Oh my.

Finally, some common sense!

The constitution just isn't that important, it's too confusing and written by politicians and it's more than 20 years old.

(hey just getting it out there for the "progressives")

bear HRC rationale

tricky.
Hate speech against gay people
Hate speech against Christians
Hate speech against ......
Hmm. It all depends how it would be done, legally.
What would happen if someone, say, in some mosque (or temple or .....) will say that Christians are pigs and monkeys so they should be treated like an animals, and because they "always lie" they should be always lied to?
Tricky, isn't it?
On the other hand nowadays there is two tier "thing" - legally "hate laws" are the same for every group, but practice is different. So perhaps it really would be better to change the law.

The purpose of the human rights commissions is under attack.
Good.

No Ella it actually is not the least bit tricky. What is supposed to be against the law is a person advocating and promoting assault and violence against a person or group. Stating one's views that a particular group's behaviour is wrong is totally different. Our HRCs however have decided that anyone stating anything that someone or some group does not like must be silenced. Now that is ridiculous.

I must be reading the source article wrong. The article says that Bill Walcott has the right to challenge the Human Rights Code. “The Supreme Court of Canada says a man who distributed anti-gay pamphlets can challenge the constitutionality of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.”

But it also says that he has already won that challenge. His conviction was overturned at the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. He has been “freed”. Since he has been freed, how can it be that Bill Walcott is doing any challenging at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Would it be more accurate to say that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission which is applying to the Supreme Court of Canada is continuing to persecute him on our nickel? Are we to conclude that the reporter thinks that Mr. Walcott is very fortunate to be able to present a defence that will challenge the code (sarc)?

This really bugs me. We have Court of Appeal level jurisprudence that states the eminently reasonable and blatanly obvious proper interpretation of the law. Why do we need to go the the Supreme Court of Canada?

another thought...

Liberalism; where persecuting Christians & vilifying conservative women is "progressive".

Go get'm Bill.

Rub their noses in it if you can.

All provincial HRC's should be disbanded and the Federal HRC become part of the Federal Court to get these wannabe's out of the games they are playing with people.

I hate Sushi.

Does that make me a sushist?

Ella,
I'm a Christian and frankly I'm more afraid of the secularist ilk who try to constrain all dialog to their rules under the guise of niceness (or whatever pretext they use) than Muslims because at least Muslims are being honest. Secularists just want to assert their power with a high hand. As long as I have the right to bear arms to protect my family from those who decide to do more than exercise their freedom of speech by all means, let 'em talk all they want.

David: freedom of speech and freedom of religion are just that - freedoms - we are free to make up our own minds about what another person is saying/believing. The HRC is an outfit who think that they have the right to tell all of us what we can say and what we must believe. I am cheering for Bill!

Ella

Those hate laws you refer to literally do not apply to white men. I can't remember the exact wording, but it's something along the lines of... a person must be 'visible and or historically discriminated against minority".

So Crackers like me need not apply.

"You can play tennis with a gay person..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYNDVaPrTMs&feature=related

profanity warning

First of all why is it necessary to take freedom of speech to the SCC? The SK HRC must think they're going to win this if they're going to spend the money necessary for this court case; OTOH they may be so out of touch with reality that they think anyone court will agree with their totalitarian ideology.

One thing the SK government can do would be to cut off funding to the HRC which would make the SK court of appeals verdict stand. Curious how no government has taken this dared to do this.

My personal opinion is that Bill Whatcott has the right to say what he wants and, to a large degree, homosexuals have brought this on themselves by engaging in public conduct which would result in heterosexuals getting arrested for public lewdness had they done the same. I also believe that homosexuals are born that way and that no amount of preaching about the evils of sodomy is going to change the behavior of biologically determined homosexuals. His preaching will likely have an effect only on individuals who are confused about their sexuality and both sides of the argument need to be made to this group. Now if everyone could just make their sexual activities a private matter then things would be so much better.

loki, exactly. This whole issue did not bother me too much and even had some sympathy for their confusion until they started those disgusting parades.

Unlike real courts, there's neither presumption of innocence nor truth as a defense. If I had faith in the supreme court of the nation to do what is right, I'd welcome this legal challenge.

I have an Idea. Why not hood the Gay pride parades on the same day as heritage days with the multicultural parade made up of Islamists.
Now that would be entertainment.
JMO

so how is the effort to make Bill Whatcott STFU working out for whoever first thought to try...?

Don't get too excited over this. If I read the article correctly the SCoC will now hear the case.

Does anyone really think the supreme court bigots will allow a christian to preach against gays openly??? C'mon, we all know that dog won't hunt!

What will happen is that the SCoC will rule in favour of the human rights council, thus further affirming their 'powers' to shut people up.

I don't think this is heading in a good direction!

Ken. have you ever figured out how a govt. can help fund the disgusting parades, all while going after the Graham Jameses etc. Was he not proud of what he did, ahould not his pride be honored. In the true Lieberal pea brain this dilemma is never entertained, just pass the grants and entitlements.

How about we all put our $ where our ideals are and make a donation to help Bill Whatcott with his court case seeing as he's not on our dime like the HRC is. I'm sure we could contact his attorney, Mr. Schuck to do so.

Hate speech against Christians is perfectly legal. In many situations it's almost compulsory.

The point is that free speeech cannot be a privilege, which the state confers only on those, like the gays, of whom it approves, to be used to destroy those, like the Christians, whom it hates. Free speech has to be a right. Everybody gets it, whether the government likes them or not.

Any damned fool can approve of free speech as a privilege. Hell, Warren Kinsella claims the freedom to say whatever he wants. He just wants to take that freedom away from you, and anyone else who hasn't sucked the same dicks as him. It takes a grown man to recognize the right to free speech.