Canada doesn't have a First Amendment.
Anti-gay pamphlets broke law, Supreme Court of Canada says | Toronto Star
OTTAWA?In an important decision that upheld the main anti-hate provisions in Saskatchewan?s human rights law, Canada?s top court ruled vitriolic anti-gay speech in flyers distributed by a Christian activist is not protected by the Charter.
In doing so, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down a small part of the province?s human rights code as an infringement on free speech and religion. It removed vague wording that prohibited the distribution of material that ?ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity? of people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
However, the high court, including Chief Beverly McLachlin, gave broad endorsement to the law?s equality protections for a vulnerable minority against the spreading of ?hatred.?
Justice Marshall Rothstein, writing for the 6-0 panel, found two of four flyers handed out by William Whatcott in 2001 and 2002 in Regina and Saskatoon crossed the line into ?harmful? discourse, but two did not.
The court said two of Whatcott?s hand-delivered leaflets had ?hallmarks? of hatred, targeting gays as a menace that could threaten the safety and well-being of others, referring to respected sources like the Bible to lend credibility, and using ?vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred.?
?It delegitimizes homosexuals by referring to them as filthy or dirty sex addicts and by comparing them to pedophiles, a traditionally reviled group in society,? wrote Rothstein.
The court said the law?s purpose is to ?prevent discrimination by curtailing certain types of public expression? but it is tailored, and does not ban private expression of views.
B?nai Brith lawyer Marvin Kurz said the ruling targets only speech that is ?the worst of the worst.?
?It doesn?t matter whether I?m offended by what Mr. Whatcott says,? said Kurz. ?The question is whether there?s going to be harm.?
Ontario?s human rights code does not have the exact same ban on hateful publications or flyers that Saskatchewan had. Kurz said Wednesday?s ruling nevertheless counters a backlash that had been growing against the use of human rights laws and solidifies overall efforts to fight harmful speech, whether it be anti-gay or anti-Semitic.
Kurz added the court did not establish a hierarchy of rights, or conclude that equality rights should trump freedom of religion and free speech.
?What it says is religion isn?t the only right, and religion cannot be used as a cloak for illegal activity; religion cannot be used as a cloak for hate.?
That's hardly the same as having an opinion of homosexuality or saying it's wrong. It's distribution of hate literature that could incite violence that's the issue, not a thought or a statement or an opinion.
Last edited by freddieflounder101; 12-26-2013 at 08:01 PM.
I don't believe for one second that it would be "live and let live"...all gay people want is the same rights you & I have.
Well I am a liberal, and I'd estimate that the vast majority of my friends are liberals -- but not my husband or some others -- and I live in proximity to and work in NYC...hotbed of such stuff. I have never in my entire life met anyone who thought that any of those things should be illegal, except for discriminating against somebody in terms of hiring simply because they are gay. Ever.
I can determine what is a legitimate fear if "legitimate" means that's it's a fear of something that could actually happen and really exists. I've never heard or read of anybody thinking the things that you state above. Ever.
DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03
If they objected to his Christianity then the whole show would not even exist.
For example, just the other day on the news I read about a teacher at a Catholic school in Seattle that was fired for marrying his partner. The real story was about how the students and many of the other teachers at that same school staged a large protest over his firing. But as far as the actual firing goes, while I think it is terrible, I do understand that he signed a contract stating that he would abide by certain teachings of the Catholic church, and therefore given the fact that they are a private religious institution, they are within their rights to fire him. So that's already an issue that comes up, and I'm pretty sure that my attitude towards it is pretty common among liberals.
For the rest of it, it just sounds like paranoid fear mongering that someone (not a liberal) has whipped up to make sure that people keep resisting gay rights. And yes, I do think that it's fair to suss out whether or not something is a legitimate fear depending on whether or not it's based in reality. I can be deathly afraid that aliens are going to pop out of my morning coffee and eat my eyeballs, but I think it would be fair enough for others to point out that my fear is not based in reality and therefore it's not really acceptable of me to try to outlaw coffee drinking.
In February 2010, Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, and Michigan-based pastors Levon Yuille, Rene Ouellette, and James Combs filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, challenging the Act?s constitutionality. As Christian leaders with a duty to teach God?s Word on moral issues, such as homosexuality, Glenn and pastors Yuille, Ouellette, and Combs have ?willfully? and actively engaged in expressive conduct regarding the morality of homosexuality?conduct that could subject them to investigation and prosecution under the Hate Crimes Act, which does not limit its prohibitions to physical acts of violence.
Home | AFLC Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review Appellate Court Decision Upholding Federal
I mean we are just supposed to trust Eric Holder or whoever comes after him right?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality. However, Holder has said that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, not to prosecute speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.
http://www.gop.gov/blog/09/04/29/hat...threatens-freeHouse Republicans want all violent crimes to be punished appropriately, including those motivated against someone due to their personal traits like race, nationality or religion. This bill, however, goes far beyond reasonable means, threatening religious freedom, freedom of speech, equal justice under the law and basic principles of federalism, according to Republican Leadership.
The bill includes ?sexual orientation? and ?gender identity? as part of a big tent agenda to prosecute violent crimes more harshly if they are motivated by "hate." However, the bill does not include certain other classes, like senior citizens, unborn children, pregnant women, members of the military, police officers, or victims of prior crimes. It is unfair, and unjust, to protect one group more than any other.
More importantly, this bill threatens freedom of speech and religion because religious leaders or groups could be prosecuted for speaking out on their religious beliefs. They could be seen as having biased motives for violence, though this would be uneasily defined or proved because of so few details defined in the bill. The same people could be prosecuted under federal conspiracy law for ?aiding and abetting? if a person influenced by their speech commits a supposed ?hate crime.?
Last edited by GloriaInTX; 12-27-2013 at 02:13 PM.
Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013
I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson