Canada Orders Pastor to Renounce His Faith

[Starwynd]

une 9th, 2008 by Pete Vere, JCL ·Print ·ShareThis

In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.

The complaint stems from Canada’s debate leading up to state legislation recognizing so-called same-sex marriage. In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as “wicked” and stated that: “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; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

The activist subsequently filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission — a quasi-judicial body that investigates alleged discrimination within the Canadian province. The government tribunal published its decision [albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf]](http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf]) on May 30.

catholicexchange.com/2008/06/09/112825/

No government has any right to force anyone to renounce their faith.

I surely would not, and I would do it most rudely using the foulest language I know.

 

[drafdog]

Your title is grossly misleading. The Human Rights Tribunal has merely sought to enforce hate crime legislation by demanding that he cease and desist. He is free to believe whatever he chooses; he is not, however, free to denigrate others in a public forum.

Matthew

 

[RWMorris]

Your title is grossly misleading. The Human Rights Tribunal has merely sought to enforce hate crime legislation by demanding that he cease and desist. He is free to believe whatever he chooses; he is not, however, free to denigrate others in a public forum.

Since when does the Truth denigrate someone?

 

[Dale_M]

Matthew, I had the same initial reaction after reading the article, and said as much in another thread about the ruling. But someone pointed out to me that the actual ruling does ask the pastor to write a personal apology and also to publish an apology.

I think the phrase “renounce his faith” may be a bit extreme since he isn’t being asked to renounce Christ. But the pastor sincerely believes that Christianity teaches that homosexuality is wrong, so he is being asked to renounce a tenet of his faith.

 

[JimG]

Here is a link to the decision.

He wrote a letter to the editor! It’s not clear to me from the article whether the plaintiffs were even mentioned in the letter.

The decision itself is chilling enough. Apparently some opinions simply can not be expressed, without being subject to penalty.

 

[Dale_M]

The decision itself is chilling enough. Apparently some opinions simply can not be expressed, without being subject to penalty.

Yes, I agree. Canada has different values than the US, but I think the ruling is a chilling infringement of freedom of expression.

A tangential news article from today may have relevance:
Oregon University Hosts Talk by Notorious Holocaust Denier, Amid Protest

Williams is helping organize a Monday-night protest vigil against Irving, a prolific historian who has stated that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz and routinely downplays the number of Jews killed during the Holocaust.

Irving has been barred entry to Austria, Germany, Australia and Canada, and spent 10 months in an Austrian prison for denying the Holocaust. The Anti-Defamation League has called Irving “one of the world’s most effective purveyors of Holocaust denial.”

The university washed its hands of responsibility for the event, saying that it wasn’t sponsoring Irving’s speech and was only serving as a venue. Orval Etter, one of the event’s organizers and a former professor at the university, has the authority to reserve a room free of charge.

Brown said the school would not seek to block Irving’s presence because it has a policy of respecting freedom of speech for all groups.

Should people should be allowed to express their views, no matter how odious, so long as they don’t promote violence?

 

[fix]

I think the phrase “renounce his faith” may be a bit extreme since he isn’t being asked to renounce Christ. But the pastor sincerely believes that Christianity teaches that homosexuality is wrong, so he is being asked to renounce a tenet of his faith.

Is this not a distinction without a difference? If his faith holds as it does then rejecting that “tenet” is rejecting the faith. How much of Christ may one reject and still claim to be faithful?

 

[Michael_Neal]

If I were him I would send another letter saying the same thing criticizing homosexuality. This is a case where civil disobedience is in order.

 

[JimG]

Yes, I agree. Canada has different values than the US, but I think the ruling is a chilling infringement of freedom of expression.

A tangential news article from today may have relevance:
Oregon University Hosts Talk by Notorious Holocaust Denier, Amid Protest

Should people should be allowed to express their views, no matter how odious, so long as they don’t promote violence?

Yes. The danger from denial of freedom of speech is greater than the danger from odius speech.

No one is required to provide a platform for speech that is odius to them. But likewise government treads on dangerous ground when it prohibits speech which is odius to it. Non-odius speech doesn’t need protection.

If odius speech were against the law, Catholics could long since have filed numerous hate-speech complaints against Jack Chick and many others for speech which is hateful to them. If promoting false history were against the law, similar charges could apply.

Truth is the proper response to falsehood, not censorhsip.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I’ll have to admit my ignorance of Canadian law, I really don’t know what their laws say about free speech. Without that knowledge, it’s hard to say who is in the wrong here.

In the US, this kind of thing wouldn’t happen or Fred Phelps would be in an orange jumpsuit by now. As much as I detest his actions, he’s got the right to continue to do what he does.

 

[Cajetan]

This is ridiculous, once again. Canada’s Human Rights Tribunals need to be abolished over this kind of thing. If I were ordered to appear before one for ANY expression of ANY of my beliefs, I’d choose prison instead of caving in to these totalitarian thugs. I am either a free man or I am not.

 

[Newbie2]

I too don’t know about Canadian law…but a sharp attorney should get him off. The wording:

“all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals” does ***not ***say “all desparging remarks versus homosexual behavior”

I guess it all depends on what he’s accused of saying/writing.

I’m not clear if the prounouncent precludes him from preaching “publically” in his church against homosexuals/homosexuality.

Either way, it’s a chilling commentary of freedom and free speech.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I did some digging on Canadian law-just to satisfy my own curiosity and I thought this was interesting:

Status of free speech in Canada:
In the U.S., a person cannot falsely yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre. But they are free to say just about anything else without danger of criminal prosecution. For example, a conservative Christian teleminister in the early 1990s advocated the execution of all Wiccans in the U.S. More recently, a Baptist pastor from Texas advocated that the U.S. army round up Wiccans and burn them alive with napalm. Both clergy were immune from prosecution due to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment which guarantees almost complete freedom of speech in the country. (We do not wish to overemphasize genocidal advocacy of Wiccans by conservative Christians. However, we are unaware of any other instances in North America where genocide has been actively advocated in recent years.)

Canadians do not have this degree of freedom of speech. Legislation in Canada follows the British tradition, as do laws in Australia and New Zealand and some other former colonies. In particular, citizens are not allowed to incite or promote hatred, advocate genocide or actually commit genocide against certain specified groups.

Then there is this about a specific bill: (bolding mine)

Status of bill C-250:
The bill was given royal assent by the Queen’s representative in Canada on 2004-APR-29. It took immediate effect. It is now part of the legal code of Canada. Some propaganda directing hatred against persons of any sexual orientation, heterosexuals, homosexuals and/or bisexuals, is now a crime in Canada. Sexual orientation has now joined four other groups protected against hate speech on the basis of their “color, race, religion or ethnic origin.” 1 However, a “not withstanding” type clause allows hate speech if it is religiously motivated. In essence, the law states that the freedomof one person to express religiously-motivated hatred is given higher priority that the freedom of another person to be free of hatred expressed against them.

and this from the Canadian Criminal Code:

Before 2004-APR-29, the “Hate Propaganda” section of the Criminal Code of Canada (Section 318 & 319) prohibited the expression of hatred against – or the advocacy of genocide of – four “identifiable groups:” people distinguished by their “color, race, religion or ethnic origin.” 1 Curiously enough, sex, disability, and other criteria are not included. Apparently one can deliver a speech that “willfully promotes hatred” – even one which “advocates or promotes genocide” – against women or the disabled and enjoy immunity of prosecution under the law. Hatred against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation was not protected either. An individual could promote hatred or even advocate genocide against heterosexuals, bisexuals, or homosexuals with impunity, as long as the speech was directed at persons with a specific sexual orientation. Bill C-250 changed this when it was signed into law.

Bottom line-free speech is viewed differently in Canada than in the US.

 

[rpp]

Yes, I agree. Canada has different values than the US, but I think the ruling is a chilling infringement of freedom of expression.

A tangential news article from today may have relevance:
Oregon University Hosts Talk by Notorious Holocaust Denier, Amid Protest

Should people should be allowed to express their views, no matter how odious, so long as they don’t promote violence?

This is different than the issue in Canada. In Canada, the pastor is expressing long held religious views. In the case of this Holocaust denier, he is misrepresenting history and lying. There is a significant difference.

 

[JimG]

This is different than the issue in Canada. In Canada, the pastor is expressing long held religious views. In the case of this Holocaust denier, he is misrepresenting history and lying. There is a significant difference.

That’s true. On the other hand, if misrepresenting history were a civil or criminal offense, think of how many anti-Catholic writers I could bring up before the tribunal!

 

[rpp]

That’s true. On the other hand, if misrepresenting history were a civil or criminal offense, think of how many anti-Catholic writers I could bring up before the tribunal!

Well, some issues are more offensive than others. There are also people who claim the Moon landings were faked. That does not rile up many people. On the other hand, there are people who claim the US government actually bombed the WTC and the Pentagon on Sept. 11th. Many people find that very offensive as many lost family (and I lost a couple of friends) in that attack.

Telling people that their mother and father were not actually killed is generally pretty offensive. Telling others that what they experienced in the German camps did not really happen is also so offensive that is can incite some people to violently object to what the denier says. THAT is why holocaust denying is illegal in several European countries.

 

[JimG]

Well, some issues are more offensive than others. There are also people who claim the Moon landings were faked. That does not rile up many people. On the other hand, there are people who claim the US government actually bombed the WTC and the Pentagon on Sept. 11th. Many people find that very offensive as many lost family (and I lost a couple of friends) in that attack.

Telling people that their mother and father were not actually killed is generally pretty offensive. Telling others that what they experienced in the German camps did not really happen is also so offensive that is can incite some people to violently object to what the denier says. THAT is why holocaust denying is illegal in several European countries.

Yes, I understand the reasoning. But it is a dangerous precedent. At present it seems that Catholic moral teaching is quite offensive to many. Censoring speech depending on its content just seems like an entirely dangerous idea. What’s non-offensive today may be offensive tomorrow.

 

[rpp]

Yes, I understand the reasoning. But it is a dangerous precedent. At present it seems that Catholic moral teaching is quite offensive to many. Censoring speech depending on its content just seems like an entirely dangerous idea. What’s non-offensive today may be offensive tomorrow.

Bingo! That is the problem. That is the moral disconnect. Moral ans social relativism. What the Catholic Church, and this protestant minister, teach about homosexuality has not ever changed.

By the way, I do not support unlimited free speech. I think it is very dangerous. However, do not ask me to fix it. I have no clue. All I know is that “free speech” in my State means that we have strip clubs, live sex shows and porno stores next to schools and churches.

 

[Dale_M]

Bingo! That is the problem. That is the moral disconnect. Moral ans social relativism. What the Catholic Church, and this protestant minister, teach about homosexuality has not ever changed.

By the way, I do not support unlimited free speech. I think it is very dangerous.

But if you allow people to start suppressing speech which they find offensive, don’t you open up the US to the very thing which the pastor is facing - that what he said is viewed as hate speech?

 

[Fitswimmer]

But if you allow people to start suppressing speech which they find offensive, don’t you open up the US to the very thing which the pastor is facing - that what he said is viewed as hate speech?

That’s the dilemma. It’s what makes the First Amendment so wonderful and so difficult at the same time.