Home
 On its way to the USA
Speech codes in Canada
Will there always be an England?
Time to duck in England
More news of repression from Canada
The power to snoop
The dwindling freedoms that remain
Trumping parents' rights
On Tribunals and "hate crimes"
A cloud of political correctness
Sanitizing the Internet
The coming loss of liberties
Criminalizing thought
Watch what you say
Prosecuted for "insulting the state"
Open door Canada
The world turned upside down
Police powers in Europe
Tracking the citizenry
A map of your life
Europe's monitors of hate
Animal Farm thrives north of the border
Criminalizing everything in England
Whose law shall prevail?
Xenophobic about EU repression
Coercing a "common" culture
Jailed for "personality disorders"
Remaking mankind . . . again
Beacon to the world no longer?
Norway takes the lead
Intolerant laws
Europe censors itself
Punishing personal beliefs
Losing sovereignty and rights
The roving investigator
The immigrant flood continues
"Binationals" and dual allegiance
Goodbye to national sovereignty?
The new totalitarianism
England's web of surveillance
Stifling dissent in Singapore
Diminishing freedom for greater "rights"
The Brits gone balmy
Free speech fails again in Canada
 
Printer-friendly versionView Printable Format
Contact Issues & Views
(Also enter "Subscribe" to receive free Biweekly Updates)

More news of repression from Canada

On its way to the USA

[Reprinted from Issues & Views July 30, 2001]

Hugh Owens would have been safe had he not made references to the Bible. In human-rights circles [in Canada], the Bible is increasingly regarded as an insidious form of hate literature.

In June of 1997, Mr. Owens submitted, and the Star-Phoenix newspaper published, an advertisement with a drawing of two stick figures holding hands surrounded by a circle with a slash through it--the universal "no" symbol, as in No Smoking, No Trucks, etc. Three men filed complaints with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. The commission appointed a one-woman board of inquiry, Saskatoon lawyer Valerie Watson, and she recently convicted Mr. Owens and the newspaper.

Ms. Watson held that, while the symbol alone "may not itself communicate hate, when combined with the passages from the Bible, the board finds the advertisement would expose or tend to expose homosexuals to hatred or ridicule."

Ms. Watson is categorical in saying that a sincere belief in the truth of one's view is no defence. "There is no question that Mr. Owens believed that he was publicly expressing his honestly held religious beliefs," she wrote. But that doesn't matter. He has given offence and that is enough. Freedom of speech, press and religion all yield to a complainant's hurt feelings.

I do not suggest that Ms. Watson was wrong on the law. Just the opposite. She got the law right, and the law no longer protects what Section 2 of the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" in the face of hurt feelings.

In the bad old days, we believed that freedom of speech existed not to protect that speech with which we all agreed (such speech requires no protection), but for the speech we find hateful and abhorrent. But in newspeak-Canada, we empower human-rights tribunals to cancel free speech whenever some victims group finds it "offensive." We wave the Charter's protection of free speech in the world's eyes, and we allow tribunals to negate its effects, a perfect liberal ploy for having your cake while devouring it.

-- Ian Hunter, professor emeritus, University of Western Ontario Law School, The Freedom Site, July 5, 2001.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views


Printer-friendly version
Printer-friendly version

home | printable  

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views
All rights reserved.
Email the webmaster with comments on the site design.
Last updated: Fri Aug 13 09:41:07 2010 AKDT

?>