---

Paper to Alberta Human Rights Commission: Get Your Hands off Our Letters Page

"The galling presumption of the rights commission to subvert a newspaper's own judgments over whether, when or where it should publish coerced opinions offers a window into its dangerous thinking."

By John Jalsevac

June 19, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Red Deer Advocate isn't Canada's largest or most influential newspaper. It's a local Alberta paper with a daily circulation of about 17,000, serving a city with a population of a mere 83,000. But in recent years this small-town paper has been receiving international attention, after Christian pastor Steve Boissoin was hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) for publishing a letter criticizing the homosexualist activist agenda in the Advocate.

And now the Red Deer Advocate is joining the increasingly vocal and passionate contingent of Canadians who say they have had enough of the human rights commissions.

It was widely reported in the media that several weeks ago the AHRC handed down a "remedy" ruling to Steve Boissoin, ordering the pastor to pay $7,000 in fines, to desist from ever again making "disparaging" remarks about homosexuals or homosexuality, and, lastly, to apologize to Darren Lund, the complainant in the case, in a letter, to be published in the same publication that Boissoin's original letter appeared in - the Red Deer Advocate.

The problem with the tribunal's ruling, however, is that not only has Boissoin repeatedly stated he will not apologize, but the paper in which he is supposed to publish his letter has declared its belief that the AHRC has way overstepped its bounds in ordering the paper to print Boissoin's letter in the first place.

In a recent op-ed, managing editor Joe McLaughlin, speaking on behalf of the Advocate, expressed his paper's disgust with the AHRC's decision in the Boissoin case, and in particular with the commission's decision to order his paper to publish a coerced apology letter.

"A lot of folks in Alberta and beyond are feeling bruised and abused by the Alberta Human Rights Commission's conduct in dealing with a letter to the editor that was published on this page six years ago today," begins the op-ed.

"We at the Advocate are among them."

McLaughlin states that he and the staff of the Advocate have had their "eyes opened to some state-sanctioned ugliness" by the Commission's handling of the Boissoin case.

"The letter, by a local pastor," McLaughlin writes, "expressed love and compassion for some homosexuals, while decrying the activist homosexual agenda of some educators, MPs, judges (and possibly, though not specifically mentioned, Advocate editorialists who have long supported gay rights.)"

The consequence of the letter, he continues, was that a constructive debate began in the pages of the Advocate, with some arguing in favor of homosexuality and the homosexualist agenda, and some arguing against it.

However, "The galling presumption of the rights commission to subvert a newspaper's own judgments over whether, when or where it should publish coerced opinions offers a window into its dangerous thinking."

McLaughlin continues, lambasting the HRCs for "flawed processes that can lead to repressive and dangerous fallout."

"The rights commission," he says, "judged that Boissoin's words 'likely' exposed homosexuals to hatred or contempt. That's a judgment based on scant evidence and a warped reading of Boissoin's comments. It was arrived at by ignoring some of Boissoin's phrases and misinterpreting others."

The complainant in the case, Darren Lund, argued that Boissoin's use of militaristic language in his letter proved that Boissoin was exhorting those opposed to homosexuality to fight homosexuality with violence, an accusation that the commission agreed with in its final decision.

However, the managing editor of the Advocate criticizes the AHRC for not being able to see that Boissoin's militaristic language was clearly figurative: "Any reasonably sophisticated reader can understand the difference between literal and figurative language. Based on the evidence before us, however, that distinction was lost on the rights commission."

As a result of the Boissoin decision, concludes McLaughlin, "The rights of Albertans to publicly express views that they honestly believe are being constrained not by criminal law, but by fear of being hauled before a rights commission and the certainty of accumulating massive legal bills to defend themselves. More egregiously, the rights commission not only wants to censure hateful speech (a laudable goal), but to pre-emptively deny some Albertans the right to express their legitimate views on certain topics."

He concludes, "The commission forbids Boissoin from writing 'disparaging remarks' about gays - a phrase that has dubious legal weight - and forbids him, in advance, from writing critically about Lund's involvement in this case.
 
"This is called prior restraint. It's an abomination in any free and democratic society."

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Alberta's Conservative Government Sought Conviction of Christian Pastor for "Hate Speech"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061603.html

Alberta Pastor Fined $7000 and Ordered to Publicly Apologize and Remain Silent on Homosexuality
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060902.html

Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Rules Against Christian Pastor Boissoin
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07120306.html

 Back to Top

---

MORE NEWS: LifeSiteNews.com Home Page  Last 10 Days   Archives   Special Reports

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.