Ezra posted her picture. I'll do one better.The kangaroo court judge in this case is a Tory patronage appointee, a divorce lawyer from Lethbridge named Lori Andreachuk, (pictured at left). That's her expertise: divorce law. Not constitutional law; not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. And it shows.
Last November, she convicted Boissoin. Last week she ordered her "remedy".
It is the most revolting order I have ever seen in Canada. Ever.
I'll excerpt a few lines from her ruling:
In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward...
That's insane already. No-one was hurt. The complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.
Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, 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.
So a busybody with no standing spends time filing complaints -- and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh -- and for his "suffering". Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but "as a result of his complaint". People in the community ridiculed Lund for filing the complaint -- as they should. And so Andreachuk will get the pastor to pay for that. Why the hell not? Who's going to stop her? Her political patron, Ed Stelmach?
Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.
There's a lot there, starting with a small but telling point. Darren Lund is a not a medical doctor. He's a professor. But Andreachuk refers to him as Dr. Lund. Stephen Boissoin is a pastor. But Andreachuk calls him "Mr. Boissoin". No "Rev. Boissoin" for her.
But look at the staggering order there. Boissoin can never -- ever -- communicate anything "disparaging" about gays. It's a lifetime ban -- and it applies to every conceivable medium, including his private e-mails.
But nothing "disparaging"? That means nothing critical.
She didn't order him not to communicate anything "illegal" or even anything "hateful". She ordered him to say nothing disparaging. Ever. For the rest of his life.
She's out there somewhere (in Calgary I suspect). She goes to Safeway. She visits shops and boutiques. And every day she goes outside somebody should stop her and call her an enemy of freedom and a sodomy-lover and a threat to decent Western values. I mean it. Every day. She should be the personal recipient of hundreds of angry looks and gestures and comments. Every single day. Calgary readers, get on the case.
Update, June 12 2008 8:06pm: I forgot to mention it, but the Ezra article linked to above includes a comment from Enkidu who reports that Andreachuk lives in Lethbridge.
3 comments:
The first and third things would be good. Yelling the second will rightfully make you look like a jackass.
but isn't accosting "lori" for her attempt to subvert basic constitutional rights (like, um, free speech) "harassment"? Women like andreachuk are the ones who formulate speech codes in our universities - and they are also the ones who foment anti-male political correctness. Personally, i think she is an absolutely horrid human being - but watch the legion of rent-a-cops that will descend on your head like angry paratroopers the instant you tell her that. The sad thing is, we have plenty of people (often women and, less prominently, their male hand-maidens) who are only too eager to tell the rest of us how to live our lives and what we are supposed to say and when/how to say it (even if what we say cannot be reasonably construed as a threat or even as a bit of slander). All it takes, it appears, is a willingness to say something that lori doesn't like.
She should never have been admitted to law school and she should not be working for the state in any capacity.
but isn't accosting "lori" for her attempt to subvert basic constitutional rights (like, um, free speech) "harassment"?
If she raises too much of a stink over it if you do it, just tell her to stop menstrating and take the well-deserved abuse like the man she looks like.
Harassment is the least she should have to put up with. I'd recommend throwing tomatoes at her every step she takes in public if only the cost of vegetables wasn't so high.
Post a Comment