Aa
A golden opportunity to kill human-rights censorship
A golden opportunity to kill human-rights censorship
Karen Selick, National Post · Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2010
The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to reconsider 20-year-old jurisprudence that limits free speech. The case under appeal is The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission vs. William Whatcott.
Back in 2001 and 2002, Whatcott, a social conservative activist, distributed flyers in Regina and Saskatoon bearing headings such as "Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon's Public Schools" and "Sodomites in our Public Schools."
He was hauled before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for having "exposed to hatred, ridiculed, belittled or affronted the dignity" of gays and lesbians, and was ordered to pay compensation totaling $17,500 to four complainants. That decision was upheld on its first appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench in 2007. But in February, 2010, three members of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned it.
While the Court of Appeal's decision was a victory, of sorts, for free speech, the court had to twist itself into contortions to reach it. On any objective reading of Whatcott's flyers, he did ridicule and belittle gays -- and he probably even exposed them to hatred. What rankles free-speechers is the more fundamental question: Why should this be against the law? After all, don't we have a Charter of Rights that guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression?
But the Court of Appeal declined to strike down the offending portions of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code as inconsistent with the Charter. The problem lay in the fact that in 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada had considered similar human rights legislation and had decided that those censorship provisions were permissible despite the Charter's free-expression guarantee.
That case, known as Taylor, attempted to set some guidelines or standards as to when censorship laws designed to deter "hate speech" would be acceptable. Hatred or contempt, wrote then-chief justice Dickson, "refers only to unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification."
Then, with inexplicable confidence in the niceness of the universe, justice Dickson opined that so long as human rights tribunals paid heed to the extreme degree of hatred necessary
to justify censorship, there would be "little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness" would trump free speech.
But events over the last few years have demonstrated that the danger characterized by justice Dickson in 1990 as "little" is anything but. Accusations of anti-Muslim hate-mongering have been levelled against Maclean's magazine for Mark Steyn's commentary on immigration policy; and against Western Standard magazine and its publisher Ezra Levant merely for printing the notorious "Muhammad cartoons" as part of its news coverage.
Even B'nai Brith, a Jewish organization known for supporting the anti-hate provisions of human rights legislation, has been hit with a complaint.
While the complaints against Maclean's and Levant ultimately were dismissed, the accused parties had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars upholding their innocence -- money they'll never get back. Worse yet is the chilling impact those prosecutions have had on less stalwart souls than Steyn and Levant. The risk of being put through such an ordeal, even if one is ultimately vindicated, undoubtedly has diverted many a commentator into less hazardous topics of discussion.
Even the history of the Whatcott decision itself demonstrates how subjective justice Dickson's test is. Of those who have sat in judgment on Mr. Whatcott's comments to date, two have said he violated the law while three have said he didn't. That's hardly a demonstration that the standards are crystal clear.
Justice Dickson's confidence in the discretion of human rights tribunals now appear to have been hopelessly misplaced.
The Whatcott appeal presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reconsider its Taylor decision with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. It's encouraging to note that the Taylor rationale itself just squeaked by in a four-to-three decision in 1990. The only judge on that seven-member Taylor panel who remains on the bench today is Beverley McLachlin, now the Chief Justice. In 1990, she was one of the three-member dissenting team who said that the human rights law then under consideration was not "reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society."
It will be interesting to see whether her opinion remains the same, and whether she can now persuade a majority of her colleagues.
http://www.nationalpost.com/golden+opportunity+kill+human+rights+censorship/3767639/story.html#ixzz15b46RKc1
Karen Selick, National Post · Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2010
The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to reconsider 20-year-old jurisprudence that limits free speech. The case under appeal is The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission vs. William Whatcott.
Back in 2001 and 2002, Whatcott, a social conservative activist, distributed flyers in Regina and Saskatoon bearing headings such as "Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon's Public Schools" and "Sodomites in our Public Schools."
He was hauled before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for having "exposed to hatred, ridiculed, belittled or affronted the dignity" of gays and lesbians, and was ordered to pay compensation totaling $17,500 to four complainants. That decision was upheld on its first appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench in 2007. But in February, 2010, three members of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned it.
While the Court of Appeal's decision was a victory, of sorts, for free speech, the court had to twist itself into contortions to reach it. On any objective reading of Whatcott's flyers, he did ridicule and belittle gays -- and he probably even exposed them to hatred. What rankles free-speechers is the more fundamental question: Why should this be against the law? After all, don't we have a Charter of Rights that guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression?
But the Court of Appeal declined to strike down the offending portions of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code as inconsistent with the Charter. The problem lay in the fact that in 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada had considered similar human rights legislation and had decided that those censorship provisions were permissible despite the Charter's free-expression guarantee.
That case, known as Taylor, attempted to set some guidelines or standards as to when censorship laws designed to deter "hate speech" would be acceptable. Hatred or contempt, wrote then-chief justice Dickson, "refers only to unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification."
Then, with inexplicable confidence in the niceness of the universe, justice Dickson opined that so long as human rights tribunals paid heed to the extreme degree of hatred necessary
to justify censorship, there would be "little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness" would trump free speech.
But events over the last few years have demonstrated that the danger characterized by justice Dickson in 1990 as "little" is anything but. Accusations of anti-Muslim hate-mongering have been levelled against Maclean's magazine for Mark Steyn's commentary on immigration policy; and against Western Standard magazine and its publisher Ezra Levant merely for printing the notorious "Muhammad cartoons" as part of its news coverage.
Even B'nai Brith, a Jewish organization known for supporting the anti-hate provisions of human rights legislation, has been hit with a complaint.
