Bishop Fred Henry mauls Premier Ed Stelmach

Here's a powerful public letter from Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary to Ed "Ed" Stelmach, the Premier of Alberta and overseer of the bigoted human rights order against Rev. Stephen Boissoin -- including a lifetime ban on that pastor from commenting on moral issues, and an order for him to publicly renounce his faith. (If you think the previous sentence is a typo, or fiction, see my blog post here.)

Bishop Henry himself was the subject of a shakedown by the Alberta human rights commission a few years back. He settled that claim by "clarifying" his statement on gay marriage. I think that he regrets that act of compromise, since it obviously emboldened the HRC. If they could roll the Bishop, they could surely roll a poor, low-profile pastor. Bishop Henry is making up for lost time. Some excerpts, with some of my favourite parts in bold:

Dear Premier Stelmach:

I have raised the issue of the Alberta Human Rights Commission several times with you in the past 18 months. On each of those occasions, you said that you understood the issues and shared my concerns. However, the situation is continuing to deteriorate across our country and the various levels of governments are seemingly non-responsive...

Each judgment emanating out of our various human right commissions seems to be more brazen and bizarre than the one that preceded it. However, for inane stupidity and gross miscarriage of justice our own Alberta Human Rights Tribunal deserves to take first prize for its treatment of Stephen Boissoin.

June 2008: The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal fined Stephen Boissoin, $5,000.

Section 30 of the Alberta Human Rights Act states: "Evidence may be given before a human rights panel in any manner that the panel considers appropriate, and the panel is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence in judicial proceedings."

It would also seem that this panel is also not bound by reasonable argument or the elementary rules of logic but is free to skewer anyone not espousing and proclaiming politically correct views.

Darren Lund, the complainant, said that Boissoin's words in his 2002 letter to the Red Deer Advocate were hateful, and furthermore, an assault on a gay teenager three weeks later could be connected to them. No proof of either was presented.

Lori Andreachuk, the chairperson of the tribunal, agreed that his words were "likely" to expose gays, "a vulnerable" group to hatred due to their sexual orientation. No court in the land would connect the letter and the assault but this silly tribunal did.

Andreachuk acknowledged, "In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward."

However, she also wrote: "Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation." One might ask on what grounds?

She concluded that Boissoin "shall pay to Dr. Lund an award for damages, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,000." Lund wasn't the victim of any kind of discrimination and yet he is handsomely paid and, subsequently, was feted as Gay Pride Parade marshall in Calgary.

The tribunal effectively stripped Boissoin of his right to freedom of speech. "Mr. Boissoin . . . shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals."

What is meant by "disparaging"? This is tantamount to ruling out honest debate and a plurality of views in the public sphere lest someone be offended by a differing viewpoint.

...The tribunal decided to extract a further pound of flesh by way of public humiliation. "Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint." What happens if Lund is not satisfied with the apology?

Mr. Premier, we have talked enough about the inadequate provisions of and appointment to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunals. It is time to repeal Section 3(1)(b) of the Alberta Human Rights Act and to protect the rights of religious freedom. Every person has the right to make public statements and participate in public debate on religious grounds.

Gentle reader, what do you think? Do you think that Stelmach will continue to ignore and stonewall on this issue? Or do you think that Bishop Henry's letter will elicit a response? And, if so, what response?