Earlier this year, the Supreme Court
of Canada upheld the conviction of activist William Whatcott, who found himself
in hot water after distributing flyers regarding the Bible’s prohibitions
against homosexuality throughout the Saskatoon and Regina neighborhoods in 2001
and 2002.
One flyer that was found to be in
violation of Canada’s Hate Crime Law cited 1 Corinthians 6:9. The flyer read (in part) – “The Bible is clear
that homosexuality is an abomination.”
It went on to say – “Scripture records that Sodom and Gomorrah was given
over completely to homosexual perversion and as a result destroyed by God’s
wrath.”
Another flyer, entitled Keep
Homosexuality Out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools, was written in response to
the recommendation of the Saskatoon School Board that homosexuality be included
in school curriculum. The Supreme Court
declared the document to be unlawful because it called the homosexual acts that
would be taught to children “filthy,” and contended that children are more
interested in playing Ken and Barbie than “learning how wonderful it is for two
men to sodomize each other.” The
justices ruled that because the use of the word “sodomy” only referred to “two
men” and not also the sex acts of heterosexuals, it was a direct target against
a specific group of people.
Two other flyers that expressed
outrage at the male solicitation of sex with boys in a local publication were
not found to be in violation of the statute, in part because Whatcott’s
citation of Luke 17:2 was not clear on whether it only referred to homosexuals.
The verse, which he had handwritten on
the handouts, quotes from Jesus Christ – “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.” The court insinuated that the Scripture could
have been an issue like the other references if used in a way to pertain solely
to homosexual persons.
Whatcott had distributed the flyers
over a decade ago to raise awareness of his concerns about both the homosexual
parades in Canada, as well as the vulnerability of children in a culture that
promotes homosexuality. However, when
Canada’s Human Rights Commission found out about the matter, they took him to
court, citing him with a hate crime.
The Supreme Court noted in its
opinion, among other concerns, that Whatcott’s use of the Bible to target
homosexuals was a problem. “[Whatcott's]
expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that could threaten the
safety and well-being of others, makes reference to respected sources (in this
case the Bible) to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses
vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred,” says the
Court.
It pointed back to the lower court
ruling, which asserted, “While the courts cannot be drawn into the business of
attempting to authoritatively interpret sacred texts such as the Bible, those
texts will typically have characteristics which cannot be ignored if they are
to be properly assessed in relation to … the [Hate Crimes] Code.”
The judges did note, however, that “it
would only be unusual circumstances and context that could transform a simple
reading or publication of a religion’s holy text into what could objectively be
viewed as hate speech.”
Commentator Andrew Coyne noted that
the wording of Canada’s Hate Crime Law is problematic because it leaves much
discretion in the hands of law enforcement.
“The code itself outlaws material that ‘exposes or tends to expose to
hatred’ any person or group, on the usual list of prohibited grounds. It is not necessary, that is, to show the
material in question actually exposes anyone to hatred — only that it might,”
he advised. “The Court then upholds the
ban on the grounds that the hatred to which individuals might or might not be
exposed might in turn lead others to believe things that might cause them to
act in certain unspecified but clearly prejudicial ways: it ‘has the potential
to incite or inspire discriminatory treatment,’ or ‘risks’ doing so, or is
‘likely’ to, or at any rate ‘can.’”
Whatcott has now been ordered to pay
$7,500 to two homosexuals who took offense at his flyers, as well as to pay the
legal fees of the Human Rights Commission — which could cost him hundreds of
thousands of dollars. “The ruling and the
reasoning [of the Court] is terrible,” he told reporters. “They actually used the concept that truth is
not a defense.” “It’s worse than I
expected,” Whatcott added. “What it
means is that my life is over as I know it.”
A much different ruling came out of
the Alberta Court of Appeals last October, as Pastor Stephen Boissoin was likewise facing hate crimes charges for submitting an op-ed to a
local newspaper that outlined his beliefs about homosexual behavior. In releasing its opinion, the court said that Boissoin
had a right to express his beliefs on matters such as homosexuality as long as
they were focused on a behavior and not a specific person. “Matters of morality, including the perceived
morality of certain types of sexual behavior, are topics for discussion in the
public forum. Frequently, expression on
these topics arises from deep seated religious conviction, and is not always
temperate,” the panel advised. “Boissoin
and others have the freedom to think, whether stemming from their religious convictions
or not, that homosexuality is sinful and morally wrong. In my view, it follows
that they have the right to express that thought to others.”
However,
the Supreme Court of Canada in Whatcott’s case declared, that oftentimes, it is
impossible to say that one loves the sinner and hates the sin. The Court asserted that the hatred of the act
was inseparable from hating the person or person group. “… that sexual orientation and sexual behavior
can be differentiated for certain purposes,” the Court outlined. “However, in instances where hate speech is
directed toward behavior in an effort to mask the true target, the vulnerable
group, this distinction should not serve to avoid [the hate-crime clause of the
Code].”
While speech opposing homosexuality
remains legal in the United States, some note that the nation is heading in the
same direction as Canada … as discrimination laws are being enforced by state
Human Rights Commissions across the country.
A number of incidents have made
headlines in recent years where American businesses have been punished for
their refusal to accommodate the homosexual lifestyle, such as the story of a photographer in New Mexico that was forces to pay $700 in fines for declining to shoot a
same-sex commitment service; or the Vermont bed and breakfast owners who settled a lawsuit with two lesbians who were told by an employee
that they could not hold their commitment service on the property; or a
Kentucky t-shirt screening company who was recently punished for declining to
complete a work order involving t-shirts that were to be worn at a local
homosexual pride parade.
Imagine an America where preachers who
faithfully proclaim the truth of God’s Word are being charged with the crime of
hate speech; where the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to speak freely
with religious conviction is denied; where witnesses in a court of law have to
fear telling the truth and nothing but the truth … so help them God. Though we share the same continent with
Canada, we must not share their laws that rule against biblical truth.
Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel
No comments:
Post a Comment