He's picked up on the remedy decision in the Boissoin affair that I commented on back here.
Unsurprisingly, he's not impressed. After all, Dr. Lund is merely "the town scold" who had no business complaining:
No-one was hurt. The complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.
That's right Ezra, resort immediately to the refuge of those who have no real merit to their argument and attack the person. Brilliant strategy there - after all, what could Mr. Lund's reasons for objecting possibly be - he was only a high school teacher living in Red Deer at the time? Right? Oh wait, Mr. Lund had already seen the ugly side of bigotry and discrimination in the white supremacist movement that Terry Long and Jim Keegstra were part of.
Mr. Lund saw something he believed was egregiously wrong and acted on it.
So a busybody with no standing spends time filing complaints -- and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh -- and for his "suffering". Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but "as a result of his complaint".
Hmmm...so death threats are not suffering? Putting up with a lawsuit that Mr. Levant filed on Boissoin's behalf is not harrassment. Got it. In Ezra's pithy little world, he should be absolutely free to harass and harangue anyone he pleases without being held accountable - unless of course some gets injured physically.
Perhaps Mr. Levant would like to review the myriad ways in the 20th Century that "mere words" have been used to provoke genocide on grand scales. How broad generalizations against identifiable groups can be used to tar an entire population, regardless of their actual status? From the 1930s onwards, the world is filled with examples - whether we choose to talk about Adolf Hitler's propaganda campaigns, Stalin, McArthy or the tribal genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s. Pick one - any one - they are amazingly vicious and broad in their impact, and every single one of them spawned from the words of a handful of loudmouthed brutes who believed they had some god-given right to treat others as lesser beings for their own ends.
The fact that Mr. Lund himself is not gay doesn't mean that he should not speak out against bigotry when he sees it. It is all of our responsibility in a free society to speak out when we see someone like Boissoin screaming out for violence.
Ezra claims "nobody was hurt" - well, that's a matter of opinion. Within two weeks of Boissoin's letter, a gay youth in Red Deer was severely beaten - while the furor was still raging in the Red Deer Advocate's letters section. I know of quite a few GLBT people who lived in Red Deer at the time who moved away quite specifically because that letter made them feel that their safety was jeopardized. Nobody was hurt? Well, only if the youth who was beaten is "nobody", only if those who chose to leave homes, family and careers in the area because they feared for their own safety are "nobody".
The broader society of Red Deer was hurt by that letter because it drove people away from Red Deer - people who are otherwise law abiding, peaceful citizens. You might say "good riddance", Ezra, but the fact is that letter had an impact far beyond physical harm. Beatings and physical violence leave scars that you can see. Verbal and written violence leaves a different kind of scar that you cannot see, but is just as real.
As I have said before, rights exist in a tension with the various players involved. Boissoin's right to express his religiously held views exists in a state of tension with the rights of others to live their lives without being subjected to arbitrary and illegal discrimination. There is no "single" victim in the case of Boissoin's letter because that letter tarred an entire population segment without good reason.
Although Boissoin likes to claim that he wrote the letter from a "religious viewpoint", I question that. His words do not substantiate such a claim. More recently, his website attempts to cite bits and pieces of scripture that he believes justify his position, but the letter itself does not couch itself in the terms of anything even vaguely religious. If it weren't for the "Reverend" on the signature tag, I imagine few would have any idea that it was written by someone of supposedly "Christian" beliefs.
5 comments:
WELL WRITTEN !
The Supreme Court, in Taylor, and the Tribunal in Citron v. Zundel have described messages such as Boission's letter and Chandler's websites as bullying. See para 81 in Citron v. Zundel which reads:
"The consequences of repeated, telephonic communication of hate messages has a second element: There is an independent harm that is visited upon those who are the subject of the communication. The message might produce fears that it will lead to actual abuse or discriminatory practices by those to whom the message is communicated. Equally important , there is an “intensely painful reaction” experienced by individuals subjected to the expression of hatred. (33 Taylor p 918) The mere fact that they are singled out for recurring, public vilification can erode an individual’s personal dignity and sense of self-worth. It is not unlike being victimized by the school bully. Even if the bully and his or her friends do not act on the schoolyard taunts, the victim nevertheless suffers the public humiliation, shame and fear that flow from the verbal attack."
Can you find a better description for Boission, Chandler, Levant and Steyn?? I hardly think so!
Just to be clear, you are pointing to Paragraph 81 in: Citron and Toronto Mayor's Committee v. Zundel, 2002 CanLII 23557 (C.H.R.T.)
Since "Taylor" is a fairly common name, I'm not sure precisely which case you are referring to - would you be willing to provide a link to the appropriate ruling in Canlii?
The Taylor case was the charter challenge to section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act by
John Ross Taylor and the Western Guard Party.
The case is referred to as follows:
Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 Dec 13, 1990
You can read the full decision at:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1990/1990rcs3-892/1990rcs3-892.html
The following pretty well describes the harm caused by hate messages such as Boission's letter. And the Cohen Committee's report was written long before gay rights were recognized, yet it accurately described the effect of homophobic hate propaganda. Maybe Ezzie should study his law books a bit more !
Citron v. Zundel Canadian Human Rights Tribunal T.D. 1/02 2002/01/18
"[76] A review of the report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, also known as the Cohen Committee, led Dickson, C.J. to comment as follows:
The Cohen Committee noted that individuals subjected to racial or religious hatred may suffer substantial psychological distress, the damaging consequences including a loss of self-esteem, feelings of anger and outrage and strong pressure to renounce the cultural differences that mark them as distinct. This intensely painful reaction
undoubtedly detracts from an individuals ability to, in the works of s.2 of the Act, “make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have. As well, the Committee observed that hate propaganda can operate to convince listeners, even if subtly, that members of certain racial or religious groups are inferior. The result may be an increase in acts of discrimination…even incidents of
violence. (27 Ibid at 918-919 Taylor, per Dickson C.J.)"
Thank you. I always like to make sure that we are talking from common sources. (I tried to find the Taylor decision in CanLii, but got overwhelmed by the number of cases with the name in them)
Post a Comment