Halifax debates free speech and human rights
CENSORSHIP / Attendees take aim at human rights commissions
Angelina Chapin / National / Friday, October 31, 2008
Share |

"As much as I like you as a person, I think you're a censor," said Derek Rodgers to one of the speakers at an Oct 30 debate on free speech and human rights.

Over 100 people gathered at Halifax's St Mary's University for an event called Human Rights and Free Speech: Have Commissions or the Media Gone Too Far? The debate was organized by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Public Affairs (CCEPA), in light of increasing media attention on human rights commissions.

The Steven Boissoin case — the pastor from Alberta who was taken to the human rights commission by a professor for a homophobic letter to the editor — begs a key question in this debate: Do commissions further human rights by penalizing hate speech or suppress them by limiting communication?

"As a gay person, I find some of the things Reverend Steven Boissoin said offensive, but the correct response is not to shut him down," said Rodgers, a first-year Dalhousie University student. "The correct response is to have an open and public airing of the views however offensive they might be."

Human rights commissions exist in each province to uphold the Canadian Human Rights Act. A commission takes complaints and screens them for validity. If they violate the act, they can be dealt with two ways: through an informal settlement between the parties or through a public hearing held by a tribunal.

Supporters of commissions say they provide a less daunting alternative to taking hate speech before the state. Others say they serve no purpose and actually push back human rights by imposing limits on free speech.

"Who benefited in the Steven Boissoin case?" asked Mark Mercer, a professor of philosophy at St Mary's University who defended total freedom of speech. "People not speaking their minds is not the same as people tolerating others. Their attitudes don't change."

Pearl Eliadis, a Montreal-based human rights lawyer said laws around freedom of speech exist to prevent extreme cases where people's rights are being infringed upon, not so people can complain when they feel offended.

"I hate my friends when it comes to freedom of expression," said Dan Leger, director of news content for Halifax's Chronicle Herald. "But I could not function as editor of a newspaper without it." Leger said freedom of speech allows him to publish opinionated columns and cartoons that challenge the status quo. He's currently dealing with a human rights complaint after Herald cartoonist Bruce MacKinnon was accused of offending Muslims in his depiction of Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal, whose husband was arrested in 2006 in an anti-terrorism raid.

For Krista Daley, the director and CEO of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, MacKinnon's case exemplifies why the commission is in place. "You don't want to make a journalist a criminal," she said. "Commissions help by dealing with smaller issues. A tribunal is meant to be more efficient, more effective and a grassroots type of justice system."

As moderator of the event, Kevin Kindred, a Halifax lawyer and chair of the Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project (NSRAP) had his work cut out for him. He concluded the debate with the statement, "I think we all agree there's at least some limits to free speech but that it's inherently valuable."

Despite imposing time limits on impassioned debaters and audience members he says the hardest part of the night was remaining impartial. "As a gay right activist, I've chosen to take the path that maximizes freedom," he said after the debate. In his opinion, trying Boissoin in front of a tribunal is not in line with the goals of the gay community. "My view is to fight offensive speech with other speech."



