Like it or not, I can accept that Lund has a right to espouse his pro-gay views and be an activist on behalf on them.  What I cannot accept is how Lund's crosses the line by demonizing, persecuting and defaming, without end, anyone who shares an opposing view and how he also portrays himself as a martyr for his cause. In the midst of the constant negative commentary about me and my views in the Advocate, it was refreshing to read a recent letter to the editor that highlighted the good work that volunteers, staff and I did back between 1998 and 2004 with at-risk youth in Red Deer.  That letter  was written by Jim Swan of Red Deer who was a board member of the youth charity that I once directed.  I have not spoken to Jim for years but I remember him as a very kind and passionate man.  Then Lund feels a need to attack Mr. Swan's letter too (see here).  It would make one think that Lund considers himself some type of authority that must censor the media just in case someone says something nice about me or contrary to his agenda.  After all he has a reputation to uphold, my character to assassinate and God forbid that anyone be influenced by an opinion he does not approve of. Over the last months there have been numerous articles that attempt to cast a negative light on me and my views.  Some continue the preposterous claim that there is a link between my 2002 letter and the assault on a gay teen two weeks after it was printed.  I hold Lund directly responsible for perpetuating this circumstancial accusation.  Much of what Lund presents is not factual and is instead misleading the public.  He is tactful and seeks to gain the readers approval through constant use of buzz-words that either entice one to shake their head in agreement or disgust.  Words such as tolerance, intolerant, hateful, bigot, violent, homophobic and vulnerable are just a few of these buzz-words.      Let's face it, Lund and I are on very different sides of the fence.  Some of what he claims I said and believe is true. I am admittedly anti-homosexuality and do not agree with the lifestyle.  I do believe that it is psychologically and physically dangerous and I cannot be made to feel guilty for holding this view. I do speak out against the propagation of the lifestyle, especially when directed at young students.  At the same time I have compassion and tolerance towards homosexuals.  I stand by my 2002 letter to the editor.  I would not change one word of it.  I wrote that letter because of people like Darren Lund.  Some tout him as a hero and he is for those that hold his views.  I am not one of them.  Lund is no hero to me or to those who hold to the same Christian views that I hold.  To us he is instead an anti-hero who is causing great damage to our young people and to our society at large.  Where you aware, that when Lund was a teacher at Lindsay Thurber High School, he invited a pro-gay minister into his so called tolerance program to teach the pro-homosexual view of the Bible?  Where you aware, that he did not provide the teenage students with an equal opportunity to hear a presentation from a minister that held an opposing view?  Of course not, according to Lund and his kind, an opposing view is the wrong view and he decides what view is best for your children.  Where you aware that the same Alberta Human Rights Commission that welcomed Lund's complaint against me used your tax dollars to fund the pro-gay Alberta P-Flag Faith Society's initiative to teach children that homosexuality is "normal, necessary, acceptable and productive and has been for thousands of years?"  My letter was far from a baseless rant.  It is even more true today than it was then.    Following is a point form rebut against some of Lund's comments made in the Red Deer Advocate on March 8th and April 24th, 2008: - Lund's claims that there was "sworn evidence" at the hearing suggesting that "I knew the young man who had committed that assault.":    I categorically deny, just as I did under oath at the hearing, that I know or knew who committed the assault. I was a licensed minister at that time.  I gave my life savings to help start the Red Deer youth ministry fully knowing that some of the teens were involved with crime, drugs, addictions, perversion, homosexuality and promiscuity. I volunteered my time for the start-up of the Red Deer RCMP's Restorative Justice Program and was regulary involved with the police. Lund's witness was a client that was on a part-time employability skills grant as a receptionist.  Upon my approval, the centre paid for this person to undertake a full-time addiction treatment program. This person may have overheard me talking with staff and guessing who the bullies were and wondering if they attended any of our programs.   If Lund's witness had important information about the assault why didn't they tell someone (aside from Lund) sometime within the five years before the Tribunal?  This witness could have informed one of five other staff members or volunteers, a board member which consisted of reputable and caring community members such as the President of the Red Deer Ministerial Association, a local Social Worker, a Psychiatric Nurse and a prominent Philanthropist to name a few or better yet the police.  Why didn't this concerned citizen tell the police?  Doesn't make sense to me.  If the police had come to me I could have named a dozen kids that would have been potential suspects but I think that's called speculation...or is it assumption..hmm, supposition...no guessing that's it!  Irresponsible no matter how you put it.  Any teen that knows me, gay or straight, would assure you that I would protect them at risk of my own safety and have done so on more than one occasion.  In a 2005 Calgary Herald article , a gay female teen and a gay man in his twenties made it clear that I treat them and their gay friends like family.  Unfortunately, it didn't matter what I said in my defense at the hearing. The Rule of Law is not part of a Human Rights Commission Panel Hearing.  Instead, the circumstantial, personal feelings, heresay, things that cannot be proven true which cannot be defended against are accepted as evidence.  It was irrelevant that I gave over ten years of my life to at-risk youth work in Calgary and Red Deer.  - Lund's claim that the assailant attended my youth centre after the attack and "I did nothing to censure his actions following the attack.":  This accusation is blatant defamation.  Lund is being malicious to the core to state such speculation as if it were fact.  It is obvious that he is trying to ruin my reputation.  Lund is well aware that I testified under oath and clearly stated that I did not know who assaulted that young man.  I didn't even hear about it until it was in the newspaper two weeks after my letter was published.  I would never allow a teen to participate in a youth centre program knowing that they had committed an act of violence that was under investigation.  