Back in 2005, Rev. Stephen Boissoin, an Alberta Christian Pastor, was hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission in response to a complaint filed by Darren Lund, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary. Boissoin made politically incorrect thoughts about homosexual acts and those who advocate for them in our schools, and because he did not conform his sexual views with the Alberta Sex Police in publishing a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, he was hauled before the province’s Kangaroo Kourt to explain his letter which you can read here. The Catholic Church, of course, has its own very clear views on the subject:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357)
Whatever anyone thinks of the letter, the issue at play here is whether the State has a role in censoring a Christian pastor. Last Friday, on behalf of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, Lori Andreachuk, nailed Rev. Boissoin with a $5,000 fine and ordered him to do some very obscene things -things which would be considered cruel and unusual punishment in real courts. As an aside, Ms. Andreachuck is not a real judge or even a constitutional lawyer but rather only a divorce lawyer. I suppose being involved in a “grievance” field like divorce makes her an ideal candidate for the ultimate grievance job going which, of course, is to work for a Human Rights Commission hustling tears and fears of the perpetually aggrieved. She’s the same Andreachuk whom Ezra Levant ripped into during his interrogation. Here’s one of the clips where he offers his opinion to Shirley McGovern, one of the AHRC Queens, about Lori Andreachuck and the latter’s views on free speech:
“Pretend” Judge Lori Andreachuk’s ruling was packed with some rather astonishing stuff which I have italicized below and to which I have added some commentary.
In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward…
So, in other words, we’re making up victims in order to compensate people who complain. We don’t need a victim for this pre-crime, speech-crime to get compensated for our non-pain and non-hurt feelings. The Human Rights Act was transgressed! The important thing is that the offender is forced to pay to show the world that Canada is a big champion of a law which supports a victimless crime.
Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.
Let me get this straight. The complainant suffers ridicule for his stupid and farcical complaint and that entitles him to “compensation” for “ridicule” and “harassment”? We’ve moved from compensating complainants who purport to be victims to those who make no such claim to being direct victims at all! Just a few tears and the shakedown for cash may commence by invoking the jackboot of the State.
Apparently Dr. Darren Lund cannot win the debate through conventional means of dialogue and argument, but instead he must rely on the State to force a “victory” for his side. It tells you something of a man who believes forcing a sockpuppet apology at the behest of the State is some big win. How strong can his views be if they are so brittle and weak that he must seek the State to silence his opponent? Does Dr. Lund really believe he has accomplished anything, except to infuriate and stir up those whom he opposes by such thuggery? Does he not see that his very actions are a cause of contempt and provide a genesis for the stirring of hatred where no genuine hatred lurked before?
Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.
What does that mean? I guess it means he can’t complain about the local gay activist who wants to pump his kids’ school with gay sensitivity training. I can see all the parents out there just jumping for joy at that one. Censorship is always a good thing when your kids are being subject to gay education at the hands of homosexual activists. It prevents the news from getting out into the community.
…prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund’s witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint..
More thuggery. Not only can Rev. Boissoin not preach about the problems of homosexuality anymore, he must refrain from disturbing his non-victim, the liberal professor at Calgary U who won’t tolerate criticism.
Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint.
Ezra Levant’s remarks about this one are right on:
This is like a Third World jail-house confession — where accused criminals are forced to sign false statements of guilt. But the thing about jail-house confessions is that they at least pretend to be real. The forcible nature of them is kept secret. Not here: Andreachuk just comes out and says it: you’re going to say you’re sorry, even if you aren’t. That’s a bizarre “remedy”. It’s meaningless, other than as a thought crime. We don’t even “order” murderers to apologize to their victims’ families. Because we know that a forced apology is meaningless. But not if your point is to degrade Christian pastors.
shall pay to Dr. Lund an award for damages, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,000.00.
Dr. Lund is the non-victim in this case. He just happened to read something he didn’t like. Instead of duking it out like a man in the local paper, he went running like a “scaredy pants” to the AHRC for “remedy”. And he got it. Next time someone reads something offensive in the paper that you wrote, watch out! The Cash Shakedown can start at anytime.
And like the case against Mark Steyn, we see yet another instance of the State trying to muzzle a religious opinion with which it does not agree. That’s why I call the HRCs, the Canadian Religious Authority because that is what they are. They seek to muzzle dissent and fine people who don’t subscribe to their dogmas of faux tolerance, liberal duplicity, and sexual dictatorship.
Please do your part and sign the petition to gut the HRCs if you have not done so already:
Boissoin has responded to the ruling, declaring: “I will never apologize regardless of the consequences and I will not pay fines unless failing to do so prevents my ability to appeal…….I stand by what I said and how I said it. I stand by MY context and interpretation of it. I publicly declare that I do not hate homosexuals and further declare that I love God and regardless how I too stumble through this life, I believe that His teachings are true, relevant and worthy of proclamation, again, regardless of the consequences.”
Folks, this is the sort of intestinal fortitude that we need to change things in this country. If there be no pain and sacrifice, there will be no victory. If you think so, you need to get off your socialist meds.
Please consider making a donation to Rev. Boissoin’s Battle against the Alberta’s Kangaroo Kourt here:
Gerald D. Chipeur, Q.C., Partner
Miller Thomson LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
700 – 9th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, AB T2P 3V4