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.
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