By Kelly Ernst
On December 3rd, 2009, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench overturned the 2008 Alberta Human Rights Commission’s Panel decision against Reverend Stephen Boissoin freeing him to again express his extremist opinions against homosexuals and the so-called “homosexualist” agenda.
Boissoin and his followers may call this a win, but in reality the case is not a win for their cause, but merely one for freedom of expression. The decision reminds people who hold tolerance as an important Canadian value, of the importance of countering repulsive messages, a right we must never neglect.
In 2002, Boissoin wrote a letter to the Red Deer Advocate specifically denouncing evil “homosexual and pro-homosexual educators” supporting the “fraudulent guise” of equal rights. He continued, “Come on people, wake up! It is time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.”
University of Calgary professor Darren Lund launched a human rights complaint against Boissoin arguing that, “extremist terminology demonizes and dehumanizes individual homosexuals and their supporters.” He suggested Boissoin violated section 3(1)(b) of Alberta’s Human Rights Act, and should be “prohibited from making disparaging remarks.”
A human rights panel sided with Lund. It ordered Boissoin to pay a $5,000 fine and ordered him to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.”
Then, in December 2009, an Alberta court overturned the panel’s decision due to numerous errors of law. The court noted that people have the freedom to express offensive opinions, and only those of an extreme nature, such as those which might trigger clear danger of violence, might be subject to a prohibited status of hate.
As much as I detest the Reverend’s words, the court made the correct decision. For many reasons, it should be a clear call to action. We should be reminded that a win for freedom of expression gives a clear green light to thoughtful counter speech to any revolting message. If those who support equal rights don’t speak up, we risk ceding the floor to our opponents.
The court’s decision, in some minds, bolstered the human rights deniers’ cause. Some fundamentalist groups claimed that their moral cause had won the battle, revitalizing their confidence to push ahead their anti-homosexual campaigns.
Human rights opponents also capitalized on the court’s critique of the initial decision—for the panel’s incorrect application of the law and failure to ensure that the process was impartial—as further justification for their attacks on the very idea of human rights commissions, including calling for their abolition completely.
Far from an extremist win, the judge (who clearly gave no credence for the extremist views on homosexuality) focused on clarifying legal criteria for identifying hateful messages in the context of balancing freedom of expression.
The case underlines the idea that freedom of expression cannot be limited because doing so risks constraining tolerant voices as well. Most importantly, those who wish to advance equality were noted to have the same expressive freedom as the extremists who wish to deny fundamental human rights.
Silencing others does not advance the cause of equal rights, but defeating extremists in public argument does.
Society does listen when it speaks in the thousands. Many voices are required to counter every narrow-minded extremist. Otherwise, through silence our society risks permitting a culture that condones bigotry. Freedom of expression is the best tool for combating prejudice and intolerance.
Additionally, we must defend institutions designed to protect human rights, even when we don’t agree with all of the decisions that arise from them. We must demand that Human Rights Commissions ensure the integrity of their decision-making. Without trust in commission processes, public support for the legal protection of human rights will erode.
We must protect our freedom and equality by speaking out. To reword Boissoin, “Come on people, wake up! It is time to stand together and speak out to reverse the intolerance that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where extremism and human rights opponents flourish, all manner of intolerance abounds.”
The threat of extremist fear campaigns never goes away. Intolerant misinformation about any community can thrive if we do not have the courage to use our freedom of expression in favour of equality.
