Thursday, March 06, 2008

Lies and Distortion - Gwen Landolt Parrots The Ezra

It's amazing how the right wingnuts manage to parrot each other. Over at the magazine Catholic Insight, we find "Real Woman" Gwen Landolt whining and snivelling about how the Charter of Rights and Human Rights commission infringes upon her right to be a religious bigot where GLBT people are concerned...and of course, the HRC's are "out of control".

The crux of Landolt's complaint appears to be that because the courts have been persuaded that it is in fact valid to recognize discrimination against GLBT people, they have thereby constricted her rights as a religious person.

The guarantees for religious freedom have, in fact, most often been used to restrict or narrow religious freedom rather than expand it, especially when it has come in conflict with the “equality” rights of homosexuals. The latter’s rights were written into the Charter by the courts and, in contrast to religious rights, have increased and been strengthened step by step by the courts, so much so that, for the most part, homosexual rights now trump religious rights.

Her conclusion that treating discrimination against GLBT people as being just as wrong as discriminating against someone because of their gender, religion or ethnicity somehow impinges upon her religious freedoms is distinctly misguided. Nobody has told Ms. Landolt that she has to renounce her belief that being GLBT is somehow sinful. She is perfectly free to believe that, and few in the world would really care. Of course, for Landolt, and others, it's not good enough for them to believe that GLBT people are sinful, they want to punish by social and legal sanction as well.

It is significant that actual proof of discrimination against homosexuals has never been introduced at any time in evidence in any court in Canada.

Ummm...incorrect, Gwen. Remember the case of Vriend v. Alberta? There is a clear case of government discrimination in a matter, based on an intentional omission in law.

Of course, Landolt completely misinterprets the Vriend decision, and twists it around to being a matter of "judicial activism", as the Alberta legislature had clearly not voted to provide protection to homosexuals in the province of Alberta:

On the basis of this broad definition of equality, the Supreme Court of Canada in Vriend ordered the Alberta government to include sexual orientation in that province’s human rights legislation, even though that legislature had previously voted against such an inclusion. It is noteworthy that the purpose of the Charter was supposed to be to protect individuals from government legislation and policies that discriminated against them; it was not to provide new rights to individuals to be written into legislation. The Vriend decision, therefore, was a twist in judicial activism which strengthened judicial power.

Of course, what Landolt has completely failed to admit and accept is that the legislation in Alberta was at odds with the Constitution. It was not a matter of "judicial activism" at all, rather a recognition that the jurisprudence around S15 of the Charter had already established that S15 was not an "exclusive" list; further other jurisdictions in Canada had already extended legal protections against discrimination to GLBT people.

Further, the Vriend case is quite clearly a matter of government legislation that discriminated against homosexuals. The entire Vriend case centers around the fact that the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission refused to hear the Vriend complaint on the basis that it revolved around the fact that Delwin Vriend was fired for being gay.

Let's be absolutely clear here - the Vriend decision was in fact very much about a provable case of discrimination of precisely the kind that Gwen Landolt is claiming the Charter was intended to protect people from.

Of course, Gwen's happy little fantasy world holds that we all have to bow down on Sundays and worship:

The chipping away of religious freedom began almost immediately after S.15 of the Charter came into effect in 1985 in the R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985][vii]. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the Lord’s Day Act, which required the closing of businesses on Sunday, infringed on religious freedom because religious freedom meant not only freedom of worship, practice, and teaching, but also included freedom from coercion, e.g., that the government could not coerce individuals to affirm specific religious belief, such as, in this case, coercing non-believers to observe the Christian Sabbath. That is, the Court held that non-religious individuals have a right to be free from religious observance.

She is correct in one point here - freedom of religion also implies freedom from religion. Of course, what shreds of rationality are gradually torn away as she progresses down her fantasy path about just how evil it is that legislation that implies a particular religious tradition becomes problematic when you grant freedom of religion to those who aren't followers of Christian tradition:

This interpretation departed considerably from the long established interpretation of freedom of religion, which, heretofore, had meant that one was free to practice one’s religion without interference from the state. In short, the court emphasized the individual conscience and the rights of non-Christians at the expense of the religious rights of communities of believers. It is obvious that Sunday shop closing legislation simply respected the Sabbath observed by the majority of people in society, and protected both shop owners and retail workers from being compelled to work on their day of rest.