Share |


Reader Comments


 
Missing the point
Although the topic of debate was valid and I understand why my name was brought up, a key point is missed. Debated Human Rights and Freedom of speech is great but the fact that the Human Rights Commissions ARE corrupt is continuously missed. Here in Alberta the same Panel Chair who found me guilty ruled that the language below AND the public distribution of it for profit was absolutely appropriate. See for yourself http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/JohnsonQuinton050703Pa.pdf Bless You, Stephen Boissoin Red Deer Kill The Christian You are the one we despise Day in day out your words compromise lies I will love watching you die Soon it will be and by your own demise Buried in hypocrisy Lacerate your faith in God Morally diseased On the cross of Calvary your body bashed defeated stabbed Blessing as you hate Loyal to your enemies Monetary faith As him you will pay for the lies of your prophecy Satan wants you dead Kill the Christian, kill the Christian Kill the Christian, kill the Christian Kill the Christian, kill the Christian, kill the Christian Armies of darkness unite Destroy their temples and churches with fire Where in this world will you hide Sentenced to death, the anointment of Christ In due time your path leads to me Put you out of your misery The death of prediction Kill the Christian Kill the Christian, dead!
Stephen Boissoin, Red Deer Alberta
10/31/08 6:58 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Who has more rights?
I do not agree with everything Stephen Boissoin has said but I certainly agree with his and everyone in Canada's right to say it. The Committees have done some wonderful things and I don't want to take away from "SOME" of the good. However if they cant see the problems, what possible business do they have being involved in humans rights? At what point does someone simply stand up and acknowledge that there off the rails. At what point are Canadian tax payers spared at having to foot the bills for trampling human rights, the very opposite of what they were set up to do. Allowing Dr's to be sued for refusing to do surgery on transgendered individuals, people being allowed to smoke pot in someones place of business? and someone anyone, please explain to me how being asked to wear a helmet for safety violates human rights? Now we can we have blind pilots? and Canada's oldest most respected magazine was placed under attack. People like Barbara Hall, labeling other humans as racists without even so much as a trial. How do objective supporters of terrorism become poster boys for Human Rights in Canada? Why is one man allowed to have a one man crusade? How are priests given lifetime speech bans? Is this Canada or are we turning into Nazi Germany? With all the hate out there I find it an amazing fact, that not one case has actually had enough hate to merit criminal charges but enough merit to award Mr.Warman with TAX FREE cash for damages. I need some of that hate. I'm sad to be a Canadian, I'm sad I served my country for years, following in the footsteps of grand father and his father and most of my family so that some people could enforce political correctness. Their actions make me sad.
Robert, Calgary Alberta
11/01/08 11:03 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Discrimination at its best
Human Rights Commission: "Kill the Christian" Lyrics that's OK but Criticize Homosexuality NO WAY http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110303.html
Stephen Boissoin, Red Deer Alberta
11/03/08 3:52 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Life Site News?!
Seriously, Boissoin, you're gonna quote Life Site "News" as some sort of objective (or even credible) organization? Get REAL! It is a completely biased propaganda outlet for rabid homophobes, bigots and people determined to prevent women from controlling their own bodies. Life Site?! You might just as well cite those whack-jobs at Free Dominion or Free Republic -- they have the same paucity of credibility.
Nathanial, Slocan Valley BC
11/04/08 7:52 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
You are missing the point
Nathanial...you're missing the point. The AHRC's discrimination is the point. What Life Site stands for, what I stand for is irrelevant......The point is that we all need equal rights instead of the selective protection of rights that appear to be more popular at a given time. As you must know, I do not agree with homosexuality and when I feel it is necessary I share my opinion in this regard. That is my right BUT, it is also the right of the homosexual to vote FOR or speak out against the things I disagree with. Both opinions need to be protected equally. We have the right to offend and any attempt to make freedom of speech non-offensive is to impinge upon equality. You CAN say, "I hate homosexuality (like I said) or "I hate Christians." You cross the line when you say "Kill Christians" or "Kill Homosexuals." This line was clearly crossed as the Life Site story reveals, yet NOTHING was done about it. Yet in my case, I was convicted by the same Commission and the same Panel Chair for presenting my social, moral, political opinion via a letter to the editor. Hate what I said...that is acceptable BUT I did not advocate, would NEVER advocate the unjust harm of anyone...including a homosexual. Nevertheless, I was convicted because homosexual rights are a popular bandwagon at this time. Blessings friend.
