Free Speech on Trial in Alberta

Free Speech on Trial in Preacher’s Appeal
[ ED NOTE: Mbrandon8026 from Freedom Through Truth was kind enough to let me cross-post this article from his blog. You can read the original here. ]

I received this by email from the Canadian Constitution Foundation and am passing it along as it also appeared in the Vancouver Sun.

By Karen Selick

Calgary Herald, September 16, 2009

Remember Voltaire? He’s the 18th-century French philosopher who is famous for coining the phrase, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

No doubt he will be in the minds of several lawyers appearing this week starting today a Calgary courtroom. They don’t necessarily agree with what Stephen Boissoin wrote in a letter to the Red Deer Advocate in July, 2002 but they’ll be there defending his right to have written it.

Boissoin is the pastor who made headlines across Canada when he was hauled before Alberta’s Human Rights Commission for having expressed in fire-and-brimstone language his opposition to what he considered homosexual “brainwashing” in school curricula. He was charged under Alberta’s Human Rights, Multiculturalism and Citizenship Act (HRMCA) with publishing a statement that was likely to expose a class of persons to hatred or contempt. Almost six years later, he was found guilty and ordered to pay damages of $7,000. As well, he was handed a lifetime prohibition on publishing “disparaging remarks” about homosexuals and about several non-homosexuals who had participated in his prosecution. Finally, he was ordered to provide a written apology for his opinions.

This week, Boissoin’s appeal goes before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. But there will be more on trial than the pastor and his words. The law itself will also be on trial.

Boissoin’s prosecution was conducted under so-called “human rights” legislation enacted by the province of Alberta. Canada’s Criminal Code also contains provisions outlawing “hate speech” but Boissoin was never charged criminally. No wonder–it’s much tougher to convict someone of a genuine criminal offence than a so-called human rights breach.

This difference will form part of the argument before the court. Under Canada’s Constitution, only the federal government has the power to make criminal law. The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), an intervener in the case, will contend that Alberta’s legislature has wrongly attempted to encroach on exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The CCF will also argue, based on many decades of jurisprudence, that there is no section of the constitution permitting a province to outlaw speech. Without constitutional authority, a province cannot just merrily legislate on any subject it chooses.

Indeed, while every Canadian province has antidiscrimination laws that resemble Alberta’s HRMCA insofar as they outlaw prejudice in employment, housing and services, no province east of Manitoba has emulated Alberta’s attempt to slip wide-ranging restrictions on free speech in among those very different types of prohibitions. Had Boissoin written his letter in Ontario or further east, he could not even have been charged, let alone punished.

If the Alberta law survives this week’s constitutional challenge, it will mean that Alberta residents have narrower rights to free speech than their eastern counterparts.

Of course, all Canadians are guaranteed the right to freedom of expression by Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, another intervener in the case, will be arguing that Alberta’s law is unconstitutional because it unjustifiably violates this Charter guarantee.

Those who advocate laws outlawing offensive speech demonstrate a dangerous short-sightedness. They support the construction of a huge state apparatus devoted to ferreting out and eliminating forms of expression they deem offensive. But their underlying assumption is that the machinery of state will always remain in the hands of the good guys–people they can trust to prosecute only genuine bad guys.

They never seem to learn from history that things change, sometimes suddenly and in unexpected directions.
If the bad guys ever get into power, the last thing anyone should want them to have is a ready-made state censorship machine. The power of censorship in the hands of a tyrant is a far more fearsome evil than any number of petty bigots writing contemptible letters to newspapers.

Fortunately, Canadians’ complacency towards censorship seems to have been routed recently, thanks to the untiring efforts of a few individuals like former magazine publisher Ezra Levant and writer Mark Steyn.

Earlier this month, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a surprise decision in the Mark Lemire case, holding that the sections of the federal human rights law prohibiting publication of offensive words on the Internet are an unconstitutional violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Let’s hope the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench sees the Boissoin case similarly.

Karen Selick Is The Litigation Director For The Canadian Constitution Foundation.
Advertisements

4 Responses to Free Speech on Trial in Alberta

  1. Stephen Boissoin says:

    “They don’t necessarily agree with what Stephen Boissoin wrote in a letter to the Red Deer Advocate in July, 2002 but they’ll be there defending his right to have written it.”

    I am sick of reading stupid vague quotes like this. They wreak of cowardice and neutrality….complete spineless moral weakness.

    If even one single person cannot support what I wrote in that letter and at the same time call themself a moral being, especially a Christian, then they are self decieved and they are significant part of what has allowed homosexuality to increase in our society…especially amidst our youth.

    My letter is against the propgation of homosexuality to children and youth as something that is normal. Doing so is just as immoral as the worst abuse of any child that you can think of. Find that shocking? Then take some time to get educated on the damage homosexuality does to an indovidual and a society..physical, psychological and spiritual damage.

    The passivity…the extreme cowardice of our society is to blame for what has happened to me and to many others.

    The constant need for many to qualify before they support my freedom is pathetic and proves their own weakness. It proves that they are part of the original problem that I spoke about.

    Wake up people. Pick a side amidst this sickness and be proud to stand with God. The other option, remain a powerless coward.

    If these intervenors had any courage…they would NEVER comment on my letter and simply stick to the freedom of speech argument.

    Stephen Boissoin

  2. Stephen Boissoin says:

    Let me be clear.

    One can show love to an indivudual and at the same time be completely opposed and offended by their behaviour.

    Think about a minister, a priest who visits pedophiles and sex offenders. You can feel a God inspired love for these people (I know from experience)but at the same time hate their compulsions. If you are in a position to minister to them the goal is not to get into a debate or to condemn them. My letter was not attempting to gently minister to homosexuals…it was a public outcry….a wake up call…..a no holds barred expression of the digusting nature or homosexuality and the propagation it to children and youth. I thank God that He permitted to me write it.

    If a person is not disgusted by homosexual behaviour just like pedohilia then they are being seduced and brainwahed by the social engineering of society and their own moral weakness is very apparent.

  3. John Henry says:

    OK, let’s look at what Mr. Boisson has given us.
    He wants us to hate perceived homosexuals because he feels that homosexuality is against Christianity and “morality.”

    That’s his message here, as it was albeit more colourfully in the published letter that created all the fuss.

    Leaving the free speech issue for a moment,what about homo or other sexuality? Aren’t these (as we all are) also manifestations of God’s will and creation?

    Mr. Boisson is telling us to hate God’s creation.

  4. John Henry:

    You, like many others, read in your own interpretation to Boisson’s words in order to take (or even generate) offense.

    You operate under the assumption that homosexuality is immutable, and therefore any criticism of it is akin to racism. That’s wrong on many levels. Most importantly, homosexuality is the only group that you are defining by their voluntary actions, rather than their (supposedly) immutable characteristics. By your reasoning, someone who criticizes the promotion of unmarried heterosexual intercourse is guilty of hating heterosexuals. Someone who is critical of the glorification of rap music is guilty of hating black people. Someone who is critical of sushi advertisements is bigoted towards Japanese.

    One can criticize Israel’s policies without being Anti-Semitic. One can be critical of Barack Obama’s policies without being racist. And one can be critical of the homosexual agenda without any hatred towards those who are predisposed towards homosexuality.

    None of this means that Boisson or I hate homosexuals just because of their predisposition. You just that into our words so you have a justification to hate us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: