Top court to hear case on anti-gay leaflets

[Praxius]

Top court to hear case on anti-gay leaflets - CTV News

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.

 

[DaSleeper]

Do you have a copy of these leaflets so we can judge for ourselves ....
If they promote inflicting physical harm to gays?... or they would just be damned to eternal perdition....which most progressives don't believe in anyway?.....

 

[karrie]

I think it's hate speech, but I have to ask... where exactly is the line that separates this from petitioning that ex-criminals not be allowed to work in schools? And no, I'm not comparing gays to criminals, but, stifling this pamphlet could be a slippery slope, no?

 

[Praxius]

Do you have a copy of these leaflets so we can judge for ourselves ....
If they promote inflicting physical harm to gays?... or they would just be damned to eternal perdition....which most progressives don't believe in anyway?.....

No, sorry I don't have one of these leaflets on me at the moment, but I don't remember ever claiming they promoted inflicting "physical harm to gays"...... I claimed they were promoting unequal treatment of gays compared to everybody else in this country, such as trying to get people to pressure the government in not allowing them to be teachers, etc. simply because they're gay and this idiot thinks they should all burn in hell and should have no contact with children in anyway, as if to say or to link Homosexuality with Pedophilia..... which he did..... which is also pretty damn ignorant and based on nothing except his own religious intolerance.

Perhaps he should look at his own religion and towards the religious figureheads he looks up to who diddle and abuse little children.... They're pedophiles after all..... are they also gay too?

If so, then I would think in his mind, he'd see there's a bigger problem in his own religion to focus on, then to waste his time on this sort of crap.

Ah.... but it's far more easier to finger point and toss blame onto those you don't like or those things you don't understand, then it is to look yourself in the mirror and see your own faults, not just in yourself, but in the faith you hold so dear to.

 

[TenPenny]

I claimed they were promoting unequal treatment of gays compared to everybody else in this country,

So, is the bar now set that nobody can promote unequal treatment of any identifiable group?

 

[YukonJack]

There is nothing more 'unequal treatment' than affirmative action.

 

[mentalfloss]

So, is the bar now set that nobody can promote unequal treatment of any identifiable group?

You seem to be fond of the sweeping generalizations lately.

 

[karrie]

No, sorry I don't have one of these leaflets on me at the moment, but I don't remember ever claiming they promoted inflicting "physical harm to gays"...... I claimed they were promoting unequal treatment of gays compared to everybody else in this country, .....

To continue playing devil's advocate on the issue, anyone against gay marriage is then standing to be prosecuted?

 

[DaSleeper]

After surfing around on the net...I found some of his writings on "freedominion".....while they are a bit over the top....they are no worst that the anti religion ramblings that I see on the net;-)
apparently his posters contained graphic photos of aborted fetuses...which a lot of people didn't like
He says that he was sexually abused in foster homes as a child which would explain his aversion to gays...he also provides a lot of links to newspaper articles...which I checked.
So far I haven't found anything in which he proposed that gays should be stoned.....only that children shouldn't be taught in schools that homosexuality is normal.......

 

[mentalfloss]

To continue playing devil's advocate on the issue, anyone against gay marriage is then standing to be prosecuted?

Further, should anyone standing against hetero marriage be prosecuted?

 

[DaSleeper]

Everybody should just "shack-up"......"Marriage" doesn't mean anything anymore!

 

[mentalfloss]

At least it's a nice dog and pony show.

 

[Praxius]

To continue playing devil's advocate on the issue, anyone against gay marriage is then standing to be prosecuted?

There are people who are personally against interracial marriages too, but one can not be jailed or fined for thinking a particular way.... but when it comes to public expression of such beliefs used in a manner to spread such hatred and inequality and promotion of others to further divide a particular group from the rest of society..... that goes over the line.

Laws against same sex marriages, or lack of laws, have been challenged in the past as abuse of human rights and equality. If one has a legitimate argument against same sex marriages other then "Because God Said So" or "Because it's a tax grab for a couple that can not produce a child".... they may have some sort of justified case in presenting an argument against, but I personally don't see an argument that would fit this criteria.

However, I'm not keen on going too far down the same sex marriage path of debate, since that's already been debated to death in a number of threads (and I know that wasn't your intention and just wanted to get a perspective on a similar situation)

Nothing productive comes from hate speech and publicly promoting segregation of any particular group from the rest of society.... so why even protect such actions as some kind of right?

After surfing around on the net...I found some of his writings on "freedominion".....while they are a bit over the top....they are no worst that the anti religion ramblings that I see on the net;-)
apparently his posters contained graphic photos of aborted fetuses...which a lot of people didn't like
He says that he was sexually abused in foster homes as a child which would explain his aversion to gays...he also provides a lot of links to newspaper articles...which I checked.
So far I haven't found anything in which he proposed that gays should be stoned.....only that children shouldn't be taught in schools that homosexuality is normal.......

Well Homosexuality isn't going to go away and has existed for far longer then any of today's religions.... and it exists in a number of animal species on this planet..... so regardless of what this guy believes.... Homosexuality is Normal and it's a part of life around the world for many, either by being gay or knowing someone who is gay..... so teaching children that Homosexuality is "Normal" makes logical sense..... simply because it is normal.

If he wants to teach children that Gays aren't normal and shouldn't be treated as equals, then he can keep that crap in his own church or their sunday schools (If the government and laws don't change and no longer allow that to occur)..... but in no way should state funded/run schools be promoting or teaching religious dogma to children, especially when not every child in our schools follows the same religious beliefs as this clown.... or any religious beliefs for that matter.

And let's say he got what he wanted and schools didn't teach children that Homosexuality is normal..... and perhaps even promoted the teaching that Homosexuals are not normal at all (Rather then just not talking about homosexuality at all)

^ What does that teach or tell the children in those state-run schools about homosexuality when they themselves might be or are gay?

If I had a child and they turned out to be gay, so be it, but I'd sure as hell wouldn't be pleased to be sending my child to a school that taught or treated them not as equals to other students or somehow implied that there's something wrong with them, or that they're going to go to hell, or shouldn't be allowed to do certain things because some idiots out there think my child will also grow up to be a pedophile.

Kids have enough BS to deal with in school as it is.... gays even more so..... and idiots like this guy do not make their lives any easier and only promote further bullying and hatred.

 

[DaSleeper]

At least it's a nice dog and pony show.

Sure is:lol:

so teaching children that Homosexuality is "Normal" makes logical sense..... simply because it is normal.

In your opinion.........

 

[Praxius]

Further, should anyone standing against hetero marriage be prosecuted?

When that becomes a growing concern, let me know.

However..... if someone is against marriage in general and doesn't think anybody should be married..... there's no discrimination involved.

In your opinion.........

Unless you can refute the points I just made towards Homosexuality being Normal, it's a lot more then just My Opinion.... it's reality.

Then again, it also depends on what "Normal" we're talking about.

Homosexuality is not "Normal" for me and my lifestyle..... but neither is running a marathon normal for me and my lifestyle.

In the general sense towards Humanity as a Whole, yes, Homosexuality is Normal..... just as breathing oxygen in order to live is normal for the general human population..... or how some humans are born with blond or red hair is normal.

 

[Liberalman]

When all the heterosexual children adopted by the gay and lesbian couples grow up and tell the world that they are normal and live a heterosexual lifestyle that is when the world will accept gays and lesbians as a norm.

Gays and lesbians are in the pioneer phase of their acceptance.

They just won the right to exist as far as the law is concerned and now they are trying to integrate their status into society, which will probably take a long time.

Right now religion is the only closed door that is impeding their progress.

We have to remember the Afro-Americans after the civil war when they won their freedom and in southern USA it took them 100 years to start to integrate into society because the radical religious group known as the KKK made sure they were separated


As religions start to crumble and hatred starts to disappear gays and lesbians will not be an issue.

 

[DurkaDurka]

These tribunals are a farce. Unless the person/group is inciting violence against a group/race etc, free speech should trump someone being offended.

Far too may activist groups use these "hate speech" laws to silence debate or criticism of their cause, painting people with differing opinions as bigots, racists etc.

 

[Praxius]

These tribunals are a farce. Unless the person/group is inciting violence against a group/race etc, free speech should trump someone being offended.

Far too may activist groups use these "hate speech" laws to silence debate or criticism of their cause, painting people with differing opinions as bigots, racists etc.

Well if Jewish groups can use the hate-speech card every time someone doesn't have something nice to say about them, such as not pampering the image of the Israeli Government or claiming they have a large influence in our government, etc. which usually ends up with someone being called an Anti-Semite.... then what's wrong with homosexuals using the exact same card for people trying to convince other people that homosexuals are evil and shouldn't teach in schools or be taught in schools that homosexuals are normal, or link them to pedophiles?

They've got a hell of a lot more justification in using the Hate Speech Card then Jewish people, or any other religious group out there.

It doesn't always have to be about violence against a particular group..... if it's towards promotion of the unfair treatment and oppression in anyway towards any particular group of people without any form of real justification..... then it goes too far.

And it'd be no different then me telling everybody to write to their MP's to make sure nobody below the height of 6'-1" should be allowed to marry..... or be allowed to teach in schools..... or work for the government, simply because the religion I believe in says it's wrong.

^ I have no factual justification to promote the above, let alone attempt to reduce the opportunities for my fellow citizens simply because I believe in some superstitious ghost stories.

The thing is, when religious groups or people from a particular religion complain and use the Hate-Speech Card argument over something they don't like..... their religions are a CHOICE...... they were raised to believe their religion and accept its teachings..... and yet they're protected and allowed to freely believe in that religion.

Homosexuals, despite the ignorance of some, do not have a CHOICE in being gay or straight.... they just are and it's not like there's much they can do about it.... that's who they are...... yet when they're targeted and ridiculed and their equal rights and freedoms are trampled on and told they don't deserve the same things everybody else is allowed and take for granted and people run around promoting inequality and injustice to them for something they have no control over...... suddenly it's free speech and they should suck it up?

Sorry to say but homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered people have more right to be protected from this sort of crap then religions do, because no matter how some religious person spins it, their belief and their faith in whatever religion they hold to is a Choice..... people join and leave various religions every day...... but gay people can't just jump the fence whenever they please.

And for those complaining about all the crap religions and religious people get and all the "Hate-Speech" they have to deal with..... perhaps the moment they stop doing the same thing to others, others will stop doing it to them.

Damn hypocrites.

 

[DurkaDurka]

I don't care who the group is, these laws are prone to abuse and make a mockery of free speech.

No one group should receive special treatment over others, it breeds inequality and perpetuates victim complexes.

 

[karrie]

When that becomes a growing concern, let me know.

However..... if someone is against marriage in general and doesn't think anybody should be married..... there's no discrimination involved.

Well, since vocal disagreement with gay marriage is dwindling, not growing, is this not an okay case then?

See, I doubt you see it that way.

So, let me further the question to something that I think you WILL identify with.... Should atheists be allowed to discuss their desire to see religion abolished? Banned? Kept from having a voice in government? That is them attempting to change my rights, and limit my speech, how I'm treated in the world. Should I be able to charge them for it?

Damn hypocrites.

See, it sounds to me like you don't think it's right when religious groups do it, but you'll support gays doing it BECAUSE religious groups get away with it. Which seems like the definition of hypocritical.