Stephen Boissoin, Red Deer Alberta
11/04/08 2:17 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Libertarian Free Speech Ideals and the Reality
I'm was very glad to hear of the Boissoin decision. His letter was meant to dehumanize and demonize gay people. The only purpose was the wilful promotion of hatred and lies. I live in a very homophobic region, and have seen this type of hate printed in the local paper many, many times in the past. These letters have a great influence, which is why people write. The hate-fueled ones bash a gay community which is already not visible, highly closeted, frightened, not organized, and simply doesn't have the resources, numbers, and neither the power nor the influence to fight back. An oppressed minority and the powerful, influencial majority are not at an equal, even, starting line. That's reality. After the Boissoin decision, perhaps papers will think twice, before printing letters only meant to demonize and lie about gay people.
Clint Babula, Thunder Bay Ontario
11/04/08 6:09 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Stop playing the victim.
Clint, My letter to the editor was an opinion that I and many other people believe. We will see what happens when a real judge and the rule of law are applied at my appeal to a real court in 09. Clint, were you aware that the individual who filed the complaint against me was a teacher in my community? Were you aware that he was inviting a minister into his high school to teach the pro-homosexual interpretation of the Bible? He was not inviting a minister that held an opposing view to ensure that the young people had boht opinions to consider. He was social engineering. Hate my opinion if you like but allow me to have the same freedom of speech that you expect. You state that I willfully promote hate and lies. Yes, I do hate homosexuality and the propagation of it to young people as normal. I, and many other do not agree that it is normal. You are no less demonizing those who hold my views and express them.
Steohen Boissoin, Red Deer Alberta
11/05/08 12:28 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
We've heard it all before
Ah, yes, the ones who propagate hate against a minority group, claim to be the true victims. This is very old and tired. We are not made bigots for taking a stand against bigotry. It's natural to hate the hate directed at you. In fact you say you "hate homosexuality" here at the xtra site, now. Don't condescend to me saying I'm playing the victim. In factual reality, the promotion of social prejudice and hate and lies, directed against a minority, does lead to victimization. Now at least recognize that, even if you are going to argue for totally free speech nevertheless. Yes, you have a "belief" which other people have, no doubt. Everyone has one of those. So what? My calling your opinion hateful and demonizing, is in fact, accurate, and doesn't inspire hate of an identifable social group. Why should young people be taught to hate themselves or others, by someone coming into a school promoting an anti-gay view? Young people should be taught to get along, and to not hate. I know you don't see that as a desirable outcome, because as you say, you hate. No matter what we do, we are engineering our society one way or another. There is a balance in Canada, between group rights, and the rights of individuals in areas like free expression. It's not totally one way or the other.
Clint Babula, Thunder Bay Ontario
11/05/08 2:54 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
You still miss the point Clint.
Clint, one has a right to hate. It is human to hate some things. To hate is not a crime. I have NEVER advocated hate for any individual. This is where you are in error. I HATE the propagation of homosexuality to minors, especailly when it is done with a strong bias in the public school system. I absolutely HATE it. That does not mean that I hate someone who claims to be homosexual. In fact, the opposite is true. As a youth worker, I have worked and been great friends with many teens and young adults who claim to be bi-or-gay. Many of them went public stating that I treated them like family. They understood the difference between my views, my right to propagate them and my love for people at large. There needs to be equal room and equal protections for both views. At this time there is no concrete evidence that there is a predetermined genentic link to homosexuality. The debate goes on. I can just as easily state that your view is hateful Clint. In my opinion it is hateful to teach a child that homosexuality is normal but you cannot accept that I have (or should have) the same rights that you do. You hate what I stand for Clint and I would defend your right to do so.
Stephen Boissoin, Red Deer Alberta
11/05/08 11:32 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
PS...