The problem with Landolt's argument is that her reasoning is deeply flawed. What Landolt has missed is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies equally to all Canadians, regardless of their faith; and further fundamental individual freedoms such as freedom of religion mean that a law whose fundamental premise is based on a particular religious tradition (and the "Lord's Day Act" was clearly such a law) is on very weak ground. Further, the Charter and the Constitution quite clearly do not recognize any single faith tradition as being primary in Canada.

We then find Landolt repeating the usual whines about cases like Brockie and others which I have already addressed in some detail. Amusingly, I'd like to know what's so offensive about printing letterhead for a gay organization that it caused Mr. Brockie to find his "religious sensibilities" offended. Of course, I wonder what would happen if the tables were turned, and a printer refused to print something with overtly christian symbols plastered all over it?

Oh yes, she tries valiantly to rescue the Boissoin case from the toilet:

Stephen Boissoin, a Baptist Minister in Alberta, published a letter opposing homosexuality in a local newspaper, The Red Deer Advocate. This letter was an expression of Mr. Boissoin’s deeply held beliefs on the issue, and ran under the subheading “Homosexual Agenda Wicked”.

Boissoin's letter was no "religious" letter. Give me a break. That letter was filled with enough distortions, outright lies and falsehoods to make any self respecting Christian blush with embarrassment with the myriad ways it breaches fundamental tenets of the ethics of that faith.

As if Boissoin's letter would have provoked any kind of rational discussion, Landolt points to this tidbit on the matter from a Gay publication:

Significantly, according to the homosexual newspaper, Xtra West (December 6, 2007), the complaint against Pastor Boissoin was opposed by the homosexual lobby group, EGALE, which issued a press release on the case stating “that debate was the best method for dealing with homophobia (sic)” and that “sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

Debate is fine. Boissoin was not opening the door to any kind of debate. Period. His language alone made it clear that he wasn't seeking debate, but was making a call to arms against GLBT people. Landolt conveniently ignores the fact that while the furor was boiling around Red Deer in the weeks after Boissoin's letter was published, a gay youth was severely beaten. While the connection is difficult to prove, the temporal coincidence cannot be ignored.

What Landolt and others need to recognize is that matters of faith are just fine - nobody has a problem with the fact that some faiths consider GLBT people "sinful". That doesn't give anybody the right to marginalize, discriminate against, or abuse someone else simply because "their faith tells them that the Other is an evil sinner". Period. It's amusing how "religious freedom" seems to imply for these people that includes discriminating against GLBT people in both law and life.

Like Ezra's tirades against Human Rights tribunals, Landolt's claims are rooted in a sense of entitlement. Her rights supercede the rights of others. Landolt is perfectly free to believe what she wishes. She is not, however, free to simply impose her religious beliefs on every body else. When she, and others like Charles McVety get it through their heads that individual freedoms are just that - individual - then they might just start to realize that they are free to their beliefs, but that freedom does not extend to imposing their beliefs and values upon others.


Anonymous said...

Well said, Grog:

Justice Muldoon of the Federal Court of Canada said it best when he wrote:
"Disparaging, dehumanizing messages place the people whom they target into plights of humiliation and mockery. The Charter surely does not guarantee the dissemination of such messages. So there is an inherent limitiaon on freedom of speech and expression at the point where it collides (or they collide) with those rights articulated in section 7, 12, 15, 27 and perhaps 28." Para 60 Canada (CHRC) v. Canadian Liberty Net (T.D.) [1992] 3 F.C. 155

Also, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:
"No right, including freedom of religion is absolute. ..The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it."

Just a word of caution:
Be careful not to read too much Catholic Insight - you could be turned into a Fred Phelps!

