PDA

View Full Version : 'Hate Speech' Penalties Tossed by Appeals Court



megimoo
12-09-2009, 08:33 AM
Judge says $5,000 fine for criticism of homosexuality 'without legal foundation'

A Canadian administrative judge's demand for a $5,000 penalty and a written apology from a man who criticized homosexuality in a letter to his local newspaper has been overturned on appeal, but experts on such "hate speech" disputes say the case is not a complete victory for free speech.

The judgment was announced this week by the Alliance Defense Fund in the case of Stephen Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition, which had been determined by the Alberta, Canada, Human Rights Commission to have violated a "hate speech" law.

Alberta had adopted the law with promises that it never would be applied solely to speech but would be reserved for actions that accompany "hate speech," according to Ben Bull, chief counsel for the ADF. He cited the case's application in the United States because of the new – and similar – "hate speech" law signed by President Obama only weeks ago.

Boissoin wrote the letter to the "Red Deer Advocate" in central Alberta criticizing those who "in any way support[s] the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s."

"You have caused far too much damage. My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume," the letter continued.

"Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system… Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex … Come on people, wake up!"

A University of Calgary professor, Darren Lund, reported Boissoin to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, accusing him of breaking the national human rights law. The commission ruled in Lund's favor, ordering the $5,000 payment and written apology from Boissoin, as well as instructions to Boissoin not to express his beliefs further.

On appeal, Justice E.C. Wilson said the commission didn't acknowledge the actual law, which states, "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject." Wilson said the commission went too far, basing its decision on assumptions and granting relief to Lund that it did not have the authority to provide.
SNIP
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118412

AmPat
12-09-2009, 09:20 AM
It's about time. I've never agreed with "hate crimes" legislation. Crime is crime. If you commit a crime, you pay a price. It should never be anybody's guess whether to add years to a sentence because the criminal had "Ill feweeings" toward their victim.

PoliCon
12-09-2009, 10:19 AM
any reliable sources for this story?

Gingersnap
12-09-2009, 11:22 AM
any reliable sources for this story?


Commission gets judicial thrashing

Ruling against Human Rights panel seen as victory for free speech

By Lorne Gunter, Edmonton JournalDecember 6, 2009

If you want to see all the things wrong with human rights commissions, they are on display in Mr. Justice Earl Wilson's ruling Thursday in the case of Boissoin v Lund.

Stephen Boissoin is a former youth pastor from Red Deer who wrote a letter to the Red Deer Advocate in June 2002 expressing harsh, unpleasant, even contemptible views about the gay rights movement.

Darren Lund, now a University of Calgary professor, was at the time a Red Deer high school teacher who filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission charging that Boissoin's words promoted prejudice against gays.

In 2007, the commission sided with Lund and ordered Boissoin to pay a fine of $5,000, write a letter of apology to be printed in the Advocate and never again publicly criticize what Boissoin had called "the homosexual machine."

Justice Wilson's decision has been heralded as a victory for free speech, which it is.

More correctly, though, it is a win for due process, something human rights commissions have routinely abused in recent years in their witch hunts on behalf of political correctness.

Justice Wilson did not strike down those sections of the Alberta Human Rights Act that permit the commission to investigate and prosecute words and ideas. So in that sense, his decision was not a robust defence of free expression.

But that is not his job, either.

If Albertans want provincial law changed, if they want our laws to protect all views--even hard, objectionable ones such as Boissoin's-- they should pressure the provincial legislature to strip the commission of its power to sit in judgment over which political, ideological and theological views are permissible and which are not.

Judges should be rightly wary of overturning laws duly passed by the people's elected representatives.

What the judge did in fact was tell the commission that if it is going wield the power to judge speech, it must set a much higher bar for itself than it used against Pastor Boissoin, and it must respect rights such as the accused's presumption of innocence.

Justice Wilson was scathing about the twisted logic, slipshod evidence and biased approach used by the commission's one-woman inquiry.

In effect, the judge found that Lori Andreachuk, the Lethbridge lawyer who heard the case on behalf of the commission, had stacked the deck against Boissoin from the start.

She made at least three "fatal" errors in deciding that the commission had jurisdiction to hear Lund's complaint, got her reasoning "somewhat backward," "misread the letter" Boissoin had published in the paper and had taken several passages out of context in her effort to side with Lund.

Her "erroneous" reasoning "stripped" Boissoin of "any credible contextual basis" by which to defend his right to free speech.

But worst of all for Andreachuk and the commission were Justice Wilson's comments on the news story at the heart of Lund's complaint and of the commission's ruling against Boissoin.

Two weeks after publishing Boissoin's letter calling on readers to "take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness" of the gay rights movement, which he contended was "just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities," the Advocate carried a news story in which a gay teenager claimed to have been assaulted because of his orientation.

In the story, the alleged victim told the reporter that he was sure the pastor's letter had contributed to his attack.

"Unfortunately," Justice Wilson wrote, "no one seemed to appreciate that there was no evidence of an assault at all, nor any evidence as to the accuracy of the news report of the alleged assault nor of the quotation attributed to the alleged victim."

Edmonton Journal (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Commission+gets+judicial+thrashing/2308924/story.html)

PoliCon
12-09-2009, 01:21 PM
Edmonton Journal (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Commission+gets+judicial+thrashing/2308924/story.html)

Thanks ginger.

Sad thing is - concerning the $5000 fine - I'm sure the man accused has spend well more than that paying lawyers as a result of this BS case.

Swampfox
12-09-2009, 02:16 PM
This is a good blog that focuses mostly on the Canadian "Human Right" Commissions. Ezra Levant was hauled in front of these commissions because he published the Danish Muhammed cartoons. Unbelievable as that sounds.

http://www.ezralevant.com/

Rockntractor
12-09-2009, 02:18 PM
any reliable sources for this story?
Go find them yourself!

Last Samurai
12-09-2009, 04:31 PM
Hate crimes are an abomination and a perversion of the "equal treatment under the Law" concept.

Once we start to create Law to "protect" certain segments of the society against other segments of the society by way of "protecting them", we have, in fact, promoted protection under the Law to certain groups over other groups.

This is NOT equal protection. Nor does the additional penalties added on to real crimes under the guise of "hate crime" rulings remedy that inequity.

LS

PoliCon
12-09-2009, 09:00 PM
Go find them yourself!

:P bite me goatboy

Rockntractor
12-09-2009, 09:01 PM
:P bite me goatboy

You ain't got nothin to do all day union man!

PoliCon
12-09-2009, 09:13 PM
You ain't got nothin to do all day union man!

Baloney. I was hardly on here today. :p

Rockntractor
12-09-2009, 09:19 PM
Baloney. I was hardly on here today. :p
At least we have a few somewhat conservative teachers in our school system.

PoliCon
12-09-2009, 09:26 PM
At least we have a few somewhat conservative teachers in our school system.

Compared to most teachers - I'm a fascist. :D

stsinner
12-09-2009, 09:47 PM
Go find them yourself!

Second!

PoliCon
12-09-2009, 09:52 PM
I should think that the burden should rest on the OP to post links to their story.

Rockntractor
12-09-2009, 09:56 PM
I should think that the burden should rest on the OP to post links to their story.

Not if you don't like their choice of sources you spoiled little brat!

PoliCon
12-09-2009, 09:56 PM
Not if you don't like their choice of sources you spoiled little brat!

WorldNutDaily is not a source - it's a laughing stock. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
12-09-2009, 10:02 PM
WorldNutDaily is not a source - it's a laughing stock. :rolleyes:

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/0165568001260411998.gif?t=1260414142