Ps... Clint. Re your comment: In fact you say you "hate homosexuality" here at the xtra site, now. I did not say this to intentionally offend anyone here. I am just being honest and transparent. I would rather take some time to be here among those that think I hate them hoping that they will understand that this is not the case at all. I would rather be out in the open and not hiding. See, when it gets right down to it, it will not change my views or behaviour if the AHRC ruling is upheld. I will continue being me inspite of any ruling, as will others that think like me. I am certainly not in a defensive posture. Haven't you noticed? Clint, I hope the best for you. You seem like a compassionate and very intelligent individual. I accept that you disagree with me and I respect you as a fellow human being. Peace friend.
Stephen Boissoin, Red Deer Alberta
11/05/08 11:45 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
None so blind, as those who refuse to see
Not only did your letter whip up hatred with demonizing language, and compared gays to pedophiles and said we're a danger to children; it implored people to get active and fight against us using "whatever means necessary". That last part could easily be interpreted as inciting violence. There was an attack of a young man in your community, after your letter was printed. It's not true that you're my friend or a friend of the gay community, as claimed. Even those who don't agree with the HRC decision, won't buy it. You can't wish "peace" for the people you want subjected to hate. Equal view points? I don't think so. There is nothing wrong with children learning about homosexuality in a positive and accurate light. It's good to counter the hatred, fear, and lies and name-calling, which children do learn. Teaching children being gay is (insert hateful, demonizing rhetoric), and telling vicious lies, is simply hate, and hate shouldn't be in school. We're trying to get that out of schools, especially when we address issues such as homophobic bullying. Oh, oops, I let our agenda slip out(read sarcasm).
Clint Babula, Thunder Bay Ontario
11/05/08 4:31 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Subjective and Factless
Clint, There is nothing wrong with teaching tolerance in general but that is not what is happening. Many educators, like the one that was in my community and filed the complaint against me, are manipulating, deceiving and misleading their stundents by NOT presenting 1. a factual understanding of homosexual behaviour and 2. the freedom to dislike and/or disagree with this behaviour without being made to feel as if they are intolerant and uneducated. Some of these educators are teaching young people that one is BORN homosexual, that it is genetic. Young people are being social engineered to accept this untrue, scientifically baseless claim. My letter was stating that these types of biased homosexual activists were just as immoral and deceptive as drug dealers, pimps and pedophiles. Of course this is rooted in my personal feelings and understanding of homosexual behaviour. I stand by my comments. They were not directed at the average homosexual person that lives their life and keeps their sexual practices to themself.
Stephen Boissoin, Red Deer Alberta
11/06/08 10:37 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Uncorroborated
The claim that a homosexual teen was asssaulted for being homosexual two weeks after my letter is completely uncorroborated. The police never investigated the claim and there were no suspects mentioned at any time. The newspaper informed me that the victim and his associates (gee I wonder who they were?????) contacted the newspaper. The newspapaer admitted that they printed the story because it was in the middle of the community debate. The victim did not provide testimony and the AHRC hearing, nor did he have an agent do so. His name was never even mentioned. 1. Do you think that teenage bullies were reading the letters to the editor section of my local newspaper. That is highly unlikely? 2. I am not responsible for criminal behaviour. If I am, then we need to close the libraries, burn the books and shut down the newspapers. 3. No court of law would accept such baseless, circumstantial claims. 4. I devoted my life to young people regardless of their sexual orientation. Anyone who knows me is confident that I would NEVER approve of bullying or assault and they also know that I would protect ANY teen,regardlesss of sexual orientation, like my own family. Clint, your train of thinking is the type that is destroying freedom of speech in Canada. You are succumbing to emotion. Yes to me, you are a friend. You can hate certain practices and or beahviour and still sincerely love people.
Stephen Boissoin, Red Deer Alberta
11/06/08 10:49 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
interested in hearing a reason
What we know about sexual orientation, gay or straight, is that it's not a conscious choice. It's the result of deeper processes, occuring early in life. Irregardless of that, there is some evidence of genetic links on homosexuality, but not ironclad proof. I suspect that's what some teachers are saying, and if they are claiming something more, than they may be criticized on this specific point. However, proven genetic links, or not, gay people in our sexuality/orientation/identity should be treated as equal to heterosexuality. This salient point is no more "propagation" as you call it, then it is for heterosexuality. If we are to treat homosexuality as "lesser than" there needs to be a logical, rational reason for it. Saying gays who don't hide away and who demand equality, need to be stopped by "whatever means necessary", and are a threat to heterosexuality and to children, isn't an argument. It's possibly suggestive of insecurity, desperation resulting from lack of an argument, and panders to fear and bigotry. It's also more likely to incite violence, compared to the many other ways to disagree.
Clint Babula, Thunder Bay Ontario
11/06/08 6:50 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Again.....stretching
You said "Saying gays who don't hide away and who demand equality, need to be stopped by "whatever means necessary", and are a threat to heterosexuality and to children, isn't an argument. It's possibly suggestive of insecurity, desperation resulting from lack of an argument, and panders to fear and bigotry." 1. I am a law abiding citizen, was a youth worker, a licensed minister and a leader in a political lobby group. Taking the letter as a whole...it is obvious that it had nothing to do with violence. To state such is again a form of manipulation and deception. Twisting the facts and intent to denote something that suits your argument. If one suggests a war on poverty do we assume it could mean kill the impoverished? Obviously not. Again, I am not responsible for the actions of another. My letter had nothing to do with criminal behaviour. It was an ideological battle using whatever means legal or as a Christian, means that are admonished in the New Testament. 2. I do believe that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle and I believe that science backs this opinion up clearly. I do not believe that it is equal to heterosexuality and I do believe that the behaviour should be discriminated against to some extent. 3. Deeper processes early in life....environmental issues etc....all non genetic variables that only account for some of the reasons for homosexual behaviour but that is an entirely different debate. My point is that you can hate me. You can say you hate me. You can say that you think for this or that reason that I am immoral, wicked, evil etc. Freedom of speech allows for offence. If you lie about me then I can take legal action if I so choose, there are laws for slander and libel. What I should never have the right to do is to police your thoughts and silence your opinion. The bigger issue is freedom of speech. It is bigger then the sexual orientation debate. One side will always impinge upon the o
Stephen Boissoin, Red Deer Alberta
11/06/08 7:36 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Finished the sentence
The previous post should have concluded with - One side will always impinge upon the other without it. If you are ever out in Alberta and wish to have a coffee, feel free to look me up via email and or cell. You may not like my views but I am confident that you will see discern that I am not a hate monger. The same offer is extended to all. sboissoin@gmail.com 1-403-304-5400 As I continue to fight for my freedom to speak, I wish all the best and desire no ill will for any. Peace and Blessings
Stephen Boissoin, Red Deer Alberta
11/06/08 7:46 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Not buying it. Let me tell everyone why.
I don't accept your explanation that it wasn't aimed at individuals, but more generally, like declaring war on poverty but leaving the poor alone. Right from the start, and all through the letter, you clearly stated many times, that your venomous comments were precisely directed at "gay rights activists and those who support and defend them". You directly call people in this group "perverse", etc., say that we as individuals, are recruiting children and endangering society. It's stated the "agenda" is "about people" such as "activists, teachers, lawyers", etc. You tell heterosexuals to take action against this agenda by whatever means necessary. It didn't say to have a debate. And it's in the context of demonizing an identified social group of persons. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, dear, but science most certainly does not back up your "gay recruitment" theory. It's not a lifestyle. It involves many possible ways of living, and like anything else, some may be destructive. There is not a causal link between being gay and destructiveness. It's not like smoking leads to cancer. Different issues, than the one at hand, but issues your letter did deal with.
Clint Babula, Thunder Bay Ontario
11/07/08 1:43 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
not buyint it, let me tell everyone why(cleaned up
I don't accept your explanation that it wasn't aimed at individuals, but more generally, like declaring war on poverty but leaving the poor alone. Right from the start, and all through the letter, you clearly stated many times, that your venomous comments were precisely directed at "gay rights activists and those who support and defend them". You directly call people in this group "perverse", etc., say that we as individuals, are recruiting children and endangering society. It's stated the "agenda" is "about people" such as "activists, teachers, lawyers", etc. You tell heterosexuals to take action against this agenda by whatever means necessary. It didn't say to have a debate. And it's in the context of demonizing an identified social group of persons. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, dear, but science most certainly does not back up your "gay recruitment theory". It's not a lifestyle. It involves many possible ways of living, and like anything else, some may be destructive. There is not a causal link between being gay and destructiveness. It's not like smoking leads to cancer. Different issues, than the one at hand, but issues your letter did deal with.
Clint Babula, Thunder Bay Ontario
11/07/08 2:04 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Health Canada doesn't agree
Well you better tell Health Canada that because they don't see it that way. They refuse organ donations from men that have sex with men. I've heard all the arguments. We are simply on different sides of the fence. True, my letter was aimed at a target audience, mainly heterosexuals. It was intentionally worded strongly and it expressed my harsh dislike, disgust, hatred etc for homosexuality and especially the propagation of it to young people. I have worked with thousands of youth and they also tell me how educators promote that homosexuality is normal and genetic. Students tell me that they attempt to make them think that they are being hateful or intolerant if they disagree with the behaviour. One teacher in the states just had her 5-6 year old kindergarten students sign a pro-gay pledge card and they don't even understand sexuality yet. Homosexuals are taking Christian organizations to human rights commissions when their request to hold gay wedding receptions are refused. There are dozens of examples that I can cite but doing so is futile as you are probably from the train of thinking that wants all criticism of homosexuality to be illegal and punishable. Let us hate homosexuality Clint. Let us say we hate it. Let us compare the behaviour to whatever we want. Like it or not we're going to anyways and we will let you do the same about us. We can hate a behaviour AND love those that practice it. That is what Christianity teaches me and Christianity is anti-homosexuality. There are other cases in Canada where very educated people disagreed with homosexuality without being as emotional as I did. They are suffering the same fate. Research Dr. Chris Kempling. A kind and gentle soul having his career destroyed because he disagreed with homosexual indoctrination. I'm sure that you will voice some justification but many homosexuals understand the need to protect freedom of speech.
Stephen Boissoij, Red Deer Alberta
11/07/08 12:16 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
What Health Canada didn't say
The Health Canada decision is controversial: http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=1&STORY_ID=4189&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=1 However, Health Canada didn't say there was a causal link between being gay and HIV. Higher statistics in one group, compared to another, do not indicate causality. Numbers would have to be much higher. This is not how HIV spreads. Heterosexuality is not the cause of HIV in Africa for example, yet statistics are highest among that group. Sexuality is about much more than acts, behaviours. That's why that five year old can have a basic understanding of sexuality in age-appropriate terms(two adults who really like each other like my parents), without having to know the nitty-gritty of acts, be the sexuality gay or straight. It's easier for some to focus talk of sexuality in terms, of "behaviour" or "sinful act", when it comes to gay people, that way they don't have to go any deeper and see the gay person's humanity. Being gay is also about who we are, innately, whether there's a proven genetic link(s) or not. It's the basic and fundamental expression of our human sexual identity. The orientation is deeply set, and leads to the act. When some tell gay people to struggle hard to repress it, or to not act on it, that's recognizing what I just said. The focus in the remarks by Boissoin is also on "hate". I have to ask why simply, "hate" anything? That's not a reason to institute discrimination or negative bias against individuals who represent the hated trait by acting in accordance with who we are. The way Mr. Boissoin goes on about hate, you'd think it was one of the better achievements of humankind, and so very well worth promoting! Yes, that's a separate issue from the right to "hate" or to "offend", and what limits there should be, if any. Clearly I believe it should be limited not just because it's hate, but b
Clint Babula, Thunder Bay Ontario
11/07/08 5:16 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