Roger said...

You are a complete moron to insinuate that Boissoin's letter had anything to do with a gay boy getting beaten up. Boissoin's has a very strong reputation as a youth leader...including gay youth. Even the single member panel chair (a divorce lawyer) who ruled against Boissoin at the AHRC hearing said there was a circumstantial link.

The vast majority of Christians that understand the Bible agree with what Boissoin wrote in context. The problem is, people like you continue to present "your" distorted version of his context.

Grog said...


(1) That assault was a key part of the Lund complaint regarding Boissoin. The fact that it occurred during the period of time that Boissoin's letter was being argued about in the local newsletter draws a temporal coincidence that cannot and should not be ignored. (Go read the decision on that case - it is publicly available on the AHRC website)

(2) There is exactly nothing in Boissoin's letter that is "taken out of context". There is nothing redeeming about spreading lies about GLBT people, making false equivalences or making a statement that is essentially a call to arms.

(3) If, as you claim, the vast majority of Christians agree with what Boissoin wrote, then Christianity has truly lost its way. (And I suspect that few have actually read what Boissoin wrote, or have any clue of the impact of that letter on the GLBT population in Red Deer (and elsewhere in Alberta).

(4) Under NO circumstances will I publish any future comments from you that start off by calling me names. If you feel a need to do that, go yell at your dog or some such.

Anonymous said...

Roger - go put your head out of your Chandlerista ass!

The testimony at the Boission Human Rights Commission's hearing showed that the gay-basher who beat the Red Deer teen was known to be a member of Boission's youth group. yet the good ex-con correspondence school "Reverend" took no action against this gay-basher.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission's investigation reported that Boission's letter "appears to promote violence".

Instead of weakening Human Rights legislation, we ought to be strenghening the anti-hate provisions of the Criminal Code to increase protection against bashers like Boission who hide behind some phony title of "Reverend" to attack the vulnerable.

A Reverend bully is still a bully!

Roger said...

That is absolutely false.

The testimony at the hearing was based on a receptionists 'speculation'. From my understanding, this receptionist was a addict and had been hired on a program in order to help here. I heard a radio program were reputable co-workers of Boissoin's stated that he would not attack her credibility at the tribunal in order to defend himself. He said that he felt bad for her and was not intimidated by any commissions ruling. They claimed that she had to go to Edmonton for rehab while working for him and that she was a very troubled person. In a court of law, she would have been dismissed based on her lack of credibility. Her comments were purely what she thought she heard. Boissoin was a facilitator for the RCMP's Restorative Justice Program an executive director of a charitable organization with five facilities. To insinuate that he knew who these jerks were is to admit that you have no inkling about who Boissoin is in regards to his devotion to youth, any youth for that matter. Yes he hatse homosexuality but that does not make him an accessory to criminal behaviour. If this case gets appealed to a real court, it is my opinion that it will get overturned.

Darren Lund was inviting gay ministers to teach teens a pro-homosexual view of the Bible while teaching at a Red Deer high school. He did not bring in a minister to inform the same students about the traditional view. Lund is an activist that was abusing his role as a teacher.

Get your head out of the sand. Hate Boissoin's comments but stop attempting to turn him into an ogre. Many do not see him that way. Even the homosexual youth and young adults that were arm in arm with him the Calgary Herald.

Have you ever considered the Canadian and US platform that Lund has provided Boissoin and those that think like him? Lunds complaint against Boissoin has started an outrage against HR commissions and gay activism. Lund is focusing on one small ego related battle.

Roger said...

Another point, have you ever considered how everyone determines what Boissoin's context was. People like you judge what he thinks without taking anything he says into consideration. On one US television program that I watched where Boissoin was interviewed he chuckled and said something like "everyone else's interpretation of my letter seems to carry weight except my own." He went on to say how the hyper pro-gay activists, inlcuding the AHRC, don't care about anything he says while attempting to put his letter to the editor in context. He said they continue to accuse him of things that he has never even considered or felt and when he tries to defend himself he is dismissed as if not even there.

