This is the Way Freedom Dies

 

 

Canada no longer has freedom of speech.  The Supreme Court of Canada killed it:

In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court decided that born-again Christian William Whatcott was guilty of hate-speech for distributing flyers to neighborhoods in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002. While the flyers used vehement language against homosexual practices and the homosexual agenda, they did not however directly attack homosexual persons. (The flyers are appended to the end of the decision linked above)

The Court focused on Whatcott’s main argument, namely that he loves homosexuals with a brotherly Christian love, and it is only their sexual activity that he denounces.

The Supreme Court found however that with regards to hate-speech, the distinction between ‘sin and sinner’ no longer applies. No longer can Christians give the defense before courts that one ‘loves the sinner, but hates the sin’.

“I agree that sexual orientation and sexual behaviour can be differentiated for certain purposes,” the Court stated. “However, in instances where hate speech is directed toward behaviour in an effort to mask the true target, the vulnerable group, this distinction should not serve to avoid s. 14(1)(b) [the hate-crime clause of the Code].”

“Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself,” the Court stated.

The Court ordered Whatcott to pay the Human Rights Commission’s legal fees and to pay $7,500 in compensation to two homosexuals who were offended by his flyers.

Go here to Lifesite News to read the rest of the story.  So let me see now, the most precious freedom in any Democracy next to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, can be taken away purely by the Canadian government labeling something as hate speech.  The following quote is taken from the decision:

The statutory prohibition against hate speech at s. 14(1)(b) of the Code infringes the freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of theCharter.  The activity described in s. 14(1)(b) has expressive content and falls within the scope of s. 2(b) protection.  The purpose of s. 14(1)(b) is to prevent discrimination by curtailing certain types of public expression.

 The limitation imposed on freedom of expression by the prohibition in s. 14(1)(b) of the Code is a limitation prescribed by law within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.  It appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings.

The Orwellian language in the second paragraph is truly chilling.  Taking away free speech is truly free and democratic by a “commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings.”  Translated into English: ” Yeah those Christers get on our nerves too, and we applaud the government for shutting them up”.  The words of George Washington tell us what this means:  If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

26 Responses to This is the Way Freedom Dies

  • Thank you for this Donald McClarey

  • The Canadian Charter is significantly weaker on liberty in general than is our Bill of Rights. In the hands of progressives, you get things like this.

  • Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the gift that keeps on giving.

    There is nothing to prevent the Canadian Parliament and provincial assemblies from shutting these lousy star chambers down. The Conservative Party of Canada has a majority in the upper and lower house of parliament and majorities in two provincial assemblies; a third assembly is controlled by a kindred provincial party. They are just too indolent and craven to fix this.

  • About ten years ago, during testimony in the CHRC case of Warman v. Lemire
    , Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator Dean Stacy was asked
    “what value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?”. His frank
    response, now infamous, was “freedom of speech is an American concept, so I
    don’t give it any value”.

    Lifesite News has an excellent article, ca. 2007, that gives an overview of how
    the CHRC has been manipulated to silence the left’s opponents.

    Here.

  • Normally I would wave this off as “That’s Canada for you.” But, I feel a Canadian cold front moving towards America and welcomed with open arms. The icy hand of intolerance of the religious comes. I do wonder if they’ll prosecute anti-religion or anti-church speech in homosexual “rights” rallies as hate speech. Doubtful.

  • “Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself,” the Court stated.”
    The court has dictated that what the speaker had intended and what they changed the intent to be, are one and the same. The court changed the intent of the speaker’s speech; absolute perjury, bearing false witness and hearsay, tarring the speaker. The court changed the nature of the crime. The thought police. If “attacks on this conduct stand as proxy”, then the court needs to apprehend and prosecute the proxy, which bears a very strong resemblance to the court in its interpretation of intent.

  • The court articulates what many in America already believe; that “tolerance” absolutely requires setting aside all judgment. Since “tolerance” is now a value and virtuous living is not, these decisions will not be contained by a line demarcated on a map. Indeed, it is precisely the same view that drives homosexual activists to insist that the Boy Scouts promote homosexuality.

    In the ’80s, we were told to “live and let live.” Now we are told to reject God or be an outcast. One day we will be told to reject God or die.

    Are we ready for that? If not, and I fear that I am not, it is time to stand up and be counted. If not now, when? If not us, whom?

  • I loathe all liberal judges, especially those on appellate and “supreme”/”superior” courts. These arrogant careerists with lifetime jobs think that they have a mandate to remake society into their personal perverted vision.

