OH! CANADA!: THE WHATCOTT DECISION ~ A GRIM DAY FOR CHRISTIANS AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH

William Whatcott

 

By Paul Fromm

April 13, 2013
.

Make no mistake, the Supreme Court of Canada has made Canada’s ruling elite’s contempt for traditional Christianity quite clear. Christians got stomped and booted in a unanimous six judge decision in the Whatcott case, rendered February 27.

While much is made of punishing only the most extreme expressions against privileged minorities, in fact, anyone with strong opinions about homosexuals or other privileged groups like Jews, must be very careful.

Where does ridicule, which apparently is acceptable end, and “detestation” and “vilification” that “incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination and other harmful effects” begin? 
.

Got that?  Privileged minorities have a superior right not to be “delegitimized”; that is, told that there is something wrong with their behaviour. That newly minted right erases your right to criticize them. Your words, if strong enough, “risk” ~ note nothing needs be proven ~  causing discrimination (which is not always unlawful) or “other harmful effects.” What might those be? 
.

The decision is pure cultural Marxism. It reflects the triumph of Frankfurt School social science which has captured most Western universities. While economic communism collapsed and was defeated, cultural communism was spread by the Frankfurt School.
.

Basically, it sees the world divided up into two classes: oppressors ~ those would be White Christians, and especially sexually healthy White males ~ and the oppressed ~ those would be women, homosexuals, Jews, and certain other racial minorities. 
.

To overthrow the “oppressors” and to establish universal equality ~ not of opportunity but results ~ the Frankfurt School targeted loyalty to family, country and religion.  There began a concerted campaign of “deconstruction” whereby political heroes, cultural heroes ~ the dismissal of traditional English literature as the writing of dead, White males ~ and traditional Christianity were mocked and attacked. These ideas have captured the upper echelons of Canada’s judiciary and bode poorly for freedom of speech.
.

The Whatcott decision holds that in human rights cases:

~Truth is no defence;

~ Intent is no defence;

~·No harm needs to be proven to have been caused to a “vulnerable” minority;

~ A minority is designated as “vulnerable” not because of any evidence ~ the court admits concrete evidence is often lacking, but on the mere say-so of a human rights commission or court;

~ Christians are not protected from hatred as they are not a “vulnerable minority.”

The Court outlines the conflict:

“Four complaints were filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission concerning four flyers published and distributed by the respondent, William Whatcott. The flyers were distributed to the public and targeted homosexuals and were challenged by the complainants on the basis that they promoted hatred against individuals because of their sexual orientation. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal held that the flyers constituted publications that contravened s. 14 of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S.  1979, c. S-24.1 as they exposed persons to hatred and ridicule on the basis of their sexual orientation: (2005), 52 C.H.R.R. D/264. Section 14(1) (b) of the Code prohibits the publication or display of any representation “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground”. The Code lists “sexual orientation” as a prohibited ground (s. 2(1) (m.01)(vi)).”

Mr. Whatcott was fined $17,500 which was to go to the four homosexual who complained against him. 

“The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench upheld the Tribunal’s decision: 2007 SKQB 450, 306 Sask. R. 186. That decision was reversed by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (“Whatcott (C.A.)”). The appellate court accepted that s. 14(1) (b) was constitutional but held that the flyers at issue did not meet the test for hatred and were not prohibited publications within the meaning of s. 14(1)(b) of the Code.”

Another of Mr. Wilcott's pamphlets.

Human Rights Censorship Victim William Whatcott

The Court went on to note

“Whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination.” 

 Now, you might think that “the likely effect” would require some proof, but NO! You see the effects of “hate” are subtle and often there is no proof of any harm. 
.

The Court advances the ludicrous conclusion that, although William Whatcott, a fervent evangelical Christian, is the one silenced and fined, somehow his very criticism of homosexuals in the leaflets he handed out back in 2002 was alleged to have intimidated (or night have, as no proof was offered) homosexuals from debating public policy.

“Hate speech is at some distance from the spirit of s. 2(b) because it does little to promote, and can in fact impede, the values underlying freedom of expression. Hate speech can also distort or limit the robust and free exchange of ideas by its tendency to silence the voice of its target group. These are important considerations in balancing hate speech with competing Charter rights and in assessing the constitutionality of the prohibition in s. 14(1) (b) of the Code.

“Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect. Finding that certain expression falls within political speech does not close off the enquiry into whether the expression constitutes hate speech. Hate speech may often arise as a part of a larger public discourse but it is speech of a restrictive and exclusionary kind.

“Political expression contributes to our democracy by encouraging the exchange of opposing views. Hate speech is antithetical to this objective in that it shuts down dialogue by making it difficult or impossible for members of the vulnerable group to respond, thereby stifling discourse. Speech that has the effect of shutting down public debate cannot dodge prohibition on the basis that it promotes debate.”

So, neither discussing politics nor morality is a protection. 
.

All that matters is being most delicate in any criticism of privileged “vulnerable minorities.” 
.

Ed Noor: Oh, my Canada, what have they done to you?!