Posted on 02/12/2003 10:30:58 AM PST by marshmallow
Saskatchewan, Feb 11, 03 (LSN.ca/CWNews.com) - In a ruling given virtually no media coverage, the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan, ruled that a man who placed references to Bible verses on homosexuality into a newspaper ad was guilty of inciting hatred. The December 11, 2002 decision was in response to an appeal of a 2001 Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (HRC) ruling which ordered both the Saskatoon StarPhoenix newspaper and Hugh Owens of Regina to pay CAN$1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the Saskatoon newspaper quoting Bible verses regarding homosexuality.
The purpose of the ad was to indicate that the Bible says no to homosexual behavior. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side. The symbol was comprised of two males holding hands with the universal symbol of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over top.
Justice J. Barclay rejected the appeal ruling: "In my view, the Board was correct in concluding that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule. When the use of the circle and slash is combined with the passages of the Bible, it exposes homosexuals to detestation, vilification and disgrace. In other words, the Biblical passage which suggests that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred."
Janet Epp Buckingham, Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, told LifeSite: "The ruling that a verse from the Bible can be considered to expose homosexuals to hatred shows the danger for Scripture if Bill C-250 passes." Bill C-250, proposed by homosexual activist MP Svend Robinson, would see "sexual orientation" added to hate crime law as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Well that's good. That means that you Canucks, just like us Yanks, are just a Supreme Court Majority away from regaining all of our rights to bear arms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. There's hope. I suppose we should follow the instructions in our hate-filled bibles and pray for our leaders, huh?
BTW how do your judges get appointed? Is it an executive decision, a legislative decision or a democratic decision?
You are right, Joesnuffy was first to use "revolution". And secession is a valid idea.
I believe it is that unincorporated frontier north of Minnesota that the US decided a long time ago not to annex because its just too darn cold.
The U.S. Supreme Court,in RAV v City of St. Paul, held that "hate speech," standing alone, may not be made a crime because to do so would violate the 1st Amendment. What has been upheld are "hate crime" laws, which increase the penalty for something which is already a crime (assault, vandalism, murder) if done with a bias-related motive. I'm not a big fan of "hate crime" laws, but they are nothing like what this Canadian court upheld.
The problem in America is not whether the government will tolerate it, but whether you can convince a newspaper to print it. We have the freedom to post that message here on Free Republic for all to see including you Cannucks.
Are you confident that you could post the same stuff through your IPS, or do you think you might have the government knock on your door or someone who could be offended slap you with a viable lawsuit if you tried?
BARTENDER: [name of bar], can we help you?
BQ: Repent, ye sinner! For it is written in Leviticus 18:22--Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, for it is an abomination, and ye shall be executed!
BARTENDER: What?
BQ: I said, ye shall be executed!
(long pause)
BARTENDER: Hold on just a minute. There's somebody here who wants to talk to you...
I was on hold for a minute or two before I started getting nervous. I was afraid he was having the cops trace the call. Ohio has a ruthless "ethnic intimidation" law, which includes sexual orientation, and people have gone to jail over something as trivial as the "n word."
What I did was comparable to what was in this ad, so I guess it's hate speech, too. Let's round up every preacher and put 'em all in jail while we're at it!
Because we have a FREE PRESS. Newspapers are not required to publish anything they PERSONALLY find offensive. But I have the right to start my own newspaper and print just about anything I want (short of Child Pornography) and nobody can sue me for anything I say that isn't actually maliciously libelous. Apparently in Canada if you offend the sensibilities of "queers" by calling them something like... well, "queers", you can be sucessfully sued and possibly arrested and prosecuted.
The difference is whether or not the government gets involved in the process by prohibiting the behavior, or allowing frivilous lawsuits like this one to go forward and then upholding it on appeal.
So , given the advertisement in question, it would , as you say , be difficult to find a publisher who would not be offended and publish it. Knowing he has free press and would not be sued or charged. But declining simply based on his own moral judgement and sensibilities?
Interesting.
Thank you. So am I.
In your country, a man may not publicly quote the Bible.
Where did I say that? I said that the quoting of the Bible was not the issue, it was the use to which the quoted Bible verses quoted were put.
I am perfectly free to use the word "fire" any time I wish - such as in this sentence. Should I use that word repeatedly, with a loud voice, in a crowded theatre, I will in all likelihood find myself surrounded by large, uniformed men with bad attitudes.
I don't particularly agree with Canadian hate-speech laws, and I don't appreciate the way that the provincial Human Rights commissions are effectively unelected legislators who can prosecute you without your having been charged with a crime (Hugh Owens was never charged under the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with hate speech).
But for you to say that in Canada "a man may not publicly quote the Bible," is neither directly relevant to the Hugh Owens case nor factual in any case. It is as simple as that.
Actually if a newspaper were given a copy of that graphic as a potential ad, they would probably refuse to publish it because of ecomomic concerns, i.e., it would offend readers who might cancel their subscriptions or advetisers who might take their accounts to another newspaper that didn't tend to offend their customers, who would include homosexuals.
It is an economic decision here whether or not to publish the ad. In Canada it is a criminal law and tort law decision. That, Snowyman, is the BIG difference! In Canada, a newspaper publisher who really didn't like homosexuals would be PROHIBITED BY LAW from publishing an anti-homosexual advertisement. Here there is no law, but the smart publisher is prohibited by economic realities from publishing it. Free Enterprise has its own self-imposed limits on Free Speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.