While the complaints against Maclean's and Levant ultimately were dismissed, the accused parties had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars upholding their innocence -- money they'll never get back. Worse yet is the chilling impact those prosecutions have had on less stalwart souls than Steyn and Levant. The risk of being put through such an ordeal, even if one is ultimately vindicated, undoubtedly has diverted many a commentator into less hazardous topics of discussion.
Even the history of the Whatcott decision itself demonstrates how subjective justice Dickson's test is. Of those who have sat in judgment on Mr. Whatcott's comments to date, two have said he violated the law while three have said he didn't. That's hardly a demonstration that the standards are crystal clear.
Justice Dickson's confidence in the discretion of human rights tribunals now appear to have been hopelessly misplaced.
The Whatcott appeal presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reconsider its Taylor decision with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. It's encouraging to note that the Taylor rationale itself just squeaked by in a four-to-three decision in 1990. The only judge on that seven-member Taylor panel who remains on the bench today is Beverley McLachlin, now the Chief Justice. In 1990, she was one of the three-member dissenting team who said that the human rights law then under consideration was not "reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society."
It will be interesting to see whether her opinion remains the same, and whether she can now persuade a majority of her colleagues.
http://www.nationalpost.com/golden+opportunity+kill+human+rights+censorship/3767639/story.html#ixzz15b46RKc1
In my opinion, this is where the "political correctness" breeding ground lies. And teko, I think youve got it right in regards to one person losing rights in order for another to be able to display theirs.
I think that there is a far finer line now between hatred and people with skin that is too thin. Worsening this situation is a group of lawyers and politicians that are ready to jump on any claim regarding ones rights or suspected rights. There are too many people picking fights where there arent any.
Common sense has gone the way side, and there is some things that are better left unsaid, but there are enough dolts amongst us who dont know when to shut their mouths.
Our rights, all of them are under attack and its more frequent these days. I guess this has been happening since the civil rights movement, but it seems more prevalent now. (Or maybe its because of the media availability or that I am paying more attention as an adult.) I mentioned a story not too long ago from a buddy of mine who is in law enforcement. He arrested a guy for a couple of causes....drunk in public, causing a public disturbance and urinating in public....and the arestee tried to make a racial situation out of it. This chump wasnt smart enough to know that you cant be drunk, pissing on the side of a building that you just got thrown out of and screaming profanities at the top of your lungs.... Having been in the bar business for almost 20 years, I know too well that drunken stupidity knows no racial lines and no race is immune.
The good news is, as long as we have lawyers and politicians, this fight will go back and forth for a long time. A buddy of mine who is a lawyer told me something that sticks with me. "Its not the bare meaning of the law, its the judges impression of the law." This can go any direction at any time in any courtroom across the country!
I think that there is a far finer line now between hatred and people with skin that is too thin. Worsening this situation is a group of lawyers and politicians that are ready to jump on any claim regarding ones rights or suspected rights. There are too many people picking fights where there arent any.
Common sense has gone the way side, and there is some things that are better left unsaid, but there are enough dolts amongst us who dont know when to shut their mouths.
Our rights, all of them are under attack and its more frequent these days. I guess this has been happening since the civil rights movement, but it seems more prevalent now. (Or maybe its because of the media availability or that I am paying more attention as an adult.) I mentioned a story not too long ago from a buddy of mine who is in law enforcement. He arrested a guy for a couple of causes....drunk in public, causing a public disturbance and urinating in public....and the arestee tried to make a racial situation out of it. This chump wasnt smart enough to know that you cant be drunk, pissing on the side of a building that you just got thrown out of and screaming profanities at the top of your lungs.... Having been in the bar business for almost 20 years, I know too well that drunken stupidity knows no racial lines and no race is immune.
The good news is, as long as we have lawyers and politicians, this fight will go back and forth for a long time. A buddy of mine who is a lawyer told me something that sticks with me. "Its not the bare meaning of the law, its the judges impression of the law." This can go any direction at any time in any courtroom across the country!
I have always said that in order for someone to have rights, someone else has to lose them.
I also think that people spewing hatred and refusing to acknowledge the other guys rights and honor them, will only cause all of us to lose them in the end. So blame the hatemongers, who cannot use the common sense god gave them.
I also think that people spewing hatred and refusing to acknowledge the other guys rights and honor them, will only cause all of us to lose them in the end. So blame the hatemongers, who cannot use the common sense god gave them.
What I got is from this is entirely different...
I think that we will get to a point where people will only be able to say certain things. Gradually our freedoms are being diminished. I remember before in the news they wanted to hinder people from talking negatively about a certain religion or faith and now it's you can't talk about anyone's lifestyle choice. It'll get the point where you cannot talk about anything that's immoral or against the government.
Where would we draw the line when it comes to what's fair to speak on and what is not?
And it's a little scary when you think about it because when your free speech is altered what other freedoms will they alter?
I think that we will get to a point where people will only be able to say certain things. Gradually our freedoms are being diminished. I remember before in the news they wanted to hinder people from talking negatively about a certain religion or faith and now it's you can't talk about anyone's lifestyle choice. It'll get the point where you cannot talk about anything that's immoral or against the government.
Where would we draw the line when it comes to what's fair to speak on and what is not?
And it's a little scary when you think about it because when your free speech is altered what other freedoms will they alter?
Intolerance in the "Great White North". Interesting to know that this stuff is all over the continent and not just in the states. I dont get gay-bashing. I'm still not for sure how gays affect my life or anyone else's for that matter......
Part of me says let this guy run his mouth and let the rest of Canada judge him upon his ignorance. The good thing about ignorance is, it doesnt take long to be exposed.
Part of me says let this guy run his mouth and let the rest of Canada judge him upon his ignorance. The good thing about ignorance is, it doesnt take long to be exposed.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
