I despair.
When the head of an evangelical denomination in the US says Canadian ministers can be jailed for speaking against homosexuality, a couple of million Southern Baptists take his words as gospel.
As Dr. Frank Page is getting ready to leave office as President of The Southern Baptist Convention he spoke about ‘liberal bias’ in US media.
To Dr. Page, media is a singular entity which is against Christians.
As a Christian who spent my career in Canadian ’secular’ media, that was not my experience. Co-workers and audience were not against my faith in Jesus Christ.
I’m tired of stereotypes and ‘maybes’ being parroted to people who haven’t the time or inclination to question.
His belief feeds well into the fears and uncertainty of those he serves. What he said in his remarks about about Canada is also not factual, he was referring to the 2002 Boissoin case.
Just look to Canada Page said. “Already in, if you are as a pastor, you speak against homosexuality, you can be jailed. And I’ve told my people in my church, ‘You just have to come visit me in jail, because they may be where we’re headed.’ I’m just saying life is going to change if that happens. Life is going to change as we know it.”
The Page interview at the American Family Association requires a sign in. The above quote is at Ethics Daily along with other excerpts from his speech.
Stephen Boissoin was not facing jail, he was never facing jail, he is not going to be jailed for his 2002 screed. Boissoin may have to donate to a charity, he will pay legal fees, and tolerance training may be requested.
The distinction between criminal and civil cases and tribunals is not on the radar screen of US citizens, and therein lies the problem with Dr. Page’s remark.
Is is possible a time will come in Canada when anyone of any religious persuasion will be tossed in jail? Anything is possible, but it does not make it probable.
The US Alliance Defense Fund got involved, Boissoin was head of Concerned Christians Canada when he wrote the letter to the Red Deer Advocate in 2002. The Alberta Human Rights Commission decision came down late last year. It can be seen here.
While I understand Dr. Page is expressing concern about domestic issues such as freedom of speech and religious freedom, his statement that Canadian religious leaders ‘can’ be jailed is ill-informed, misinformed and counter-productive.
It is harmful to people who believe Christians are a monolithic block of bigots, and does nothing to address deeper domestic realities such as 1 in 100 US citizens actually are in jail.
Will Canadian Baptist groups, other Canadian denominational and para-church groups officially address Dr. Page?
Will Canadian religious leaders care to carefully outline the political/judicial/cultural distinctions between our nations and address the use of his misplaced fear?
Life in America would never be the same, Page said, unless the people of America were to wake up and ask, “What have we done?” He viewed that as unlikely.
Will one more offhand political wedge at the expense of others remark fester, be left to slide; leading to more distrust and division?
As a leader Dr. Page has an obligation to speak responsibly, domestically and internationally.
Dr. Page may not be aware Canadians have recourse for hate speech in criminal courts, civil courts and Human Rights Tribunals.
Dr. Page may or may not be aware Boissoin was never facing jail.
Dr. Page is probably not aware of the fierce debates currently raging in Canada about the role and use of the CHRC and provincial counterparts.
I don’t believe we address change with ignorant and fearful declarations.
I think Canadians are able to adjust our course accordingly to serve our common good.
To make a domestic point about US ’liberals’ and ‘media,’ Dr. Frank Page has shown a lack of awareness of relational harm to followers of Christ on each side of the 49th.
Whether any Canadian Christian organization sees his words and responds to him does matter. Words matter in relationship, and as the body of Christ we have a responsibility to speak truthfully, work at being informed, admit error, correct gently and conduct ourselves honourably.
I don’t know what the recent civil suit - Klouda versus SWTS - cost US Southern Baptists. Someone is on the hook for legal fees that far surpass anything Boissoin will pay. The relational cost cannot be measured as easily as economics.
The church is in deep trouble when we become desensitized to politicized willful fear.
Page, who completes his two-year service as top elected leader of the nation’s second-largest faith group in June, described the prospect of a future Supreme Court ruling that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states as “a frightening thought.”
How sad.
Update: Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition have received the AHRC ruling which includes a public apology and fine. Boissoin has decided to appeal. His lawyer will argue the ruling violates human right law and will also appeal the restitution. The decision on remedy was handed down May 30th. (.pdf)
The Concerned Christian Coalition did not make any submission to the panel regarding remedy.
Stephen Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition have to ask The Red Deer Advocate to publish a copy of the remedy and ask the paper to publish their apology. As far as I can tell the newspaper isn’t under any obligation to honour the requests:
Published 3 months, 1 week agoThat Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall request the Red Deer Advocate publish a copy this Order in the Red Deer Advocate and that they request their written apology for the contravention of the Act be published in the Red Deer Advocate.
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
- Canadian Baptists respond to Dr. Frank Page
- A breech of ministerial ethics - SBC President Frank Page and GOP candidates
- Sending Frank packing
- The Myths of War from 3 perspectives
- Jimmy Carter
- Slice of Laodicea
- Crazy for God: How I Helped Found the Religious Right and Ruin America
- US Anbassador hurt by speech
- Holy Fools - Frank Schaeffer's Crazy for God
- Africa
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Southern Baptist do not take Mr. Page’s words as gospel and in fact there are many who take exception and disagree with his opinions and views. The member churches of the Southern Baptist Convention are autonomous. There is growing discontent in the SBC with the extreme conservative wing that Mr. Page is the leader. Unfortunately, the SBC receives press for such outlandish comments rather than for all the good work we do in the name of Jesus Christ. Change is coming to the SBC.
Okay James, how should I phrase that in a more factual way?
Dr. Page is the SBC President, agreeing with other leaders such as Land, Sith, Mohler, Wiley etc. He has kept a low political profile during his Presidency time, you don’t know someone even more conservative will win in the next convention.
He says:
I think in the 44 thousand SBC churches there would be people and leadership that aren’t interested in head office and state convention shenanigans, the convention, or who is in or out because of congregational polity and busyness in their own district and churches.
Yes, the SBC makes a lot of noise, it’s media arms make sure SBC entities are front and centre.
How Page perceived media was at odds with how that ‘liberal media’ covered him.
The SBC inhouse organs fawn uncritically over leadership.
I know many SBC that do good work, I don’t disagree with you at all on that.:^)
But I don’t think change is coming James - so many many people were harmed, shunned and destroyed by the conservatives in the past 30 years and left. They aren’t going to give up power and authority and have wedded to The Republican Party. The Canadian SBC push is all about numbers, mirroring the US counterpart. I admire your optimism, but I don’t share it.:^(
The voices of other Baptists are drowned out.
Thanks for commenting, I hope you are right and I’m wrong.
One additional point here is that under the more recent criminal code provisions, it is quite likely that adequate doubt could be raised in court as to the context and intention of Boissoin’s letter, as well as the linkage to the beating is circumstantial, not at this time provable.
Those two attributes of the case would likely have scuttled any criminal prosecution of Boissoin even if the provisions of C-250 had been in force at the time - even though the letter itself is about as violently non-theistic as they come. (I suspect strongly that the religious exemption may well have played in Boissoin’s favour as well)
{That said, you are absolutely correct that Page’s characterization of the Boissoin case is very distorting of the reality of the situation}
Please allow me to ask one question.
Alberta Human Rights Commission fines are upheld at the Court of Queens Bench level. If I refuse to pay these fines $5000 of which Lund, the complainant, is requesting for himself, another $5000 to a pro-gay public school teachers tolerance focussed educational fund, what will the outcome be? Will the respose simply be “oh well, Boissoin decided not to pay” or will I be incarcerated and forced to serve jail time to pay off fines imposed by a quais-judicial kangaroo court ruled by a divorce lawyer? A hearing that can make rulings based on circumstantial evidence and does not have to follow the rule of law.
It has not been suggested that I will serve time due to a criminal action. Instead, it has from the beginning been suggested that I may serve jail time if I refuse to pay fines imposed upon me by the AHRC. Specifically, Lund was originally asking that I pay a $7000 fine to EGALE which I of couse said would be ethically impossible for me to do. I stated that I would rather serve jail time than pay a fine that would support EGALES agenda. EGALE then went public and said that they were not behind the complaint and would not receive the proceeds of fines imposed upon me by the AHRC.
To conclude…..the above post does not understand that original facts and misrepresents the truth just like it accuses others of doing.
Again, if I refuse to pay fines….what is your opinion on my fate?
Well I can attest that my experience with the much of the media has been that it is high biased and very unfair.
