Comments on: VP of Exodus describes hate speech as ‘difference of opinion’

By: Stephen Lilico

Stephen Lilico — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:27:07 +0000

Ouch. That article really didn’t mince its words. I’m a christian, and I believe that all sex outside of marriage is a sin. So I suppose you wouldn’t call me a moderate.
I have to say though, that it seems really strange that people tried to prosecute boisson. Insulting though it may be to the homosexual community, it was hardly posted on peoples windows or somewhere where they are likely to read it. So the insults can be avoided quite simply – if you don’t like what he is saying, don’t read it.
Then there is his call to action, a battle cry for war. I doubt any of his audience would read it as a cry to go out, buy an AK47 and go find some gays to shoot. He was calling for political activism, and to criminalise him for that is to destroy the very purpose of free speech, that people can have a say on what happens in their country.

Oh, and as far as the hate the sin, love the sinner stuff goes, that is not written anywhere. We are commanded to love everyone, especially our enemies. We need to avoid sin because it damages our relationship with God, and so we advise others to do the same. I can say from experience that it hurts everything, even the most secret sin.
S

By: David K. Jones

David K. Jones — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:29:43 +0000

And yes, I agree with the author of this post, Mr. Thomas has succumbed to the lure of celebrity, where he is now not any good to the homosexual community or those who desire to leave it.

By: David K. Jones

David K. Jones — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:25:25 +0000

The problem I see with organizations/people like Exodus, Mr. Boissoin, etc, is that I don’t believe that they believe in what they say. They may quote from their rulebook/playbook…”God loves the sinner, but not the sin”, but their real feelings come out eventually. It’s the whole “me thinks he doth protest too much” phenomenon. Somewhere, right now, I venture to say, some pastor on the other side of the world is preaching about the evils of homosexuality. Why is this such an obsession with christian fundamentalists? Is it because they have a genuine concern for the homosexual’s eternal soul? I won’t even dignify that question with an answer (I lied…we know the answer is no!)

Mr. Boissoin can proclaim from the mountaintops that he doesn’t hate gay people, but you can’t kid a kidder, ladies and gentlemen. I know first hand what lying SOB’s heterosexual christians can be…I’ve been the brunt of their “love the sinner” shtick way more times than I care to count.

By: Truth Wins Out - Travel Companion: Exodus Board Member Agreed with Holocaust Revisionist

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:41:34 +0000

[...] tip: Commenters at Ex-Gay Watch and Box Turtle [...]

By: Michelle

Michelle — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:58:53 +0000

I think there’s a little more to consider here – namely the idea that freedom of speech does not necessarily mean freedom of speech without consequences.

I don’t think that we should be giving a free ride to the kinds of hate-filled lies that get repeated so often by people like Boissoin. It’s not just about countering the lies, but it’s also important NOT to ever allow those lies to be repeated often enough to become a commonly held truth.

By: Emily K

Emily K — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:11:24 +0000

Patrick, I think it’s safe to say you are the most colorful writer here on XGW.

By: Ephilei

Ephilei — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:51:15 +0000

@Richard

These instances are completely different in the eyes of the law. You’re over-simplifying.

Canada’s free speech is limited by anti-hate speach laws which limits the individual from inciting hatred against others, particularly regarding religion, race, gender, and sexual-orientation; that’s what this case was about. The US does not have anti-hate speech laws. The government cannot limit your hatred.

The fire-theater analogy, however, refers to issues of public safety where the individual is using speech to knowingly hurt others. The US does prosecute this type in some cases.

By: Richard Rush

Richard Rush — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:44:59 +0000

Lets say a man named Phree is on trial for manslaughter because someone was trampled to death after he yelled “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. Dozens of audience members and fire department personnel testify that there was no fie.

Then Randy Thomas testifies for the defense, saying: “This is a freedom-of-speech issue because Phree and the other members of the audience, along with the fire department, simply had a difference of opinion.”

By: Ephilei

Ephilei — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:46:00 +0000

Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?

Awesome.

I guess I’m more American than Canadian because I agree with the judge.

By: Robert S. Porter

Robert S. Porter — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:53:57 +0000

Unfortunately I think you’re basing part of your argument on a false premise. While Canada doesn’t have a First Amendment literally, we certainly do have a consitution with guaranteed rights. Canada’s constitution, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

Thus the judge did not rule in favor of free speech in the absence of such rights, he in fact ruled inline with Canadian law.

Of course this whole issue is much more nuanced and free speech is somewhat less protected in Canada than in the United States, but it’s simply incorrect to say we have no enshrined right to free speech.