June 12, 2008 | In Politics |
Anger is mounting against Human Rights Commissions in Canada, and the case of Reverend Stephen Boissoin is a great example as to why.
I know very little about Rev. Boissoin – only what I’ve read in the media and on the internet. As a Christian pastor, Boissoin apparently feels a strong personal commitment to traditional family values. He believes in an exclusively heterosexual conception of marriage and family, and feels that the homosexual rights lobby is attempting to erode and marginalize his ideals.
In June 2002, Rev. Boissoin decided to vent his frustration in a letter to the editor of his local newspaper, the Red Deer Advocate. This simple act of writing a letter, in hopes of having one’s ideas published, is a very normal thing to do. In a free society, it should be considered an inalienable right.
Some might argue that Rev. Boissoin’s letter to the editor wasn’t the most eloquent example of civil discourse. In it, he rants about “the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s.” He criticizes the inclusion of pro-gay tolerance classes in the public school curriculum, claiming that “our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.”
After his letter was published, Boissoin was investigated by Alberta’s Human Rights Commission, and charged under s. 3 of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act (equivalent to s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act). This legislation makes it an illegal act to publish anything that is “likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt.”
Like most respondents to “human rights” cases in Canada (100% under s. 13 of the federal Act), Rev. Boissoin was convicted. On May 30, he was ordered to pay fines and damages of $7,000, subjected to a forced speech ban (preventing him from saying anything “disparaging” about gays for the rest of his life), and ordered to publicly renounce and apologize for his beliefs.
This pastor, who dared to complain that schools were pushing a certain moral agenda onto children, is now being forced to pledge loyalty to that same moral agenda himself. If he fails to comply, he could go to jail. This is the current legal situation in Canada.
Homosexual-themed education in schools is an example of social engineering – a gentle yet insidious method of gradually altering a society’s moral fabric. Individuals are free to go along with it, or resist, as Rev. Boissoin has chosen to do. But as soon as the state starts actively prosecuting people for their honestly-held moral beliefs, we’ve moved beyond the realm of social engineering and into the domain of soft fascism, which can easily lead to hard fascism if people are too complacent to fight back.
20 years ago, most of Rev. Boissoin’s ideas would have been perfectly acceptable, even applauded, by the majority of Canadians.
Whether or not you agree with Boissoin’s views today, the moral of this story is worth considering. Legislation against speech and thought can be applied to anyone. Nobody is safe.
I will never apologize and stand by what I said (in context). Gay activists is Canada have gone too far. They are now trampling upon the rights of traditional Christians and ahve forced their biased agenda, which accepts no opposing opinion, into our public schools. To disagree with them, no matter how careful, articulate or qualified is to invite perscution. To be deemed a hatemonger, a bigot. The moral climate of our nation, our children and youths psychological and physical welfare…these are costs of remaining silent.
Comment by Stephen Boissoin — June 13, 2008 #
I have linked to your post from Freedom of Speech - Pastor Stephen Boissoin - Hate Speech
Comment by Wayne from Jeremiah Films — June 23, 2008 #
Thanks Stephen and Wayne for your comments.
It occurs to me upon re-reading this post, however, that my position could be misinterpreted. I agree that education which promotes, encourages, or seeks to justify homosexuality is a disgrace to our public school system. However, I would express the same sentiments about any kind of moral engineering in a state-operated school (particularly in a quasi-monopoly education system like we have now).
The job of teachers is to teach — to instill in children and teenagers the basic critical reasoning abilities they need to make choices and figure out their own perspectives on moral issues.
Parents, peers, and religious communities all have a role to play in providing moral guidance to children, but the state does not — at least not within the context of a free society.
In the true spirit of the separation of church and state, governments (whether liberal or conservative) should never abuse their coercive monopoly on education to brainwash and morally engineer new generations of citizens.
Comment by Jeremy — August 1, 2008 #