Alberta Pastor Convicted of Hate Speech Appeals Human Rights Commission Ruling

By John Jalsevac July 7, 2008 ( - Alberta Pastor Steve Boissoin has filed an appeal to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal ruling that convicted him of hate speech. The pastor was found guilty last November of having written a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate that was…

Full article…

A very very very sad ruling.

An egregious violation of a fundamental human right.

the canadian human rights community has run amok. to cut to the chase, a very important book to read in this regard is Ezra Levant’s Shakedown. get it here:

read Rex Murphy’s review of it here:

And Levant’s own comments on what he has written.

It’s horrifying. I could barely read it to the bitter end.

The Globe and Mail summarizes what is at risk succinctly here.

… as HRCs aren’t bound by such bothersome legal notions as natural justice, evidentiary rules or double jeopardy, they can (and do) trample upon the very rights they are mandated to defend and promote. They operate as kangaroo courts, so the ancient foundations of English-speaking jurisprudence — such quaint notions as the presumption of innocence, the right to face one’s accuser and so forth — are moot …

… The publisher of *Western Standard *magazine, he was the only journalist in Canada to publish the infamous “Danish cartoons.” A Calgary Imam lodged a complaint. Levant eventually “won,” but it took more than 900 days to settle the case. As he notes, the “process is the punishment…”

and poor old Fr de Volk who struggled valiantly with the HRC and won (I believe) but got stuck with enormous legal bills. In Common Law the loser pays. In HR law the winner pays and the loser is funded by the govt.

Catholic Insight responds to the Moon Report

t should be stressed that the human rights complaint against our publication, initiated by the homosexual activist in Edmonton, was filed in tandem with other similar and unsuccessful actions set in motion by a Toronto-based homosexual activist, who attempted to strip us of our postal subsidy under Heritage Canada’s Publications Assistance Program, again on the grounds that we supposedly purveyed “hate literature.” This accusation was formally rejected by the Department as of December 31, 2008.

Catholic Insight exonerated again

Repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

there’s much more; just scroll down the article list.

Canada might as well changer her name to the PRC.
That is more descriptive of what kind of system “liberalism” has left us with.

I didn’t have the energy to post this yesterday, but one of the things that Levant describes and which scared the boots off me was hrc hacking into the computers of private citizens.

when the police or similar bodies ‘entrap’ in order to apprehend folks such as drug dealers, gangsters, child molesters and so on, they do so with statutory empowerment. when hrc employees ‘entrap’ they do so ultra vires.

apparently it has become customary for hrc employees to hack into other people’s computers, assume their IP #s, and post on hate sites under the computer owners name. and some of the things they post are actionable in and of themselves!

one hrc is before court now. the rcmp and the privacy commissioner is attempting to put the hrc out of the hacking business.

talk about a big-brother state. i don’t recognize Canada anymore. i feel like a stranger in a strange land sometimes.

Thank God we don’t have hate speech laws in the United States! Personally, I am totally against hate speech laws. If a hate speech law were passed in the United States, it would possibly prevent people like me and you from speaking out against abortion and homosexuality even if we don’t use hateful terms.

Exactly. It’s Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which is in question.

Hate messages

**13. **(1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.


(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.


(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.

R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 13; 2001, c. 41, s. 88.

One of the problems with the actual practice – and in some cases, the legislation itself – is that it duplicates (but badly) what is already in other parts of the Law. The Hate Speech provision in s.13 of the CRA is a twisted reflection of the Hate Propaganda section of the Criminal Code. I tried to get the government link to the Code but it was taking a donkey’s age to load and I have no patience with that. So here it is from somewhere else.


… / Definition of “hate propaganda” / Consent / Definition of “identifiable group”.

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. [R.S. c.11 (1st Supp.), s.1.]


well. this one is long, so i won’t quote it.

The thing is in the way that the Criminal Code anti-hate provisions are actually applied and I have personal experience with this. Under the Criminal Code, the police will not apprehend someone who is spewing hatred unless that person is also publicly advocating that a member or members of an identifiable group be HARMED.

Now I blew the whistle on some folks down in London a few years ago who were objecting to pro-life demonstrators at the University of Western Ontario. The police started saying to leave them alone, and so on, but I added that folks were throwing full pop cans at children and did that comprise public incitement of hatred? they didn’t reply. they rarely do. but i notice that the police presence on campus was beefed up significantly after that.

On the other hand, s.13 of the CRA apprehends on the basis of speech alone and in the absence of any threat to the security of persons belonging to an identifiable group.

There ARE folks up here who are trying to get s.13 repealed.

I knew I had read this somewhere so, after some googling, I found this:

Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?

Additionally, a message posted to a popular Catholic internet forum has reportedly made its way before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The alleged poster, who is an American writing from America, was commenting on an article written by Mark Steyn — a Canadian author who now lives in New Hampshire. The tribunal accepted this posting as evidence that Steyn promoted “hatred”. While the website is never mentioned by name in news reports - referred to only as “a Catholic website” — a source at the tribunal told me, off-the-record, that the website was Catholic Answers.

While the claim is unconfirmed as of this writing [04 June 2008] the controversial Mark Steyn article, over which the British Columbia hearing is being held, was posted to the Catholic Answers message forum. Moreoever, popular Jewish-Canadian blogger Ezra Levant, who is blogging live from the hearing, and who is the subject of his own human rights commission complaint, published a description of the unnamed Catholic forum. Several details match, including the screen names of two participants to the Catholic Answers forum discussion of Steyn’s article.

further to alleged hrc hacking into computers, it seems that the hrc were acquitted.

Human rights body cleared of privacy breach National Post

This is a summary of the Privacy Commissioners findings.

Levant’s book opposes the view that privacy was not breached. This blog concurs claiming that the Privacy Commission “…refused to accept close to 200 pages of documents filed by Marc Lemire which documented the allegations… The Privacy Commissioner did not even once interview Marc Lemire, or any one else involved.”

Disparate points of view. Thorny.

I am pretty sure that America does have hate speech laws.

Your article offers no evidence of US hate speech laws.

yeah, i’m not seeing anything against hate speech in the US. This is the bill that Mr Obama introduced. It’s about hate CRIMES, not hate SPEECH.

That’ll be his NEXT bill.

How can he get around the 1st Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So often hate speech is any speech that does not agree with the currently popular line. That sort of thing is why freedom of speech is so important. If people cannot disagree with the government, what is the purpose of democracy anyway? I keep fearing more and more for our whole civilisation.

That is the hope, that the 1st Amendment will hold. The problem is that activist judges are not concerned with what the Constitution says, but what they THINK it should say, and them procede to find some way to make up a basis for it. Roe v. Wade is a prime example.

Hiya katy! Exactly. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I have been worried SICK about some of the things which have been happening with our hrcs up here in the Troo North. To the point that yesterday I couldn’t eat and felt nauseated.

Someone I know came over yesterday and wanted to know why I was so worried and I gave her a very brief synopsis of the events. She blurted out that the reason she had come to Canada was for FREEDOM.

That reassured me. I reckon that there are folks who know the price of freedom and will stand up for it. I love my country. Sometimes I feel so proud of us.

Yep Roe is a red flag. Are not ALL the Supreme Court judges activist in some way? That is a pity that they frame themselves as legislators.

Here’s a link to the US Constitution for those who might be interested.

I don’t know for sure if they are all or not. The majority certainlly seem to be so. I am told that in Constitutional Law classes in the US, they study constituional cases not the Constitution itself. I asked a lawyer about that, and she said that was true for her courses. No wonder the ship seems to be cast adrift. Does Canada have any free speech clauses in its foundational documents?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit