While it is difficult to support Boissoin’s right to spew his misguided and vitriolic thoughts, support his right, we must.

If Boissoin was no longer able to share his views, then who might be next in also having their freedom of expression limited. Traditionally, the LGBT community’s freedom has been repressed by society and its laws.

Plus, it is far better that Boissoin expose his views than have them pushed underground. Under the glaring light of public scrutiny, his ideas will most likely wither and die.

In fact, his words may serve to increase public education. By more clearly seeing the ugly face of bigotry and prejudice, the need for teaching tolerance in schools becomes obvious.

I'm impressed with that. It's a call to civic responsibility. Marchildon doesn't abide Rev. Boissoin's comments one bit. But instead of asking the nanny state to protect him, instead of outsourcing his civic duties to some HRC, Marchildon wants to engage in a public debate, and use it as a teaching moment. And, as the title of his article, "Freedom for all means freedom for each" shows, Marchildon knows that if an "offensive" Christian activist is censored today, an offensive gay rights activist can be censored tomorrow.

If only the "leaders" of the official Jewish establishment in Canada had such common sense. They would have governments -- by far history's biggest butchers of Jews -- "protect" us from hostile ideas, rather than doing it ourselves.

Here are two more gay activists who have denounced this anti-Christian persecution. Not because they're anti-gay. But because they know, too, that government haven't historically been friends to homosexuals -- but freedom is, and will be much more reliably so in the future.

ADDENDUM: Debbie Gyapong makes some good points here. What is Darren Lund, who loudly proclaims that he's not gay, putting forward such censorious complaints in the name of gays? That's even more absurd than Mohamed Elmasry claiming to speak on behalf of all Muslims when he sues Maclean's. We know Elmasry speaks for at least one Muslim (himself). Does Lund speak for even one gay person?

Just as Elmasry's fascist attack on Maclean's has set back Muslim-Gentile relations, by portraying all Muslims as a bunch of Saudi-style wackos, Lund undermines the credibility of the gay lobby, by painting it as an illiberal bunch of bullies, who can hardly wait to start "punishing" people as an act of vengeance for their own grievances. That's the shame of these human rights commissions: they reward and foster a sense of victimology and grievance.