Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CANADIAN court agrees that BIBLE is HATE LITERATURE
CWNews.com ^ | 2-11-2003 | staff

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.


TOPICS: Announcements; Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bible; calhounsrats; canada; hatespeech; homosexualagenda; mediabias
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-259 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez
To do that, there was no need for graphics.

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.

181 posted on 02/13/2003 5:42:35 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
"Further, I have the right to say what I think in public, or in the newspaper."

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.

182 posted on 02/13/2003 5:43:45 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
You are jumping back and forth between two arguments...and throwing in a whole bunch of lies in between...like the one where you can't quote the Bible in public anymore...do a Google on the words television radio broadcasts religious programming.

One argument is that the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong, and that this man just wanted to spread the Bible's message.

The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across.

Well...why?

If the Bible is so clear in its message (which it is), what possible need did he have to add graphics, other than to insult, inflamme, and create strife.

It seems that he got his wish.

So what's the problem?
183 posted on 02/13/2003 5:50:35 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
So then, if I think that the way your daughter dresses is inappropriate, and I take an ad out in the newspaper saying that according to Laviticus, she should be put to death, you would defend my right to free speech?
184 posted on 02/13/2003 5:52:57 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across. Well...why?

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.

185 posted on 02/13/2003 6:07:10 PM PST by yendu bwam (The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I take an ad out in the newspaper saying that according to Laviticus, she should be put to death

Leviticus doesn't say this. This man simply quoted what the Bible says.

186 posted on 02/13/2003 6:08:06 PM PST by yendu bwam (The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
So what's the problem?

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.

187 posted on 02/13/2003 6:11:01 PM PST by yendu bwam (The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
Note that this is Moses speaking rather than God, but if you read it in context, you will see that Moses and God are speaking in turns, laying out the covenant that God has already given to Moses. Obviously, if Moses contradicted God's covenant at some point, it seems likely that something bad would have happened. Therefore, Moses' statements in the Book of Leviticus are presumably an accurate testimony of God's instructions to him on the mountain.

"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

188 posted on 02/13/2003 6:13:43 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
He aimed for a specific result, and he got it.

What's the problem?
189 posted on 02/13/2003 6:14:18 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
You have yet to answer the question about taking out an ad about inter-racial marriages ruining the bloodlines.

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.

190 posted on 02/13/2003 6:14:23 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Luis, Luis, Luis. You may believe that God deems homosexual acts OK. I don't. To me, the Bible absolutely clearly and distinctly forbids homosexual acts (as well as any form of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman). It also makes sense to me, when one considers the promiscuity of the average homosexual, the STDs they carry, the dirty and disgusting sexual acts they engage in. I personally don't believe that this is what God wants. But you may differ in your beliefs. We don't need to get into arguments about Leviticus. You're entitled to your beliefs; I to mine. I can tolerate yours. Why can't you tolerate those who believe as I do? Why so, so insecure?
191 posted on 02/13/2003 6:18:43 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
Next.

If I take an ad out advocating the killing of fortune tellers, anyone who reads Tarot cards, or prepares Horoscopes because that's what Leviticus calls for, will you defend my freedom of speech?
192 posted on 02/13/2003 6:19:16 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
If I take an ad out advocating the killing of fortune tellers, anyone who reads Tarot cards, or prepares Horoscopes because that's what Leviticus calls for, will you defend my freedom of speech?

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.

193 posted on 02/13/2003 6:22:12 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
"You may believe that God deems homosexual acts OK."

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.

194 posted on 02/13/2003 6:23:14 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Good night, Luis. In the country you would defend, much of what I posted to you tonight would not be allowed. I am glad that I had the freedom to tell you what I think about this - even if you should be offended. It was a good debate. I sing praises for the liberty to have had it.
195 posted on 02/13/2003 6:23:54 PM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
Now, if they tae out that ad, and advocate the killing of interracial couples, would you defend their freedom of speech?
196 posted on 02/13/2003 6:24:14 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke
Canada - Home of Secular Humanists and Marxist elites.

They are not "slouching to Gomorrah" -- they have declared themselves "Gomorrah".
197 posted on 02/13/2003 6:49:53 PM PST by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
From your lips to God's ears
198 posted on 02/13/2003 7:24:17 PM PST by quebecois
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: McNoggin
C$1,500 =~ US$1,000
199 posted on 02/13/2003 7:40:19 PM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
In the country you would defend, much of what I posted to you tonight would not be allowed.

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

200 posted on 02/13/2003 8:43:38 PM PST by Snowyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-259 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson