Are You A Fascist?

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 9 June 2008:

A Canadian human rights tribunal ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality, according to a new report.

In a decision dated May 30 in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for "damages for pain and suffering" as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt. ... [T]he penalty could foreshadow the possible fate of the Rev. Alphonse de Valk, who also cited the biblical perspective on homosexuality in the nation's debate over same-sex "marriage" and now faces HRC charges.

Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of his local Red Deer, Alberta, newspaper in 2002 denouncing the advance of homosexual activism as "wicked" and stating: "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."

The activist, local teacher Darren Lund, filed a complaint, and the guilty verdict from Lori G. Andreachuk, a lawyer, was handed down Nov. 30, 2007.

[... In her opinion, Andreachuk wrote] "Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about … Lund or … Lund's witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current Web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc."

Andreachuk also ordered Boissoin to apologize for the original letter in the Red Deer Advocate and told the two "offenders" to pay $5,000. Source

As a monarchist, and one whose political philosophy is somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan, I am often accused of being a fascist. Laughably, of course; fascism is worship of the State, and no self respecting fascist would ever consider a God-worshiping Altar-and-Throne type like me for membership. However, there are those who do worship the State, and who consider civil rights something to be given and taken away by the State. Ironically, most of these people call themselves Liberals.

A Liberal, being one who considers individual liberty to be the ultimate good, would seem at first an odd candidate for inclusion in the cult of State power; yet, as both history and current events prove, people who profess the greatest dedication to free speech are often among the first to bring the hammer of State power down upon the scrotums of those whose speech is a little too free.

Case in point: Canada. Long considered a haven for those who love liberty, it is in fact a nation where speaking one's mind can get one in deep, deep trouble with the government. Here in Texas, USA, despite the iron-fisted dictatorial regime of Chimpy McBusHitler, one remains free to express one's opinion publicly on any subject, using any desired words, without fear of retribution from Big Brother. Not so in Alberta, Canada, however. There, the government has the power to punish those whose public opinions stray from those officially approved by the provincial government. The Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act (Chapter H‑14) passed by the government of Alberta spells it out:

"No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons." (Sexual orientation was added to the list of protected categories in 1992)

And who gets to decide which statements, publications, notices, signs, symbols, emblems or other representations are illegal? Why, the ever-lovin' Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, that's who!

Still think Canada is a paradise of freedom compared to the US? Imagine what would happen if the government of the State of Texas enacted a law regulating statements, publications, notices, signs, symbols, emblems or other representations of opinion? The news media would freak! The pundits would froth! The streets would be full of Commies, resinous hippie fellow-travelers, and legions of earnest white, middle-class dupes bellowing at the top of their lungs about "fascism!"

But when Alberta, Canada does it, no one cares. Why is that?


Anyway, with this in mind, I pose to my readers a question:

Do you believe

a) that a given government should have the power to punish those who make any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, religious beliefs, color, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, sexual orientation or family status of that person or class of persons; or

b) that people are by right free to think, say, express, and publish their opinions, even if such opinions are discriminatory, hateful, contemptuous, racist, bigoted, sexist, ableist, ageist, classist, and/or intended to denigrate those of a given ethnicity, handicap, or sexuality, without fear of government punishment?

If your beliefs match option B more closely, then you are a true Liberal, and I salute you for your integrity. However, if your beliefs match option A more closely, then I submit to your that you are a hypocrite at best — and, as one who holds that the State should have the power to deny people their God-given civil rights — quite likely a fascist as well.

So which is it, kids? Do you really believe in freedom of speech, or are you just another closet KGB informer ready to turn in the family next door for treason? Who's really the fascist? You make the call!