Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Get togethers, protests, pickets, activism, discuss it here!

Will the Supreme Court of Canada uphold religious liberty or homosexual rights?

Religious liberty, Whatcott will be vindicated
0
No votes
Homosexual Rights, The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission will be both vindicated and empowered to continue its crackdown on those who publicly criticize homosexuality
1
33%
Unsure
2
67%
 
Total votes : 3

Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:42 pm

Image
A passerby, right, pauses as William Whatcott (facing at left) protests homosexuality and abortion in 2009.
Ted Jacob, Calgary Herald


Supreme Court set to update legal definition of hate-speech in first ruling of Internet age
Joseph Brean
Feb 25, 2013
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/25 ... ernet-age/

Canada’s controversial 20-year-old legal definition of hatred is set to be updated or even overturned on Wednesday, as the Supreme Court of Canada rules in the case of William Whatcott, a born-again anti-gay pamphleteer who ran afoul of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code.

Pitting freedom of religion and speech against a legal regime that bans the repeated public expression of hate, the Whatcott case could see the legal foundation of several anti-hate laws crumble, including Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Crafted by former Chief Justice Brian Dickson in a 1991 Supreme Court decision about hate-hotline operator John Ross Taylor, the operating definition of hate in Canada is “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification.”

But that decision, which upheld the constitutionality of Section 13 and set the benchmark for all hate speech tribunals, was a narrowly split 4-3 vote, in which current Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote for the dissenting minority, favouring a more robust defence of free speech.

There is speculation that, as chief justice, she now has an opportunity to bring a majority over to her side, despite almost certain dissent by more liberal judges such as Rosalie Abella.

Bruce Ryder, a constitutional law expert at Osgoode Hall law school, said the court will “almost certainly find that the language of the Saskatchewan provision is too broad and imprecise.” It currently prohibits not only hate, but ridicule, belittlement and affront to dignity.

“It will be interesting to see whether a majority of the Court is content to remove or restrict these words so that the provision only prohibits speech that is hateful, narrowly construed, or whether a majority of the Court believes that the provision is so flawed that it has to be declared unconstitutional in its entirety,” Prof. Ryder said.

Richard Moon, a constitutional legal scholar at the University of Windsor and an expert in hate speech, said it would be “an exceptional and extraordinary thing” for the Supreme Court to overturn its own previous decision, though not impossible. If they do, the effects will be wide-ranging.

Narrowly, Wednesday’s ruling is likely to concern only Saskatchewan’s law, he said. “But given the similarity between that and the [human rights hate speech] provisions in Alberta, BC and the Northwest Territories, you would think they would all be… open to serious question,” he said.

Those jurisdictions all have human rights laws against hate in the written word. Other provinces, such as Ontario, have bans on discriminatory signage, but specifically do not deal with printed material.

“‘At risk’ would be too weak a way to put it,” Prof. Moon said. “Any tribunal that was asked to enforce those provisions subsequently would probably have to determine that they were unenforceable.”

In fact, without Taylor as valid precedent, Canada’s most maligned anti-hate law — the federal ban on internet hate speech known as Section 13 — would be further weakened, even though it has already been ruled unconstitutional and a bill to repeal it is moving through the Senate.

Prof. Moon said the Supreme Court could also rule narrowly and simply uphold Saskatchewan’s law, or even rule that Mr. Whatcott did not breach it. “They could sort of evade the issue,” he said.

To judge from the questions posed by the judges when Whatcott’s case was argued in 2011, evasion was not the goal. In a sign the court might be willing to overturn Taylor, Judge McLachlin questioned lawyers about the validity of grasping at a subjective emotion with an objective legal test.

Any tribunal that was asked to enforce those provisions subsequently would probably have to determine that they were unenforceable

“We’re told the test [for hate] should be objective,” she said. “Is it possible or contradictory to get into an inquiry about how deeply a speaker felt about a subject matter?”

She also criticized the vagueness of such a serious law.

“It seems to me that an ordinary Lutheran minister or the ordinary citizen should be able to look at this act, and without becoming a Supreme Court of Canada scholar, say, ‘I can say this, but I cannot say that,’” Judge McLachlin said.

Prof. Moon called this the “line-drawing problem,” the risk that drawing a firm line against hate speech might criminalize speech that should be protected, or create a chilling effect.

“[Former Chief Justice] Dickson thought you could define the scope of these provisions so they were sufficiently narrow to catch only extreme speech that could be understood as harmful, and McLachlin thought [hatred, detestation, etc.] are such vague, open concepts that we don’t know what will be caught exactly,” Prof. Moon said.

