News Talk 770 Blogs
Podcasts
Share This Page
    Like us on Facebook
     


Partial Victory for Free Speech in Alberta
Posted 12/3/2009 6:54:00 PM
UPDATE: You can listen to our interview with Stephen Boissoin and John Carpay via our podcast page.
 
 
The case of Rev. Stephen Boissoin has been one of the flashpoints in the debate here in Alberta regarding freedom of speech and the role of human rights commission.
 
The Canadian Constitution Foundation explains the background thusly
In 2008, an Alberta Human Rights Panel ordered Reverend Stephen Boissoin to pay $5,000 to University of Calgary professor Darren Lund in respect of a letter Reverend Boissoin wrote in 2002, published in the Red Deer Advocate. In his letter to the editor, Reverend Boissoin expressed his opposition to homosexuality being portrayed positively in the public school curriculum, and commented on other public policy matters. Professor Lund complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission that the letter violated section 3(1)(b) of Alberta’s human rights legislation, which bans expression that “is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt” because of race, religious beliefs, colour, and other grounds.
We've covered the case many times including here (where you can read the infamous letter), here, here, here, and here.
 
Boissoin appealed the panel's ruling to a real court, i.e. the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.
 
Today, we got a ruling from the court, and it's a mixed bag:
Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice E.C. Wilson set aside the Panel’s order against Reverend Boissoin, ruling that Reverend Boissoin did not violate section 3(1)(b) of the legislation. Accordingly, the Order against Reverend Boissoin, that he pay $5,000 to Professor Lund and that he refrain from making “disparaging remarks” about homosexuals, is no longer in force.

“I am pleased that the Human Rights Panel Order against Reverend Boissoin has been overturned,” stated John Carpay, lawyer and Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

“Unfortunately, the law that was used against Reverend Boissoin to subject him to expensive and stressful legal proceedings for more than seven years, is still on the books,” added Carpay.

“In spite of today’s court ruling, Albertans need to continue to exercise extreme caution when speaking about public policy issues, lest they offend someone who then files a human rights complaint. No citizen is safe from being subjected to a taxpayer-funded prosecution for having spoken or written something that a fellow citizen finds offensive,” continued Carpay
 
More here
Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Earl Wilson said Rev. Stephen Boissoin’s letter may have been “bewildering, puerile, nonsensical and insulting,” but it wasn’t unlawful.

“The language does not go so far as to fall within the prohibited status of ‘hate’ or ‘contempt,’” Wilson said, in a written decision.

(...)
The judge said there was nothing in the letter to suggest it was exhorting Albertans to discriminate against homosexuals in areas of employment, tenancy, or goods and services which fall under provincial jurisdiction.

“The letter’s target audience are people that (Boissoin) believes are apathetic to the inroads made by the ‘homosexual machine,’” Wilson said.

“Inferring some sort of call for discriminatory practices prohibited by provincial law is an unreasonable interpretation of the letter’s message.”
 
Very encouraging that Boissoin's odious conviction and punishment were overturned, but disappointing that Section 3 remains in force. The judge seems to have an appreciation for the fundamental issues here, but chose not to overturn Section 3 itself.
 
Of course, the blame for the section's continued existence lies largely with the Stelmach government which cowardly backed away from eliminating or reforming Section 3 in their farcical Bill 44.
 
There's nothing stopping the government from now doing the right thing and scrapping Section 3. I won't be holding my breath, however.
 
UPDATE: Full ruling below (via BCF):
 
Boissoin Ruling
Posted By: Rob Breakenridge  

Leave a comment:

showing all comments · Subscribe to comments
Comment Like
  • 10
  1. Stephen Boissoin posted on 12/03/2009 10:26 PM
    But a full victory for me....praise God!!!!!!
  2. Rob H posted on 12/04/2009 10:20 PM
    Another reason Stelmach has to go. The man is a mental midget.
  3. Stephen Boissoin posted on 12/06/2009 01:47 AM
    The decision of Justice Earl Wilson of the Court of Queen's Bench in Boissoin v Lund will have a significant long term positive impact on religious freedom in Canada: 1. The decision established a very high threshold for the conclusion that a publication is in violation of the "hate" provisions of Alberta's human rights laws. The prosecutor, Dr. Lund, told the Canadian Press that "If the language contained in the letter does not meet the threshold of hateful, I am not certain what possibly would." If Dr. Lund is right, then there will be no further prosecutions. The decision of the Alberta Human Rights Commission to withdraw from the case suggests that the Commission learned from Dr. Lund's mistake. There is no place for thought control in a free and democratic society. 2. Dr. Lund told the Calgary Herald that the decision of Justice Wilson "takes away the tools at our disposal". He is correct. The tools of censorship should not be available to prohibit freedom of expression in Canada. There is no circumstance in a free society where limitations on political or religious debate can be justified. 3. While the decision did not strike down Alberta's "hate speech" laws, it significantly limited the application of such laws. Justice Wilson properly pointed out that a province may not duplicate the federal Criminal Code rules outlawing hate crime. Furthermore, Justice Wilson interpreted the provision in question as only prohibiting hateful words that lead to discriminatory activity under the provincial human rights legislation. Justice Wilson found that Stephen Boissoin's letter to the editor was not hateful and did not cause discriminatory behaviour. It is difficult to conceive of a political or religious debate that would meet the two part test established in the legislation. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that in the future no religious or political debate will be found to be in breach of the current text of Alberta's human rights laws. Gerald Chipeur, QC
  4. Rob posted on 12/06/2009 11:51 AM
    Thanks for posting that, Stephen
  5. Robert posted on 12/06/2009 10:05 PM
    it is unfortunate that a man who is christian, and thereby a deretic to God is forced to have to defend his blasphemy to a human rights commission on the basis of what he considers to be a sinful lifestyle. if he were a true man of God, he would forsake the false religion of christianity and worship of the false idol of the christ and turn to either Judaism or Islam, where he could have a real and honest moral high ground on sinners.
  6. Brenda posted on 12/08/2009 03:31 PM
    Uganda is in the process of putting homosexuals to death and imprsioning anyone who knowingly does not turn them in ... this is why the "Civalized" countries have a human rights division and why it is important to have an avenue to protect those that are at risk.
  7. Tom posted on 12/08/2009 08:30 PM
    BRENDA: civilized countries have Rule of Law, which the HRCs violated in their scramble for convictions. Uganda is wildly outside this context. ROBERT: The only thing Stephen would get from your position is a bad case of self-righteousness. Rule of Law is upheld in Judaism (Israel), but it's largely foreign to Islam. GENERAL NOTE: I'm thankful this decision's been reached! The only drawbacks are Stelmach's refusal to tame the HRC, and Boissoin's got no refund for his time and trouble.
  8. Chris posted on 12/08/2009 09:11 PM
    Brenda, Canada has a criminal code. Perhaps you've heard of it. The criminal code prescribes many things as criminal offences, one of which is "murder". Perhaps you've heard of it. Are you suggesting that without our odious "human rights" commission, our government would be rounding up homosexuals and putting them to death?
  9. Chris posted on 12/08/2009 09:17 PM
    Further Brenda, citizens in our country, be they homosexual or otherwise, are protected by the rule of law, and due process. Neither such things apply to our "human rights" commissions, whose decisions are arbitrary and whimsical. If our government decided to implement a concerted program to wipe out homosexuals, it would probably start by creating a commission much like our "human rights" commissions, or by simply changing the mandate of the current human rights commissions. Keep in mind that unaccountable commissions such as this persecute people based on the whimsical political correctness of the day. The winds of political correctness are fickle and ever-changing. Some day you could easily find yourself in their crosshairs.
  10. Bill Gibbons posted on 12/29/2009 02:54 PM
    Brenda: Have you ever visited the planet Earth?
showing all comments