Despite Supreme Court hate speech ruling, anti-gay activist plans to continue pamphle

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Anti-gay crusader can't distribute flyers: top court

Anti-gay crusader can't distribute flyers: top court
By Jessica Murphy, Parliamentary Bureau


OTTAWA — Canada's top court Wednesday narrowed the definition of hate speech in Saskatchewan but ultimately ruled against an anti-gay crusader fighting the provisions.
The Supreme Court struck down the section of the province's human rights code that defines hate speech as something that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity" of any person.
In the unanimous ruling, it upheld in part a human rights tribunal ruling against Bill Whatcott, the anti-gay pamphleteer who distributed flyers calling homosexuals "sodomites" and equating them with child abusers.
The court agreed some of those flyers crossed into hate speech and he'll be forced to pay reduced damages of some $7,500 imposed by the tribunal.
David Arnot, head of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, says the ruling is a vindication and a victory for hate speech watchdogs in Canada.
"The court has affirmed the validity of our legislation as written and has confirmed that it strikes the proper balance between freedom of expression and freedom from harm and harassment that comes with hate-filled speech," he said at a Saskatchewan news conference.



Arnot noted the commission's own lawyers had argued the line removed by the top court in the hate speech provisions was too broad.
It's removal is "a minor point really," he said.
Whatcott's lawyer says his client will continue to distribute flyers as he sees fit.
"If the court finds his flyers hateful he'll let the chips fall where they should," Thomas Schuck said.
Two of Whatcott's flyers "combine many of the hallmarks of hatred identified in case law," wrote Justice Marshall Rothstein.
"The expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that could threaten the safety and well-being of others, makes reference to respected sources (in this case the Bible) to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred."
The Canadian Constitution Foundation -- an intervener in the case -- warned the ruling could have a chilling effect on free speech.
"The Supreme Court missed an excellent opportunity to rein in the power of various human rights commissions and tribunals to censor the expression of unpopular beliefs," he said.
The Saskatchewan commission brought the case to the top court after losing against Whatcott in a second appeal in a Saskatchewan appellate court in 2010.
The province's court of appeal ruled Whatcott didn't breach the hate speech laws and overturned the original $17,500 in damages and a ban on distributing the flyers the human rights tribunal had imposed for the pamphlets he distributed in Regina and Saskatoon in 2001 and 2002.
Four people filed complaints against him at the human rights commission, arguing the flyers promoted hatred against homosexuals. The court heard arguments in the case in Oct. 2011.

Anti-gay crusader can't distribute flyers: top court- Politics - Canoe.ca
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Re: Anti-gay crusader can't distribute flyers: top court

Good. To discuss whether or not one's sacred texts prohibit homosexual relations is one thing; to engage in ad hominem attacks against a person is something else.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
If the SCoC had not upheld this and overturned their 91 decision Tribunals across Canada would be changing their roles, regs etc and Prov Laws would also have been affected?? I think so, not sure on the last.

William Whatcott intends to continue his anti-gay activism and pamphleting, knowing the price may be high.

“I’m certainly weighing this, because it’s going to be at great personal cost to me,” Mr. Whatcott said Wednesday, after the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the hate speech law under which he was charged, and found he violated it in two of four original cases, pamphlets that described homosexuals as a threat to children.

“I have to follow Christ first. What I have said is true. There’s not a sentence that I retract, so likely future fliers will be more of the same,” he said.

He contrasted “spurious” Holocaust denial, often a target of hate tribunals, with his “medical facts” about homosexuality.

A financial penalty of $17,500 is likely to be reinstated against him, and disregarding a tribunal order to stop spreading hate speech can lead to contempt of court and jail.

“I think it’s a dark day for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and more profoundly for me, freedom to speak the truth. It’s a very dark day for Canada,” Mr. Whatcott said.

He said he expected a split decision. In fact, it was unanimous.

The hate speech section of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code, and by extension all of Canada’s human rights hate speech laws, is a constitutionally valid limit on freedeom of expression, the court ruled in the landmark judgment.

It reaffirms the Canadian approach to hate speech, that it can be limited by law to address the problem of hate speech, unlike the American approach, in which speech can only be limited in the most extreme circumstances.


In upholding a definition of hatred first crafted by the Supreme Court in 1991, the current justices ruled that the law addresses a pressing and substantial issue, and is proportional to its objective of “tackling causes of discriminatory activity to reduce the harmful effects and social costs of discrimination.”

The court struck out some strange language in the law, which bans speech that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” identifiable groups — language that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission said was already ignored in practice.

But it upheld the controversial legal concept of speech that is “likely to expose” certain groups to hatred.

The Saskatchewan law, which is similar to others in Alberta, BC, the Northwest Territories and federally, “appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings,” wrote Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein for the court.


First, these laws must be applied objectively, which is difficult in the case of subjective emotion, though not impossible, the judges ruled. The key is to focus on the effects of hate speech, not the intent of the speaker.

Second, hate must be understood to be the extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification,” but nothing less.

“This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects,” they wrote.

Third, tribunals must focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others.

The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination,” they decided.


“The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm,” the judgement reads.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
9
Aether Island
Some shoplifters still shoplift after conviction.
Some haters still hate.
Some who profess religion and act counter to their prophets are not rare.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Some shoplifters still shoplift after conviction.
Some haters still hate.
Some who profess religion and act counter to their prophets are not rare.

Same as Atheists who profess tolerance but only when you agree with them.
Atheists are not always Angels ya know.:smile:
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
No they don't; without religion they vanish, like faeries that fade if you don't clap in belief.

OK Poof I waved my Magic Wand and religion shall we say has gone poof. Do you think that will stop the hate. Do you think that in and off the top of my head it would have stopped the Genocide in Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda or the murders in Nigeria. Nope - Man does quite well at finding reasons to hate - to kill.

As you mentioned earlier.

Some shoplifters still shoplift after conviction.
Some haters still hate.
Some who profess religion and act counter to their prophets are not rare.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
9
Aether Island
Evil exists; it is part of the human condition. Its spiritual personification is a stretch.

On Sunday, on CBC's Radio's Tapestry, I listened to Mary Hynes' interview Rabbi Rami Shapiro. During the interview, Shapiro mentioned that he participated in a meeting with Christian and Moslem clerics. The purpose was to draught a joint statement condemning hatred and violence among and between their flocks. Shapiro suggested that they also draught as part of their statement a declaration that their respective Gawds, as role models, clearly do not hate or commit violent acts here or in the hereafter. The hell of it is, the other clerics refused.
Keeping the Doubt | Tapestry with Mary Hynes | CBC Radio
 
Last edited:

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Evil exists; it is part of the human condition. Its spiritual personification is a stretch.

On Sunday, on CBC's Radio's Tapestry, I listened to Mary Hynes' interview Rabbi Rami Shapiro. During the interview, Shapiro mentioned that he participated in a meeting with Christian and Moslem clerics. The purpose was to draught a joint statement condemning hatred and violence among their flocks. Shapiro suggested that they also draught as part of their statement a declaration that their respective Gawds, as role models, clearly do not hate or commit violent acts here or in the hereafter. The hell of it is, the other clerics refused.
Keeping the Doubt | Tapestry with Mary Hynes | CBC Radio

Well I would advise the Rabbi that next time he have better company. He will only end up with a bad reputation hanging around with those of ill repute.

Saw the same thing years ago in the US regrading Capital Punishment. Some were for and other against. Needless to say they were invited based upon their previous positions ( just guessing on that one)- Makes for better TV then. Sad to say.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
9
Aether Island
Coy clerics cower behind religion, arguing that hate laws don't apply to the devout. "Hate the sin; love the sinner!" they weasel. And, there is often a "believer" that takes this message too literally, that the gods will get these malefactors in the afterdeath. And, then it's just one crazed step to helping the gods along.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Coy clerics cower behind religion, arguing that hate laws don't apply to the devout. "Hate the sin; love the sinner!" they weasel. And, there is often a "believer" that takes this message too literally, that the gods will get these malefactors in the afterdeath. And, then it's just one crazed step to helping the gods along.

What about Skin Heads, those that just plain hate people who already have a tan. We know they are not jealous of the tan. So that can't be the problem??
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
The context of the OP is of a zealot vowing to ignore the Supreme Court ruling.

Well we have those on all asides. Those that have religious beliefs and those that do not.
I think that a study and questionnaire is done. Those on the far end of each side of the spectrum are not shot. no well not allowed to breed or be in public. Nah, shoot em. Make life easier for those that are left, I mean right, well those that are remaining. That is better.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Well we have those on all asides. Those that have religious beliefs and those that do not.
I think that a study and questionnaire is done. Those on the far end of each side of the spectrum are not shot. no well not allowed to breed or be in public. Nah, shoot em. Make life easier for those that are left, I mean right, well those that are remaining. That is better.

While I'm all for eliminating the extremists after the first round some of the moderates will become the new extremists by default.
Or we could remove equal numbers from both ends and the rest might average out.
 

shadowshiv

Dark Overlord
May 29, 2007
17,545
120
63
50
"In the unanimous ruling, it upheld in part a human rights tribunal ruling against Bill Whatcott, the anti-gay pamphleteer who distributed flyers calling homosexuals "sodomites" and equating them with child abusers."

I wonder if this person is a certain member here? It certainly sounds like what that member said in the thread about priests and marriage!8O