Our Views: We have a right to free speech

Written by Paul Fromm

Friday, 14 October 2011 22:14

*Our Views: We have a right to free speech* (*The Ottawa Citizen*, October 13, 2011) The dubious idea that human rights commissions should be able to tell Canadians what they can and cannot say is now subject to two important challenges. One is the case before the Supreme Court involving William Whatcott, who distributed odious anti-gay flyers in Saskatchewan nearly a decade ago. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission fined him $17,500; that decision was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, and the case has now made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Whatcott's flyers, T-shirts and posters are offensive, disgusting and wrong. But the right to free speech is meaningless if it only applies to inoffensive statements, politely expressed. It is the clash of wrong ideas against right ones - not their suppression - that improves our civilization and our democracy. Canadians must be free to disagree on every subject. There is a right to free speech in this country; there is no right not to be offended, and there never should be. Laws against inciting violence - like laws against conspiracy or libel - are reasonable, tightly defined limits to speech, in cases where the speech itself creates a demonstrable harm. By contrast, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code prohibits any publication "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." And Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits telecommunication of "any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." In practice, and thanks to some clarification from the courts, the application of these vague prohibitions has been tightened somewhat. But the fundamental problem remains, that quasi-judicial panels are able to chill any form of expression they deem hateful. There is a bill before the House of Commons now that would make several changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act, including the repeal of Section 13. It is a private member's bill, but the member in question is Brian Storseth, an Alberta Conservative, and there is reason to hope that he will be able to convince a majority of MPs to support it. The arguments of homophobes are easy enough to demolish in the open, using facts and sense. There's no need to drive such arguments underground. Expose them to the light and they wither. Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/have+right+free+speech/5541510/story.html#ixzz1aj7KgyoH

 

Challenge to Sask. Human Rights Censorship Law Goes to the Supreme Court

Written by Paul Fromm

Thursday, 13 October 2011 06:21

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format. If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails. You can read the original version online: http://ymlp228.net/zcVKN5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Challenge to Sask. Human Rights Censorship Law Goes to the Supreme Court OTTAWA. October 12, 2011. The challenge to Saskatchewan's brutal provincial human rights law and its anti-free speech provisions opened in the Surpeme Court of Canada today. Christian evangelist William Whatcott was effectively gagged and silenced in criticizing homosexuals for nearly a decade under Saskatchewan law. The militantly pro-homo Globe and Mail insists in its coverage in characteriizing tradiitonal Christian teaching as "hate speech." "The Supreme Court will hear the most significant test of Canada’s hate laws in decades on Wednesday in a case that will decide which is more valuable – freedom of speech and religion or the right to protection from hate. Government lawyers fighting to keep hate laws in place will be up against an onslaught of intervenors who insist that the price is free speech and religious freedom.The court’s decision is expected to hinge on whether hate can ever be defined in such a way that it doesn’t destroy legitimate opinion in the process. At the centre of the case is a 43-year-old, anti-gay proselytizer, William Whatcott. ... By prosecuting him under its anti-hate provision in 2002, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission effectively silenced Mr. Whatcott’s crusade against homosexuality." (Globe and Mail, October 12, 2100) Interestingly, last summer the Globe editorialized forcefully against the Red Chinese regime for its having silenced and stripped of his political rights for one year dissident Wei Wei. Whatcott's silencing has lasted many times that of Mr. Wei Wei. And all this in a country governed by Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The fact is that, in any totalitarian-minded regime, one is silenced if one crosses politically powerful elements. In Red China, the politically powerful are the Communist Party; in Canada, they are various privileged minorities, including homosexuals. "In written briefs to the court, the Saskatchewan government and the SHRC argue that the lives of gays and lesbians are devalued by expressions of hate for their lifestyles and sexual conduct. They maintain that permitting minorities to be held up to contempt enhances the likelihood of violent confrontations." Ironically, a populist government in Saskatchewan, led by the Saskatchewan Party, will be arguing for anti-Christian censorship. The usual argument is being advanced that criticism of a privileged minority, in this case homosexuals, will lead to violence. Yet, for three decades grotesque demonization of smokers, often with government funds, portraying them as smelly, disease ridden, and ugly, is sanctioned and it is never suggested that such preachy criticism will lead to lynch mobs stringing up smokers. Luckily, the free speech argument will be put forcefully: "But civil libertarians and press organizations contend that hate provisions can all too easily stifle legitimate criticism and opinion. In a written brief, the group Canadian Journalists for Free Expression points out that simply publicizing details of the Whatcott case could expose a news organization to the threat of a human-rights prosecution. 'Everybody can point to speech they find offensive,' Canadian Civil Liberties Association lawyer Andrew Lokan said in an interview. 'But human-rights tribunals and judges have found it notoriously difficult to say what does and doesn't cross the line when dealing with subjective concepts such as and ' Mr. Lokan said democratic debate is endangered when the law attempts to place limitations on polemical expression. 'Allowing the Whatcotts of the world to hand out their flyers, then countering them with all the reasons why they're wrong, is a much better approach in a free and democratic society,' he said. Mr. Whatcott ran afoul of the commission after he dropped thousands of pamphlets in Saskatoon denouncing the increasing acceptance of gay lifestyles. He was prosecuted and fined $17,500 by the commission. However, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal later reversed the finding. " Mr. Whatcott is a genuine martyr at the hands of state censorship. ""In the interview, Mr. Whatcott said his battle against the SHRC has cost him his career as a nurse, his home, many of his friends and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. “'I’ve invested my entire life in this,” he said. 'I guess if you are going to do something well in life, you have to focus on it. It just happens that my life path put me into this issue.'" The first day of legal arguments produced some utter non-sequiturs. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission argued that it needed censorship powers in this age of the Internet, even though Mr. Whatcott's alleged offences involved printed flyers and posters, not Internet postings. In an equally chilling argument the SHRC also alleged that even passages of the Bible might be"hate." "'There has been a sea change in technology that allows it to be disseminated at the push of a button,' Mr. Scharfstein said. He said that even the Bible may contain passages that would qualify as hate literature. They key is whether material has the effect of causing harm to a minority. 'The Human Rights Commission would be in the position of reviewing the scriptures,” Mr. Justice Louis Lebel said. (Globe and Mail, October 13, 2011) Enlarge this image ANTI-GAY PROSELYTIZER TAKES AIM AT CANADA’S HATE LAWS IN LANDMARK CASE kirk Makin ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/authors/kirk-makin/ ) JUSTICE REPORTER— From Wednesday\'s Globe And Mail Published Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2011 12:01AM EDT The Supreme Court will hear the most significant test of Canada’s hate laws in decades on Wednesday in a case that will decide which is more valuable – freedom of speech and religion or the right to protection from hate. Government lawyers fighting to keep hate laws in place will be up against an onslaught of intervenors who insist that the price is free speech and religious freedom. The court’s decision is expected to hinge on whether hate can ever be defined in such a way that it doesn’t destroy legitimate opinion in the process. At the centre of the case is a 43-year-old, anti-gay proselytizer, William Whatcott, who once worked as a gay prostitute. By prosecuting him under its anti-hate provision in 2002, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission effectively silenced Mr. Whatcott’s crusade against homosexuality. Aided by a cast of intervenors who have reluctantly espoused his right to speak his mind, Mr. Whatcott hopes to shoot down the Saskatchewan provision along with similar protections in every province. “I’d like to see them cease to exist,” he said in an interview. “That may be a little ambitious, but if just their ability to censor free speech is taken away from them, I see that as a small step in the fight for freedom of speech and conscience.” In a complicating twist, a slow-paced federal process to fill two vacancies on the court means that only seven judges will sit on the case. A similarly depleted bench upheld the hate provision by a 4-3 margin when it was last tested at the highest court in a 1990 case involving white supremacist John Ross Taylor. The only judge who remains from that case, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, argued strongly in dissent that defining hate is an inexact art that threatens free speech. Since the Ross decision, public and media clamouring to reopen the question has steadily increased. In written briefs to the court, the Saskatchewan government and the SHRC argue that the lives of gays and lesbians are devalued by expressions of hate for their lifestyles and sexual conduct. They maintain that permitting minorities to be held up to contempt enhances the likelihood of violent confrontations. They will also argue that the anti-hate provision has been narrowed and honed since 1990 to respond to critics such as Chief Justice McLachlin, and thus should now pass muster. But civil libertarians and press organizations contend that hate provisions can all too easily stifle legitimate criticism and opinion. In a written brief, the group Canadian Journalists for Free Expression points out that simply publicizing details of the Whatcott case could expose a news organization to the threat of a human-rights prosecution. “Everybody can point to speech they find offensive,” Canadian Civil Liberties Association lawyer Andrew Lokan said in an interview. “But human-rights tribunals and judges have found it notoriously difficult to say what does and doesn't cross the line when dealing with subjective concepts such as “hatred,” “ridicule,” “belittle” and “dignity.” Mr. Lokan said democratic debate is endangered when the law attempts to place limitations on polemical expression. “Allowing the Whatcotts of the world to hand out their flyers, then countering them with all the reasons why they're wrong, is a much better approach in a free and democratic society,” he said. Mr. Whatcott ran afoul of the commission after he dropped thousands of pamphlets in Saskatoon denouncing the increasing acceptance of gay lifestyles. He was prosecuted and fined $17,500 by the commission. However, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal later reversed the finding. The pamphleteering was the latest stage in a persistent campaign in which Mr. Whatcott has barged to the head of a gay pride parade, waylaid staff at a Planned Parenthood clinic to accuse them of being “baby killers,” and campaigned to be Edmonton’s mayor on a platform of fundamentalist Christian values. In his campaign literature, Mr. Whatcott described himself as “Your pro-life, pro-family, pro-father, pro-gun alternative.” He also told the press that he almost died at the age of 18: “Christ saved me from a life of drug and sexual addiction,” he said. “I am very grateful to be alive and to have the opportunity to save my Lord in the political arena.” In the interview, Mr. Whatcott said his battle against the SHRC has cost him his career as a nurse, his home, many of his friends and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. “I’ve invested my entire life in this,” he said. “I guess if you are going to do something well in life, you have to focus on it. It just happens that my life path put me into this issue.” _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp228.net/u.php?id=gmjhqsqgsgbbqguej Powered by YourMailingListProvider

 

Challenge to Sask. Human Rights Censorship Law Goes to the Supreme Court

Written by Paul Fromm

Thursday, 13 October 2011 06:15

*Challenge to Sask. Human Rights Censorship Law Goes to the Supreme Court * OTTAWA. October 12, 2011. The challenge to Saskatchewan's brutal provincial human rights law and its anti-free speech provisions opened in the Surpeme Court of Canada today. Christian evangelist William Whatcott was effectively gagged and silenced in criticizing homosexuals for nearly a decade under Saskatchewan law. The militantly pro-homo *Globe and Mail* insists in its coverage in characteriizing tradiitonal Christian teaching as "hate speech." "The Supreme Court will hear the most significant test of Canada’s hate laws in decades on Wednesday in a case that will decide which is more valuable – freedom of speech and religion or the right to protection from hate. Government lawyers fighting to keep hate laws in place will be up against an onslaught of intervenors who insist that the price is free speech and religious freedom.The court’s decision is expected to hinge on whether hate can ever be defined in such a way that it doesn’t destroy legitimate opinion in the process. At the centre of the case is a 43-year-old, anti-gay proselytizer, William Whatcott. ... By prosecuting him under its anti-hate provision in 2002, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission effectively silenced Mr. Whatcott’s crusade against homosexuality." (*Globe and Mail*, October 12, 2100) Interestingly, last summer the *Globe* editorialized forcefully against the Red Chinese regime for its having silenced and stripped of his political rights for one year dissident Wei Wei. Whatcott's silencing has lasted many times that of Mr. Wei Wei. And all this in a country governed by Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The fact is that, in any totalitarian-minded regime, one is silenced if one crosses politically powerful elements. In Red China, the politically powerful are the Communist Party; in Canada, they are various privileged minorities, including homosexuals. "In written briefs to the court, the Saskatchewan government and the SHRC argue that the lives of gays and lesbians are devalued by expressions of hate for their lifestyles and sexual conduct. They maintain that permitting minorities to be held up to contempt enhances the likelihood of violent confrontations." Ironically, a populist government in Saskatchewan, led by the Saskatchewan Party, will be arguing for anti-Christian censorship. The usual argument is being advanced that criticism of a privileged minority, in this case homosexuals, will lead to violence. Yet, for three decades grotesque demonization of smokers, often with government funds, portraying them as smelly, disease ridden, and ugly, is sanctioned and it is never suggested that such preachy criticism will lead to lynch mobs stringing up smokers. Luckily, the free speech argument will be put forcefully: "But civil libertarians and press organizations contend that hate provisions can all too easily stifle legitimate criticism and opinion. In a written brief, the group Canadian Journalists for Free Expression points out that simply publicizing details of the Whatcott case could expose a news organization to the threat of a human-rights prosecution. 'Everybody can point to speech they find offensive,' Canadian Civil Liberties Association lawyer Andrew Lokan said in an interview. 'But human-rights tribunals and judges have found it notoriously difficult to say what does and doesn't cross the line when dealing with subjective concepts such as <hatred,> <ridicule,> <belittle> and <dignity.>' Mr. Lokan said democratic debate is endangered when the law attempts to place limitations on polemical expression. 'Allowing the Whatcotts of the world to hand out their flyers, then countering them with all the reasons why they're wrong, is a much better approach in a free and democratic society,' he said. Mr. Whatcott ran afoul of the commission after he dropped thousands of pamphlets in Saskatoon denouncing the increasing acceptance of gay lifestyles. He was prosecuted and fined $17,500 by the commission. However, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal later reversed the finding. " Mr. Whatcott is a genuine martyr at the hands of state censorship. ""In the interview, Mr. Whatcott said his battle against the SHRC has cost him his career as a nurse, his home, many of his friends and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. “'I’ve invested my entire life in this,” he said. 'I guess if you are going to do something well in life, you have to focus on it. It just happens that my life path put me into this issue.'" The first day of legal arguments produced some utter non-sequiturs. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission argued that it needed censorship powers in this age of the Internet, even though Mr. Whatcott's alleged offences involved printed flyers and posters, not Internet postings. In an equally chilling argument the SHRC also alleged that even passages of the Bible might be"hate." "'There has been a sea change in technology that allows it to be disseminated at the push of a button,' Mr. Scharfstein said. He said that even the Bible may contain passages that would qualify as hate literature. They key is whether material has the effect of causing harm to a minority. 'The Human Rights Commission would be in the position of reviewing the scriptures,” Mr. Justice Louis Lebel said. (*Globe and Mail*, October 13, 2011) [image: October 11, 2011: Bill Whatcott hands out flyers door to door in Ottawa. The Supreme Court of Canada hears a major case Wednesday involving hate crime, free speech and the legitimacy of human rights code guarantees. The man at the centre, Bill Whatcott, is a virulently anti-gay proselytizer who was once a gay prostitute. He is hoping to slay what he perceives as the demon of human rights protections. - October 11, 2011: Bill Whatcott hands out flyers door to door in Ottawa. The Supreme Court of Canada hears a major case Wednesday involving hate crime, free speech and the legitimacy of human rights code guarantees. The man at the centre, Bill Whatcott, is a virulently anti-gay proselytizer who was once a gay prostitute. He is hoping to slay what he perceives as the demon of human rights protections. | Dave Chan/ The Globe and Mail] Enlarge this image Anti-gay proselytizer takes aim at Canada’s hate laws in landmark case kirk makin <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/authors/kirk-makin/> JUSTICE REPORTER— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2011 12:01AM EDT The Supreme Court will hear the most significant test of Canada’s hate laws in decades on Wednesday in a case that will decide which is more valuable – freedom of speech and religion or the right to protection from hate. Government lawyers fighting to keep hate laws in place will be up against an onslaught of intervenors who insist that the price is free speech and religious freedom. The court’s decision is expected to hinge on whether hate can ever be defined in such a way that it doesn’t destroy legitimate opinion in the process. At the centre of the case is a 43-year-old, anti-gay proselytizer, William Whatcott, who once worked as a gay prostitute. By prosecuting him under its anti-hate provision in 2002, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission effectively silenced Mr. Whatcott’s crusade against homosexuality. Aided by a cast of intervenors who have reluctantly espoused his right to speak his mind, Mr. Whatcott hopes to shoot down the Saskatchewan provision along with similar protections in every province. “I’d like to see them cease to exist,” he said in an interview. “That may be a little ambitious, but if just their ability to censor free speech is taken away from them, I see that as a small step in the fight for freedom of speech and conscience.” In a complicating twist, a slow-paced federal process to fill two vacancies on the court means that only seven judges will sit on the case. A similarly depleted bench upheld the hate provision by a 4-3 margin when it was last tested at the highest court in a 1990 case involving white supremacist John Ross Taylor. The only judge who remains from that case, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, argued strongly in dissent that defining hate is an inexact art that threatens free speech. Since the Ross decision, public and media clamouring to reopen the question has steadily increased. In written briefs to the court, the Saskatchewan government and the SHRC argue that the lives of gays and lesbians are devalued by expressions of hate for their lifestyles and sexual conduct. They maintain that permitting minorities to be held up to contempt enhances the likelihood of violent confrontations. They will also argue that the anti-hate provision has been narrowed and honed since 1990 to respond to critics such as Chief Justice McLachlin, and thus should now pass muster. But civil libertarians and press organizations contend that hate provisions can all too easily stifle legitimate criticism and opinion. In a written brief, the group Canadian Journalists for Free Expression points out that simply publicizing details of the Whatcott case could expose a news organization to the threat of a human-rights prosecution. “Everybody can point to speech they find offensive,” Canadian Civil Liberties Association lawyer Andrew Lokan said in an interview. “But human-rights tribunals and judges have found it notoriously difficult to say what does and doesn't cross the line when dealing with subjective concepts such as “hatred,” “ridicule,” “belittle” and “dignity.” Mr. Lokan said democratic debate is endangered when the law attempts to place limitations on polemical expression. “Allowing the Whatcotts of the world to hand out their flyers, then countering them with all the reasons why they're wrong, is a much better approach in a free and democratic society,” he said. Mr. Whatcott ran afoul of the commission after he dropped thousands of pamphlets in Saskatoon denouncing the increasing acceptance of gay lifestyles. He was prosecuted and fined $17,500 by the commission. However, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal later reversed the finding. The pamphleteering was the latest stage in a persistent campaign in which Mr. Whatcott has barged to the head of a gay pride parade, waylaid staff at a Planned Parenthood clinic to accuse them of being “baby killers,” and campaigned to be Edmonton’s mayor on a platform of fundamentalist Christian values. In his campaign literature, Mr. Whatcott described himself as “Your pro-life, pro-family, pro-father, pro-gun alternative.” He also told the press that he almost died at the age of 18: “Christ saved me from a life of drug and sexual addiction,” he said. “I am very grateful to be alive and to have the opportunity to save my Lord in the political arena.” In the interview, Mr. Whatcott said his battle against the SHRC has cost him his career as a nurse, his home, many of his friends and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. “I’ve invested my entire life in this,” he said. “I guess if you are going to do something well in life, you have to focus on it. It just happens that my life path put me into this issue.”