Canada Anti-gay Speech
October 14, 2011 by staff
Canada Anti-gay Speech, A case argued before the Supreme Court yesterday, if you choose the wrong way, could result in “a virtual season open to anyone communicating a religious position on any matter of public policy,” said Don Hutchinson, legal counsel general of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, which intervened in the case – the Human Rights Commission Saskatchewan (CDHS) v. William Whatcott.
The audience for four hours was a record 21 intervenors arguing both sides of a deeply divided stance on freedom of expression and incitement against religious hatred and its interpretation by human rights commissions and tribunals. Hutchinson introduced the penultimate and thus had throughout the previous argument, pointing out several striking positions.
CDHS Whatcott brought before the Court of Human Rights of Saskatchewan in 2006 on their practice of distributing pamphlets on the dangers of abortion and hmosxlity. The flyer in question was written in opposition to a classified ad in a newspaper seeking hmosxl “boys / men pen pal, friendship, sharing video, pictures.” He also criticized the promotion of hmosxlity in public schools in Saskatoon and the University of Saskatchewan.
The Court concluded that Whatcott had violated Article 14 (1) (b) of the Code of the province of human rights, which prohibits speech that “exposes, or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or affronts to dignity of any person or group of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground. “He was ordered to pay a fine and stop 17,500 and publicly disseminate their beliefs about hmosxlity.
The Court’s decision was upheld in 2007 by the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s bench, but that was overturned in 2010 by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
In an interview with LifeSiteNews today, Hutchinson said he was “really driven” when the lawyer Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, the body responsible for assessing what constitutes hate speech in the provincial act, said the reading of some of Paul’s writings of the Scriptures in the television would hate speech.
The key to the debate, said Hutchinson, is the concept of loving the sinner and hate the sin.
Lawyers for the gay activist group EGALE argued that if a person is gay then its behavior is inextricably linked to their sexual orientation. “That argument was countered at the end of the day,” said Hutchinson, “noting that if a person is heterosexual does not give them free rein to engage in any sexual activity they choose heterosexual.” In addition, he said, “If a person has pedophilia or bestiality trends, not set them free in our country to represent sexual orientations.”
For its part, argued Hutchinson “Evangelical leaders, pastors and congregations throughout the country feels that the expression of their position in religious matters public debate seems increasingly unpleasant.”
“Human Rights Code are to reach a much wider and a chilling effect on freedom of expression, because human rights codes do not allow the defense of truth and sincerity of faith, focus on the subjective feeling of missing or affront to the dignity of the person who feels offended, “he told LSN. “For the average Canadian, who has to hire a lawyer and be subject to multiple appeals and fines, or both, this seems more worthy of an ideologically driven society of free and democratic society.”
According to Hutchinson, in the best scenario would be for the court to say that the criminal code provisions on hate, you are limited to the intention of inciting the damage, are sufficient for the limitations of freedom of expression in Canada and that the human rights codes are subjective and have caused a number of restrictions on freedom of religious expression should be set aside.
In the worst case, “if the court finds that such provisions are well and needed no changes with respect to its interpretation, then it would be a season open to any individual virtual communication of a religious position reported on any matter of public policy. “He added:” Before you say something to better the load and put some money in the bank because you have to hire a lawyer to deal with the complaint of human rights is to come “.
“Let’s make genuine public discourse in the public square and the promotion of hatred of the sentence in the penal code,” he said. A decision in the case is expected within 6-9 months.
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.