Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I've written over the course of several years about the Stephen Boissoin case in Canada, where the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission found a minister guilty of "hate speech" and fined him $5,000 for expressing his anti-gay views in a letter to a newspaper. The commission also ordered him not to say anything negative about homosexuality again.
A judge has now reversed that decision and restored Boissoin's right to free speech.
A Court of Queen's Bench judge has ruled an anti-gay letter written by a former Alberta pastor in 2002 was not a hate crime and is allowed under freedom of speech.Justice E.C. Wilson overturned a 2008 ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Commission that the letter by Stephen Boissoin that was published in the Red Deer Advocate broke provincial law...
The commission had ordered Boissoin to refrain from making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and to pay the complainant, former Red Deer high school teacher Darren Lund, $5,000 in damages.
Neither order can now be enforced, as Wilson declared them "unlawful or unconstitutional."
The letter carried the headline "Homosexual agenda wicked" and suggested gays were as immoral as pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps.
I repeat what I said last year when the commission ruled against him:
Stephen Boissoin is an idiot, an ignoramus and a bigot. But so what? Being an idiot is not against the law and expressing idiotic opinions should not be either. We have far more to fear from governments with the power to censor speech they don't like than from all the hateful speech ever uttered.
And I'll quote Jason Kuznicki on the same case:
Look, I'm as gay as they get. And I'm even an atheist. Yet all the same, I have to feel sympathy for the guy. Something terribly wrong is being done to him-even while, yes, he really is saying something that I find terribly wrong. Neither point should ever obscure the other; the freedom to be offended implies the freedom to offensive, and vice versa.To my gay friends: It's nothing personal. It's just that the freedoms of conscience and of speech are the foundations of your rights, too. Once, not so long ago, your speech was generally thought every bit as loathsome as Mr. Boissoin's is today. And because my loyalties, my deepest and most profound loyalties, are with the system of free inquiry and free self-discovery, I must support him even as I have supported you. I daresay I'm even doing you a service...
We've seen his kind before. The way to deal with them is not prosecution, but mere civic ridicule, which gives them all of the scant dignity that they deserve. Back when Anita Bryant came peddling this stuff, it almost made sense. But now, with gays and lesbians raising more children than ever before, the best way to fight Mr. Boissoin might simply be for gay and lesbian parents to speak up against him. Perhaps one fine Sunday morning they could show up at his church in droves-and pray (another "democratic right") that he change his views.
I'll blast the Stephen Boissons of the world as long as I have breath in my body. I'll ridicule them, I'll mock them, I'll prove them wrong. I will not, however, acquiesce to a government that claims the authority to punish them. Jefferson said it best: "It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." Principle and pragmatism both weigh heavily against taking any action against this man other than ridicule.
Politics
Comments
But now the poor Christians have one less excuse to feel persecuted! Damned activist judges....
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 8, 2009 10:24 AM
Sometimes for me it's teeth-grindingly frustrating to be completely consistent in this area, but in the final analysis the principle has to be rigidly maintained: free speech is free speech is free speech. Otherwise the speech that's prohibited today may be your speech when the pendulum swings.
Posted by: Matt Springer | December 8, 2009 11:07 AM
This is great news! Now I can finally stop supporting this insufferable twit, whose greatest accomplishment is fixing a few kilograms of carbon and proving that, while we all sprang from apes, some of us didn’t spring far enough. At last I can treat this distended piece of orangutan rectum with the scorn he so richly disserves. Finally, and with a clear conscious I can say that Stephen Boissoin is a vile, bigoted, deranged, meglomaniac with the wit of stuned trout, the intellect of a prune, and the charm of a shingles outbreak.
I’m free!
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 8, 2009 11:08 AM
It cannot be said too many times by too many people:
The MOST important right is that of free speech.
ANY abridgment to it is the advancement of oppression.
I hate what he says but will defend his right to say it.
When will people get it??? This guy or any religion preaching their schite IS NOT THE Problem!!! The problem are the hundreds that -for no real reason- believe the schite that is preached. People have to learn to THINK!!!!
Posted by: CybrgnX | December 8, 2009 11:09 AM
By far the toughest for me is the Phelps clan. Every fiber of my being says there has to be some safe way to make that bullshit illegal without providing a tool for oppression... but it's just not there. Even something content-neutral, like banning any kind of political protest within a certain distance of a funeral, is fraught with problems.
This guy? I think I might actually be more viscerally pissed about his being fined than about his bigoted views. He wrote a letter to a newspaper. As much of a waste of skin as this asshat is, you don't actually have to read the letter if you don't want to. It's really sad that this had to even go to court.
Posted by: James Sweet | December 8, 2009 11:25 AM
As much of a vile bigot that Boissoin is, he has to be allowed to express his views.
Posted by: Rob F | December 8, 2009 11:30 AM
"First they came for the asshats, but I didn't not say anything, because I was not an asshat."
Why is it people can't seem to understand that you have to defend the offensive (usually moronic) speech in order to protect any speech. If it was just a matter of protecting speech we agreed with, there would be no need for protections in the first place. There also wouldn't be any speech since something anyone said would piss somebody else off before too long.
*sigh*
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 8, 2009 11:40 AM
No no no no, you have it all wrong. We only ban speech that the majority disagrees with. After all, it's a democracy, right? Majority rules. With an iron fist.
That way, no more than 49% of the population can be oppressed at any given time. Pretty sweet, eh? Eh?
Posted by: James Sweet | December 8, 2009 11:49 AM
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and I am a lesbian.
Please remember that this happened in Canada. We have hate speech laws here that are intended to stop violent nutcakes from spewing hatred that has been shown to have been -intended- to cause criminal acts of violence against minorities.
I will have to say it's hard to be consistent in my values, but in the end, I have to support his right to free speech as long as it does not advocate violence against those he preaches against.
A similar case in Sudbury, Ontario resulted in the censure of a bigot who was advocating that all gays be killed. Note that he was advocating violence, as as such, his comments fell afoul of our hate speech laws.
I believe that there -is- a place for drawing the line as to what may be advocated in a public forum, but as long as it falls within the confines of crazy opinion instead of clearly advocating violence, it has be be allowed.
Posted by: Janice in Toronto | December 8, 2009 12:00 PM
Well, yeah, I think the people here are saying that we disagree with your hate speech laws :)
I definitely see a line with advocating violence, but even then, it depends whether how credible/literal the advocacy/threat is. I mean, if I say, "That Boisson guy should be killed, not fined," I would hope that would be protected speech...!
Posted by: James Sweet | December 8, 2009 12:08 PM
"Well, yeah, I think the people here are saying that we disagree with your hate speech laws :)
I definitely see a line with advocating violence, but even then, it depends whether how credible/literal the advocacy/threat is."
So you seem to be in agreement in principal with our laws, eh? I'm glad to hear it.
It's up to our courts to decide whether or not someones' speech is hateful according to the law, or just malicious rant. So far, since the passage of the hate speech laws, they have been used very rarely and the judgements have been made after careful deliberation and argument, which is exactly why the initial judgement was overturned. Getting a guilty verdict is far from a slam-dunk proposition. It is notoriously difficult to get a guilty verdict on the charge.
We take our free speech seriously here, just as we take hate speech seriously.
I don't think our opinions are very far apart, if at all...
Posted by: Janice in Toronto | December 8, 2009 12:20 PM
James Sweet: ALL extremists MUST be shot.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 8, 2009 12:24 PM
Partially, but I question the utility of the hate speech legislation. In the United States, you can still be prosecuted for making credible threats. I have reservations about making that sort of thing non-content-neutral, in the sense that the threat being motivated by "hate" makes it a different crime.
If it is a different crime to say, "I'm going to bash in your brains because I believe you cheated me in a business deal" vs. "I'm going to bash in your brains because you are gay," I worry about where that leads. If nothing else, it allows the promoters of hate to play the persecution card... while I seriously doubt whether this legislation is actually doing anything to contribute to a safer or less hate-filled world.
If it's notoriously difficult to get a guilty verdict, is it really accomplishing all that much? I agree it's a tricky issue, though, when it comes to violence.
