The Red Deer Advocate was the paper that published Stephen Boissoin’s original letter to the editor denouncing the homosexual propaganda machine. Lori Andreachuk, the Star Chamber Judge, in addition to fining Rev. Boissoin $7000 for his orthodox Christian opinion, also issued a Gay Fatwa against him by ordering him never to think bad things about the Gay political agenda again….ever. She ordered a lifetime ban against negative thoughts. To avoid being dragged before the Tribunal, the Red Deer Advocate caved and struck a plea bargain. But suddenly, in yesterday’s Op-Ed, they woke up and realized their very credibility as a free press had been ripped off by the AHRC. This part of the editorial was particularly sweet:
The galling presumption of the rights commission to subvert a newspaper’s own judgments over whether, when or where it should publish coerced opinions offers a window into its dangerous thinking. The commission has its own website where it can readily publish any and all of its documents. Curiously though, more than two weeks after its Decision on Remedy was handed down, that ruling was not posted. The more fundamental and serious defects of the rights commission surround its flawed processes that can lead to repressive and dangerous fallout…The rights commission judged that Boissoin’s words “likely” exposed homosexuals to hatred or contempt. That’s a judgment based on scant evidence and a warped reading of Boissoin’s comments. It was arrived at by ignoring some of Boissoin’s phrases and misinterpreting others…Now, the rights of Albertans to publicly express views that they honestly believe are being constrained not by criminal law, but by fear of being hauled before a rights commission and the certainty of accumulating massive legal bills to defend themselves.More egregiously, the rights commission not only wants to censure hateful speech (a laudable goal), but to pre-emptively deny some Albertans the right to express their legitimate views on certain topics. The commission forbids Boissoin from writing “disparaging remarks” about gays — a phrase that has dubious legal weight — and forbids him, in advance, from writing critically about Lund’s involvement in this case. This is called prior restraint. It’s an abomination in any free and democratic society. But it’s what Lund sought and what the misguided rights commission has agreed to order. – Joe McLaughlin is Advocate managing editor.
With the censorship baggage that Darren Lund is starting to carry around his neck, I would be very surprised if even the Gay Pride Parade will have him back as next year’s captain. Then again, it’s probably a suitable match both for the University he works for and the Jackboots who sponsor the Parade.
But, getting back to the issue at hand. If The Advocate truly means what they said above, they should prove it.
Republish Boissoin’s original letter and defy the Star Chamber.
They should name the date and the whole blogosphere will publish the letter simultaneously. In fact, all the papers in the country should do it.