Boissoin Hearing Conclusions & Ruling

The Alberta Human Rights Commission ruling on the Boissoin/CCC complaint has been posted.

The short synopsis: Boissoin and the CCC lost the case:

361. In conclusion, I find that the respondents, Mr. Boissoin and the CCC, have contravened
s. 3 of the Act by causing to be published in the Red Deer Advocate, before the public, a
publication which is likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt because of their
sexual preference.

The commissioner's interpretation and balance of the legislative and legal principles at play here is impressive:

356. I have considered Charter values in reaching my decision. I agree with the argument of the CCLA that Charter values are at play, not only when there is a constitutional challenge. Further, the case law is clear that in any analysis of competing rights, the balance must be done in light of the Charter. I accept the authority as submitted by the CCLA from Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] S.C.C. 256.
In quoting from Justice Charron at paragraph 16:

The rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter establish a
minimum constitutional protection that must be taken into account by the
legislature and by every person or body subject to the Canadian Charter.

357. In balancing the freedom afforded under the Charter and the degree of protection
afforded through the provincial legislation, I considered s. 2(b) of the Charter in regards to the fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion, the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press and other media, the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of association. Having considered the Charter and the balancing of the freedoms set out in the Charter, I have interpreted the Act in a manner which respected the broad protection granted to religious freedom. However, I have found that this protection does not trump the protection afforded under the Alberta human rights legislation in s. 3. to protection against hatred and contempt. I also take the view that s.3(2) required a balancing of these freedoms afforded to individuals under the Charter, with the prohibitions in s. 3(1) of the Act. In this case, the publication’s exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter. It cannot be the case that any speech wrapped in the ‘guise’ of politics or religion is beyond reproach by any legislation but the Criminal Code.

This wording puts those who would use their faith to marginalize others into an awkward place. Although it is valid to discuss topics of faith, clearly there are now stated boundaries to those rights - namely that you are entitled to a religious opinion, and to express that opinion up to the point where you are trying to curtail someone else's right to a peaceful existence.

The Alberta Attorney General's arguments are similarly aligned and rather interesting from the perspective of Alberta's past history regarding GLBT rights cases such as Vriend:

242. It is the Attorney General’s position that Mr. Boissoin’s letter is discriminatory and it clearly falls within in the purview of Section 3 of the Act. The Attorney General’s position is that the Intervener C.C.L.A. agrees on the point that the province of Alberta has jurisdiction to legislate with regard to discriminatory expression that is directly linked to areas of prohibited discriminatory practices. It is the position of the Attorney General that the discriminatory messages in Mr. Boissoin’s letter need only likely cause others to engage in prohibited practices. Furthermore, it is the position of the Attorney General that no link to actual discriminatory acts need be established in this regard.

243. The Attorney General submits that evidence before this Panel of Mr. Doug Jones and Dr. Kevin Alderson have established that Mr. Boissoin’s letter contains messages that have the effect of enhancing discrimination against homosexuals living in central Alberta. The messages as asserted by Mr. Boissoin add to the misperception of gay people as being inherently evil. Further, Mr. Boissoin condones the mistreatment of gay people through his message creating an atmosphere that is conducive to discrimination.

244. The Attorney General asserts that on a plain reading of Mr. Boissoin’s letter he is seeking that readers do whatever they can within their own sphere of influence to stop the homosexual machine. Furthermore, Mr. Boissoin is encouraging discrimination in employment tenancy and in goods and services.

Ouch - that's a pretty harsh condemnation of a fairly short letter to the editor.

This has not been a good week for Craig Chandler - founder and one time head of the CCC, whose involvement in this case is not to be overlooked:

358. No evidence was presented by the CCC as to its position regarding the statements made by Mr. Boissoin. Mr. Boissoin did state on cross examination that Mr. Craig Chandler was aware and supported what he was doing.

359. Early in the proceedings, Ms. MacIntosh, representing Mr. Chipeur, Q.C., made an
application, as instructed by Mr. Craig Chandler on behalf of the CCC, only with respect to the issue of whether or not the CCC should be removed as a party.

Strangely, it is also this same case that provoked Rob Wells of Edmonton to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission about what was said on Chandler's "Freedom Radio Network" show in February 2005, and to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Commission when a few months later Chandler threatened to retaliate. Not one of those cases has landed in Chandler's favour, and neither has this one.

Next up, will Stelmach really want this man running alongside him in an anticipated spring election?

[Update 18:22]
Well, would you look at that, CCC's responding to the ruling:

Jim Blake, the current head of the Christian group, said all Canadians should be allowed to speak freely.

"Clearly, the freedom of expression has been suppressed so we're disappointed," Blake said.

Just like your Blake's accusations that PC party brass reviewing Chandler's suitability as a candidate are a witch hunt, Blake has missed the point once again. The issue is not "freedom of speech", but whether the exercise of that freedom impinges upon the valid rights of others.
[/Update]