Skip to comments.CANADIAN court agrees that BIBLE is HATE LITERATURE
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.
No, Luis. The ad clearly states that Leviticus, a book of the Bible, says that.
In the US, I can take out an ad and quote the Bible. In Canada, you cannot always do so. The thugocratic fascistic liberal PC Canadian government wants to prevent people from quoting the Bible in public. That is tyranny. You feel very comfortable with that, because you feel you should have the right to proscribe what other people say (or whether they should quote the Bible in public). Thank heavens the founders of our country were of a wiser and less dictatorial nature.
I never claimed it had anything to do with the debate at hand. I simply want to know whether or not you believe that the scriptures allow for men or women to practice homosexuality. A simple yes, or no, would suffice.
Really. Learn to read. I said combined with graphics Does your bible have the graphics? . The graphics that the purchaser added with the intent of inciting a negative reaction towards homosexuals. Without the graphics the ad does not make the same point. All it would be would be verses from the bible. Which are printed and read every day.
The bottom line is the court judged the intent , not the source of the words.
Well, in my children's Catholic schools, they often recite the Lord's prayer. They don't do so in the public shcools, because children of many faiths attend them. I am certainly allowed to take out an ad in the newspaper quoting the Lord's Prayer! I am also allowed, in the US, to stand on the street corner and recite the Lord's prayer. I am allowed to publish books which contain the Lord's prayer. I am allowed to assemble meetings of people in which the Lord's prayer is recited. I am also allowed to take out an ad in the newspaper regarding the sinfulness of homosexual acts, or to stand on a streetcorner and say such, or to publish books saying such, or to assemble with people and say such, or to associate with people who are not homosexual. I am allowed to send my son to a scouting organization whose scoutmasters do not have a sexual attraction to males. I believe you do not have that right in Canada. I'm a much freer man as an American than I would be were I Canadian.
They altered the message, and took it into the public square. Look at what the author of the article did, he sensationalized the issue, and gave it a good spin.
The issue was never the Bible here, it was the intent of the ad.
The Supreme Court has recognized several limited exceptions to First Amendment protection, example:
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court held that so-called "fighting words, which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," are not protected. This decision was based on the fact that fighting words are of "slight social value as a step to truth."
One could easily argue that this ad fell under the general description of "fighting words"...as it obviously did, otherwise it would not have made its way into Court.
You may publish abook about it, but you will not stand in a street corner and do so. It's called slander and defamation of character, plus there's the case cited above.
You may not pass judgement on others based on your religious beliefs in the public square if your words create a public disturbance.
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.
It was this man's right to say what he thinks about something. You can publish your own ad saying you think homosexuality is wonderful if you want, Luis. There's no law against saying what you believe about something, Luis, and there's a powerful Constitutional law saying you can (in this country, but not in Canada). You still want to tell people what they're allowed to say. You're still the speech police, Luis.
Number one..the newspaper isn't obligated to publish your ad. Number two, if you get taken to Court, and found that the ad falls under that "fighting words" definition, you're toast.
You have yet to answer the question about taking out an ad about inter-racial marriages ruining the bloodlines.
You don't get it, do you?
The concept of separation of Church and State was put in place to stop what has historically proven to be true tyranny...theocracy.
I, as well as the founders of these United States, believe(d) that men are entitled to the freedom to say what they believe. You do not. Most of what we want to say does not come from the Bible. Surely you are not saying (well, actually you are implying) that it's alright to quote the Bible, but not to express anything else that one believes, if it offends someone, or if the government has deemed it offensive. In these United States, I am free to publish an ad (with or without Bible verses) stating my opposition to or promotion of homosexual acts, abortion, bestiality, divorce, affirmative action, homosexual scoutmasters, high taxes, putting 'God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. etc. In Canada, one is not. The base line is this. You don't like what this man was saying, and therefore you have the right to squelch his speech. You're the kind who would have been happy sitting at the head of the Politburo. People who believe in the squelching of free speech are fundamentally insecure. Win your arguments on the basis of free and fair debate - not on tyrannical autocratic measures to shut down the speech of those you disagree with. You have no more right to shut down my speech (or this man's speech) than I yours.
Leviticus doesn't say this. This man simply quoted what the Bible says.
Same thing Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Napolean, Somoza, Castro, Qaddafi, and so forth said (or say), when they tell (or told) their citizens what was acceptable to say and what was not. Why should your ability to voice your beliefs be favored over someone else's? I don't think it should - and neither did our founding fathers.
"Then Moses said to Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, "Do not let your hair become unkempt, and do not tear your clothes, or you will die and the LORD will be angry with the whole community."--Leviticus 10:6
Not true, Luis. I did answer that. Anyone should have the right to take out that ad, it that's what they want to do. I wouldn't agree with it (especially since I have an interracial marriage!), but other people have different beliefs than I. I can tolerate that. The liberal fascistocracy in Canada cannot.
This part of the Bible is an ancient, respected and revered religious text. I would defend at any time your right to quote any part of it (even in PUBLIC!!!). You believe the Canadian government should decide which parts of the Bible are suitable for public quoting. That is facistic tyranny. I don't need the government to tell me what parts of the Bible I can quote and what parts I may not. That kind of government thinking is precisely why so many people came to the New World to begin with.
I've never said that, I have been discussing what this Court did about the ad placed in the newspaper.
I am not the one being intolerant here, that's a laughable attempt at avoiding the course this debate is about to take.
Got news for you. You haven't posted anything that would not be allowed in Canada. That's you're problem. You don't have a clue about the law and you interpret it to fit your needs. For speech to be illegal according to Canadian law, it has to promote hatred against an identifiable group, advocate "genocide" or incite "hatred to such an extent that it will lead to a breach of the peace."
That's what the court ruled the ad, in it's entirety did. Not the verses alone but the verses with the graphics.
Now let's go back to post#158 and New Hampshire, which the last time I looked was still in the USA and Luis when he says: The Supreme Court has recognized several limited exceptions to First Amendment protection, example:
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court held that so-called "fighting words, which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," are not protected.
Interesting, "breach of the peace". Sounds almost like Canada is a copycat....imagine that