About yesterday's post

I play this little game with myself. It's called, "What Did I Say That Could Be Misinterpreted?"

It can be played very successfully after, for example, teaching a college class, or giving a talk for my homeschool group. Or talking on the phone, sending an email...

...or publishing a blog post.

Upon reflection, I realized that the hyperbole of the post title, "This makes my blood boil", could be misinterpreted. I didn't say exactly what riled me so much.

It was the quote from the ruling that "the right not to be offended 'trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter' ".

What? Show me, in the Canadian Charter, where "the right not to be offended" is enumerated. Here's what it says about "fundamental rights":

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

I just did a search, and surprise, surprise: The word "offended" doesn't show up. At all.

So there is no "right to not be offended" in Canada, or the U.S. And yet if you asked people on the street, I bet a lot of them would believe that such a right exists in our own Constitution.

Once the rule of law is discarded for the rule of "feelings" and imaginary rights to not be offended, the game is over.

And of course, this ruling in Canada strikes a direct blow at freedom of religion. If a pastor is not free to teach the truth about sexuality, then freedom of religion is lost.

It also strikes a blow at freedom of speech, not only for the Pastor involved, but for the press. Just read the ruling:

The Red Deer Advocate is not a part of this complaint. Due to a settlement of a prior human rights complaint against its publication of Mr. Boissoin’s letter, it has expanded its “letter policy.” Commencing on April 10, 2004, the newspaper now includes a policy statement that states:

The Advocate will not publish statements that indicate unlawful discrimination or intent to discriminate against a person or class of persons, or are likely to expose people to hatred or contempt because of ...sexual orientation.

Of course, no responsible paper would publish a hate-filled rant. (Note: Unless it was directed against George W. Bush.) But Rev. Boissoin's letter wasn't a hate-filled rant. A little googling found this summary of Rev. Boissoin's letter:

Boissoin, the full time pastor of a Red Deer youth ministry, wrote a letter to the editor of his hometown newspaper in which he said homosexuality is immoral and physically dangerous for those involved in it. Boissoin particularly criticized the homosexual political lobby that worked to teach children in schools about the practices of the “gay lifestyle”.

Boissoin was upset that “children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

Does that sound like hate speech to you? It doesn't to me.

So a pastor is silenced, and a newspaper acquiesces in its own silencing, all in the name of an imaginary right "not to be offended".

And that's what made my blood boil.