That brings up another point, I can't recall the police ever discussing this assault with me which they often did with crimes that youth may be involved in. We're not sure if there was even a police investigation at all. - Lund's repeated, cross Canada, claims of death threats and harassment.:  Months before the hearing, Lund contacted the Alberta Human Rights Commission's Panel Chairperson and claimed that he was being harrassed and had received death threats. He asked for certain orders to be made that would ban public attendance at the hearing and prevent me from publicly presenting details about the proceedings.  In response, my lawyer asked for proof of his claims.  Lund could not provide acceptable proof and his request was denied.  The following is an except taken from the actual pre-hearing document . [46] There is no evidence that Dr. Lund has been harassed or that his family’s safety is in jeopardy. However, if Dr. Lund can submit such evidence to the Panel of a cogent nature, the Panel will do everything in its power to protect Dr. Lund and his family from any harassment or threats to their safety. Conclusion [47] The application of Dr. Lund that Reverend Boissoin and the CCC cease and desist from publishing confidential complaint material on their website and from distributing these materials and links to these materials through email, mail and other means is hereby dismissed. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED May 4, 2006 LORI G. ANDREACHUK, Q.C., Panel Chair My simple advice to Lund in regards to this matter would be to "suck it up buttercup."  As an activist, it comes with the territory.  Though I don't consider myself an activist, it happens to me too.  I was warned via emails that I would be lynched, sodomized and even injected with an HIV infected syringe. On another occasion, immediately after I spoke at a fundraising event in Calgary, a group of masked individuals dressed in camouflage and calling themselves the Queer Militia stormed the event, pounded on the walls while chanting "Right wing bigots go away, Queer Militia here to stay!" They then took over the podium and shouted obscenities such as "F_ _ k your Jesus" at the guests.  I was even informed that the soft spoken Jim Swan and his wife have received harassing phone calls for his decision to submit the letters to the editor.  - Lund's claim that I filed a $400,000.00 "nuisance action" against him.:  Yes, I did sue Lund for libel after Lund was quoted by a Red Deer Advocate reporter making irresponsible, ludicrous and highly defamatory comments.  These comments likened me to Terry Long of the Aryan Nations and James Keegstra Holocaust denier.  People that I have never met and do not support.  Former practising attorney, Ezra Levant, filed a defamation lawsuit against Lund on my behalf.  Lund should be thankful that we agreed to settle.  Though he has once again begun to cross the line, he has not made these types of comments since. - Lund's claim that I am intolerant.:  He's right!  I am intolerant when it comes to a forced acceptance of a lifestyle that my personal and religious ideals are firmly against.  Lund and the AHRC are intolerant against authentic Christianity and the Bible.  His agenda far exceeds tolerance. It includes teaching young people that the Bible is pro-gay and that it is abnormal, even immoral to hold to a belief that does not accept the gay lifestyle as moral and normal.  Lund and his cohorts will accept nothing less from those that hold opposing views than absolute silence or conformity...he literally calls it re-education. This pro-gay agenda is highly intolerant of anyone that holds an opposing view and even dangerous to their very fundamental freedoms as a citizen of Canada.  Through his complaint to the AHRC, Lund is trying to have me fined $10,000 and forced to apologize for my views.  Did you catch that?  He said "my views" not just my presentation of them.  Five months have passed since the Panel Chair ruled against me and I still await a ruling on the Remedy. The following is an excerpt of the Remedy that Lund has requested that the AHRC impose upon me (see page 5 here) .    10. What remedy is appropriate? REMEDY SOUGHT 11. Dr. Lund requests the Panel provide an Order directing Mr. Boissoin and/or the CCC pay Dr. Lund $5,000.00 as compensation of legal costs associated with this complaint. 12. Dr. Lund requests the Panel provide an Order directing Mr. Boissoin and/or the CCC to donate $5,000.00 to the Diversity, Equity and Human Rights Committee of the Alberta Teachers’ Association. 13. Dr. Lund requests the Panel provide an Order directing Mr. Boissoin to publish a full apology in the Red Deer Advocate within one month of this Panel’s decision. Mr. Boissoin is to apologize for submitting the article and for his views on homosexuality. This apology must address that Mr. Boissoin understands that the expression of his views were inappropriate and likely to expose persons or groups of persons to hatred or contempt. 14. If Mr. Boissoin fails to comply with the Order, that the Panel provide an Order disallowing the publication of Mr. Boissoin’s views on homosexuality in any of the major print media in Alberta, including the Red Deer Advocate, Red Deer Express, Calgary Herald, Calgary Sun, Edmonton Journal, Edmonton Sun and Lethbridge Herald.     - Lund's claim about what he calls my use of "Militaristic Language.":  In my 2002 letter I used the term "war has been declared."  My use of this statement was no different than the use of adages such as "war on poverty."  After all I was a minister, a youth worker and a leader of a Christian political lobby group.  It should be obvious to anyone with a hint of common sense that I was referring to a socio-political war of ideologies and what a war it has been.  I believe my terminology was correct and justified.  After almost six years, tens of thousands of dollars in defence costs and personal hardship it has, without doubt, been and continues to be, an ongoing battle.   An interesting point that I almost failed to mention is that the original investigator found me not guilty but the honourable Dr. Darren Lund appealed that decision on University of Calgary letterhead.  It would seem that the U of C, a tax funded public institution, supports Lund's complaint against me and even pays him to persecute me.    To conclude, apart from the hardships and slander that I have had to face since Lund filed this complaint against me, I am thankful for the numerous opportunities that I have had to share my Christian perspective.  Recently, I was in North Carolina participating in a television production called "Speechless: Silencing Christians."  I encourage my Christian brothers and sisters to view this program at www.silencingchristians.com.  I was part of episode #5.  I also thank God for those of you that have come to a firm realization since reading my 2002 letter that there is an agressive gay agenda and that it is highly intolerant towards traditional Christianity and its followers.  If anyone wants to know more about me and what I believe, don't hesitate to contact me.