  • While I don’t like this decision, I think the fact that the defendant was holding a book that said homosexuals should be put to death gives one pause.

    That said the best way to treat someone with that much hatred against homosexuals is with social ostracism. Having grown up Catholic in an area with virulent anti-Catholic sentiment, I know all about people who claim to love a group of people but hate everything they do. Such virulent hatred against law abiding citizens who are not harming you is just not acceptable.

  • In the ’80s, we were told to “live and let live.”

    I remember the messaging the homosexual lobby and lapdog media kept pounding on society during Texas v. Lawerence. “What happens in the bedroom is nobody’s business!” Since that time, what happens in the bedroom is in everybody’s business, e.g. marriages, company benefits, adoptions, marketing, TV sitcoms and dramas and on and on. Pandora’s bedroom has been opened.

  • Michael: ” I think the fact that the defendant was holding a book that said homosexuals should be put to death gives one pause.”

    I missed that one. Thank you for reminding us.

    Then the decision should have been made relating to “death threats”, not religion.

  • Thank you. Ray Marshall. I know to be prosecuted, a crime must be spelled out and the law quoted in a court of law.

  • I wonder how many people who support this vehemently denounce the old anti-blasphemy laws?

  • The homosexual person is free to remain a celibate virgin. Some who practice the homosexual abuse of another person uses and objectifies that person as a means to his sexual gratification. Sexual gratification and the cross of having been created in same-sex attraction are very, very different and ought not be confused. Those who confuse sexual gratification with sexual attraction are leading the people into a chasm of darkness and unknowing, a ditch of ignorance and untruth. Truth is the substance of the Holy Scripture and Justice. Leading the people, the culture, into a ditch of ignorance and untruth is treason to our founding principles and perjury in a court of law. Therefore, those who hold that sexual performance both homosexual and heterosexual and sexual attraction are one and the same commit perjury, a lie in a court of truth and Justice, and HATE SPEECH.
    When and if the homosexual agenda demands from the people to have their treason, their lie, their perjury, their hate speech codified and imposed on the people, it ought to be ostracized and identified as liars. The homosexual person is free to remain a celibate virgin, the rest is HATE SPEECH.

  • Here’s the thing: They’ve never HAD constitutional free speech in Canada. It was always an idea that the government payed lip service to, but mostly they borrowed from us. You should check out the terrible legal troubles that comic book artists and others have had publishing unpopular views as far back as the 1970’s. By law the Government has very right to do this– not that I agree with the decision. Canada isn’t the USA. What frightens me is how badly the USA wants to be Canada.

    While the Canadian Government can’t/won’t tell the difference, what I say is not meant to deride actual citizens of that country. I’m just saying that they need a constitutional overhaul even worse than we [here in the US] do– they need to insert critical foundations to begin with. We only need to roll back hundreds of years of ignoring what we already have.

  • I have heard that Canadians arrested in Canada are often shocked to learn that they do not enjoy all the rights they know by heart from watching years of American cop shows!

    I liked how one Canadian columnist put it in reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision:

    “You can say what you like in Canada — to yourself, in a low voice.”

  • “You can say what you like in Canada — to yourself, in a low voice.” Thank you Donald– that is sad but even true here and now in various social situations.

    And it does seem Kyle, that the front from the north is just a hint of the increasing chill to be writ into law and not just enforced by politically correct social interaction

  • I wonder how long it will take before a Canadian Catholic priest or bishop is arrested in the pulpit…Also, even if the Canadian Parliament attempted to expand freedom of speech and abolish the Human Rights Commissions, the judiciary would almost immediately overturn those laws, as they have become more rogue than the US Courts.

  • People in Canada are not as free as they suppose. I think Richard Ehrman, the Episcopal priest, explained it best in “We Hold These Truths.” The gist of it seemed to be this: A Christian people knows the truth, and that truth is what sets people free. They are vigilant and no state can make lies believable; indeed they know the state cannot replace God. As people lose touch with that truth however, they move in the direction of slavery. That is one way to speak of our predicament in the post-Christian West.

  • Canada no longer has freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of Canada killed it.
    –Donald R. McClarey

    That nation shall henceforth be known as “Castrata”.

    Here’s the thing: They’ve never HAD constitutional free speech in Canada.
    V

    The nation now known as Castrata is populated by many descendants of TWANLOC. Despite the best wishes of our own ancestors, their chains will not always rest lightly upon them.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .