Freedom of speech means, in part, defending the right to speak of those with whom you disagree
June 11, 2008
And this homosexual activist group, in denouncing the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s unjust ruling against Christian pastor Stephen Boissoin, reflects that idea better than many of us freespeechers have in the past.
On several occasions, I’ve pointed out that the Alberta government’s persecution of a Christian pastor for writing an anti-gay letter to the editor was not supported by EGALE, Canada’s leading gay rights lobby. As former executive director, Gilles Marchildon wrote when the case was still winding its way through the HRC. An excerpt:
While it is difficult to support Boissoin’s right to spew his misguided and vitriolic thoughts, support his right, we must.
If Boissoin was no longer able to share his views, then who might be next in also having their freedom of expression limited. Traditionally, the LGBT community’s freedom has been repressed by society and its laws.
Plus, it is far better that Boissoin expose his views than have them pushed underground. Under the glaring light of public scrutiny, his ideas will most likely wither and die.
In fact, his words may serve to increase public education. By more clearly seeing the ugly face of bigotry and prejudice, the need for teaching tolerance in schools becomes obvious.
I’m impressed with that. It’s a call to civic responsibility. Marchildon doesn’t abide Rev. Boissoin’s comments one bit. But instead of asking the nanny state to protect him, instead of outsourcing his civic duties to some HRC, Marchildon wants to engage in a public debate, and use it as a teaching moment. And, as the title of his article, “Freedom for all means freedom for each” shows, Marchildon knows that if an “offensive” Christian activist is censored today, an offensive gay rights activist can be censored tomorrow.
The HRCs in Canada are basically the put-into-practice version of the anonymous “they” in the old saying that begins “First they came for…” And it’s entirely true that an organ of the state such as a human rights commission in Canada can and will, in due time, turn on those it purports to protect. Already, these supposed defenders of human rights are trampling on human rights, by assailing the freedom of expression of those who put forth opinions that some consider distasteful. But in due course, might those same commissions decide to set aside another right in pursuit of granting, to yet another offended party, some undue form of redress?