Grog, I apologize for making the morom comment but this really makes me angry. Here is the email that Boissoin allowed to be printed in a Herald article. Email him, let's get his input here Hating what Boissoin said, what he thinks in one thing, destroying a person based on speculation is another.

Grog said...


You write:

The testimony at the hearing was based on a receptionists 'speculation'. From my understanding, this receptionist was a addict and had been hired on a program in order to help here.

Sorry Roger, but there was a lot more testimony at those hearings than just the receptionist. If you wish to attack her credibility, then I suggest you track her down and open that conversation with her directly.

Lund is an activist that was abusing his role as a teacher.

Uh huh. Got it. So, because you don't agree with him, he's suddenly "an activist" and therefore his concerns are invalid? Typical - attack the person when you can't rationally address the argument.

Hating what Boissoin said, what he thinks in one thing, destroying a person based on speculation is another.

I'm not destroying Boissoin. I have gone after what he wrote and stated very, very clearly why I think he was horrendously out of line in doing so.

With respect to "his context" - I have the basic context of his letter. So far, nothing I have heard from him convinces me that it was anything less than a hate-filled screed, no better than that which I would expect out "White Supremacists" on a variety of topics. The content of his letter was NOT pastoral in any sense of the word I can imagine.

If Boissoin's letter had been written about Women, Muslims, Jews or Christians, the outcry would have been deafening. So please tell me why it's acceptable for him to write that same crap about GLBT people?

Anonymous said...

APPEAL??? For god's sake, the deadline for the appeal is long past.. he cannot appeal the decision now.

I suspect that he didn't file the appeal because there was absolutely no reasonable grounds for any appeal.

Roger said...

An appeal can be made within 30 days after the ruling on the remedy which to my understanding has not been ruled on yet. From what I understand Boissoin has some serious financial backing so we might hear about an appeal to an actual court of law.

Roger said...

anonymous said... "I suspect that he didn't file the appeal because there was absolutely no reasonable grounds for any appeal."

The ruling was based on circumstantial evidence. The rules of law that have to be applied in an actual court do not have to be applied at the AHRC level. Even the one member, divorce lawyer panel who has no constitutional law experience stated in her ruling that she accepted circumstancial evidence, links etc. There was one witness who says she heard that Boissoin knew who the suspects were but as one who claims to be in the loop she herself did not know who they were and did not go to the police at any time herself. She is totally misinformed, lying or speculating based on something she thought she heard. The other witnesses were Lund's expert witnesses one who left his wife and kids for a gay relationship.

Yup, sounds like there is no grounds for an appeal.

Grog said...


It seems to me that if your critique of the testimony is based upon whining about the character of the witnesses - and therefore your suppositions about the honesty of their testimony - you are doing little more than idle speculation based on hearsay yourself.

There was one witness who says she heard that Boissoin knew who the suspects were but as one who claims to be in the loop she herself did not know who they were and did not go to the police at any time herself. She is totally misinformed, lying or speculating based on something she thought she heard.

Again, with respect to the material subject of Boissoin's letter, and its consequences for GLBT people as a group, this claim is quite irrelevant.

Whether Boissoin knew the goons that did that beating is a different subject to the content of his letter.

The other witnesses were Lund's expert witnesses one who left his wife and kids for a gay relationship.

Which is materially relevant to his testimony how?

I'm going to reiterate my question to you from a previous comment, Roger.

If Boissoin's letter had been written about Women, Muslims, Jews or Christians, the outcry would have been deafening. So please tell me why it's acceptable for him to write that same crap about GLBT people?

Roger said...

Women, Muslims & Jews are not pushing their agenda's in our elementary and schools.

Women, Muslims & Jews are not promoting a lifestyle to children and youth that has been proven to be destructive.

Women, Muslims(except a few) & Jews are not trying to quench a Canadians freedom of speech and religious expression. i.e homosexual Richard Warman has filed 26 complaints many against Christians who oppose homosexual activism.

It doesn't matter what I say Grog, we are on opposite sides of the fence.

Ps. Why were you surprised when I said Lund was an activist? He has even embraced the title when it benefits him.

Grog said...


So, according to you, it's okay to treat GLBT people as second class or worse citizens simply because they are who they are?

As for any agenda, the agenda is no different than ethnic minorities, jews and numerous other visible minorities strive for every day - namely the right to be seen as basically normal human beings and be allowed to live a peaceful existence.

And, if you had any awareness of history, you would have realized that all of the groups I mentioned have been accused of "corrupting youth with their agenda" at some point in history.

Get over it, Roger. GLBT people have always been a part of society, and they always will be. There is no good reason to treat them as second class or worse citizens.

(and no, I wasn't "surprised" by your use of the tag "activist" with respect to Lund - merely irritated by the way that you and others use the term as an epithet, implying that someone's opinion is somehow automatically of lesser value)

Grog said...

homosexual Richard Warman has filed 26 complaints many against Christians who oppose homosexual activism.

1) I don't believe Warman is homosexual.

2) As I have repeatedly pointed out on this blog, the problem starts and ends with those who would impose their faith upon the rest of us. Faith is a matter of personal belief, not public policy or law; and absolutely should not be used as a club with which to beat down another population

Roger said...

Gay activism is the club that has been beating down peoples rights. Take a look at Toronto's gay pride parades. Many homosexuals can walk down the street naked and get away with it. Heterosexuals can't even have a parade to celebrate their sexual orientation. That would be discriminatory. The tables have turned and the homosexuals have taken away the rights of others to establish their own. I have the right to hate homosexuality. I do not have the right to discrimate against homosexuals and have no intent to do so. Personally, the lifestyle and your defense of it disgusts me. To each is own as they say.

Grog said...

Discrimination and bigotry is built upon lies, half truths and misconceptions.

You keep making broad allusions to "agendas" and "lifestyle" as if there is some mystical life that GLBT people lead that is so different from the rest of society. News flash for you - it's not. Like everybody else, they work, eat, sleep, have families and pay taxes.

As for "infringing" on religious freedom, give me a break. GLBT people might infringe upon your desire not to be offended, but that isn't impinging on what you are free to believe. (Go do a little research, you'd be surprised how many GLBT people are actively religious themselves - better hope that the person in the pew next to you isn't one of them - it might be catching)

Learn to live and let live - it's a lot easier.

Anonymous said...

Okay's time to prove your statements.

You said "....Gay activism is the club that has been beating down peoples rights. ...."

Show me one example -in law- of where somebodys rights were beaten down because of a 'Gay rights agenda'.

And by the way I'm talking about 'rights' as defined within the Charter.

Assertions will not be acceptable, if you want to prove your side of the story you must also provide references that can be verified.


Roger said...

Unfortunately, I believe that regardless of what I state here you will still disagree. The point that I am asking you to consider is that "gay activists" are attempting, successfully in many cases, to push themselves upon individuals, institutions and organizations that have as their fundamental values, beliefs and or doctrines an opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. They do not want to be subject to it...i.e gays working in religious insitutions, gays using their facilities for their marriages or other gay events etc. These religious institutions especially should be protected as it is their RIGHT or at least was to oppose this lifestyle 'choice'. There is no scientific proof that a person is born with a predetermined preference to homosexuality, heterosexuality, beastiality, infidelity etc etc. Ultimately, homosexuality is a choice and many disagee with it and want to have places where they do not have to be subject to it. One who participates in homosexual sex cannot be compared to Jews or Blacks as many attempt to do. A predetermining factor (ethnicity, descent etc) is not the same as a predisposition and in most cases there is not even a genetic predisposition. Environmental factors contribute to the vast majority of homosexual experiences.

Let's start with the Vriend case (1998 Surpreme Court of Canada). How will instituions such as King's College in Edmonton, an orthodox, fundamental Christian educational institution have their religious rights protected? Specifically, since the Vriend ruling, how will Christian organizations be permitted to maintain their religious convictions, teachings and doctrines and choose not to employ homosexuals or are they now forced to do so.

