Further to last week's post on the subject Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the decision by Court of Queen's Bench Justice Earl Wilson to overturn the conviction and penalty imposed on Rev. Stephen Boissoin by the Alberta Human Rights Commission:
...Wilson wrote of several "fundamental" and "fatal" errors in Andreachuk's decision. He found that Boissoin's letter fell short of the prohibited status of "hate" or "contempt," and wrote that the penalties ordered "were without legal foundation or beyond the [panel's] authority." This magistrate's gift, though, was not just for Rev. Boissoin. In severely curtailing the reach and scope of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, Justice Wilson has provided something approaching the gift that the government refuses to give: free speech.
Section 3 remained unscathed after the Alberta government's "reform" of the human rights legislation-- the much-maligned Bill 44. Scathed it should be as the process is often the punishment--and the process remains. Justice Wilson declined to strike down the law itself, citing a 1990 Supreme Court decision which narrowly held up the comparable section of the federal legislation.
The matter may yet end up before the Supreme Court once again, but for now, Justice Wilson may well be bound by it.
Wilson, however, noted repeatedly that Alberta's law requires that a hateful message be connected to the "likely perpetration of acts of discrimination listed in the Act." He also noted that regulating hateful expressions was clearly federal jurisdiction (i. e. the Criminal Code), not provincial. As Boissoin's lawyer offered, "it is difficult to conceive of a political or religious debate that would meet the two-part test established in the legislation."
In response to Wilson's ruling, the original complainant Darren Lund said, "It makes you wonder what are the reasonable limits on hate speech in Alberta?"
Well, actually, one needn't wonder--it is spelled out rather clearly in the ruling.
Lund went on to say, "We are trying to create inclusive communities and this takes away the tools at our disposal and puts very vulnerable people at greater risk."
This may take away one "tool"--but it is a "tool" we call all live without. Even the leading gay rights organization Egale refused to support Lund's complaint, siding instead with Boissoin's right to free speech. I hardly think Egale is disinterested in "inclusive communities."
In fact, despite the caricature of raging homophones lurking behind every corner, Alberta would seem to be quite a tolerant place. A recent poll pegged support for legalized gay marriage at 65 per cent--far higher than it would have been a decade ago. It's rather condescending of Lund or Andreachuk to believe they possess the special ability to read Boissoin's letter with their tolerance intact, but that it's too dangerous for the rest of us. Albertans are a mature bunch--we can handle rough and tumble debate.
This magistrate has indeed bestowed a wise gift upon us. If only the Stelmach government could find the wisdom to finally scrap Section
No comments:
Post a Comment