One of the most concerning court decisions against religious freedom in Canada has been reversed. The highest court in the province of Saskatchewan has reversed a 2002 decision by the Court of Queen’s Bench which 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 $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the Saskatoon newspaper quoting bible verses regarding homosexuality.
[…]
The ruling stressed that s. 14(1)(b) had to be read and interpreted in a way which respected the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, citing Supreme Court authority, the Court said s. 14(1)(b) must be read as applying only in cases where the message in question involved extreme emotions and strong feelings of detestation, calumny and vilification. The Court also stressed that any message impugned under s. 14(1)(b) must be carefully examined with regard to its full context in order to determine whether the section has been offended.
The Court concluded that, although his advertisement was jarring and offensive to many, Mr. Owens had not acted contrary to s. 14(1)(b).
Full ruling (PDF)
Sometimes the Justice system surprises me and uses common sense.
Boo-yeah!!!!
It is so sad that I am actually celebrating this ruling. This should have been a no brainer slam-dunk, and the original complaint should have been laughed out of court. The bar is now so low that this is considered a victory.
At last. Sanity and the genuine rule of law–as opposed to the kangeroo-court variety of the HRCs–have come to bear on this issue. The downside is that it has taken almost six years for Mr. Owens to be vindicated and for justice to prevail.
I wonder what life has been like for him and his family in the past four years?
This is a shot over the bow to any homosexual activists who get a little too cocky about their rights trumping others’ rights. They may be a coddled and feted minority, but they, too, must live within the law, which has now been made quite clear vis a vis individuals’ fundamental freedoms of speech and religion as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Amen.
These are tough decisions. On the one hand we have to be free to express ourselves without fear of penalty, but on the other hand, it leads to the extreme of hate. There has to be a limit. I wouldn’t allow the KKK to march like they do in the US. The state should never permit any display of hate against another group.
This was I think getting close to the line. This person who placed the ad probably had strong feelings of detestation but apparently, he didn’t go on at great length to elaborate these extreme feelings. He left it at a bible quote.
So if this is from the highest court in Saskatchewan, it still could go to the federal supreme court. Right?
Yes, it is rather a pity that someone would wish to use their religous freedoms to such a low end. I’m glad this decision came out the way it did. However, Mr. Owen is no hero. In fact he seems to be a hate filled redneck.
when quoting form the bible is deemed hate literature then we have reached the bottom.
wonder what the reverse implications are for the the mulsim cartoon charges by the whacko in Alberta against the Western Standard.
If there is freedom of religion, then there emust be freedom to criticize or make fun of religion.
Maybe someone should buy some ads quoting from the Koran . . the homosexual community would go apeshit crazy when the realize what muslims think of them. They’ll be pining for the old days of Christian repression 🙂
Owens should get his money back with interest and an apology.
BCL, as a former Torontonian,i can say there are others there who have “issues” with militant homosexuals.They cannot have a voice there because of the (oh so enlightened) brigade that screams hate crime if you dare to hold a position contrary to theirs…
Although this is a small victory. At least its a step in the sane direction. As opposed to the lawless pit the Liberals where marching us towards.
Its positive, & lets hope. Just the first step in any attempt to restore the rule of law. From the rule of appointed Judges. I hope we also go back to Juries. Sure they make mistakes. Like Judges never do? Human institutions are not infallible.
Juries having to live in the same areas & subjected to victimization by these repeat offenders. Have a bigger stake in Justice, security & quality of there neighborhoods.
Life will become even cheaper if not. Now its fine to strangle an infant , than throw the body away in a dumpster. No blame need be attached. These ugly decisions make us all prey to the monsters among us. The less life means legally. The more leniency shown . The lack of any real punishment. The insane ideology�s of modern penal systems . It unleashes Violence & lawlessness when no one really pays, & all are considered victims. Including the Perpetrator!!! Than the real abused are shunted aside like so much stinking meat. By Police , media & the Courts.
An example would be the radical feminist idea that Women do not commit crimes, but are forced by men. There fore they, are blameless . In Edmonton that type of thinking & no security on the new Women’s jail bought them murder & at least 18 escapes in 2 months.)has produced even a culture of entitlement to criminals!!! Some Wardens with there minds not rotted out by socialism can not even punish troublemakers.
