Sigh
I’m a Christian – albeit of watery Anglican faith – and I think these words are reprehensible but they are also important to read. Which means they are important to publish. If, after you read them you feel like beating up a homosexual, ask yourself what Jesus (not Mohammad) would do.
The CHRC has my address.
——-
Homosexual Agenda Wicked
The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.
Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.
My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date – God and the “Moral Majority.” Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term “morality.”
The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, “I’m just not sure where the truth lies,” or “If they don’t affect me then I don’t care what they do,” abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.
Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.
Edmund Burke’s observation that, “All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing,” has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.
Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, 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.
Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.
Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?
Come on people, wake up! It’s time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.
Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn’t rooted in protecting homosexuals from “gay bashing.” The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.
Don’t allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.
The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.
If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It’s time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.
Rev. Stephen Boissoin——A brief benediction,
Dear Lord, I pray that the Rev. Boissoin clues into the New Testament and the New Dispensation and stops being such a goof. It is a real pain, Lord, to have to defend the right of such cretinous Christians to speak. Amen.
thanks a bunch Ezra
Update: Of course this was published in the large circulation gay newspaper Xtra...months ago. No disclaimer. Just the reprint.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:35 am
Jay,
Why stop there? Why not publish Terry Tremaine’s rantings? Or, for that matter, the letter that Merle Terlesky wrote to Fast Forward about Levant’s skill and judgment as a publisher?
November 21st, 2008 at 9:59 am
Reads like political dissent to me albeit with a pseudo religious undertone.
I always get a laugh from the dogmatic left who consider themselves “of the collective” and “dissenters to old order western culture” when they openly advocate for state stifling of dissent. I also get a laugh from them accusing the perceived “right” of biased opinion when the leftist dogma is based on it.
The dogmatic left are politically dyslexic and civilly retarded.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:34 am
Finding Rev. Boisson’s diatribe concerning the “wicked homosexual agenda” reprinted on various blogsites it is more probable that Rev. Boisson and people who think as he does are “likely be exposed to hatred and contempt” than gay people. Personally, I find his remarks extreme, nonsensical and of no consequence. He has the right to freedom of thought and expression, and to be wrong. It may be painful to defend the right of people like Rev. Boisson to speak, but if we allow governments to stifle free expression, before long no one is safe.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:40 am
You have it right Pongo. Nothing discredits people like Boisson faster than other people reading exactly what they have to say.
tw, as to Tremaine my own view is that he is not entirely aware of what he has written and, if he is, I still would not publish his material. Terlesky is about defamation and not germane to the free speech argument.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
False prophets abound. Thanks for bearing the burden of pointing it out, Jay.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
“he is not entirely aware of what he has written”
Good grief, what a cop-out.
Terlesky isn’t about defamation, by the way. It’s about SLAPP-suitery from the lead Speech Warrior. Repression is just fine if it’s privatized, eh?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Terlesky isn’t about defamation, by the way. It’s about SLAPP-suitery from the lead Speech Warrior. Repression is just fine if it’s privatized, eh?
Having a nice meal of that red herring, Dawg? So long as we allow people to defend themselves and their reputation (and yes Levant v Terlesky is about defamation) then there are people who are going to abuse that right – like, f’rinstance, Mr Kinsella. Should defamation law be changed to open a wider defence of ‘fair comment?’ Probably. Should it be changed to allow greater scope for reasonable opinion? Maybe. Should it be changed to allow counter-suits for unfounded litigation and/or recovery of costs? Sure. Is Ezra
at least in the context of Terleskyacting like an asshole? Yes, no question. Are any of those facts relevant in a discussion of the state restricting the right to comment on topics of public interest? Ummm… NO.November 21st, 2008 at 6:03 pm
A defamation lawsuit involves a complaint filed by one citizen against another about something the latter said or wrote about the former, with liability determined by an independent adjudicator appointed by the state.
A human rights complaint under the hate speech provisions of the various HR acts involves a complaint filed by one citizen against another about something that the latter said or wrote about a group of people, which may or may not include the former, with the result determined by an independent adjudicator appointed by the state.
Those like Jay and dcardno who argue that defamation law has nothing to do with freedom of speech, or that defamation law and the hate speech provisions of human rights code are like chalk and cheese, clearly don’t understand either defamation or human rights law or, for that matter, freedom of speech.
As a matter of law, both defamation law and human rights law place restrictions on speech and, as a result, chill some speech. In the former case, the chill is justified on the grounds that the words are false (or presumed to be, at least under Canadian law). In the latter case, the chill is justified on the grounds that the words claim that a group of people is utterly worthless and worthy of hate, a proposition that is probably false (or at least, on its face, is impossible to prove to be true)
Got one thing right, though. Ezra’s an asshole.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Are any of those facts relevant in a discussion of the state restricting the right to comment on topics of public interest? Ummm… NO.
