Well Canada has done it again, or to be exact, the Supreme Court of Canada has done it. I usually do not post twice in one day, but for this I am making an exception. The Supreme Court has recently upheld a ruling, which has both free expression and freedom of religion implications. The ruling in question can be found here. I will try my best to summarize what happened and why you should care.
The story begins with a Saskatchewan resident by the name of William Whatcott. William, a professing Christian and former practicing homosexual, went about distributing flyers that were critical of public schools and their addition of educational material promoting the homosexual lifestyle. Several people reported Whatcoff, claiming his four flyers promoted hatred against individuals based on their sexual orientation. The complaints made their way to a human rights tribunal, which ultimately ruled against Whatcoff. This wouldn’t be much of a story if it ended there. The issue moved through the court system where it progressed from the Court of Queen’s Bench to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, and eventually onto the Supreme Court of Canada. Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the contents of Whatcoff’s flyers where hate material and were not protected on the basis of freedom of expression or freedom of religion.
So why should you care about this judgment? First off, it has set precedence in ruling that criticism of homosexual behavior can be classified as ‘hate speech”. This means that critical examination, dissenting opinion, and possibly our Christian convictions could potentially result in court appearances and jail time. If that wasn’t worrisome enough consider for a moment how they will go about determining fair criticism verses hate speech.
To begin to understand how this is going to happen we must look at the courts ruling.
the term ‘hatred’ contained in a legislative hate speech prohibition should be applied objectively to determine whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The court says that they must “objectively” test the speech in question to see if it meets their definition of ‘hatred’. Can one truly be objective in defining hatred when, by its very nature, hatred is a subjectively emotive concept? Let’s be honest, we all subjectively find different things repugnant and offensive. Would an arbitrator or judge be any different than the rest of us? Although they address this concern in the ruling, I have no idea how it is going to work out in a repeatable and practical way.
My concerns only increased as I read thought the ruling’s history. Throughout the entire process all levels of authority were faced with the same dilemma and were equipped with the same test. In a truly objective exercise one would expect consistency in ruling. However, the Supreme Court and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal came to completely different conclusions. Given all things being equal, how else could they come to diametrically opposite rulings unless the process was subjective?
Ultimately this is a blow to our freedom of expression and religion. Yes, we need to protect people from hate speech, but we need to do it in a fashion that is consistent and predictable. That is not what the Supreme Court has left us with. Instead they have left us uncertain as to where we stand, and questioning whether our very convictions are now deemed illegal.
p.s. Just in case you missed the link to the ruling in the above post you can find it here: Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott
If you are telling children/adults that they will essentially got to hell if they engage in a same sex relationship as your teaching then yes that’s a hate crime. Heads up to the same sex relationships out there god loves you just the same. You are NOT possessed by the devil your human and deserve to be treated that way. It’s for reasons like this that we can’t allow religion in our public school boards. We need to be teaching children this day in age that we need to accept people for who they are and not lead them to believe they are doomed for the fire of hell.
I really appreciate your comment, and I understand your concerns. In no way was the intent of my post to defend the content of Whattcott’s flyers. I truly believe the Supreme Court of Canada desired to combat what they perceived to be genuine abuse, the kind of abuse that we as Christians should resolutely oppose. However, I believe in all their good intentions they have inadvertently revealed a potential Pandora’s box. Let me see if I can explain.
All of the rights and freedoms that we enjoy are subject to reasonable limitations. Balancing these rights and limitations give rise to a very real tension. The job of the judicial system is to balance these limitations while impairing our freedoms as little as possible. When the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Whattcott they were in essence saying that they felt justified in restricting his freedom of expression. The problem arises when one discovers the Court of Appeal concluded Whattcott’s flyers should not be considered “prohibited publications”. When one court rules, “limitation is not justifiable in a free and democratic society” and another classifies it has hate speech we have a problem.
What the Supreme Courts decision has exposed is the subjectivity inherent in determining such matters. In addition it has revealed the court’s willingness to restrict an individual’s rights and freedoms based on their subjective interpretation. When the balance of competing values can be tipped in favor of restrictions basis on subjective interpretations things can get a little scary. Pointing out this problem was the intent of my post. Thanks again for your comment.
I think this is the same guy I saw on the news a couple of weeks ago. If it was, he was a serious embarrassment to the Christian faith and church. Not sure what his pamphlets said but if they were anything like the way he was ‘preaching’ on the street corners, well then I am not suprised by the ruling.
Thanks for your comment Carolyn. To be sure I was not coming to the defence of his message nor the heart in which he delivered it. Since I have not read his flyers it would be impossible to do so. Regardless of the content or his intentions, the ruling revealed some potential issues that have a wider reaching impact. My major concern comes from the fact that the courts felt limiting freedom of expressing and religion was acceptable practice in combatting potential or perceived hate speech. The other issue I have is the method by which they determine if something should be deemed hate speech. The problem is highlighted when you see that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal came to an entirely different conclusion than the Supreme Court. One court felt the flyers constituted hate speech the other court concluded they weren’t. Two courts with the same evidence and the same tools coming to two completely different judgments shows me there is inherent subjectivity in the process , and things are not so black and white.