I believe this may be a bellwether in change. It will come no matter what. I think most Canadians are sick & tired of smirking criminals being slapped on the wrist. Killers walking the streets after 3-10 years. Including cop killers.
It has become brazen to the point of even liberal arrogance. Those 8 bodies says it all.
Just an opinion.
Actually, I kind of like the whole “Ban the Bible” idea. I mean, I saw Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ”, and its basically a snuff flick, with a lot of bondage involved. Gotta be something wrong upstairs if you’re willing to make that your holy book.
uncleshred:
Yep, the complainants have, correct me if I am wrong, 30 days to appeal or the decision stands as is.
The Supreme Court has to grant you leave to appeal, they won’t hear just any old case. Of 600 applications for leave to appeal only 70 per year are granted.
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/faq/filing/index_e.asp
In other words, it has to be legally interesting or materially flesh out some legal concept. For a 10 to 1 shot, one’s odds aren’t exactly stellar.
Further, if you appeal you have to show that the appellate court somehow made a legal error of some sort. Not an easy road I am sure.
In briefly, scanning the decision it appears they have come to the correct conclusion. Off the top of my head I didn’t see anything glaringly wrong with the decision; but then I’m no expert. Someone else may want to chime in here.
Hey Big City Lib
Why don’t you cry out for a ban on the koran as well as the bible and then go public with it ??
You won’t because you are gutless & clueless and you know they would come to your door & shut you up for good.
keep up the good work, the more you expose your stupidity, the more the majority turns against the Liberal Party of Toronto & their lap dog NDP downtown latte socialists.
Washed up ideas, washed up party.
BCL
Mr. Owen is no hero. In fact he seems to be a hate filled redneck.
looks to me like your exhibiting a bit of hate yourself.
This time, the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan got it correct. Hey, I agree with about half the SCC rulings. Consider the following words again:
“The ruling stressed that s.14(1)(b) had to be read and interpreted in a way which respected the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, citing Supreme Court authority, the Court said s.14(1)(b) must be read as applying only in cases where the message in question involved extreme emotions and strong feelings of detestation, calumny and vilification. The Court also stressed that any message impugned under s.14(1)(b) must be carefully examined with regard to its full context in order to determine whether the section has been offended. The Court concluded that, although his advertisement was jarring and offensive to many, Mr. Owens had not acted contrary to s.14(1)(b).”
And that’s exactly as it should be. I would like to see this judgment become precedent. Next up: appeals, anyone?
BCL said:
“Actually, I kind of like the whole “Ban the Bible” idea. I mean, I saw Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ”, and its basically a snuff flick, with a lot of bondage involved. Gotta be something wrong upstairs if you’re willing to make that your holy book.”
In short, BCL is suggesting that anyone with a religious opinion is mentally unstable.
So with a billion Cathlolics and 500 million Protestants there must be a whole lot of insanity when the Christian persuasion accounts for roughly one quarter of the global population.
I’m glad you have your doctorate in “MASS” delusion, from which psychology faculty did you say?
Were it not that your statements are so monumentally glib I would say more. But in any event, we can only hope that your thinking is “Resurrected” to a higher plane as the current activity is somewhat remiss.
On that note, HAPPY EASTER!!
As for crucifixtion, this was a common methodology to dispense with those inconvenient to the Roman Empire, so hardly qualifies the Passion of Christ as a snuff flick, when one is portraying a set piece in a historical context.
So every film that portrays death is a “snuff film”? BCL, glad you’ve got such refined moral metrics.
Hey folks – I’m a big ol’ scary dyke, and I support 100% free speech. If Joe Homophobe wants to spend his money advertising Bible verses that are considered to be a against homosexuality – I have no problem with that. I think the original ruling was ludicrous.
But just like Muslims who shop at A&P have to walk past the pork chops, the sects of Christians who think homosexuality is wrong still have to let us live our lives and they hold no sway over Christians who support homosexuals or anyone who is non-Christian.
I think ads should be placed explaining the 10 commandments – for example, that adultery is on the top ten list, and that being divorced and remarried is adultery in the eyes of God, a sin punishable by death according to the Bible.
Then we can begin to persecute all the divorced and remarried heterosexuals, or at least take away some of their civil rights. Lots of “family values/anti-homosexual” types I know are adulterers, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich jump to mind immediately.
In all seriousness, I don’t care how people conduct their sexual relations gay or straight. But if heterosexuals want to quote Bible verses as a basis for laws restricting my freedom, let’s be consistent and apply that same logic to their sinful behaviours as well.
steve d- what defines ‘hate’ against another group? The emotion of ‘hate’ is, after all, like all emotions, entirely subjective. It can’t be measured, which is why ‘hate laws’ are such a problem.
If I write an article, draw a political cartoon, make a film..and in it, criticize the Islamic treatment of women – can that be defined as ‘hatred of Muslims’? Should I be forbidden from such a critique?
In our western medieval period, there was a lot of dissent about the relation of the church to the individual, and the nature of ‘knowledge’. Was it defined by the church or by the individual’s own experience? Those who chose the individual, were defined as ‘heretics’.
What’s the difference now – do you want to reject dissent and criticism because it is ‘offensive’?
Kyla – is the issue the biblican quotations, or is it the right to criticize a mode of behaviour?
After all, anyone can, and does, criticize divorce, adultery and etc; they don’t necessarily have to use biblical quotes (though some do).. Isn’t the issue the right to dissent and debate and reject points of view?
you can’t just take one part of something and make a judgement on it. either you believe in the bible and what it says or you don’t . if they find that one part of it promotes hatred the whole thing does. but thats just an example of christianity lateley. how many people that call themselves christians cherry pick the ten commandments ?
how many judges cherrypick the actual laws of this country ? why does a man in edmonton get one and a half years for molesting a six year old girl and another one in toronto get five ? i hope things change with the new government but what if we run out of competant judges ? will anybody really notice the difference ?
Kyla,
Yeah. I have a problem with that too and I’m one of those scary born-again types who believe in the fundamental teachings of the bible. Uh-oh. Guess I’m a fundie.
Anyway, I may disagree with the way somebody lives their life but I’m not going to disrespect someone for that life.
Additionally, I’m constantly amazed at how many Christians are shocked…SHOCKED!!! that someone who isn’t a Christian…doesn’t ACT like one. Dear God. I think it’s a conspiracy.
The only guarantee about free speech is that someone, somewhere is likely to be offended and I see no “freedom from offence” clause in the Charter of Rights & Freedoms. So everybody should just deal with it and get on with their lives.
Anyway, God Bless and enjoy this weekend.
een
ET
Hate is:
Anyone who treats another group as less than human. Denys they are equal to his group or everyone else.
To deny a peoples history. To claim that blacks were never really slaves. Eric Zundel claimed that the holocaust wasn’t true.
I see it basically as a form of racism that is preached and promoted as truth.
Hate is advocating violence other than in self defense. That’s why so-called “hate laws” are stupid. Advocating violence other than in self defence has long been illegal. These here new-fangled “hate laws” just muddy the waters to the advantage of those who like to profit off of hiding in the mud. All the rest of us suffer under them.
“…all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others…”. An imperfect quote, but regardless…
Some groups feel that they are more equal than others…THEY have a right to free speech, but no one else has a right to free speech if that free speech disagrees with that groups opinion. Utter hypocracy.
The average person is, well, average…and that includes average intellect. IMHO, the average intellect is not that great. Many (most?) people seem to have no common sense, no sense of logic, no ability to think for themselves. Many people say and do things just to fit in with the crowd they want to fit in with. Certainly, most people do not want to draw unwanted attention to themselves, so they keep quiet when they feel they may be publicly scorned.
And, armed with this knowledge of people’s baseness, many groups exploit these weaknesses. The homosexual activists, for one, use this approach. If you don’t CELEBRATE homosexuality, you are labelled as HOMOPHOBIC…you are singled out and scorned.
Of course, this should never happen in a free society, but it does with increasing regularity. I wonder what that says about the freedom of our society…? (rhetorical question folks).
Of course, a small group (small-minded, perhaps) of the regular posters to this blog (who I consider to be IRREGULAR…isn’t that funny), such as our “progressive” friend BCL, will just put this down as bigotry, when in fact it is just a different opinion. But then, I keep forgetting, I’m not allowed to have a different opinion than “the majority of Canadians”, am I?
