Who’s Stephen?
Some of you may know him as the kind, polite, father and husband who lives up north where the maple trees grow. Others of you may know him as the troll who loves to leave hateful comments on this blog.
If you are not familiar with Stephen, he calls himself a “red letter” Christian who is an “a** hole at times,” but particularly when dealing with other “a** holes” like pastors, ministers, Bible-teachers, etc. And it is here, on this blog, where Stephen loves to imitate the aforementioned body part.
Stephen and his comments go back a while. At one point they were much more cordial. He has even wished my wife and me well! However, although he claims to harbor no hatred toward organized religion, the bitter sarcasm and frequent pointed vulgarity say the opposite.
As of recently (mainly because I’ve started writing again), our Canadian friend has been back at it with renewed vitriol. What’s more, he’s even taken to replying to commenters with condescending, insulting comments.
So, the purpose of this post is to bring Stephen out into the open where everyone can see what he is saying, not just those who leave or read the comments. And what’s more, I’m going to share some points from the Canada Human Rights Act that may have a bearing on Stephen’s language.
CHRA Quotes
I am not sharing the following information as a means of support for the Canada Human Rights Act. Personally, I think making hate speech a major crime, especially when the laws can be interpreted to include just about anything that offends another, is government overreach.
However, since it IS the law in Canada, I thought it would be interesting to share what I found and then use it as a light to shine on recent comments from Stephen.
Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
- (a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
- (b) an offence under subsection 430(4.1); or
- (c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.
Communication of hate speech
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Continuous communication
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech continues to do so for as long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.
Definition of hate speech
(9) In this section, hate speech means the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Stephen’s Comments
Now, since you’ve hopefully read the above statutes, I would like to share with you a couple of recent comments which Stephen has left. I will embolden key words so that you can compare those with the CHRA.
have to excuse me if I don’t take advice from religious grifters who can’t keep their children safe Anthony.
Stephen, 5/23/22 2:07 p.m.
You have no moral high ground and absolutely no authority over anybody. But your mental illness keeps you from seeing this truth.
Only an absolute legalistic, religious zealot would believe that Gods’ grace, joy, fulfillment and blessings are bases on showing up Sunday mornings to a religious business.
You don’t even know Jesus Christ yourself and yet you rob people of their hard earned money with your weapon of choice, the bible.
You’re truly a disgusting human being Anthony.
And again you prove yourself an asshole. You’ve got a history of supporting sexual predators so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. No matter how many times God proves to you that some of your beliefs are way off, little Anthony Baker knows better.
Stephen, 5/24/22 8:52 a.m.
Just another religious asshole who refuses to take responsibility for himself. Blaming fictional people “the woke” or “the left”. If you knew just how stupid you sound you might shut the heck up.
A pastor who supports murderers and sexual predators, seems par for the western christian church.
As a pastor, my reputation in the public’s eye is critically important. It’s one thing to make statements like those above about engineers, taxi drivers, or dentists, but when it’s against a member of the clergy, even suggestions of misconduct or seeming alignment with criminal or perverse behavior can cost a man and his family a living. And, not just the pastor, but the whole congregation and the name of the church in their community can suffer.
Therefore, when we look at what I’ve emboldened in the above comments from Stephen, what we see are words that not only vilify an individual but give evidence of a class hatred. Then, since these comments are meant to be viewed by all, even though they could be redacted, one can only assume that the end result would be to manipulate the reader and malign my character.
What do YOU think? Does Stephen put himself at risk for a $20,000 payment to me and a $50,000 payment to the Canadian government? It’s either that or jail time, from what I read.
The Recovering Legalist 