the rest of what I said
but because it crosses lines. Students should not be taught to hate, discrimination or bias, in the public school setting either. The B.C. Civil Liberties Union agrees in the Kempling Case: http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/03Kempling.html Young minds are impressionable. Certain things are appropriate or not. Hate and discrimination are not values worth teaching.
Clint Babula, Thunder Bay Ontario
11/07/08 5:28 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Round and Round we go...
I am Boissoin Clint, didn't you notice? Hate is such a subjective thing. To hate a behaviour does not automatically denote that one wishes ill will towards the individual. You seem to have a utopian view that goes agains the grain of humanity. People will always hate one thing or another. Nothing wrong with hating in context. We should hate what is worthy of hate and I believe that abortion, adultery, pedophilia, abuse, homosexuality etc are worthy of hate. Also, if there is no genetic link and it is simply a deeply rooted behaviour, then it is no different than any other deeply rooted behaviour. It can be identified and aberrant and overtime corrected. This of course is where Kempling and I agree wholeheartedly, as do many former homosexuals. Promiscuity is an extremely hard practice to curb regardless of sexual orientation but by the grace of God many succeed. Homosexuality is simply a straying away from heterosexuality for a variety of reasons. I will always believe it is wrong and you may always believe I am wrong. Again, we should both be free to hold and express and opinion freely.
Stephen Boissoin, Red Deer Alberta
11/07/08 6:03 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
I knew we would end up on this road
Yes, I know who you are, but I honestly wanted to address some important questions your comments raised, to anyone who may be reading. Sure we can dislike/hate what reason suggests we should. However, there is no logical or rational reason to hate homosexuality, so it is simply hate/social prejudice. Non-sequitors, such as pedophilia, etc, are a diversion fallacy, and not an argument as to why homosexuality should be hated. Homosexuality is not a disorder, so it doesn't need to be treated. No doubt, any type of behaviour may be controlled, that doesn't mean it should be. It may cause unnecessary harm, if the treatment hasn't been proven. Psychological Organizations have official statements against unnapproved, so-called "reparative" or "conversion" therapy. Here's what the American Psychiatric Association said: "Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation -- The potential risks of "reparative therapy" are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient." It cites other problems, particularly with the outdated psychoanalytical ideas it is based on, and the fact that "reparative therapy" is unproven, by research, and the problematic methods used by therapists in such therapies. Promiscuity is a different issue. As you said, it can affect both straight and gay. Long-term, committed and loving relationships are also possible for gay people. If that's what we want, social support for it would help(whether gay or straight). There's no credible evidence that we're all straight, and have gone astray. Maybe we're all bi-sexual? There's just as much evidence for that.
Clint Babula, Thunder Bay Ontario
11/08/08 2:17 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Simply....we see it differently.
Hi Clint. Again there is scholarly opinion on both sides and not all who were part of the APA statement that you refer to, are still in agreement with it today. Some now refute it, admitting that it is incorrect. There are also many psychologists and psychiatrists that have always disagreed with it. I believe that the evidence IS credible and obvious. This is where we would go round and round. Changing directing ------- When I meet a person that has a homosexual preference, I do not automatically judge this person as a whole. I have met very nice, intelligent and sincere people that happen to prefer same sex relationships. I have also met a what appears to be a higher percent that appear to be highly perverted, extremely vain and addicted to sex. I have also witnessed the public displays of perversion (and nudity), even with children present, at gay pride parades. My argument has always been directed against the element of the gay-activist movement that IS hammering their opinion, lifestyle and agenda into our culture without the support of scienctific evidence or the respect for others views within society. See Clint, not all pro-gay activists have integrity and tolerance for those that disagree with them. These individuals/groups are trying to crush differing opinion AND the religious principles (and institutions) that many subscribe to. If this element within the pro-gay activist populace backs off with the intolerant and deceptive activism, you will never have to hear from people like me. Again, I wish all the best.
Stephen Boissoin, Red Deer Alberta
11/08/08 4:22 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.