Top court to hear case on anti-gay leaflets - CTV News
Yes they did, they promoted the unfair treatment of homosexuals, suggested to people to treat them differently from other fellow citizens of this nation and promoted the idea of unfairly removing them from the opportunity of being a teacher to our children as if to say they'd somehow magically turn our children gay.
Last I checked, we have laws against things like that...... and if someone ran around with leaflets suggesting not to hire Jews or black people based on ignorant beliefs.... we'd be seeing a totally different view here.
Easy solution is to allow citizens to express their beliefs freely so long as they do not trample on the freedoms and rights of other citizens, or promote in anyway the un-equal treatment of fellow citizens simply because you don't like them, their lifestyles or their beliefs.
To use the religious card to defend one's ability to spread ignorance and hatred of fellow citizens and to unfairly keep them out of certain jobs and opportunities provided to all, is a pitiful excuse used by the weak minded who have no legit and justified argument to stand on.
We wouldn't allow a religion in our nation to promote and enforce beheadings, forced marriages, stonnings, or anything that'd prevent women from having the same opportunities as men..... so where's the line that separates the above from this?
There isn't.
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada will hear an appeal against a man who distributed anti-gay pamphlets in Saskatoon and Regina almost a decade ago.
In 2005, Bill Whatcott was found to have violated the Saskatchewan human-rights code and was ordered to pay $17,500 to four individuals after he placed his leaflets in their mailboxes.
The flyers referred to homosexual men as sodomites and pedophiles, called same-sex relationships "filthy," and urged people to lobby government to prevent homosexuals from working as teachers.
Whatcott appealed the tribunal finding, saying it placed a chill on free speech.
Last February, the provincial Court of Appeal sided with Whatcott.
The court ruled the leaflets might have been crude and offensive, but they didn't promote hatred or step over the boundary of free expression.
Yes they did, they promoted the unfair treatment of homosexuals, suggested to people to treat them differently from other fellow citizens of this nation and promoted the idea of unfairly removing them from the opportunity of being a teacher to our children as if to say they'd somehow magically turn our children gay.
Last I checked, we have laws against things like that...... and if someone ran around with leaflets suggesting not to hire Jews or black people based on ignorant beliefs.... we'd be seeing a totally different view here.
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission then appealed that ruling to Canada's highest court.
Chief Commissioner Judge David Arnot said in a news release Thursday that he's pleased the Supreme Court will hear the case.
"This case is about the power of words to maim," Arnot said.
Whatcott's lawyer, Tom Schuck, said the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision was important for Christians because it established the precedent that one could criticize the morality of homosexual behaviour without fear of prosecution.
"From our perspective, it's essentially about freedom of religion," Schuck said in a phone interview with The Canadian Press.
"In this case ... Mr. Whatcott is a street preacher who sent out pamphlets indicating to people that there are dire consequences for engaging in same-sex sexual activity.
"There's no nice way of saying that one is going to hell if one does not follow God's laws and that's essentially what Whatcott said."
It is not yet known when the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case.
Arnot noted that it has been 20 years since the Supreme Court last ruled on the appropriate balance between freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination.
He said the commission will welcome the court's ultimate decision.
"In this appeal, we will be asking the court for guidance on where the line should be drawn between extreme speech and the right of citizens to express their beliefs freely."
Easy solution is to allow citizens to express their beliefs freely so long as they do not trample on the freedoms and rights of other citizens, or promote in anyway the un-equal treatment of fellow citizens simply because you don't like them, their lifestyles or their beliefs.
To use the religious card to defend one's ability to spread ignorance and hatred of fellow citizens and to unfairly keep them out of certain jobs and opportunities provided to all, is a pitiful excuse used by the weak minded who have no legit and justified argument to stand on.
We wouldn't allow a religion in our nation to promote and enforce beheadings, forced marriages, stonnings, or anything that'd prevent women from having the same opportunities as men..... so where's the line that separates the above from this?
There isn't.