“Anyone who treats another group as less than human. Denys they are equal to his group or everyone else.”
Define “group”
Then, list them.
I think Kate’s got it. Consider the following.
* There a roughly six billion groups of people on this planet that each contain one person.
* There is one group of people on this planet that contains roughly six billion people. (Technically, there’s also the group of none of us, but few people advocate that.)
* There are 2^n – 1 ways you can form groups of one or more people. With n = 6 billion, the number of ways you can form groups of one or more people is roughly equal to 1 followed by 1.81 billion zeroes. (If I included the actual number in this message, this message would be about 2 gigabytes long.)
* The largest minority group on the planet is men, clocking in at roughly 49.5% of the planet. (Remember, once you hit 50% you’re not a minority any more.)
So, ladies and gentlemen, do we still want to try to build a groupism house of cards by failing to acknowlede that the foundation of any viable social structure must be individual human beings?
Thanks, Vitruvius. Ahh, set theory.
I’d like to ask steve d:
You state that hatred is an act of
1)anyone who treats another group as less than human;
This is ambiguous; what does it mean to treat a group as human, ..and not only as ‘less than human’?
You then, move into the critical area of:
2) who denies they are equal to his group or anyone else.
Ahh- I have a serious problem with this criterion, the favourite of all postmodern relativists. This is a blatant refusal to evaluate. Do you seriously consider a group that is formed, to carry out drug sales, prostitution and other such lucrative activities, is ‘the equal’ of another group?
What about a group that is based around the notion that aliens populated the earth, and that scientific research is unethical and no medicines may be used to treat disease?
What about a group that advocates wife beating, that advocates arranged marriages, that rejects the rights of women to an education?
What about a group that considers that all old people should be barred from voting and …
Yes – I’m being extreme, but, my point is, your refusal to evaluate means that you view all behaviour as identical. You reject criminality, you reject amorality, you reject unethical behaviour. You equally reject ethics, morality, kindness, courage – everything. Every form of behaviour is absolutely identical to, and equal to, the other. You reject evaluation.
You feel that evaluating any form of behaviour is an act of ‘hatred’. I consider it a mode of brain death, but, that’s my evaluation.
You have, as a human being, the quality of ‘reason’. This enables you to observe the world, and evaluate. One mode of behaviour is constructive; another is destructive.
Therefore, you can look at group or collective modes of behaviour – and evaluate them. They are not at all identical.
Some modes of behaviour actually deserve criticism.
Do you agree with forbidding women to learn to read? Do you agree with wife-beating? Do you agree with arranged marriages?
As for the ‘denial of a people’s history’ – what on earth does that mean? As I’m sure you know, history is not an easy subject; it’s not like a chemical formula, and therefore, there is no one single factual outline of a history. That’s what keeps historian researchers busy, busy.
By the way- as Vitruvius pointed out, the foundation of a group, remains individuals. Each person is an individual and also a member of a number of fluid groups/collectives. To move into a Closed Group is to actually deny your individual existence; when you do that – you’ve redefined yourself as a machine, a cog-in-a-machine. You are no longer a human being.
Zermelo, Frankel, Skolem, ET. Nothing but the best. (Sorry to chat, Kate.)
Kinda funny how that Corinthians passage only mentions male prostitutes.
oops,
cont.
it adds so much to is argument.
This is a good court decision. Makes one want to shout.
Kate, several months ago you had a video clip of Tommy Douglas, the NDP’s demi-god, calling homosexuality a mental illness. Think you can post that again for bigcitylib? I would really like the left to comment on their idol’s opinion.
The guy who took out the ad would have the right, if we really had free speech in Canada, to say whatever he believes. I don’t for one minute think that because Canada has nebulous “hate speech” laws that there are no racists here. The gov’t just tries to hide them from public view.
People should be free to express any thoughts they have. There are some they should not be allowed to act on – like murdering people who disagree with them, or rioting and destroying property over a political cartoon.
I cannot expect to be free to express all of my opinions, unless I am prepared to defend my worst enemy’s right to do the same. I’m also prepared to make a much better logical argument and debate them head-on on the issues, instead of trying to just shut up those who disagree with me through the legal system.
To that end, I have spoken out in public to defend Rev Fred Phelp’s free speech rights, and he’s famous for advocating death to homosexuals (including some of my personal friends) and protesting at AIDS victims’ funerals and now soldiers’ funerals. Check him out at http://www.godhatesfags.com He says and does some really strange and disrespectful things while thumping the Bible, but he has that right under the concept of freedom of speech.
I think a very big and deliberate mistake left-wingers make is that all right-wingers agree with Hugh Owens, we don’t. Some may, as will some left-wingers, but that is there choice. As a right-winger I don’t agree with Hugh Owen’s opinion, but I agree he has the right to say it.
sounds like the same mistake most of the “right”-wingers on here make about “left”-wingers with every new topic that comes up
She wants her dues
Anti-gay marriage bureaucrat battles union
By KATHLEEN HARRIS, OTTAWA BUREAU
OTTAWA — A veteran federal bureaucrat is taking her powerful union to court because it won’t tolerate her views against homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
Susan Comstock, a Catholic who has been a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada since 1972, wants her union dues that went to a political campaign lobbying for gay marriage diverted to a charity. She also wants to scrap the union’s zero-tolerance policy against “heterosexism,” which she claims violates her religious freedom……..
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2006/04/14/pf-1534465.html
Dear Hans,
The Romans whip that poor guy to death over the course of two hours, with every blood spatter lovingly captured. And they’re decked out in leaters and military garb when they do it. How Gay is that?
The Passion of the Christ records a vicious act of murder slathered over in symbolism to hide the shear unpleasantness of the whole scenario and make the viewers feel better about themselves.
Makes me want to stay an atheist
kmm (April 14; 12:44) Try Romans 1.
yeah i see that one is more inclusive. Its just I could see alot of people thinking that corinthians implies female prostitution is alright. Can’t see that passage being too helpful in convinving people homosexuals are bad, especially in a city like saskatoon which has an increasingly high profile female prostitution problem.
I have followed this case with some interest since it was first brought to the Sask. Humans Rights. I am facinated with Kates post – she and all MSM name the paper and the accused individual by name – however the accusers are not named AKA homosexual activists. I feel very sorry for this gentleman apart from this Star Chamber Human rights gang – Sask taxpayers paid all the accusers costs – He probably approaches bankrupsy to defend himself. God Bless Canada
If I knew the complainants names, I’d publish them. If you read again, you’ll note I didn’t add any commentary at all – only quoted directly from the news item as it was breaking.
I apologise if my comment was misunderstood, knowing your posts I am sure had you the names of the accusers you would have named them. My point was this case and most others in these “Star Chambers” the accusers not only hide in anonimity, but the taxpayer gets stiffed with their bill while the accused pays their own legal fees. Anyone who has ever fought the unlimited financial clout of Gov’t paid lawyers knows the pain.
From the ruling:
[10] The respondents Gens Hellquist, Jason Roy and Jeff Dodds filed complaints with the respondent Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission in August of 1997. They alleged the publication of the advertisement had offended s. 14 of the Code.
[11] Mr. Hellquist, Mr. Roy and Mr. Dodds each stated the particulars of his complaint in the same way:
“I am a gay man. On or about June, 1997, Hugh Owens caused an advertisement to be published in The StarPhoenix, a daily newspaper in Saskatchewan. The advertisement contained a message that certain passages of the Bible were authority for the proposition that gay men should not be allowed. The advertisement indicated the message could be purchased in bumper sticker form.
I have reasonable grounds to believe, and I do believe, that Hugh Owens has caused this representation to be published or displayed in a newspaper, and that he is distributing the representation, which tends to restrict the enjoyment of rights which I am entitled to under the law and which exposes me to hatred and otherwise affronts my dignity of [sic] because of my sexual orientation, contrary to Section 14 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.”
[12] … I also note that Mr. Roy did not participate in this appeal and has renounced any claim to the compensation awarded to him.
Big City Lib:
Please do us all a favour and don’t, don’t let us know what goes on in that cesspool you call a brain.
Hey, you’re in Toronto? Two words: THE CLARK.