Ummm…YES indeedy.
See, Deaner, it’s a question of consistency. Ezra and his smug crew are forever lecturing us about principle. Free expression, free this, free that…let freedom ring!
But somehow this wonderful principle only applies to…well, not the state, since the state doesn’t initiate complaints. In fact, how very odd: on closer examination, the only difference between an HRT complainant and Ezra Levant is that the latter has more money. But the aim is exactly the same: to shut people up.
If individuals can be defamed, it is no stretch at all (except for people who want to have it both ways) to make the case that groups can be defamed, to the detriment of individual members of that group.
But for those who insist on going to the wall for hate-speakers (but who have terrible reservations about allowing progressives to join conversations at Queen’s University), it’s important to make distinctions, even where these are less real than politically expedient.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:14 pm
“terrible reservations about allowing progressives to join conversations” Progressives? So now we are paying people with a specific and contested point of view to interrupt. Cute.
And, Dawg, it is not at all a simple extension to say that a group may be defamed. To give an example: propose that someone says that women are irrational. One irrational woman would make the argument. Moreover, groups do not have reputations which can be defamed. Who could possibly bring an action on behalf of a group. How could a group be identified? Am I black? Am I Jewish? (And, for you folks who believe gender is “constructed”) Am I female? How could you possibly tell? One drop and all that?
No Dawg, reputation which is the bedrock of defamation, is a piece of intangible personal property. Defamation suits are designed to protect that property and repair the damage to it wrought by libel or slander. A group has no reputation as it has no legal entity in which that reputation can reside.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Let’s consider a few things: there is a wide difference between pro-life activists who bomb abortion clinics, and stay at home moms who crochet blankets for the local crisis pregnancy center.
So there is a wide difference between a relative who is struggling with sexual identity, and a politically-motivated extreme leftist who demands the nation grind to a halt while he demands a singles’ relationship website must offer services for his particular needs (see recent legislation against eHarmony).
I have friends of various sexual identification. I also balk at being told that to reject violent protests from gay activists is somehow backwards or descriminatory. Is it backwards to suggest that gay activists shouldn’t block L.A. traffic? Is it blind, or obtuse, to suggest that hateful mobs shouldn’t rough up little old ladies in Florida? The liberal illuminati work hard to convince American citizens that this issue is one of civil rights. If you do take that line of argument, then should you not consider that the civil rights movement was based on non-violent resistance, and not on physically intimidating old women?
November 21st, 2008 at 10:36 pm
“A group has no reputation as it has no legal entity in which that reputation can reside.”
What a load of legalistic horseshit. You have to blind to reality to advance the idea that reputation is entirely dependant on some form of legal personhood, or that a group can’t have a reputation because it lacks legal personhood.
It also ignores the aims of tort law and the similar goals of human rights law.
Tort law exists to define the limits of acceptable behaviour, to compensate for harm already done, and to deter unacceptable behaviour so as to prevent future harm. In other words, defamation law exists in part to chill speech that may cause harm.
Human rights speech provisions aims to chill a narrower range of speech – that speech that is likely to expose groups to the extremes of hate and contempt – and offers a narrower range of remedies than tort law. The goal is the same, however: to chill speech that causes actual harm.
To suggest that one limit on speech is a holy part of our common law and the other is some sort of Stalinist plot is simple-minded nonsense. If you think that human rights speech codes are ineffective or counter-productive, make that argument. But to suggest that McDonalds or Halliburton has a reputation that the law should defend, while targetted groups of people – Jews, Muslims, gays and lesbians – should go pound sand, no matter how much vitriol, hatred and scapegoating is tossed their way, is idiotic.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:09 pm
OK, tw, once we cut through the arm waving and invective you seem to be claiming that a) you can define a group vigorously enough so as to accord it rights and that, b) it is not a stretch to extend legal rights to a thing which is not a legal person.
I suspect that there is a legal precedent for allowing such an amorphous entity to become a party to an action – and here I am thinking about class actions – but I am not sure how such a group could be claimed to have a reputation in the sense that term is used in defamation.
Can you explain?
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:59 am
Jay:
I’ll defer to truewest on matters of law—he is a litigation lawyer, after all—but you seem to me to be missing the obvious with respect to reputation.
It seems commonsensical to me that reputations are acquired in a number of ways. One acquires one’s reputation by what one does, but also through what people say one is. So if I happen to be gay, and there is a belief promulgated throughout the community that gays are evil pedophiles, it matters not one whit that I am an individual—I am marked by that defamatory language as surely as if someone said that I personally am an evil pedophile.
Defamation is defamation, the same or a similar injury is inflicted, and it seems entirely reasonable, under such circumstances, for me to have legal recourse and redress. That is what, warts and all, the HRCs offer—a venue for me to seek that redress.
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 am
Actually, Jay, I’m simply saying that groups can and do have reputations, whether or not they can rely on defamation law to protect those reputations. It’s all very nice to pretend we live in a world free of stereotypes or prejudices, where every person is judged by the content of his character and nobody singles out identifiable groups of people for scapegoating and attack, but our history is chock full of evidence to the contrary.
So what to do? We could amend the libel acts to allow for claims of group defamation. That way, an individual could bring a class action on behalf of the group, seeking damages and an injunction, much as the Bomber Command veterans and Falun Jong devotees attempted to do in in Elliot v. CBC and Bai v. Sing Tao Daily Ltd respectively. That might make sense if our primary goal was to financially compensate the members of a group who had suffered harm as a result of the libel. And if our goal is to compensate for group libel, then we do need to define the group strictly, since we need to know a) who gets a cheque and b) who is bound by the decision.
But as I’ve pointed out , deterrence and behaviour modificiation are also legitimate goals of tort law, including defamation law. Indeed, given that most individual libel plaintiffs end up out of pocket even if they win, it might be argued that the real purpose of bringing a libel suit is to prevent the libel being repeated and deter further attacks. (Ask Conrad Black about this).
So, if we’re not concerned about writing cheques, the need to rigorously define the group isn’t as pressing. And if we want to focus on deterrence and behaviour modification in addressing group defamation claims, why would we not avoid the cost and legal complexities of the ordinary courts and choose a method of adjudication that delivers those results as a far more modest cost for both parties?
The human rights system isn’t perfect, but to suggest that human rights speech provisions protecting group reputation are very different – or any less legitimate – than libel law provision protecting individual reputation is simply ridiculous.
BTW, if you’re going to reply that, unlike human rights law, truth is a defence in libel law, bear in mind that a) raising a justification defence is typically a last resort in defending a defamation claim, since proving truth, even on a balance of probabilities, is difficult and expensive and b) in Quebec, it is possible to be found liable for defamation if you spread harmful and true information without a valid reason for doing so (see Prudhomme v. Prudhomme, 2002 SCC 85 at paras 36-37.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 am
Palinpal: Ghandi said “Fill the jails.” What an extremist!
And blocking traffic in LA is different from Kent State how? Also, why are little old ladies exempt (from being protested at, I mean, not harmed)? Little old ladies can be wrong – and right – as much as anybody, and as effective as forces for social change. Why should we excuse ignorance, ever? As an incipient little-old-lady, I hope that The Kids These Days will respect me enough in my dotage to accord me intelligence and agency and responsibility for my actions and words as much as if I was 25. Just sayin’.
Don’t get me wrong, I do see a vast distinction between protest and violence, direct action and bodily harm. But oppressed groups standing up and forcing people to listen has a long and noble tradition. But I agree that even ignorant assholes deserve to retain their bodily integrity.
I agree with you, tw, about defamation of groups: they can’t have it both ways. Legal standing of corporations is a fiction, Jay, but what’s to stop The Chuch of the Gay Cowboy from incorporating and then suing the good reverend’s pants off? By your rationale, they then would have a reputation to defend. I think that the argument is simplistic in the extreme, and I do support your position that curtailing any speech, even hateful and vitriolic speech, is a suppression of basic human rights. (Also, why should corporations be legal entities at all, hmm?)
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 am
PS: It’s worth mentioning in response to that hideous letter that I believed in equal rights when I was ten, before my mom sat me down and told me that the only decent relationship was between a man and a woman. If anything, the ignorance-indoctrination just didn’t take for some reason… Also homosexuality is flourishing in my very neighbourhood, yet there is very little wickedness abounding. Well, the kid next door tried to hawk his parents’ stereo system to pay for video games. But that’s it. Honest.
November 28th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Dear Jay,
I think that I have quite a good understanding of the New Testament. Please show me through the harmonization of scripture where I have error. Can you determine the heart and intent of a man by one letter to the letter which was published eight years ago. Seems that you are not practicing your own beliefs.
My letter does not contradict the unity of scripture, nor does it denote a lack of love for any individual. Actually, there is love in the reason for my letter. In my opinion, which I understand probably differs from yours, it is more true today than yesterday. After reading your post and many comments about it, it is also clear that I myself am commenting on a site where the common Christian opinion seems to be more of a secularist one that true to the text.
Oh well, to each is own.
Blessings
November 28th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Stephen, unfortunately, just at the moment, I don’t have the time to engage in this debate with you. It would, however, be a welcome debate and one which I think might be instructive for us both and for my readers.
My email is posted. Write me directly and let’s see if we can set up a time in the next couple of weeks to take a look at Christian teachings and where we diverge and where we agree.