Recent swipes in The Globe and Mail at rulings by human-rights commissions have all made for entertaining reading. In their zeal to rein in the commissions, each writer has overlooked a key reason we need human-rights protection in the first place: There are some dangerous people out there.

Partial reporting of only the most inane details of rights rulings creates easy targets. In the case of hate speech, however, there is an important test that assists our judgment: When hateful words actually bring blows, people need the protection only provided by rights commissions. A more balanced illustration of a particular case in Alberta might be helpful.

Globe columnist Margaret Wente (The Rights Revolution Run Amok — Feb. 26) accuses commissions of summoning journalists "to defend themselves for exercising basic free speech." Globe editorialists (Shake That Role Of Policing Ideas — Feb. 4) contend that commissions are in the business of "public shaming," while Rex Murphy (Coming To A Human Rights Commission Near You — Jan. 26) says they seek to determine "what is proper for us." But, as I discovered, they accomplish something much more important: They offer the only available remedy to people who face hatred, whether in finding a place to live, in the workplace, or in the public sphere.

A central task in a democracy is to protect cherished freedoms — of the press, of opinion and of religion, to name a few — while ensuring the safety of all people. This is complex work, and it's where rights commissions can play a vital role.

Even the most ardent of free-speech advocates would concede that maliciously shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is a reasonable limit on verbal expression.

Beyond that, Ms. Wente suggests, only wimps should care. But new lines continually need to be drawn, and the test is fairly straightforward: Freedom of expression must be limited when it calls for hatred and violence against vulnerable people.

We don't have to look too far to see who remains most vulnerable to hateful language. Walk into any school in the country and listen for the most vicious terms young men use to insult each other. Let's face it: Being young and gay — or being thought to be gay — remains a dangerous prospect anywhere.

Now imagine being a young gay man in a small Alberta community where a local pastor publicly declares war on you and all those who love and support you.

Writing as an official spokesperson for Concerned Christians Canada, a Red Deer pastor published just such a letter in the Red Deer Advocate newspaper in June of 2002. In a vitriolic missive — one that free-speech advocates now herald as more deserving of legal protection than the people it targeted — the pastor included the familiar hallmarks of hate promotion. He specifically targeted gay kids and their supporters, declaring them guilty of putting the safety of children at risk, and ominously linking them to pedophilia and disease.

This was hardly the case of a "conservative Christian" simply calling gays immoral. This particular pastor and youth centre director went after the educators and pastors who would dare support these vulnerable young people, calling them "just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities."

"War has been declared," the free-speaking pastor warned. "Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds." And he called for readers to "take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness."

Honestly, is this the free expression of opinion for which our brave soldiers fought and died in Nazi Germany?

We might wish to ask the Red Deer teenager who was gay-bashed shortly after the letter was published. His young assailant called him a "faggot" as his cheekbone was shattered. When a local reporter asked the 17-year-old victim for a comment, he said he didn't "feel safe" after reading the pastor's letter. He was right; he wasn't safe.

I filed a human-rights complaint against the pastor with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, and waited more than five years for a hearing. There were consequences — I still receive hate mail and e-mails calling me an evil sodomite, and my wife and teenage kids regularly discover offensive material about me on the Internet.

During the panel hearing last July, a courageous office manager from the pastor's youth centre testified that the pastor not only knew the youth who committed the gay-bashing but later condoned the violence. My complaint was upheld in a ruling last November.

Contrary to those who trivialize the work of rights commissions, this ruling was not about addressing "hurt feelings" or catering to the thin skin of "cowerers and wimps." It was about life and death, about the kind of Canada we choose to create, and about safeguarding the personal safety of our kids.

We all need to take stands against hatred, both in our personal and public lives. This means our federal and provincial governments require precise rights legislation to protect our freedoms. The Red Deer case shows that the need for strong rights commissions has never been more urgent.

Balancing rights with freedoms is complex work, and it sometimes requires the efforts of human-rights commissions. Of course, some well-reasoned support from the press would also help.

Darren Lund is an associate professor of education at the University of Calgary. In 1987, he won the inaugural Alberta Human Rights Award. The Red Deer ruling is posted at http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/legislation/panel_decis_2007.asp.