Here are some more details on Stephen Boissoin's case.
An additional important point from this Boissoin case, and which is recorded in the decision - again in the words of Ms. Dodd - is the way the alleged assault has been handled. I can't find anybody who can confirm that anyone was charged in this alleged assault. You'd think that if a young person had been assaulted and, everyone knew who did it, that somebody would have been charged - especially if the victim was a homosexual. Yet you hear nothing in the media about anyone being charged.If you believe Tim Bloedow is wrong - try to find another explanation. Try to explain what is the logic behind persecuting a Christian pastor who "might have a circumstantial connection" to the assault, yet not doing anything to find those who actually committed the assault and to bring them to justice.
Yet, in the human rights commission decision, we read from Ms. Dodd's testimony that: "Ms. Dodd reported that she was personally aware that one of the youths who beat the 17 year old youth was a person who frequented the youth center quite often. Ms. Dodd further reported that Mr. Boissoin was aware of this and did nothing in response to the beating. Ms. Dodd reported that as a rule if there was any violence within the center, those involved were asked to leave for an extended period of time depending on how violent the situation was. Ms. Dodd reported that the youth who perpetrated this assault was never subjected to any repercussions at the center."
How much more fork-tongued, hypocritical and hatefully bigoted can you get than to expect Stephen Boissoin to take action against an alleged assaulter that nobody is screaming at the authorities to charge? Ms. Dodd actually indicates that more than one person committed the assault. If that much information is known, why have no charges been laid? And if charges have been laid, why aren't they part of the news stories?
Think about it - there was a crime committed, wasn't it? So wouldn't it be more reasonable to get the police involved, to have those thugs who committed the crime arrested and charged? Their testimonies would then become a solid evidence against the person who masterminded the assault, so that person too would have criminal charges laid against him.
Thus there would be no need for a "human rights commission" with the guessing game of a sole adjudicator ("there might be a circumstantial connection"... or there might not... but let's find Stephen Boissoin "indirectly responsible" anyway...) The mastermind behind the attack would be tried in a criminal court and he'd be convicted based on an actual evidence against him... So how come none of that was actually done?
The unwillingness of the prosecution to deal with an actual assault and the vigor with which the complainers used extrajudicial body to persecute Stephen Boissoin, against whom they had no evidence, shows that there might be some facts concerning the assault, which the complainers didn't want to come to light.
It might as well be that the assault was masterminded by someone from the homosexual community, that needed to create the "circumstances" in a "circumstantial connection" between violent assaults on homosexuals and Stephen's letter to the editor, which criticized teaching homosexual lifestyle to 6 year-old children. After all - there is a precedent to that already.