By:
Heather Clark
Ottawa, Ontario –
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Biblical speech opposing
homosexual behavior, including in written form, is essentially a hate
crime.
On Wednesday,
the court upheld the conviction
of activist William Whatcott, who found himself in hot water after
distributing flyers regarding the Bible’s prohibitions against
homosexuality throughout the Saskatoon and Regina neighborhoods in 2001
and 2002.
“The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination,” one flyer
that was found to be in violation stated, citing 1 Corinthians 6:9.
“Scripture records that Sodom and Gomorrah was given over completely to
homosexual perversion and as a result destroyed by God’s wrath.”
Another flyer, entitled
Keep Homosexuality Out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools,
was written in response to the recommendation of the Saskatoon School
Board that homosexuality be included in school curriculum. The Supreme
Court declared the document to be unlawful because it called the
homosexual acts that would be taught to children “filthy,” and contended
that children are more interested in playing Ken and Barbie than
“learning how wonderful it is for two men to sodomize each other.” The
justices ruled that because the use of the word “sodomy” only referred
to “two men” and not also the sex acts of heterosexuals, it was a direct
target against a specific group of people.
Two other flyers that expressed outrage at the male solicitation of
sex with boys in a local publication were not found to be in violation
of the statute, in part because Whatcott’s citation of Luke 17:2 was not
clear on whether it only referred to homosexuals. The verse, which he
had handwritten on the handouts, quotes from Jesus Christ.
“If you cause one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better
that a millstone was tied around your neck and you were cast into the
sea,” it read.
The court insinuated that the Scripture could have been an issue like
the other references if used in a way to pertain solely to homosexual
persons.
Whatcott had distributed the flyers over a decade ago to raise
awareness of his concerns about both the homosexual parades in Canada,
as well as the vulnerability of children in a culture that promotes
homosexuality. However, when Canada’s Human Rights Commission found out
about the matter, they took him to court, citing him with a hate crime.
The Supreme Court noted in its opinion, among other concerns, that
Whatcott’s use of the Bible to target homosexuals was a problem.
“[Whatcott's] 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 panel ruled on
Wednesday.
It pointed back to the lower court ruling, which asserted, “While the
courts cannot be drawn into the business of attempting to
authoritatively interpret sacred texts such as the Bible, those texts
will typically have characteristics which cannot be ignored if they are
to be properly assessed in relation to … the [Hate Crimes] Code.”
The judges did note, however, that “it would only be unusual
circumstances and context that could transform a simple reading or
publication of a religion’s holy text into what could objectively be
viewed as hate speech.”
Commentator Andrew Coyne noted that the wording of Canada’s hate
crimes law is problematic because it leaves much discretion in the hands
of law enforcement.
“The code itself outlaws material that ‘exposes or tends to expose to
hatred’ any person or group, on the usual list of prohibited grounds.
It is not necessary, that is, to show the material in question actually
exposes anyone to hatred — only that it might,” he advised. “The Court
then upholds the ban on the grounds that the hatred to which individuals
might or might not be exposed might in turn lead others to believe
things that might cause them to act in certain unspecified but clearly
prejudicial ways: it ‘has the potential to incite or inspire
discriminatory treatment,’ or ‘risks’ doing so, or is ‘likely’ to, or at
any rate ‘can.’”
Whatcott has now been ordered to pay $7,500 to two homosexuals who
took offense at his flyers, as well as to pay the legal fees of the
Human Rights Commission — which could cost him hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
“The ruling and the reasoning [of the court] is terrible,” he told
reporters. “They actually used the concept that truth is not a defense.”
“It’s worse than I expected,” Whatcott added. “What it means is that my life is over as I know it.”
A much different ruling came out of the Alberta Court of Appeals last October, as
Pastor Stephen Boissoin was likewise facing hate crimes charges
for submitting an op-ed to a local newspaper that outlined his beliefs
about homosexual behavior. In releasing its opinion, the court said
that Boissoin had a right to express his beliefs on matters such as
homosexuality as long as they were focused on a behavior and not a
specific person.
“Matters of morality, including the perceived morality of certain
types of sexual behavior, are topics for discussion in the public forum.
Frequently, expression on these topics arises from deep seated
religious conviction, and is not always temperate,” the panel advised.
“Boissoin and others have the freedom to think, whether stemming from
their religious convictions or not, that homosexuality is sinful and
morally wrong. In my view, it follows that they have the right to
express that thought to others.”
However, the Supreme Court of Canada declared Wednesday that
oftentimes, it is impossible to say that one loves the sinner and hates
the sin. It asserted that the hatred of the act was inseparable from
hating the person or person group.
“I agree that sexual orientation and sexual behaviour can be
differentiated for certain purposes,” the court outlined. “However, in
instances where hate speech is directed toward behaviour in an effort to
mask the true target, the vulnerable group, this distinction should not
serve to avoid [the hate-crime clause of the Code].”
While speech opposing homosexuality remains legal in the United
States, some note that the nation is heading in the same direction as
Canada, as discrimination laws are being enforced by state Human Rights
Commissions across the country.
A number of incidents have made headlines in recent years where
American businesses have been punished for their refusal to accommodate
the homosexual lifestyle, such as the story of
a photographer in New Mexico that was forced to pay $700 in fines for declining to shoot a same-sex commitment service, to the Vermont
bed and breakfast
owners who settled a lawsuit with two lesbians who were told by an
employee that they could not hold their commitment service on the
property. A Kentucky t-shirt screening company was also recently
punished for declining to complete a work order involving t-shirts that
were to be worn at a local homosexual pride parade.
http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/
Related Stories:
Battle Continues in Puerto Rico After 200,000 March Against Homosexual 'Marriage' on Island
Obama Files Supreme Court Briefs Endorsing Same-Sex 'Marriage'
Hundreds of Major Corporations Sign Supreme Court Briefs in Support of Homosexual 'Marriage'
Republicans to File Supreme Court Brief in Support of Same-Sex 'Marriage'
Obama May File Supreme Court Brief in Support of Homosexual 'Marriage'