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.
No... they have no balls thanks to Islam's prior castration !!!
The most heinous and barbaric crime in this world would be to stop an individual from thinking freely. And when such a crime is "legalised" in the form of a "religion," one can easily imagine how disastrous it can be.
Islam imposes a threat to the whole world ... which is far worse than deforestation, nuclear destruction or AIDS. It is an insidious, devilish disease creeping into the veins of the world. Every individual must realize the destructive and evil nature of this religion, for it eats away at the very foundation of humanity which is ... an individual's ability to think individually and act accordingly !!!
.
Canada has no First Amendment.
Yes - but when that electorate takes away your right to quote THE BIBLE!, you've got a problem. The fact is, fundamental rights guaranteed by the US constitution exist only in a more nebulous fashion in Canada (and most constitutional monarchies) - there might be some need for reform there as well.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Every Charter and civil liberties case in Canada invariably involves a section 1 analysis when a violation is found. And of course, it's the judges who define the reasonable limits.
If the latter, then you essentially have no freedoms at all. If the former, then your government is clearly in violation of its own constitution with the enactment of such hate crime laws.
Civil Rights California's Civil and Criminal Laws Pertaining to Hate Crimes
The Ralph Act," Civil Code sections 51.7 and 52--provides that it is a civil right for a person to be free of violence or its threat against the person or his or her property, because of a person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age or disability or position in a labor dispute, or because a person is perceived to have one or more of these characteristics--(bases of discrimination are illustrative, rather than restrictive)
"The Bane Act," Civil Code section 52.1 --provides protection from interference by threats, intimidation, or coercion or for attempts to interfere with someone's state or federal statutory or constitutional rights (these include association, assembly, due process, education, employment, equal protection, expression, formation and enforcement of contracts, holding of public office, housing, privacy, speech, travel, use of public facilities, voting,worship, and protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to personal relations)-- proof of "hate motivation" required, according to a 1994 Court of Appeal decision in Boccato v.City of Hermosa Beach
Speech alone is not sufficient to support an action under the Bane Act, unless the speech itself threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons, and the person or group of persons against whom the threat is directed reasonably fears that, because of the speech, violence will be committed against them or their property and that the person threatening the violence had the apparent ability to carry out the threat
To my knowledge (such as a search on Quicklaw will enlighten), this has never come up specifically in the decisions of any court or human rights tribunal in Canada, nor has been addressed in legislation.
Any such legislation would certainly be a violation of freedom of conscience and religion under s.2(a) and freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I doubt the violation could be justified as a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society under s.1.
But who knows? Get the wrong judge on the wrong day....
I agree, but if not a revolution in the hearts and minds of the electorate, then what kind of revolution did you have in mind? A dictator?
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.