Over the last three months I have been lambasted in my local newspapers more times than I can count. Often, Lund has been asked to comment. My picture was on the front page in December in bold print exclaiming a circumstantial link between my letter and an assault on a gay teenager. My 13 year old son saw my picture on the front page before I even knew about it. The next day I was asked to come into my employers office and explain. In January, I was bashed in an article that talked about how gays are haunted by threats of violence. Last month Lund was on the front page of the Red Deer Advocates local section. He was featured because he was in my city facilitating a “Free Speech Must Have Limits” presentation. In his presentation he reiterated how my comments and position are hateful and how they were linked to an assault on a gay teen. Lund facilitated this presentation in partnership with Bill Baergen, a former educator and school superintendent and a past commissioner with the human rights commission. Baergen wrote The Ku Klux Klan in Central Alberta, a book that exposes the white extremist group’s presence in the region until its dismantling in the early 1990s. In Lund’s complaint and publicly he has voiced that in regards to me and my comments “there is a parallel to oother hatemongers such as Terry Long of the Aryan Nation and James Keegstra, Holocaust denier.”
I have tried to respond but the Red Deer Advocate will not print anything I submit. I have even contacted the Editor and Publisher (Of boht the Red Deer Advocate and the Red Deer Express) humbly voicing the bias and unfairness of not allowing me to reply. I even suggested that they offer me guidance as to how they would limit the content of my response. They just sluff me off and ignore me. This is the same newspaper (Advocate) that gave me an award for my Letters to the Editor years ago. Until recently, I have not submitted one since my 2002 letter.
The Globe was the same. Lund had a guest column with the Globe and I attempted to respond asking for the same opportunity. I was ignored. I even tried to respond in the general comments section. Anything I submitted was ignored.
As much as I admit that it hurts and is frustrating, I still choose to put a smile on my face and with a joyful shout affirm that…Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you!
PSSS. Also CBC had a mini-documentary this past Sunday. Lund was featured, I wasn’t. CBC did not attempt to contact my lawyer to inform us about this program.
Nope, no bias there at all.
It is completely absurd to suggest that the media is not biassed against traditional conservative Christians in this day and age.
Hi Stephen:
Of course you are free to ask anything you’d like.
You say the AHRC is handled by the Court of Queen’s Bench.
You are fully aware your case was heard by a judge, is that what you are saying?
Are you objecting to have been heard by a family court judge as opposed to an unqualified appointee?
Is a hearing in front of a licenced bar member ‘a kangaroo court?’
I’d like to understand why a QC isn’t sufficient for you.
There are three levels of AHRC hearings, yours was a panel ruling, not a court ruling.
When you sued Dr. Lund for 4 hundred thousand dollars would that be court level in Alberta?
Was there opportunity for mediation phase in your AHRH?
Are you are saying when the remedy phase is brought down you have choices (as does the judge) to either accept the ruling or do jail time.
Good question.
You are on public record wanting this fight.
EGALE and a publication are on public record opposing the complaint against you, as is The Canadian Civil Rights Association.
Dr. Lund is on public record not wanting remedy to be unduly harsh.
Concerned Christian Coalition of Canada Inc. and The Red Deer Advocate complied with AHRC requests in your case with no complaint.
There are others who have not paid HRC fines who have not been incarcerated, the decisions regarding remedy compliance are yours.
You chose to resign these designations:
“…Evangelical Christian Churches who also licensed him in the province of Alberta to perform marriages.
He reports he completed and received a degree in Christian Ministry from the United Christian Ministry Institute located in Indianapolis through correspondence.”
Are you as you state:” … the first ordained minister to be taken before the AHRC?”
If you have given up your Alberta Evangelical Christian Church licence to perform marriages, who recognizes you as an ordained minister?
You chose to write the letter as Executive Director of Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.
You chose to counter-file a civil suit against Dr. Lund.
You declared “My banner has now been raised and war has been declared.”
The remedies sought are:
a) legal costs: $5,000.00
b) donation to charity: $5,000.00
c) an apology to be published in the Red Deer Advocate (30 days) with your awareness the expression of your views were inappropriate
d) failure to comply will result in an further order that your views are no longer to be published in major Alberta print media.
Am I understanding remedy correctly?
My opinion on the HRC’s is irrelevant.
The 17 year old teens welfare and well being who was beaten up is not being mentioned at all by many activists covering you.
‘Could be’ ‘can be’ ‘might be.’
How you chose to respond to remedy is entirely your decision.
I see you being treated as a responsible adult by your province in a commonwealth.
You see differently.
If you forfeit paying legal and charity costs, chose to forfeit writing a the public letter, you state: “Instead, it has from the beginning been suggested that I may serve jail time if I refuse to pay fines imposed upon me by the AHRC.
Who told you this Stephen?
What has the AG’s office stated as your alternative time of incarceration and in what jail?
When are you to begin to serve this time?
Is that what you are choosing?
P.S. http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/1249.asp the full November ruling is .pdf at the bottom of the page
You say the AHRC is handled by the Court of Queen’s Bench.
You are fully aware your case was heard by a judge, is that what you are saying?
Boissoin: My case was not heard by a judge and not in a court of law. My case was heard by a lawyer that does not specialize in constitutional law.
Are you objecting to have been heard by a family court judge as opposed to an unqualified appointee?
Is a hearing in front of a licenced bar member ‘a kangaroo court?’
Boissoin: It is my opinion that an important constitutional matter regarding freedom of speech and religion should not be left to a lawyer that specializes in matrimonial law and heard in a setting that does not follow the rule of law. Without a doubt, she was a very nice person but she herself should have refused to hear such a case that is out of the jurisdiction of the Alberta Human Rights Commission or any other human rights commission for that matter. Yes, it was a complete mockery to my and every other Canadians constitutional rights.
I’d like to understand why a QC isn’t sufficient for you.
There are three levels of AHRC hearings, yours was a panel ruling, not a court ruling.
Boissoin: Yes it was a panel of one lawyer. Without going into great detail the hearing was a farce and I am trying to be objective here. The circumstantial was a huge part of Lund’s case and his expert witness, a former heterosexual married father who now is gay, went from presenting his scientific facts to ranting about how my comments personally effect him. It was ridiculous and almost laughable. It was a complete joke.
When you sued Dr. Lund for 4 hundred thousand dollars would that be court level in Alberta?
Boissoin: We settled for no costs and since the suit Lund hasn’t made comments to the media in regards to me such as “I think there is a parralel to other hatemongers here such a Terry Long, president of the Ayran Nation and James Keegstra Holocaust denier. Had the suit gone further it would have been is a real court of law.
Was there opportunity for mediation phase in your AHRH?
Boissoin: There could have been but Lund made it clear then as he continues to do today that I need to be re-educated. There was nothing to concile. Lund does not accept that I have a different view from his and that I am going to propagate it just like he will with his.
Are you are saying when the remedy phase is brought down you have choices (as does the judge) to either accept the ruling or do jail time.
Boissoin: What I asked you, since you posted on your site that I am not facing incarceration, what will happen if I refuse to pay fines? Will I face incarceration?
Good question.
You are on public record wanting this fight.
EGALE and a publication are on public record opposing the complaint against you, as is The Canadian Civil Rights Association.
Dr. Lund is on public record not wanting remedy to be unduly harsh.
Concerned Christian Coalition of Canada Inc. and The Red Deer Advocate complied with AHRC requests in your case with no complaint.
Boissoin: (A)The Red Deer Advocate gave away their soul in my opinion and continue to print negatives about me but do not allow me to respond. Gee I wonder why? My picture was even on the front page in December with comments about how the AHRC Panel Chair said there was a circumstantial link between my letter and the assault a a gay boy two weeks later. Lund was on the front page of the local section last month commenting about me. I asked to reply and have been repeatedly ignored. CBC did the same in their mini-documentary this past Sunday. Lund was interviewed, I was not even informed about the documentary. You don’t have to like me or like what I said but the media is clearly defamatory and bias.
(B) The CCC is still named in this complaint. The complaint that they settled with the Canadian Human Rights Commission was a different complaint against comments/postings on their radio station and its website.
There are others who have not paid HRC fines who have not been incarcerated, the decisions regarding remedy compliance are yours.
Boissoin: Who? Were they businesses that can have judgements filed against them or were they individuals? Were they left alone? I would love to know the details.
You chose to resign these designations:
“…Evangelical Christian Churches who also licensed him in the province of Alberta to perform marriages.
He reports he completed and received a degree in Christian Ministry from the United Christian Ministry Institute located in Indianapolis through correspondence.”
Are you as you state:” … the first ordained minister to be taken before the AHRC?”
Boissoin: (A) Yes, I resigned as a licensed minister and parted ways with my denomination due to doctrinal issues mainly eschatological.
(B) I interned and went to Bible College in Calgary in 1993 & 94, interned and studied in England in 97 and through the my denominations affiliate school received a degree in Christian Ministry and commenced my Masters which I may or may not complete. Without doubt I have a passion for Theology, Apologetics and Philosophy.
(C) As far as I know I was the first ordained minister to be taken before the Human Rights Commission for propagating their religious views.
If you have given up your Alberta Evangelical Christian Church licence to perform marriages, who recognizes you as an ordained minister?
(D) Ordination and licensing are two different issues. One can be an ordained minister and under the accountability of a body of elders and not be licensed. The provincial license is specific to solemnizing marriages. Presently, I am simply Steve the Christian guy and claim to be nothing more.
You chose to write the letter as Executive Director of Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.
You chose to counter-file a civil suit against Dr. Lund.
You declared “My banner has now been raised and war has been declared.”
Boissoin: (A) Ya, your point?
(B) Lund chose to invite a pro-gay minister into a public school to brainwash teens via what he called the pro-homosexual view of the Bible. He did not invite a minister from from the locally recognized ministerial association which I was part of. He also chose to file and complaint against me due to his activist bent and capitalized on the assault of a local youth.
(C) I chose to then and continue to choose to refute part of Lund’s initiative which is not solely about tolerance but also about promoting a pro-homosexual agenda.
(D) Regardless how one opposes the pro-homosexual agenda in Canada they are persecuted for it. The Lund’s of the world won’t be satisfied until I am prevented from espousing my views or convert to his view. In the remedy sought by Lund he states “This apology must address that Mr. Boissoin understands that the expression of his views were inappropriate.” Countless Canadians that I am aware of hold the same view I hold and encourage me to keep holding it and keep defending it.
The remedies sought are:
a) legal costs: $5,000.00
b) donation to charity: $5,000.00
c) an apology to be published in the Red Deer Advocate (30 days) with your awareness the expression of your views were inappropriate
d) failure to comply will result in an further order that your views are no longer to be published in major Alberta print media.
Am I understanding remedy correctly?
Boissoin: REMEDY SOUGHT
11. Dr. Lund requests the Panel provide an Order directing Mr. Boissoin and/or the CCC pay Dr. Lund $5,000.00 as compensation of legal costs associated with this complaint.
12. Dr. Lund requests the Panel provide an Order directing Mr. Boissoin and/or the CCC to donate $5,000.00 to the Diversity, Equity and Human Rights Committee of the Alberta Teachers’ Association.
13. Dr. Lund requests the Panel provide an Order directing Mr. Boissoin to publish a full apology in the Red Deer Advocate within one month of this Panel’s decision. Mr. Boissoin is to apologize for submitting the article and for his views on homosexuality. This apology must address that Mr. Boissoin understands that the expression of his views were inappropriate and likely to expose persons or groups of persons to hatred or contempt.
14. If Mr. Boissoin fails to comply with the Order, that the Panel provide an Order disallowing the publication of Mr. Boissoin’s views on homosexuality in any of the major print media in Alberta, including the Red Deer Advocate, Red Deer Express, Calgary Herald, Calgary Sun, Edmonton Journal, Edmonton Sun and Lethbridge Herald.
My opinion on the HRC’s is irrelevant.
The 17 year old teens welfare and well being who was beaten up is not being mentioned at all by many activists covering you.
Boissoin: I am not understanding your point. The mention of a een who was supposedly assaulted for being gay two weeks after a letter to the editor, though very unfortuante, is irrelevant period.
‘Could be’ ‘can be’ ‘might be.’
How you chose to respond to remedy is entirely your decision.
Boissoin: Agreed
I see you being treated as a responsible adult by your province in a commonwealth.
You see differently.
Boissoin: I do.
If you forfeit paying legal and charity costs, chose to forfeit writing a the public letter, you state: “Instead, it has from the beginning been suggested that I may serve jail time if I refuse to pay fines imposed upon me by the AHRC.
Who told you this Stephen?
Boissoin: I just spoke to the Alberta Human Rights Commission so as to prevent any misunderstanding that I may have. They informed me that if an individual refuses to pay a fine ‘recommended’ within a remedy, they can be brought before the Court of Queens Bench and forced to pay that fine. Forced how enquired…..they did not offer further comment.
What has the AG’s office stated as your alternative time of incarceration and in what jail?
Boissoin: Obviously we are not at that stage yet. If I refuse to pay fines and I end up before a judge I will obviously appeal for mercy. It will then be the judges decision.
When are you to begin to serve this time?
Boissoin: Irrelevant quention at this time.
Is that what you are choosing?
Boissoin: Yet to be determined.