That is one example.

Are you now going to tell me that because our society has evolved to the point of social acceptance towards homosexuality, everyone who opposes this lifestyle choice has to change their beliefs, re-write their religious texts and allow homosexuals to potentially teach their children in private insitutional settings? If you say yes to this, then it is clear that you are infringing on many Canadians rights in a dangerous and severe way.

Other examples that you can research for yourself.

- Dr. Chris Kempling, a teacher and counsellor at a public high school in Quesnel, was cited in May 2001 for “conduct unbecoming a professional” by the BC College of Teachers for letters published in a local newspaper during the summer. As punishment he was suspended from teaching for one month. He appealed his suspension all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which in 2006 refused to hear his appeal.

CBC radio interviews in 2004 about his private practice as a counselling psychologist in Prince George were made the basis for a formal reprimand by the Quesnel School District; when Dr. Kempling complained to the BC Human Rights Tribunal that his liberties were being infringed, the Tribunal refused to hear his complaint.

Dr. Kempling was also penalized by his employer, the Quesnel School District, for a letter to the editor of his local newspaper announcing his candidacy for the CHP, and stating the CHP’s long-established policy on government approval of homosexuality.

- Knights of Columbus of Port Coquitlam, BC, were fined by the BC Human Rights Tribunal in 2005 for refusing the use of their hall for a lesbian “wedding” reception.

You asked for one, I have given you three and could provide many more.

It doesn't matter how public opposition to homosexuality is presented. It is simply being attacked in every way. The plain truth is that homosexuality is being shoved down our throats. Regardless of how a person, a professional, a politician opposes the gay agenda in order to protect their own values, they are all brought before human rights tribunals, fined and even threatened with the possibility of imprisonment etc. If fines are imposed and not paid, imprisonement is the result. How can you agree with this?


2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

How can any Christian that believes in the long standing teachings of the Bible, the Catholic & Protestant church, a Muslim, a Jew, Mormon, JW, SDA etc etc...protect their institutions, their teachings, their children and their own opinion if this continues?

dragon said...

I have read the Lund complaint regarding Boissoin, as well as the full report from the Human Rights Commission, and I have to side with Grog here.

Roger: I want you to go and look up the Boissoin letter, and do something for me. Read it out loud and replace any instance of gay/lesbian/etc. with the word Christian or Black. It suddenly sounds a lot different (doesn't it?) - and completely unacceptable in our society. Given that people have the same rights - whether they are black or if they are GLBT, how is it right to disparge them in this way?

It comes down to: Boissoin's letter was completely unacceptable. And certainly every time that I hear a Christian beating their bible and making derogative, dehumanizing comments about any other person - including GBLT, I lose a lot of respect for Christianity.

When you start reading the arguments made by Landolt, it seems that the logic comes down to the following:

1. I am a man.
2. Jesus was a man.
3. Therefore I am Jesus.

Which is to say an argument of the form:
1. A is C
2. B is C
3. Therefore A is B.

It simply doesn't work - and they don't understand that this leap of logic cannot work in any system of formal logic (unless the christians have a different system than I grew up with.

It frustrates me to no end the amount of intolerence in this world towards those individuals whose sexuality is frowned upon. Whatever happened to live and let live? Whatever happened to courtesy, understanding and acceptance of other's differences?

We have come a long way from the days of black slavery and women's emancipation, but our attitudes towards our GBLT brethren are simply archaic.

It's time for us to collectively grow up and accept the ideal of equality - for blacks, for women... and yes, even for gays, lesbians and transgendered.

dragon said...


You state:

How can any Christians.. protect their institutions, their teachings, their children and their own opinion if this continues?

If what continues? The Fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Yes, it IS inconvenient for you to give GBLT the same rights and freedoms as other human beings. But suck it up sunshine - they are people too!

Roger said...

