Canada Orders Pastor to Renounce His Faith

[rpp]

It is consistent to MY free society ( I live in Canada) in that the spreading of hate is not tolerated.

People are free to hate, they just can’t spread it around and infect everyone else.

You have demonstrated that Canada is NOT a free society by this ruling.

Hate is not spread in this manner. Calling a sin a sin is not spreading hate.

Calling good evil and evil good is hate. This so-called “Human Rights” panel are the purveyors of hate. The Canadian law that was used to prosecute this pastor is promotes hate. Supporters of this law are the people engaged in hateful conduct.

After all, do you hate this pastor now? Who is hating whom?

 

[rpp]

Who defines what is ‘hate’?

The people who hate you.

 

[Lost_Found]

Referring to what I put in bold…

Absolutely correct! Well said!

Overall a very good post!

You can give the credit to John Paul the great. He’s the one who said it, I’m only paraphrasing. Those weren’t my ideas they are standard Catholic moral theology.

 

[Lost_Found]

You should focus on what was said. If the pastor said something like everybody go out and punch some “gay” guy in the face, he shouldn’t be doing that. Even if you agree with him. On the other hand if he stated natural law, “men aren’t designed to be joined together with one another” then he is stating a fact. Then we have a problem with the decision. I don’t know what the pastor said, or what his theology is.
We also might have a problem if the envelope is being pushed: Today you can’t make the first assertion, fine, but the next day you can’t even make the second assertion.

 

[onetimeposter]

You have demonstrated that Canada is NOT a free society by this ruling.

Hate is not spread in this manner. Calling a sin a sin is not spreading hate.

Calling good evil and evil good is hate. This so-called “Human Rights” panel are the purveyors of hate. The Canadian law that was used to prosecute this pastor is promotes hate. Supporters of this law are the people engaged in hateful conduct.

After all, do you hate this pastor now? Who is hating whom?

No, the Pastor falsely mis-represented a fact concerning children being brain washed in public schools.

Canada is a very free country, in fact, we have mandated it law that we are to be free of hate speech that falls outside of a private conversation.

The pastor could have been more charitable while making his points…but he chose to use inflammatory words, made a false claim involving public schools and he has had to face the consequences.

Like I said, hate all you want, but just don’t publish your hate in a public forum and infect the rest of us.

No I don’t hate the pastor.

 

[rpp]

No, the Pastor falsely mis-represented a fact concerning children being brain washed in public schools.

No I don’t hate the pastor.

Lots of people make false claims. Just look at this forum.

But the pastor here did not.

However, you did when you claimed that Canadian school children are not exposed to homosexual propaganda in schools. I know, I have seen it myself.

However, no one is trying to put you in jail.

And you do indeed hate what the pastor said. It made you uncomfortable. So you silence him and all who agree with him. That is the real hate. Anything else is just lying to yourself.

But you don’t care about true justice. You just want to define what is right and wrong and imprison those who disagree with you.

This is as anti-Catholic as it gets.

 

[onetimeposter]

Lots of people make false claims. Just look at this forum.

But the pastor here did not.

However, you did when you claimed that Canadian school children are not exposed to homosexual propaganda in schools. I know, I have seen it myself.

However, no one is trying to put you in jail.

And you do indeed hate what the pastor said. It made you uncomfortable. So you silence him and all who agree with him. That is the real hate. Anything else is just lying to yourself.

But you don’t care about true justice. You just want to define what is right and wrong and imprison those who disagree with you.

This is as anti-Catholic as it gets.

More Propaganda from the Religious Right…he is not being imprisoned. That’s fear mongering.

Anyway, I’m glad people can’t spout hate speech in Canada…I guess that’s the bottom line.

People are really paranoid around here about an anti-Catholic agenda ( there isn’t one) and spend a lot of time worrying about homosexual sin.

 

[hunter2]

I’m guessing that the drafters of the U.S. Constitution would never have suspected that stripping or obscenity would have someday have been construed as “speech.”

They would have wanted “obscenity” to be completely lawful on private property. Newspapers, magazines, strip clubs, and radio transmitters should all be considered private property. When it bleeds over onto other people’s property, we can have conflicts.

 

[hunter2]

More Propaganda from the Religious Right…he is not being imprisoned. That’s fear mongering.

Anyway, I’m glad people can’t spout hate speech in Canada…I guess that’s the bottom line.

People are really paranoid around here about an anti-Catholic agenda ( there isn’t one) and spend a lot of time worrying about homosexual sin.

Homosexuality is, of course, natural. Catholic hate speech against gays is sickening, but that Pastor was completely within his rights as a human being.

 

[mdr]

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

Look carefully at the ruling, a portion of which follows:

1. The Panel finds, and the Panel orders as follows:
   a. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging
   5
   remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund’s witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.

Note the phrase, “by email.” The ruling lumps email with newspapers, public speeches, and broadcast media. Do you not see that this restriction goes beyond public forums?

This is a restriction on what he can write in email. It does not specify only the more widely distributed types such as email blasts or mass-mailings or opt-ins; it just says “email.” Any and all email might be construed as coming under the restriction.

How’s that for a gag order? Will they tap his phone next? How far will the thought police go?

Boissoin is also required to submit a written apology for the letter he wrote. In other words, he must publicly denounce the opinions he expressed which were grounded in his religious faith. Do you not see that this does indeed order him publicly to renounce at least a part of his beliefs?

Perhaps you haven’t read the ruling in detail. Perhaps you should before arguing it. IMO this is an appalling encroachment on personal freedom.

 

[Holly3278]

Disgusting. I would urge all Canadians to write a letter to their proper authorities condemning this disgusting action of theirs.

 

[Holly3278]

You have demonstrated that Canada is NOT a free society by this ruling.

Hate is not spread in this manner. Calling a sin a sin is not spreading hate.

Calling good evil and evil good is hate. This so-called “Human Rights” panel are the purveyors of hate. The Canadian law that was used to prosecute this pastor is promotes hate. Supporters of this law are the people engaged in hateful conduct.

After all, do you hate this pastor now? Who is hating whom?

Exactly! Calling a sin a sin is not hate! What is hatred is calling good evil and evil good.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Exactly! Calling a sin a sin is not hate! What is hatred is calling good evil and evil good.

Saying that the Church believes that homosexual ACTS are sinful isn’t denigrating. Calling homosexual PEOPLE sinful by their existence is denigrating.

It’s a fine line and many people seem to have problems with it, but that is Church teaching as well. The CCC has been posted repeatedly on this site and the statements about how homosexuals are to be treated as people is very clear.

 

[Dale_M]

They would have wanted “obscenity” to be completely lawful on private property.

hmmm… I’m not so sure. I doubt they would have supported having sex on your front lawn.

Newspapers, magazines, strip clubs, and radio transmitters should all be considered private property. When it bleeds over onto other people’s property, we can have conflicts.

Private property is just that, but public presence is another matter. Newspapers and radio broadcasts are definitely in the public sphere, even though printing presses and radio transmitters are private property.

Catholic hate speech against gays is sickening, but that Pastor was completely within his rights as a human being.

I’m not sure that this is a human rights issue so much as a civil rights issue. The limits of speech/expression are regulated by government. Here in the US, our courts have given freedom of speech a wide interpretation. Canada seems to be giving freedom of expression a much narrower interpretation. I think the decision in this Canadian case is wrong.

A current court case in Los Angeles may test the limits of freedom of speech of in the US.
LA obscenity case nauseates some potential jurors
WARNING: the topic is of an unpleasant nature

The defendent is claiming his work is art. I highly doubt that, but his work does push the issue of speech.

Are there limits to freedom of expression or speech? If so, what are they? When values clash over speech or expression, how is the conflict to be resolved?

 

[JimG]

Are there limits to freedom of expression or speech?

In some U.S. courts, yes. In a recent case, this woman was not even allowed to use the correct term for what happened to her.

 

[Dale_M]

In some U.S. courts, yes. In a recent case, this woman was not even allowed to use the correct term for what happened to her.

This is horrible. I am amazed that any judge, let alone more than one, would make such a restriction. I hope the Supreme Court accepts the case and overturns the lower courts decisions.

 

[leftistdestroye]

JimG;3790226]

I’m guessing that the drafters of the U.S. Constitution would never have suspected that stripping or obscenity would have someday have been construed as “speech.”

1. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
2. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
3. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
4. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
5. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

**24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

1. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
2. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”**
3. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
4. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

 

[hunter2]

hmmm… I’m not so sure. I doubt they would have supported having sex on your front lawn.

Private property is just that, but public presence is another matter. Newspapers and radio broadcasts are definitely in the public sphere, even though printing presses and radio transmitters are private property.
I’m not sure that this is a human rights issue so much as a civil rights issue. The limits of speech/expression are regulated by government. Here in the US, our courts have given freedom of speech a wide interpretation. Canada seems to be giving freedom of expression a much narrower interpretation. I think the decision in this Canadian case is wrong.

A current court case in Los Angeles may test the limits of freedom of speech of in the US.
LA obscenity case nauseates some potential jurors
WARNING: the topic is of an unpleasant nature

The defendent is claiming his work is art. I highly doubt that, but his work does push the issue of speech.

Are there limits to freedom of expression or speech? If so, what are they? When values clash over speech or expression, how is the conflict to be resolved?

One chooses to buy and read newspaper. One chooses to buy radio and tune to certain station. Broadcasting to passers by on the street is a different issue. In that case, complaints should be gathered and a case made in court. I fail to see how your example of the L.A. case is any different. You can choose to not see it.

 

[leftistdestroye]

hunter2;3795709]

Broadcasting to passers by on the street is a different issue. In that case, complaints should be gathered and a case made in court.

Why does it have to go to the courts? Why can’t it be dealt with person to person? Why do we always have to run to the government for everything?

 

[Howard_Roark]

Canada is over. Forget the Mexico wall, divert the funds to building a Canada wall while we still can.