in North Korea they can). Thankfully Judge Wilson did every thing but laugh out loud at this.
Darren Lund is a Hate Pimp. For this, many liberal organizations have richly rewarded him, including giving him an associate professorship at U of C.
Stephen Boissoin has been put through more than 7 years of hell for voicing very controversial opinions. Even if you hate Stephen's words, how many of us have not done exactly that, even in writing. Read the letter now that it can actually be published freely. Every one of us should be grateful to Steve for not just giving in to this thug and PAYING HIM OFF like many who have been hauled before these evil Inquisitions have done, just to make it go away.
As for threats of violence against Lund; maybe someone in the media should ask what kind of threats Stephen got, like HIV loaded syringes. He just doesn't whine about it and portray himself as a victim the way Lund does.
By the way, Stephen never compared people in consensual relationships to pedophiles. He was talking about radical activists in the public schools and NAMBLA.
@rcmagpie:
He was talking about radical activists in the public schools and NAMBLA.
... and just what is a "radical activist"? As far as I can tell from the language of Boissoin's letter it's anybody who dares advocate that GLBT people should be equal participants in society - that's an amazingly broad brush, IMO.
Humans, whether individuals or governments, cross a dangerous line when they go beyond judging men' evil deeds (we are called to judge right from wrong according to law), and start judging the motivations of a man's heart (love or hate). That is God's territory.
Post a Comment