Boissoin's letter needs to be interpreted in context. He did not just write a random rant. He wrote it during a time of great debate in regards to gay rights issues, including those within his own community. Lund was inviting gay ministers into a Red Deer public school to teach a pro-gay view of the Bible. The Alberta P-Flag was partnering through their initiative to teach high school youth that homosexuality was normal, necessary, productive and acceptable. Lund did not invite ministers that held the traditional view so the students had a balanced understanding of the opinion. School students are not just being taught tolerance, which again, I agree with. They are being taught that homosexuality is a genetic issue. That one is born that way. That it is totally acceptable to experiment with homosexuality.

You are probably and you are entitled to hold that opinion BUT so are those that beleive the way I do.

There is no proof that one is born gay, actually there is proof that there is no predetermining factors. High school programs should teach tolerance but allow personal opinion. They need to say "it is ok to dislike homosexuality but it is not alright to persecute one who is homosexual. Instead they are being taught that it is hateful and wrong to dislike homosexuality. That my friend is pure manipulation. That was Boissoin's battle in Red Deer. It is still the battle of many today. Boissoin's letter, though hard to swallow for many, was well warranted. Lund, Lindsay Thurber High School and PLAG overstepped their boundaries and were manipulating youth. That is a fact.

Dragon, you would easily agree that it was wrong for homosexuality to be illegal in the past. You would also agree that homosexuals should be allowed the freedom to be homosexual inside and outside of the homes.

People who hold to the fundamental doctrines of their faith deserve the same rights and protections. They are not getting them. They have the right to dislike homosexuality, to ensure that teachers and other staff within their institutions pursue the basic tenets of their faith. They too deserve the same liberties that homosexuals have.

Homosexuals bash Christianity, many hetero's do too. Are not Christians an identifiable group???? How do you identify a homosexual...lisp, cross dressing, well-dressed etc???

People of faith are not getting the same rights as the homosexuals...that cannot be sucked up, should not be and will not be.

Grog said...


You can wrap whatever "taken out of context" sophistry around Boissoin's letter you want, it does not change a single thing about what Boissoin wrote. Further, the topics you allege drove Boissoin to write that letter ARE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE LETTER in any recognizable way beyond broad aspersions typical of an irrational tirade.

Had Boissoin written specifically about Lund's actions and rationally discussed his objections (as opposed to making his letter a cry for battle), I doubt it would have spawned the complaint it did.

Your second point which attempts to justify the fundagelical Christian hostility towards GLBT people based on what you perceive to be the incompleteness of the scientific evidence is simply failing to consider the evidence that does exist. Please see my follow up post.

Lastly, while GLBT people and others may well be vocally critical of "Christianity", I've never heard of someone in Canada being beaten to death or near death for being Christian. There's a huge difference between verbal criticism and bashing.

Anonymous said...

The reality of the Law is that there is no requirement to prove anyone was actually harmed. All that is required is to show that the messages complained about are likely to expose the target group to hatred or contempt.

Boission's childish bullying letter went far beyond exposure to hatred and contempt. It promoted violence against gays.

The un-Christian Heritage Party compares homosexual to pedophiles - something which has already been declared a hate message.

Alphonse de Valk and his Catholic Insight website promotes hatred and discrimination against gays by claimining that they are filthy and they spread disease.

This kind of hate propaganda adds fuel to the flames of hatred, contempt, discrimination and violence. The purpose of human rights legislation is to rein in just these types of messages, to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity in this country.

Roger, suck it up, Princess... Christian bigots like you can no longer burn gays at the stake.. If that's infringing on your religious freedom, go F.O.A.D.!

Roger said...

Your ignorant comments prove my point. Canada is becoming a scary place for someone who cares about morals, true family values and God. People like you and your anti-God, anti-family, purely humanistic mentalities are destroying our once proud country.

ps..It sounds like the princess comments suits you characters more than it does the likes of me.

We need more people with the courage and character of Boissoin. He inspires me and many others that I know. His letter and steady representation of his beliefs and faith encourage us to continue to fight for our rights.

Grog said...


If Boissoin and his backers are "inspiration" to you, then you are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

People like you and your anti-God, anti-family, purely humanistic mentalities are destroying our once proud country.

How am I "anti family"? I have a family I love a great deal, thank you. I'm not telling you not to have a family, nor am I telling you to do anything you would consider immoral.

For that matter "anti-God"? For crying out loud, there's more kinds of families in this world, and more deities than I care to enumerate.

I'm not opposed to any of them - but I am opposed to those who would the word of their particular deity to justify treating others as lesser or second class citizens simply because you choose not to try and understand them as human beings.

BTW - given the number of royally screwed up "good christian families" I have seen, I don't think I'd be trying to claim any monopoly on getting that little part of things right just based on your particular faith, Roger.

dragon said...


I believe that schools ought to present a fair and balanced view. But not one that necessarily supports a "christian" agenda.

In the states we have schools that are willfully teaching the doctrine of "creationism" ignoring scientists from Darwin to present and the evidence that science places before us. This is at the urgings of the Religious right who claim that any teaching contrary to creationism is "damaging" to their religion and opposes the word of "god".

Now hold on here - we are basing what we are teaching our children on the basis of a book - the bible - that was written between 2 and 4 thousand years ago, translated and mistranslated hundreds of times, inconsistant within itself and supportive of a tradition of religious belief.

Why YOUR religion? Why not some other well deserving religion? There are MANY to choose from - even if you would not want your children to be raised in that faith. Hell, I recommend you consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster (there is just as much evidence showing the validity of belief in him).

It comes down to a question of... FAITH. And we don't all blindly believe in the tenents of Christianity.

Roger, I have been waiting for you to step forward and quote Leviticus 18:22 that Homosexuality is an abdomination unto the lord.

While you are at it, why not cover the other abdominations unto the lord that are covered in Leviticus: Shrimp (11:10), working Saturdays (19:30), Vegetable gardens (19:19), Shaving (19:22), Tattoos (19:28), Bunnies (11:6), Hamburger (17:10), or Polyester (19:19). If you are going to chose to stand on your bible, please don't simply pick out of convenience. Stand before us unshaven, without tattoos, avoiding polyester, shrimp and hamburger at the risk of your soul. Don't pick and chose out of a sense of convenience of your own moral outrage.

Roger, it pains me greatly when religion is brought into schools at the detriment of knowledge. The church opposed a heliocentric universe long before Galileo - however science won out (but would we REALLY be better still if we were teaching our children in accordance with the non-scientific church based belief that the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around US?

How is this any different? Once we taught our children that women were a second class citizen, that blacks did not matter, and that homosexuality was an outrage. We know better now. We understand that it has been scientifically proven that being homosexual is not a choice (trust me, I know a lot of homosexuals who would prefer that they were straight - it would simplify their lives greatly) - and that sexual orientation is determined by genetics, in the same way that eye colour is.

I am a scientist at heart - and I think that science - all science should be taught. We should not wear blinders to the evidence of our senses because it is "inconvienient" to a set of religious beliefs or previously held knowledge. That's the way that science advances itself - we learn through exploring the world around us, and through sharing our body of scientific knowledge we develop a greater knowledge and appreciation for the world.

Quite different from the blinders that your religion would have us all wear.

Roger, I pity that you are unable to see the world without the blinders of your religion. You are missing out on a lot - and the very religious beliefs that you profess you are protecting seem to go against the christian tenets of love and acceptance.

Perhaps I just don't understand the new universal christian tenets of hatred and intolerence.

Grog said...


The science around genetics is fairly young at this stage, and although there are no doubt genetic factors at play, there is much to understand about how the biochemical soup we walk around in plays into that picture too.

The only thing that can be said for sure is that no singular gene sequence has been associated with homosexuality per se. (and twins studies further confound things because in identical twins cases, it's not unheard of for one to be straight, and the other gay)

That isn't to say that there aren't genetics at play, but merely that we do not yet understand enough of the picture to say how. (and no, Roger, that doesn't substantiate your claim that it's all "choice")