Ad placed by Christian corrections officer in Saskatoon, Canada, newspaper
Posted on 02/18/2003 11:41:51 AM PST by Remedy
Certain passages of the Bible can be construed as hate literature if placed in a particular context, according to a Canadian provincial court.
The Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling by the province's human rights tribunal that fined a man for submitting a newspaper ad that included citations of four Bible verses that address homosexuality.
|
|
A columnist noted in the Edmonton Journal last week that the Dec. 11 ruling generated virtually no news stories and "not a single editorial."
Imagine "the hand-wringing if ever a federal court labeled the Quran hate literature and forced a devout Muslim to pay a fine for printing some of his book's more astringent passages in an ad in a daily newspaper," wrote Lorne Gunter in the Edmonton, Alberta, daily.
Under Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code, Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan, was found guilty along with the newspaper, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, of inciting hatred and was forced to pay damages of 1,500 Canadian dollars to each of the three homosexual men who filed the complaint.
The rights code allows for expression of honestly held beliefs, but the commission ruled that the code can place "reasonable restriction" on Owen's religious expression, because the ad exposed the complainants "to hatred, ridicule, and their dignity was affronted on the basis of their sexual orientation."
The ad's theme was that the Bible says no to homosexual behavior. It listed the 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 placed between the verse references and a drawing of two males holding hands overlaid with the universal nullification symbol - a red circle with a diagonal bar.
Owens, an evangelical Christian and corrections officer, said his ad was "a Christian response" to Homosexual Pride Week.
"I put the biblical references, but not the actual verses, so the ad would become interactive," he told the National Catholic Register after the 2001 ruling. "I figured somebody would have to look them up in the Bible first, or if they didn't have a Bible, they'd have to find one."
Leviticus 20:13, says, according to the New International Version, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
"Owens denies that, as a Christian, he wants homosexuals put to death, as some inferred from the biblical passages," the Catholic paper said. He believes, however, that "eternal salvation is at stake," both for those engaging in homosexual acts and for himself, if he fails to inform them about "what God says about their behavior."
Exposure to hatred
Justice J. Barclay wrote in his opinion that the human-rights panel "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," Barclay said. "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."
In the 2001 ruling, Saskatchewan Human Rights Board of Inquiry commissioner Valerie Watson emphasized that the panel was not banning parts of the Bible. She wrote that the offense was the combination of the symbol and the biblical references. Owens, in fact, published an ad in 2001, without complaint, that quoted the full text of the passages he cited in the offending 1997 ad.
But the Canadian Civil Liberties Association sides with Christian groups that criticize the panel for stifling free speech. Opponents of the ruling say it illustrates the dangers of a bill currently in Parliament that would add "sexual orientation" as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate crimes legislation.
That legislation would make criminals of people like Owens and others who have been charged under provincial human rights panels, they argue.
Two years ago, the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy group. Brockie argued that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject the group's request.
In 1998, an Ontario man was convicted of hate crimes for an incident in which he distributed pamphlets about Islam outside a high school. In one of the pamphlets, defendant Mark Harding listed atrocities committed in the name of Islam in foreign lands to back his assertion that Canadians should be wary of local Muslims.
Janet Epp Buckingham, legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, says cases like this are worrisome precedents that an expanded hate law could build upon, reported the Hamilton, Ontario, Spectator newspaper.
"Mark Harding really went overboard," Epp Buckingham said. "He said some quite nasty things about Muslims - that they are really violent overseas and that Muslims in Canada are the same and people need to be careful of them.
"But the court almost ignored the religious exemption," she said. "Harding himself said he wasn't trying to incite violence against Muslims. But the court said he did promote violence and hatred against Muslims and therefore the exemption doesn't apply, that it was not a good faith expression of religion."
She said that, at the very least, Bill C-250 could place a significant chill over the Christian community and, at worst, it could cause undue restrictions on religious expression.
Shalom.
The p[oint that I've been making all along, is that the headline is a lie, something to which there is ample proof.Allegation absent evidence is not proof. The Judge leaves no doubt in his opinion that the substance of Leviticus 20:13 is what exposes homosexuals to hatred:
In other words, the Biblical passage which suggest that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred.It has been alleged that the "IOW" sentence is an editorial addition not found in the Judge's opinion, yet absolutely no hard evidence has been presented to support that allegation.
Ample proof? Nonsense.
The inventions of the people who (for some perverse reason I can't understand) really, really want this to be a ruling against the Bible get better all the time.
Who said that the "letters and numbers" were random? They aren't. They are book, chapter and verse references to Biblical texts dealing with homosexuality. That is not in dispute.
What the doomsayers just don't seem to get is that the content of the Bible is not the issue.
Let me put this as plainly as possible: The headline given this story by World Nut Daily is a lie.
The headline given this story by World Nut Daily is a lie.
I don't think I or Luis can make this any plainer for you people.
YTou
are so incredibly dishonest. You missplaced the period in that sentence to justify your complete missrepresentation of the facts.Here's the actual paragraph from the article.
Lying is a sin, and you will sure;y be judge for it.
129 posted on 02/19/2003 6:08 PM CST by Luis Gonzalez
What dose your post make you?
Again, thanks for the entertainment and the bumps.
Fact #1:
Quoting Bible verses in complete text is allowed in Canada, even if those Bible verses condemn homosexuality.Fact #2
Quoting Bible references using only book name and chapter/verses plus editorial cartoons is not allowed in Canada, at least when such verses condemn homosexuality.Amazingly, FReepers cannot agree on whether those facts means that the thread title is correct.
Are you saying that demanding accuracy in reporting is equivalent to promoting the homosexual agenda?
Quoting Bible references using only book name and chapter/verses plus editorial cartoons is not allowed in Canada, at least when such verses condemn homosexuality.Actually, I'm not at all sure that we all agree on "Fact #2." I have yet to see that a ruling against this particular advertisement is a ruling against all editorial graphics featuring Bible verses condemning homosexuality.
I did read them. Post #75 is an Internet poll. Not only are Internet polls statistically worthless, as their sample is self-selected, but the selections are full of loaded and emotive language.
Post #90 does nothing to dispute the fact that the headline given this story by World Nut Daily is a lie. The Bible was not called "hate literature." I'm sorry you're too dense to grasp the obvious, but that's your problem.
If the ad featured the verses and a picture of an angel, I'm sure there would be no problem.
I bet if a Muslim posted a billboard with a circle and slash over a cross, along with some Koran quotes, these same people that don't find this ad offensive would be out in massive numbers wanting it taken down.
>>
I'm just curious, how do lesbains come in "12 times more likely to have had an oral infection from penile contact"?<<
Family Research Report - May-Jun 2002 Omnisexual -Webster's dictionary4 defines 'homosexual' by "sexual attraction toward [or relations with] a person of the same sex" (p. 464). Yet as both the FRI and the Kinsey studies demonstrate, sexual flexibility rather than a fixed interest in or exclusive performance with members of the same sex is characteristic of 'homosexuals.' Almost all 'homosexuals,' in fact, manage to have sex with the opposite sex.
The term [homosexual]certainly does not seem to fit ex-homosexuals, many of whom express no further interest in sex with their sex. Further, the sexual flexibility that the great majority of 'homosexuals' exhibit over their lifetimes does not fit the 'compulsive' nuances associated with the term 'homosexual' either.
Family Research Council: The Negative Health Effects of ...
Lesbians are at Risk through Sex with MSM
>>
And by the way, I missed post #90 when you first put it up.<<>>
129 posted on 02/19/2003 6:08 PM CST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican) To 126 <<POST #126, a short post, was To: eastsider - who had already read the article and post #90 and couldn't be fooled by any "missplaced…period" of mine. You happened to catch this one, not addressed to you.
By Edward E. Plowman
Roman Catholic, evangelical, and other groups across a broad front in Canada are urging the defeat of Bill C-250 in parliament. Pushed by pro-gay interests and almost certain to pass, it would add "sexual orientation" to the list of protected groups in the "hate propaganda" sections of the country's criminal code.
All the groups say they oppose hate-motivated attacks and inciting hatred against anyone, but they warn the bill is too vague (it doesn't define hatred; judges will do that), it doesn't distinguish between the "person" and "sexual activity," and it trashes free-speech rights.
"This bill could silence reasonable public discussion about the immorality of certain sexual practices and even implicate the Bible," warned Bruce Clemenger of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
Indeed, that has already happened: A federal court in Saskatchewan ruled in December that the Bible amounted to hate literature. The decision received next to no notice in the nation's press. The case involved Hugh Owens of Regina, who ran an ad in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix on Gay Pride Day in 1997. It featured only four Bible references (Romans 1:26-32, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 21:13, and 1 Corinthians 6:9) without quoting from them, an equal sign, and two stick men holding hands inside a red circle with a diagonal slash through it-similar to highway and street signs forbidding certain actions. Mr. Owens said he was seeking to draw the public's attention to biblical teaching about homosexuality.
Three homosexuals sued Mr. Owens and the newspaper under the provincial human-rights code. It forbids publication of text and symbols that would expose people to hatred, ridicule, or "affront of dignity" on account of their sexual orientation. A one-woman panel of the human-rights commission ruled in their favor, saying the inclusion of Bible verses elevated the ad to violation of the code. She ordered Mr. Owens and the newspaper to pay each man $1,500 (WORLD, July 21, 2001).
The federal court rejected Mr. Owens's appeal in December, noting that "the biblical passage which suggests that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred."
If Bill C-250 becomes part of Canada's criminal code, preachers had better consult their lawyers before going into the pulpit to discuss homosexual behavior as sinful or read Bible verses dealing with homosexuality.
So if I cite the 5th or the 1st amendment in court it’s not a quote??!
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.