OK, kiddo! Here are all the fantastically amazing posts tagged with Stephen Boisson

Hateful Letter Cleared As Free Speech

December 7th, 2009

Stephen Boisson: Irresponsible

An Alberta court has ruled that a hateful, anti-gay letter published in 2002 does not violate the Alberta human rights code. The letter (which has been republished on Xtra for analysis) was penned by Stephen Boisson, an evangelical youth pastor. In it, Boisson uses violent war metaphors as a call to arms to stop “the homosexual machine” by “taking whatever steps are necessary.”

While Canada’s criminal code forbids inciting violence against identifiable groups, the Queen’s Bench court ruled that the talk of war in the letter was metaphorical. Here’s an excerpt from the ruling:

That the language of [Stephen Boisson's letter] may be jarring, offensive, bewildering, puerile, nonsensical and insulting may be of little doubt, but the language does not go so far as to fall within the prohibited status of “hate” or “contempt.”

Boisson’s letter may not criminal, but that does not mean the public has to treat it as acceptable. There was a violent gay bashing in Boisson’s town just days after his letter was published, and—while I doubt his letter was the sole cause—it certainly supported an atmosphere where violence against gays can flourish.

There is a difference between the right to do something and the right thing to do. There are consequences for hateful speech, and it is up to the public to challenge anyone not big enough to accept responsibility for those consequences. Hate speech is worthless and leaves the world worse off for it; use your own free speech to make the world better, and confront hate wherever it is found.

On Free Speech and Hate Speech

December 12th, 2007

Free Speech or Hate Speech

Late last month, the Alberta Human Rights Commission ruled that an anti-gay letter written by Stephen Boisson, a former member of the Concerned Christian Coalition, violated provincial human rights codes.

Now, I wrote about what I thought about the case when it was brought in front of the commission, and clarified those thoughts a little a few weeks later in a very special mail bag segment. Now that the case is concluded, I thought I’d share some more thoughts.

I’m not sure how easily understood this is unless you are one of the people threatened by the letter, but being called “as immoral as pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps” and then having a call to action issued against you as open-ended as “take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness [of the] homosexual machine” is scary. Unlike Boisson, I firmly believe that being gay is neither a choice nor an alterable trait and support activism that seeks equal rights grounded by this view. From this perspective, the letter is somewhat of a doom sentence. If my “wickedness” can’t be reversed, what remaining steps are left to stop me? Would anyone take the letter’s instruction to heart? Perhaps someone did, as a violent anti-gay attack occurred two days after the letter was published.

But what about from Boisson’s perspective? He doesn’t believe gay people exist: only straight sinners. Did he really call for the violence that occurred after his letter’s publication? There’s only circumstantial evidence linking the two, though the letter probably helped foster an environment where a physical attack was considered an appropriate action by the perpetrators.

Here’s the tricky thing. The letter was strongly worded, but vague—a meticulously constructed plan to assert territory in a legal grey area. Whether or not it calls for outright hatred and violence depends on the reader’s interpretation.

Ethically speaking, should the letter have been written? Absolutely not. It was an unnecessary and consequential assertion; a total confusion of one’s right to do something and the right thing to do.

Should one be fined for writing such a sufficiently vague letter, though? I’m still conflicted—not that it matters much. The issue has been decided, hasn’t it?

Letters, We Get Letters…

August 20th, 2007

Overloaded with work

Hey kids! I’m a tad overworked today, but that shall not stop me from answering some reader mail! (Gee, I hope no one notices the re-used illustration.)

Slap reader Michelle writes in regarding last month’s post about a human rights case underway in Alberta:

Mark,

You state “This is not a gay rights case, let alone a “pivotal” one.” … I must disagree with you.

This case is very much about the rights of all sexual minorities to not be subjected to the kind of abuse that Boissoin called for in his letter. The christianist right wing has chosen to actively claim that their right to spew crap about GLBT people supercedes the rights of GLBT people to live peaceful, lawful lives.

While Egale may have chosen to “stick its head in the sand” on this one, it remains very much a valid issue of the rights of sexual minorities not to be harassed by the religious inciting others to violence against “the immoral”.

–Michelle

Thanks for writing, Michelle. It’s a tricky case, all right! And, admittedly, I have conflicting thoughts about the whole thing.

For the record, I agree with Canada’s hate speech laws in that inciting hatred and violence toward identifiable minorities should not be considered free speech. I think this is consistent with laws against personal and corporate defamation.

That said, Boissoin’s letter is up for interpretation, and I think it’s dangerous to declare sufficiently vague speech as being illegal hate speech. Freedom of speech means that sometimes we have to hear things that we don’t agree with—and that goes for everybody. The author wants to outrage the gay community and, in his eyes, prove that we are out to stifle religious expression. Frankly, I don’t take this sort of strategy seriously.

I’m not qualified enough to know whether or not the letter should be classified as hate speech, but hasn’t the overall reaction been wonderful? The attention the letter has received shows that the public is willing to arbitrate what’s acceptable, and the resulting human rights case shows that we will not leave attempts to push the limit unchecked. It’s really encouraging!

Why Is It Always Religion Versus The Gays?

July 18th, 2007

Human Rights Showdown

Looks like the ostensible “Religious Freedom” versus “Gay Rights” debate is still alive and kicking in the media.

An Alberta man who published an open letter directly comparing gays to “pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps,” and who urged readers to “take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness [of the] homosexual machine” was served a human rights complaint by a Calgary human rights professor. The professor, Darren Lund, says that Rev. Stephen Boissoin’s letter may have contributed to a physical gay bashing that occurred two days after the letter was published.

Although this happened five years ago, the case is now in front of the human rights commission, eliciting headlines such as: Pivotal gay rights case begins in Alberta and Prof hopes pastor’s anti-gay letter will put limits on free speech in Alberta.

Now, considering that neither of the parties involved are actually gay, perhaps I could sneak a word in here…

Human Rights Showdown Reaction

This is not a gay rights case, let alone a “pivotal” one. No gay rights are being won or lost here and Canada’s largest gay rights organisation, EGALE, is refusing to involve itself in the case. This isn’t a religious freedom case, either. Despite a recent hysterical opposition to homosexuality by many churches, the views expressed in the letter are not rooted in any mainstream religion, which largely teach love and tolerance. Rather, this case is about a man who enjoys contention and wants to assert territory in hate speech’s grey areas.

The part of the letter that I’m most concerned about is not the typical “gays are evil warlords who want to brainwash your children” rhetoric, but rather Boissoinmay’s encouragement to take “whatever steps necessary” to stop gay people. That’s a call to action—and one that’s worryingly open in its interpretation. Is this sentence violating human rights by inciting hatred against an identifiable group? Well, we’ll find out shortly, won’t we?

Incidentally, unlike libel—which makes it a crime for someone to say their local politician is plaguing communities like a pedophile and that the public should take whatever measures necessary to stop him—a human rights violation can only result in small fines.

Correction: Tom, a reader with much better knowledge of the law than me, has thoughtfully noted that libel is a civil action, not a crime, and that my example is more likely to be prosecuted under section 319 of the Criminal Code. Also, the legal terminology for human rights penalties is “damage awards,” and not “fines,” which are reserved for criminal offenses. (A distinction that Tom notes is “sometimes lost on the losing person who cuts the cheque.”) Thanks, Tom!