Canada to Pastor: Shut Up and Pay

That’s the message that has been sent to Canadian pastor Stephen Boissoin of Alberta. On Friday, the provincial Human Rights Commission ordered him to pay $7000 to Darren Lund, a gay rights activist who had Boissoin hauled before the HRC for a letter to the editor he wrote back in 2002 to the Red Deer Advocate. And that’s just the beginning, according to LifeSite News:

On Friday, the Alberta Human Rights Commission ordered Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public outlet. He was also commanded to pay damages equivalent to $7,000 as a result of the tribunal’s November decision to side with complainant and homosexual activist Dr. Darren Lund. The tribunal has also called for Boissoin to personally apologize to Lund via a public statement in the local newspaper.

The remedy order demands the pastor to pay $5,000 to Lund personally for the “time and energy” he has expended and for the “ridicule and harassment” he has faced. Combined with that financial burden, Boissoin must also pay up to $2,000 in expenses to one of Lund’s witness, provided she produces records of such costs.

The most shocking aspect of the ruling calls for Boissoin to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” Boissoin wondered to what extent the right to freedom of expression in Canada will be deteriorated, stating, “I am not allowed to hold on to my views.”

To be honest, I think he is allowed to hold his views, he just isn’t allowed to speak them in public, despite the guarantees of freedom of speech and religion found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Apparently, those freedoms only hold as long as one proclaims the magnificence of homosexuality.

The amazing thing, from an American perspective, is that Lund–who brought the case and has now profited from it–isn’t mentioned in Boissoin’s letter (it’s rather lengthy, so I won’t reproduce it here, but you can find it here). I wouldn’t agree with everything Boissoin said, and I would have put some things differently, but really–if anyone can claim that they have been somehow hurt by words that weren’t directed at them personally, and that that hurt is so calamitous that they should get monetary damages for their pain and suffering, it seems to me that virtually any form of civil discourse more profound than “gee, some weather were havin’, isn’t it?” becomes almost impossible. The expression of virtually any strong opinion can be said to offend someone, who then brings charges, etc. This is the same creeping authoritarianism that Mark Steyn, Maclean’s magazine, a coterie of Canadian bloggers, a Catholic magazine, and others are now dealing with, and unless they triumph it can only spell the end of real freedom in the Frozen North.

Oh, and in case any of my American readers think this can’t happen here–don’t be too sure.

Truth Unites...and Divides Says:

June 10, 2008 at 1:29 pm

“The amazing thing, from an American perspective, is that Lund–who brought the case and has now profited from it–isn’t mentioned in Boissoin’s letter…”

This is a farce and a travesty. If I had my druthers, Boissoin should file counter-suit against Lund.

Steynianism 166 « Free Mark Steyn! Says:

June 12, 2008 at 12:22 pm

[…] REFORMED PASTOR– Canada to Pastor: Shut Up and Pay …. […]

Michael Teper Says:

June 13, 2008 at 5:05 am

Se my various postings on the subject at http://www.ezralevant.com. Warning: Some of them are vicious, and one of them is not to be viewed by children (no profanity, but a mature theme).

ricardojaime Says:

June 13, 2008 at 4:38 pm

I knew a guy in University who was a perennial stalker of his Ex-wife. He had been arrested many times for it. Until he discovered that he could play the “disability card” — he was “legally” blind (but not blind enough to not play pool, ride a bike, or stalk his Ex). Anyway, when he realized that he had special status as a “disabled person”, then he could stalk his Ex all he wanted! Thenceforth, whenever she complained about him to police for breaking his restraining order, he simply took her to the HRC for “discrimination” and she had to pay through the nose! He laughed about this and once said to me, “I hate to do it again, but I can fill the HRC hearing with a hundred witnesses from the disability community. It’s going to cost her another $7,000”.
The reason I bring this up is because of the case cited above mentioning a $7,000 award. I think it is becoming broadly known by many Interest groups that the HRC’s can be used to scam and intimidate people, and precisely how much money they can extort. They can also rely on false witnesses to testify on their behalf — other members of the Interest group in question. I think there is a very real possibility that they share the extorted “booty” with their witnesses.

Canada is in trouble.

Ricardo

David Fischler Says:

June 13, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Ricardo: Thanks for coming by, and for the amazing story. I agree, Canada is in trouble. I wonder whether it has occurred to any of the people at the various HRCs that they are being used by con artists?

ricardo Says:

June 23, 2008 at 4:55 pm

“Ricardo: Thanks for coming by…I wonder whether it has occurred to any of the people at the various HRCs that they are being used by con artists?”

David: Thanks. I can’t speculate on how much the HRC’s realize they are being used by cons. But the HRC’s are supposed to be smart people – at least they should be if they expect to make sound decisions on such emotional issues.

I suspect that some the conning originates in the HRC’s. For example,

‘…the ruling calls for Boissoin to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet …” I think he is allowed to hold his views, he just isn’t allowed to speak them in public…’

The fact is e-mail is not a public forum. It is private communication – the electronic equivalent of the Postal System, with privacy guaranteed by the provider. E-mail privacy is especially critical when you consider that people use it for intimate relationships, confidential health, security or legal info, business transactions, religion, political affiliations, etc. How are the HRC’s going to monitor Boissoin’s private — password-protected — e-mails, and what are the limits to their handling of his personal information or the information of anyone else with whom he is communicating? For obvious reasons, even the police are required to have warrants for something like that and are held accountable to the courts. Are the HRC’s applying to the courts for warrants, or do they actually think they have greater authority than the judicial system?

It has already been alleged that an HRC investigator illicitly hacked into someone’s system before, engaged in impersonation, and fraudulently used a woman’s e-mail account — see Parliamentary Secretary: “put an end to this out-of-control insanity”. (BTW, I think manipulating mail of any sort is a federal offence – correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Lord Black go to jail for “wire and mail fraud”?). I would find it hard to believe that the HRC’s are unaware of the legal implications of some of their own practices.

As “Chandler” on “Friends” once exclaimed: “Cans opened — worms everywhere!”

This may not be “thought control” yet, but it’s fairly close to it. This is at least institutionalized electronic stalking. And it’s only a step away from forcing Boissoin into rehab for his “dangerous phobia”, should he break the free speech restrictions of the HRC Tribunal. That’s the “Canadian” way of doing of doing things – they probably won’t put him in jail because demagoguery is easier to cloak under the niceities of “helping” someone — e.g.: “C’mon, let’s get this poor guy some psychiatric assistance!”

That’s the path I fully expect this sort of corruption to follow.