Or lack thereof.
Check out the ruling by one of Canada's "Human Rights" tribunals this past week. As noted in The Corner, "In June of 2002, a Canadian minister, the Rev. Stephen Boissoin wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper in Alberta condemning the 'homosexual agenda.'" As a result, two years later, some offended individual brought forth a "complaint."
Check out the judge's "reasoning" on why Boissoin ended up with the sentence he did:
In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward...
No specific individual and no direct victim, eh? But something must be done, dammit!! Boissoin is a HATER!!
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.
Notice he got ridiculed and harassed as a result of his complaint -- two years after Boissoin's supposedly "hurtful" comments -- not as a result of Boissoin's actual words!!
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.
And now we've reached the height of Orwellian thought crime punishment. It would be ridiculous enough had Boissoin been ordered to never publish "hateful" comments about homosexuals; however, he's been ordered never to publish mere "disparaging" remarks. The obvious query is then ... what the hell constitutes "disparaging?"
How is it that the Nitwit Left never seems to realize that such preposterous rulings can only come back and penalize THEM for something that someone else may not have "liked?"
Boissoin, by the way, also was ordered to write an apology and was fined
$5,000 $7,000. For voicing his conscience.