Tolerance enforced by law is tyranny.
Yet another "worst example" of this comes from the Alberta Human Rights Commission and the May 30, 2008, judgement of Commissioner Lori G. Andreachuk, a lawyer. The issue was a letter in a local newspaper written by Stephen Boissoin in which he expressed his view of the homosexual agenda.
Darren Lund, a heterosexual, lodged a complaint. "[A]lthough not a direct victim [he] did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation," Andreachuck decided.
What do we have here? Lund, a person not affected by the letter in question, suffered ridicule from a third party, and Boissoin is ordered to pay him $5,000 for "pain and suffering." The illogic of all this failed to register on the Commissioner.
The farce continued when Andreachuk ordered Boissoin to "request" the newspaper to print her judgement and "request" the newspaper to publish his apology. Of course, the newspaper refused. This naive opinion constitutes legal over-reach at its most obscene.
Andreachuk further ordered Boisson never again, until the day he dies, express similar views, not in his emails, not even in private conversation. This is more restrictive than what the Inquisition imposed on Galileo (who continued to publish). Will the good Commissioner Andreachuck eavesdrop on Boissoin's pillow talk?
Fortunately, a court overturned the commissioner's mischief.
Human rights commissions are staffed by lawyers. One would think their training, if not common sense, would inhibit participation in such abuse of the legal process. The judgements of such tribunals too often smack of anti-intellectual flailing and gasping utopianism.
No law has ever changed a privately-held opinion.
Now the really good news. Commissioner Andreachuk's mischief came to the attention of the Alberta Government. The Culture Minister ordered changes in the Commission procedure. He has also initiated a search for a new Director who will "re-tool the commission from top to bottom. We had to change the governance of how it's run," he told the press. "It has to become objective. It's a quasi-judicial body that has to be run like one. No more kangaroo courts." All the commissioners were fired. They have been replaced, it is to be hoped, by people endowed with a modicum of common sense.
The non-profit Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership recommends the repeal of that part of the Code that deals with "statements or publications likely to expose people to hatred or contempt" in order to protect freedom of speech. There are those in the human rights community who are quick to say 'shut this person up, he said something nasty about gays or shut this person up he said something nasty about people in Somalia.' We don’t see limitations on freedom of expression as a good thing in the human rights arena. We see it as a bad thing.”