Posted on 02/13/2003 6:56:57 AM PST by Notwithstanding
In a ruling given virtually no media coverage, the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan, 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 CAN$1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the Saskatoon newspaper quoting Bible verses regarding homosexuality.
The purpose of the ad was to indicate that the Bible says no to homosexual behavior. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side. The symbol was comprised of two males holding hands with the universal symbol of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over top.
Justice J. Barclay rejected the appeal ruling: "In my view, the Board was correct in concluding that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule. When the use of the circle and slash is combined with the passages of the Bible, it exposes homosexuals to detestation, vilification and disgrace. In other words, the Biblical passage which suggests that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred."
Janet Epp Buckingham, Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, told LifeSite: "The ruling that a verse from the Bible can be considered to expose homosexuals to hatred shows the danger for Scripture if Bill C-250 passes." Bill C-250, proposed by homosexual activist MP Svend Robinson, would see "sexual orientation" added to hate crime law as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Standing on a streetcorner and saying homosexual acts are sinful is neither slander nor defamation of character, Luis - just as saying fornication is sinful is neither, just as saying that selfishness is sinful is neither. Come back to this universe, Luis.
It is beginning to die there. When you can't quote the Bible in public, or say what you believe about homosexuality (or anything else) you know something is very, very wrong.
That's a lie.
The intent of the ad was to say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, Luis. To take away the right to say that is an abridgement of freedom. Once that right is taken away, Canada can take away the right to say anything that offends someone or offends the political views of the tyrants in Ottawa. I am glad I live in a country where I can quote the Bible in public, and say what I think about homosexual acts (depraved, sinful, unhealthy and disgusting) without fearing the thought police. See, what I just said would be banned in thought-police Canada.
No, it's not, Luis. This man quoted the Bible in public, in a newspaper, along with a graphic which clearly represented the words of the Bible, and he was denied his right to free speech. In Sweden, you can't even say homosexuality is sinful now, without fear of government invervention. Canada is following in the footsteps of the liberalocracy.
Only in your mind.
And just out of curiosity," I am allowed to send my son to a scouting organization whose scoutmasters do not have a sexual attraction to males."
How do you know? What you fear is a pedophile , not a homosexual. They are not the same. And a pedophile will never declare himself.
Years ago I lived in a small city where a repeat pedophile (he had been released after serving his first sentence of 15 years) was put on trial for murdering a 10 year old boy. That pedophile was convicted again and himself murdered in prison. Recently the murderers of Emanuel Jack , the shoeshine boy in Toronto, in the early 70's , came up for parole and were denied. The list is long, and not one had ever let himself be known , until he was caught. After the fact.
Historically, freedoms are usually stolen a little at a time, and the longer you wait to fight to get them back, the harder the fight you have. Beware, CO!
You're in an outer, outer universe, Luis. People can believe whatever they want (at least in my country). This case had nothing to do with a state's ramming beliefs down anyone's throats - but rather about taking away a man's right to express his own.
You still don't get it do you?
It was the graphics, the intent of the ad, not the words themselves.
Dishonesty is as sin.
I haven't slandered anyone, Luis. I've just said that I have the right to say what I think about homosexual acts. I do. That's not slander. That's my right to free speech. You have your right to say what you think about homosexual acts. Further, I have the right to say what I think in public, or in the newspaper. So do you. In Canada, some people don't.
To do that, there was no need for graphics.
The graphics were meant to mock, insult, and inflame the issue.
What a good Christian tactic that is.
You're still in some other galaxy, Luis. In a free speech country, you can publish a graphic showing that you disgree with something. In the US, I can publish a graphic with a baby being aborted and a slash drawn through that. I can publish a graphic with the word adultery and a slash drawn across that. I have the right to say in public what I think about something. In Canada, you don't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.