Really, I think that the US and Canada can work together to solve this whole problem in one fell swoop. We just let the Texas seccessionists take over, see, and then when Texas is its own country, you guys can sell Alberta to the Texans. Sound like a deal? ;)
Posted by: James Sweet | December 8, 2009 12:31 PM
You've got it all wrong. We like Alberta; we just don't like Albertans.
But seriously, I wonder if it's the wording that's so offensive. Calling it "hate speech" sounds like emotions are being regulated. It sounds all wrong, like a crime is somehow worse if you were bitchy while committing it. I think it would be better to phrase such things as conspiracy to infringe upon the rights of others (which is what happens when you convince one group that another group is evil) or threatening speech. Hate should have nothing to do with it. Unless they're also willing to give out love bonuses.
Posted by: pough | December 8, 2009 1:32 PM
I suppose that primarily, the hate speech laws are there to dissuade people from hate speech, rather than to be used punitively, though technically, they can. The laws existence essentially implies "we as a nation will not tolerate hate speech". It reflects most of our citizens disdain for such speech. It makes it legally as well as socially unacceptable, and by doing so, reduces the frequency of hate speech by threat of punishment and public scorn.
There's just no way that anyone can be completely muzzled, though it would be tempting to do so in the most egregious cases. Fortunately, the law can only go so far without overstepping basic rights we have to say what we want.
It's not an easy decision to make to find someone guilty of a crime that is, to some degree, subjective. Words can be twisted, phrases can be interpreted in different ways. The particular offending statement has to fit some pretty tight parameters to be considered hate speech.
As I said before, it's not an easy law to enforce. I don't envy judges who have to deal with the law; they're pretty much damned by some people whichever way they rule.
We'll give you Americans Alberta if you give us Florida. Fair deal?
Posted by: Janice in Toronto | December 8, 2009 2:44 PM
I'm glad this was overturned, both on principle, and for the strategic reason I refer to in #1. However, I find myself conflicted in opposing all hate speech laws, in that I am unlikely to ever be the target of serious hate speech, in a way that might reasonably lead to harm to me. I'm a straight white male with an Anglo name -- about the only thing the bigots might get me on is the atheism, which is a) invisible unless I reveal it and b) not that big a deal in my neck of the woods.
So yeah: the principle of free speech is absolutely right, for all sorts of reasons. But it's a little too damned easy for me to sit behind my keyboard and say that we should allow the speech of idiots like Boissoin and Stormfront. I'm not likely to be the one paying the potential price.
Also: James Sweet @10: I mean, if I say, "That Boisson guy should be killed, not fined," I would hope that would be protected speech...!
I disagree, that comes too close to being a threat (disclaimer: IANAL). It's in the category of threat-with-plausible-deniability, because hey, I didn't say *I* was gonna do anything; it's not *my* fault if someone else takes a shot at the bastard, is it?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 8, 2009 3:55 PM
Abby you are completely and utterly wrong. Steve has the wit of stunted trout, not a stuned one... :)
On a more serious note, I don't get all this carping about how its so hard to give these idiots free speeech/be consistent/be fair/whatever you want to call it. When I hear someone making ridiculous and nasty claims I certainly get the urge to argue with them, to show the world that they're wrong, but I don't get the urge to gag them. I got enough bullying in the schooyard to know that calling the teacher isn't going to change their attitude a tenth as well as changing your response to the bully does. In fact I think censorship of bad ideas is probably one of the best ways to fix them in the mind like concrete...exactly what you don't want to do.
Posted by: eric | December 8, 2009 3:59 PM
I have the same problem with conspiracy convictions. Conspiracy after all is just speech. A lot of these terrorism conspiracies are just con-jobs or flytraps--it's clearly preferable for public safety to have as many people willing to plan a terrorist attack as possible off the streets--but at what cost? Four hapless geeks talking about building nuclear bombs and culturing biological weapons, when the best they can muster in material is some firecrackers and a refrigerator that hasn't been cleaned in a decade? Provocateurs start suggesting outlandish plots, these bozos chat about it with delusions of grandeur, and they wind up in jail for 30 years? It all seems very fishy to me. If the same conspiracy processes were undertaken by the FBI for every gun-toting Obama hater on the Malkin's, they'd be running a thousand undercovers through ATF and half of those people would be in jail by Christmas.
If you start selling fake plutonium or nonfunctional Stingers, fine. But all this deluded jibber-jabber with an FBI guy as catalyst is very suspicious to me.
Speech is speech. Hateful, even dangerous speech is still speech. It was a radical experiment to make speech pure-free; it is still playing out, but I think Jefferson was right. Let 'em talk; when they start locking-and-loading, take 'em down.
Ice9
Posted by: ice9 | December 8, 2009 3:59 PM
ice9:
That reminds me of something Abby Hoffman said during the Chicago Seven trial, that the conspiracy charge was ridiculous, because they were, essentially, being charged with having an unpopular opinion, their "state of mind" being prosecuted.
Posted by: Kyorosuke | December 8, 2009 4:19 PM
dogmeatib that is the best take on Niemöller I've seen in awhile.
Posted by: katydid13 | December 8, 2009 6:14 PM
Ice9 -- my understanding is that a conspiracy charge can't be sustained unless the prosecution can demonstrate at least one action undertaken in furtherance of that conspiracy. In other words, you have to do at least one thing more than just talk or plan. (Of course, that could still be interpreted too broadly, but at least it's something.)
Posted by: psweet | December 8, 2009 9:14 PM
But it's a little too damned easy for me to sit behind my keyboard and say that we should allow the speech of idiots like Boissoin and Stormfront. I'm not likely to be the one paying the potential price.
True, but it's also those vulnerable groups who stand to benefit the most from having strong and consistent free speech protections. For instance, though obviously it was a difficult and dangerous struggle, the same constitutional protections afforded Klan rallies helped make sure MLK could so forcefully and publicly advocate the cause of the civil rights movement.
Conversely, laws originally designed to squash hate speech can just as easily backfire on just those vulnerable groups it was originally designed to protect.
Posted by: Matt Springer | December 8, 2009 10:47 PM
To be fair, it wasn't about the content of his letter. The problem was that he wrote into the newspaper. Canada's only got the one, eh, and we all have to share, and he scribbled over the Canadian Tire advert, so people all over the country had no idea how much the Canadian Tire Mastercraft 2-in-1 snowblower/meat tenderizer was on for.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 9, 2009 12:59 AM
Quick question: Anti-Gay speech didn't extend into "Burn the queers", right?
Posted by: Rutee | December 9, 2009 7:48 AM
Eric, I agree, censorship is one of the least effective ways of changing the mind of one who already holds whatever objectionable opinion is being censored. I'll add that my response at post 3 is a close second. But of course changing minds wasn't exactly the goal there. ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 9, 2009 9:40 AM
So the distinction between Boissoin's right to say gays are bad and the Lansing bus driver's right, is that the bus driver is in a position of authority over the students, per this quote:
“The bus driver was in control of the situation. Bullying is an imbalance of power. The student had no choice but to accept what was being said and to act later.”
Correct? The level of authority of the speaker over the listener changes it from generalized "hate speech" to targeted bullying, yes?
Posted by: QuackaDoodle | December 9, 2009 10:34 AM
Correct? The level of authority of the speaker over the listener changes it from generalized "hate speech" to targeted bullying, yes?
Sort of, but I think you're over-simplifying. Obviously, the bus driver's speech was targeted bullying because it was, well, targeted at a specific individual physically present, rather than a general comment in a letter to the editor. The bus driver's position of authority is not intrinsic to the definition of bullying, it's just what enabled the abuse to take place (superiority in physical strength, or in numbers, also works. I speak as one who was often on the receiving end).
BTW: I actually find it a little odd to link the bus driver case to bullying per se. I generally think of bullying as something that happens between students, and is not always taken as seriously as it should be (though I agree what the driver did also qualifies). But it ought to be taken for granted that school employees will not insult or harrass students in their charge, whether or not we call it "bullying" or have specific policies against it by that name. (I know, wrong thread)
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 9, 2009 12:42 PM