Chief Justice Dickson’s definition of hatred has been further refined in federal human rights law with a checklist of “hallmarks of hate,” including descriptions of target groups as a powerful menace, predators of the vulnerable, the cause of a current social problem, dangerous or violent by nature, devoid of any redeeming qualities, and requiring banishment, segregation or eradication to save society from harm.

Mr. Whatcott claimed a religious justification for his anti-gay pamphlets and his street corner protesting, for which he has frequently run into conflict with authorities.

“Our children will pay the price in disease, death, abuse and ultimately eternal judgment if we do not say no to the sodomite desire to socialize your children into accepting something that is clearly wrong,” said one flyer. In another, he photocopied a classified ad: “I’m 28, 160#, searching for boys/men for penpals, friendship, exchanging video, pics, magazines & anything more. Your age, look & nationality is not so relevant.” Above it, he wrote, quoting the Bible, “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.”

National Post
jbrean@nationalpost.com
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby evolution8 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:04 am

I really hope the judges would rule in your favor hon. I have mixed feelings over this, but we have to trust God's will and whatever happens, I'll be here to support you... pray1 blessyou
evolution8
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9291
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:08 am
Location: Philippines

Re: Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby Doc Notgay » Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:36 am

Protest signs like Bill's wouldn't be a problem in rural areas. It's only in cities where the sheep mentality and liberal media rules that freedom of speech is a problem.
Three cheers for Bill! respect001
Doc Notgay
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:42 pm

Re: Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby Bill Whatcott » Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:07 pm

Thanks to my lovely wife and DocNotGay for your support. It is much appreciated. I pray the judges rule on the side of freedom to speak the truth tomorrow.....
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby evolution8 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:10 pm

Top court to rule on free speech vs. hate propaganda laws
Bill Whatcott's anti-gay pamphlets at centre of case
CBC News Posted: Feb 26, 2013 4:21 PM CST Last Updated: Feb 26, 2013 5:03 PM CST
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... 30226.html

Image

The Supreme Court of Canada is set to release a decision Wednesday morning in a Saskatchewan case that has pitted advocates of free speech against laws which curtail hate propaganda.

A Saskatchewan man, Bill Whatcott, distributed pamphlets to households in Regina and Saskatoon in 2001 and 2002 that condemned gay sex as immoral.

Complaints about the pamphlets were taken up by the province's Human Rights Commission and a panel ruled the pamphlets promoted hatred against gays.

That finding was appealed and the case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which heard oral arguments on the case in October 2011.

Whatcott, who engaged in same-sex behaviour prior to a religious conversion, argues the pamphlets simply reflect his religious beliefs.

"The material is blunt and forthright," Whatcott's factum to the court says. "There is no polite way of saying, 'You are going to hell unless you change your behaviour.'"

Whatcott argues the pamphlets are an expression of opinion and free speech is protected by the Charter.

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, in its factum, argues that an identifiable group — homosexuals — were hurt by Whatcott's pamphlets and merited protection.

"Hate expression is restricted for what it does and not what it says," the commission's factum says.

"Limiting the publication of hateful religious beliefs does not interfere with the right to hold beliefs," the commission added.

The Supreme Court decision is expected to be released around 9:45 a.m. ET.
evolution8
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9291
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:08 am
Location: Philippines

Re: Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby evolution8 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:19 pm

The Adelina church group and I will be lifting you up in our prayers 4:30 pm today (2:30am SK time, 4:30am Ontario time) as we do our daily Lenten
crusade. Praying the rosary, Bible readings and sharing the gospel of the Lord follow after the procession...
evolution8
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9291
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:08 am
Location: Philippines

Re: Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby Bill Whatcott » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:19 pm

Top court to rule in landmark hate-speech case
7:26 pm,
February 26th, 2013
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/ca ... 92646.html

OTTAWA -- Canada's top court will rule Wednesday on a controversial case that could shake up human-rights commissions and hate-speech laws cross Canada.

The case, centred around born-again Christian and anti-gay pamphleteer and protester Bill Whatcott, pits freedom of speech advocates against hate-speech watchdogs.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission vs. Whatcott case some 16 months ago, in Oct. 2011.

The commission brought the case to Canada's highest court after losing to Whatcott when he appealed a fine it imposed on him for pamphlets he distributed in Regina and Saskatoon in 2001 and 2002.

Four people filed complaints against him at the human-rights commission, arguing the flyers promoted hatred against homosexuals.

In 2005, the commission fined Whatcott $17,500.

Whatcott, who wilfully admits his flyers and protest signs are geared to shock, claims religious freedom for his activities and has received the support of religious groups like the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

"We don't necessarily condone the language Mr. Whatcott used, but we do firmly believe that every Canadian should be at liberty to share their beliefs and participate in the democratic process from a faith-inspired perspective," Don Hutchinson, the fellowship's vice-president, said Tuesday.

Civil liberties organizations intervening in the case also warned current hate-speech laws in some jurisdictions -- including Saskatchewan -- are too broad and have a chilling effect on media and public debate.

Bruce Ryder, with York University's Osgoode Law School, expects the court to reign in Saskatchewan's hate-speech law.

"It's very poorly drafted from the perspective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," he said.

"It prohibits speech that not only is hateful but also that belittles and ridicules an individual or a group and that just seems ridiculous that it would be legally prescribed," he said.

The ruling could also have an immediate impact on human-rights commissions in Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories that have similar provisions in their legislation.

Current top court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote the dissenting opinion when the Supreme Court last heard a hate- speech case in 1990.

"It was a very powerful dissent, arguing it's just not possible to interpret the word hatred without chilling a great deal of valuable and important political expression," Ryder said.

Still, he expects McLachlin to walk a finer line in Wednesday's ruling.
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby evolution8 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:53 pm

Thank you to Connie and Mark Fournier for posting my husband's Supreme Court article on their website.
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewt ... 4&t=162147
evolution8
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9291
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:08 am
Location: Philippines

Re: Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby Doc Notgay » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:21 pm

One thing I hope is that freedom of speech will prevail so that the media will stop using the excuse that they can't print letters to the editor because they might have some radical gay activist sue them.
It's been a great excuse by the liberal media to exclude any discussion about homosexuality. nono2
Doc Notgay
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:42 pm

Re: Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby Bill Whatcott » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:47 pm

Doc Notgay wrote:One thing I hope is that freedom of speech will prevail so that the media will stop using the excuse that they can't print letters to the editor because they might have some radical gay activist sue them.
It's been a great excuse by the liberal media to exclude any discussion about homosexuality. nono2


Hey Doc, two hours ago a solid majority of CBC posters, who were posting below my article here were actually supporting my right to free speech. Interestingly, even though my article was generating a somewhat interesting and lively discussion, all those posts by the CBC readers are now gone! laughing1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top court to rule on free speech vs. hate propaganda laws
Bill Whatcott's anti-gay sex pamphlets at centre of case
CBC News Posted: Feb 26, 2013
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... 30226.html
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby Ebedmelech » Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:19 am

Image
Pictured: Hitler Joins German Workers' Party

I'm praying for your positive outcome but very fearful as the sodomites and baby murderers will do everything in their power to silence the truth. A free country criminalizing free speech particularly with an anti Christian bias is reminiscent of past repressive regimes but then sadly this is as the Bible predicted.
Matt. 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
User avatar
Ebedmelech
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:46 am
Location: Southern Ontario

Re: Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby Ebedmelech » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:21 am

From Blazing Cat Fur:
Let Me Be The 1st To Violate The SC's Whatcott Ruling: I Personally Harbour Hate & Detestation For The Vile Sodmites Pushin Filthy Radical Gay Propaganda At The TDSB

Image
Come get me coppers.

Just to show what a multicultural hater I am, I will now quote from several Hadith's, courtesy the Religion of Peace.

From the Hadith:

There are several lesser hadith stating, "if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers," "If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses,” "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,” and “Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."

Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.".

Abu Dawud (4448) - "If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death." (Note the implicit approval of sodomizing one's wife).

Bukhari (72:774) - "The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, 'Turn them out of your houses .' The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman."

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."

Reliance of the Traveller, p17.2 - "May Allah curse him who does what Lot's people did." This is also repeated in three other places.
>> Posted by Blazing Cat Fur at 10:34 AM

Supreme Court Says F&ck You Peons & Your Stinking Rights: Rules Against Free Speech In Whatcott

Update: Full text of SCC decision here.http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/sc ... hCanada.ca http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/sc ... ocument.do
h/t Pingston

The Kangaroo Kourts are jubilant. Details .http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/ca ... 95611.html

You are not free in Canada, this is now criminal: Quoting Gay personal ads and the Bible

"Mr. Whatcott claimed a religious justification for his anti-gay pamphlets and his street corner protesting, for which he has frequently run into conflict with authorities.

“Our children will pay the price in disease, death, abuse and ultimately eternal judgment if we do not say no to the sodomite desire to socialize your children into accepting something that is clearly wrong,” said one flyer. - (It's what the TDSB does and this ruling won't stop me exposing it)

In another, he photocopied a classified ad: “I’m 28, 160#, searching for boys/men for penpals, friendship, exchanging video, pics, magazines & anything more. Your age, look & nationality is not so relevant.” Above it, he wrote, quoting the Bible, “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.”
User avatar
Ebedmelech
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:46 am
Location: Southern Ontario

Re: Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby evolution8 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:19 pm

I am so disappointed over the result of Bill's case today and to think it was a unanimous decision???
Even though I'm not a Canadian, half of me just died today because my husband lost this 12 year old battle.
This is a very sad day for Canada for it is not free anymore! sad1

Image
evolution8
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9291
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:08 am
Location: Philippines


Re: Whatcott Supreme Court decision to be released Wednesday

Postby evolution8 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:57 pm

Top court upholds key part of Sask. anti-hate law
Part of rights code section whittled down in case of anti-gay flyers
CBC News Posted: Feb 27, 2013 10:30 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 27, 2013 2:59 PM ET

Image
Bill Whatcott was reading the Supreme Court decision shortly after it was released Wednesday morning. (Bonnie Allen/CBC)

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld key provisions against hate speech in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, but struck down some of the code's wording in a case prompted by flyers handed out by a religious anti-gay activist, Bill Whatcott.

The court found that most of the pertinent section of the code is constitutional. Although the legislation infringes the rights to free expression and free religion, the court is allowing most of it as reasonable limits.

Reached at his home in Weyburn, Sask., Whatcott expressed disappointment but also defiance.

DECISION: Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott

RELATED: When is it hate speech? 7 significant Canadian cases

"It's dreadful," he said of the decision. "It's a dark day for Canada."

Whatcott said he refuses to pay the $7,500 in damages as directed by the high court. He also says the ruling means the Supreme Court can impose its morals on the rest of the country and limit free speech.

He also said he'll likely be violating Saskatchewan's human rights code for the rest of his life, because he will not stop preaching against homosexuality.

David Arnot, chief commissioner of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, hailed the ruling, saying it goes to the heart of what it means to be a Canadian.

"It basically says under no circumstances should hate speech be tolerated," Arnot said.

A Saskatoon man who was one of the complainants in the case says he's pleased, too.

After reading about the Whatcott pamphlets in church, James Komar said he had little choice but to speak out.

"If I don't stand up for myself why should I expect other people to stand up for me," he said.

Part of code struck down
The court struck down the part of the legislation that includes speech that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground." It found those words are not rationally connected to the objective of protecting people from hate speech.

The court left in place the ban on speech that exposes, or tends to expose, persons or groups to hatred.

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission had appealed a court decision that overturned its original ruling against William Whatcott, who published and distributed four anti-gay flyers in towns and cities in Saskatchewan in 2001 and 2002. Four people filed complaints with the commission over the flyers.

Whatcott's flyers used words like "filth," "propaganda" and "sodomy" to describe gay relationships and the discussion of equality.

Saskatchewan law prohibits publishing or broadcasting anything that "exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground."

Two of four flyers hate speech
The first two sets of flyers were titled "Keep homosexuality out of Saskatoon's public schools" and "Sodomites in our public schools."

The other two were photocopies of classified ads with Whatcott's handwritten comments on them stating the ads were for "men seeking boys."

The Supreme Court found the first two flyers did constitute hate speech and reinstated the Saskatchewan tribunal's finding, including $7,500 in damages against Whatcott that were to be paid to complainants.

The court upheld an appeal court's decision on the second two flyers, ruling against the human rights commission. It found that it was unreasonable to find the second two flyers "contain expression that a reasonable person … would find as exposing or likely to expose persons of same-sex orientation to detestation and vilification."

"These flyers are potentially offensive but lawful contributions to the public debate on the morality of homosexuality," Justice Marshall Rothstein wrote in the decision.

This was the first time the Supreme Court examined the Saskatchewan law.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision was unanimous.

The decision was made by a six-judge panel because one justice retired and wasn't eligible to take part in it. Two other justices are new appointments and weren't eligible because they didn't hear the arguments in the case.
evolution8
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9291
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:08 am
Location: Philippines

Next

Return to Gatherings and Activism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests