If the Court is inclined to wink at the state’s traditional need to prove its case, it is not so indulgent of the defendant. As anyone who follows the workings of human rights tribunals can attest, they are a strange parody of ordinary criminal courts. Not only is it no defence that the accused had an honest belief in what he said: it is not even a defence that it is factually true. Here, too, the Court is at peace. As the decision primly advises, “truth may be used for widely disparate ends.” I cannot quite believe I am reading these words, even now.
Consider this your open thread on the “decision”.
Honestly, I don’t see the point of ranting and raving against this Supreme Court decision. They are not going to change their mind.
Obviously I am disappointed. We’ve waited for this quite a while.But I think the matter is closed for another generation
Let’s concentrate on finishing up the business with section 13 – with Bill C304 being stalled in Senate by a few idiotic “conservative” senators, and continue to hammer the ridiculous and unfair nature of the HRCs at every opportunity in order show society what these kangaroo courts are all about.
The court sees a need for the state to step in and moderate the discussions of its citizens. The justices are not convinced that the Canadians are mature enough to handle the slings and arrows of unfettered speech. The wisdom of government bureaucrats is needed.
This Bill Whatcott decision is a tragedy that will echo for decades.
Is it not a case of “Contempt By Court”?
.
The premier of Sask must act to expunge
this dirty law which should have been
done long ago.
Nice legal traditions ya got there. Shame if appointed political hacks should happen to it.
What, a Canadian Court crapping all over the ‘rights’ of the serfs?
Knock me over with a feather.
Good old group think, we the taxpaying public, while competent to cough up the dough for these expert parasites, we are not competent to argue about social mores and morality without adult(their version) supervision.
Contempt of court is the only possible opinion for an informed citizen.
One guy tried to bell the cat. The cat ate him. Everybody else afraid…even on SDA.
So much for principles…even Tommy Douglas did better than that.
Maybe it’s time to start anew. Why keep trying to work inside a model that is very obviously skewed? Why not have a brand new model?
Makes me wonder how far we are from the traditional “Show Trials” that Gore/Suzuki wanted for climate “deniers” ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trial#Great_Leap_Forward
Supreme court judges are simply lawyers on steroids with egos and vanity nurtured by the rarefied air they breathe as befitting their God-like status. No one said they were logical or were endowed with common sense. This ruling is a perfect example.
Yet folks wonder why more and more people ignore the laws that make everyone a criminal in some fashion and just go about their business?
A victory…..for sissies.
Fred2 writes: “Nice legal traditions ya got there. Shame if appointed political hacks should happen to it.”
Well, Fred2, the shame of our Supreme Court is that our Conservative prime minister has been unwilling to appoint to the Court jurists or legal scholars who reflect conservative values or conservative jurisprudence. The surprise is that the Court decided that two of Mr Whatcott’s flyers did *not* constitute hate speech.
I am reasonably familiar with a couple members of the Court, and they are thoughtful judges who bring to their deliberations a deep left-liberal world view. That’s the best that seven years of Conservative government could produce: a left-liberal Supreme Court that exercises some mild restraint on a loony-left Human Rights tribunal.
It is nice to know that the US is not the only “civilized” state where the idiot libruls run rampant. They are legislating a “violence against women” law and obama will sign it, in the US. Violence is violence and adding new laws does not deter violence. However, violence against a protected group silences opposition and place the accused in a position of having his (since we are talking women here) rights abridged. This is how the libruls remove their opposition.
By the way, did you know that obama is personally responsible for the deaths of more women than any president in history? Millions of babies murdered, hundreds of women soldiers killed, ordinary women denied the right to protect themselves in ways other than vomiting and urinating. I think we need to replace the expression “Stockholm syndrome” with “Obama syndrome” to cover all those women of the world that still worship him and his atrocities.
Because Human Rights Commissions ask WHO said what about WHOM before they consider going forward on a case the system is clearly prejudicial and therefore fatally flawed.
We have all seen members of the religion of peace carrying signs calling for death to those who do not believe what they believe. ROPers know full well they will not be subject to punishment by the ironically named Human Rights Commission because they have done it for a long time and nothing has ever happened to them. Christians heretofore feared and now definitely know that they will be persecuted and prosecuted by the the Human Rights Commission if they hand out pamphlets that quote the bible. The ruling was sickening.
This decision is typical of the contempt the Beverly McLachlin-led SCC has for US!
Mclachlin stated years ago that we peasants need to be led by the nose and she continually proves it through her decisions.
We can’t expect the SCC to get any better, law schools are turning out the same progressives as the rest of the higher education establishment,so I don’t know where anyone thinks these “conservative” Judges are supposed to come from.
The only hope is to eliminate the HRC’s, but as I’ve said before, politicians realise that they are a very powerful tool to crush any real dissent.
It is not surprising that the court wishes to suppress the truth about the more degenerate parts of society. Justice Abella wrote the Ontario Court ruling on why it was okay for a 21 year old male to have sex with a 14 year old male. To have allowed freedom of speech for those who see these acts as disgusting, immoral, cretinous, and medically dangerous, that would have made short order of her ruling that sodomy for children was their right and the nearest person to do it should not be in jail. But I might have misunderstood her words that “a 14 year old does not have any peers in his age group to have sex with”, I think she was talking about the homosexual milieu. Anyways, we have to listen to gay folks telling how to live our lives, and they dont have to listen to us, tell them how to survive theirs.
“truth may be used for widely disparate ends.” — most particularly for setting you free. And we couldn’t have that now, could we?
The only hope is to eliminate the HRC’s…
A general ignoring of the HRC and anti-free speech law is what is needed. But I don’t see that courage of conviction.
Most people still think someone else will save them (Harper, a conservative judge), even though that’s how we arrived in this state.
Nowadays a redneck pickup is more likely to have a ‘differently oriented’ person in it than dragging behind. (figuratively speaking)
Gawd, people are pussies nowadays…it’s an easy world for real men and women, not much competition.
“Shut up and pay your taxes you stupid serfs.”
The Gubment
The most horrifically Orwellian phrase in the entire decision is the following:
“Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.”
The Supreme Court of Canada has just ruled that objective facts may be subject to legal prohibitions on the basis of how said facts may make someone feel.
That is, quite simply, terrifying.
Next up the Bible will be ruled as ‘hate speech’ because it’s not ‘politically protected speech’…’as demonstrably justified in a FREE and DEMOCRATIC society’.
Book Burners…I tells ya! Parts of the Koran will definitely be outlawed…
Yep, we are going to infringe yer ass all over the place, well except maybe Iran where you would hang instead.
Why not come on out and say it, “We secularists HATE Christianity and that’s why we won’t protect yer dumb asses!”?
What we have now is “pantywaist pussy speech” rather than full on unadulterated free speech.
The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that only speech that is like baking shortening will be upheld as non-hateful; because it is TENDER, FLAKY, and NICE.
So now we have ‘watered down wimpy freedoms’ rather than God given freedoms; because our justices have not got the backbone to defend that which people fought and died for…
Well then the Senate should just over rule the excessively deferential court and S 13 repeal the Philistine CHRC legislation. Premier Brad Wall should do likewise.
Thus the Court has no courage for full throated debate. Nope, Canadians need ‘baby training wheels’ on their free speech because otherwise you know, they would turn into a bunch of goose stepping Naz*s who would drop you with their rifle at the next instant!
Oh, oh that nasty man hurt my feelings, sound the alarm and call the “Wah-Wah-wambulance”; I need my diapers changed!
If you were searching for spineless wonders you have found them.
So if you are a pamphleteer handing out “Nuke the married gay fetus whales for Jesus!”; or sport that on a bumper sticker…HELLS BELLS you should be arrested.
If there is one thing I truly hate, it is the inane and stupid. The Whatcott ruling satisfies both those conditions.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/behead-sign-child-deemed-safe-as-mother-talks-to-police-20120918-26368.html
“BEHEAD ALL THOSE WHO INSULT THE PROPHET”
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/09/15/hey-look-its-the-return-of-the-behead-all-those-who-insult-the-prophet-signs/
I don’t think there is any evidence that Bill Whatcott was suggesting “Shoot zem all!”
What’s the old saying; “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Institutionalized ambivalence and political compromise are hallmarks of Canadian culture. For the SCOC to rule the way most of us on this forum would prefer, the Court would need to ignore the clearly intended ambivalence in the Charter. I don’t see this ruling as a problem with the Court since the Court (theoretically) doesn’t make laws, but it sometimes has to make difficult decisions about poorly crafted laws.
Most of the problem here lies squarely with the legislators and their eternal quest to please everyone which usually results in ambivalence. The SCOC doesn’t control the HRCs, elected officials do.
Whatcott’s main beef, it seems, is that education about homosexuality is creeping into the public school syllabus. The SCOC doesn’t control the schools, elected officials do. If Whatcott went after the school board, instead of homosexuals as a group, he probably would have had a better outcome.
Oh, here’s the best bit, lads. Go to the Supreme Court decision online and find Appendix B, where they reprint the pamphlets that caused all the fuss. There’s “hate speech” on the website of the blasted Supreme Court of Canada.
In other words, well-connected Toronto and Montreal perverts, blasphemers and atheists are free to libel, harass and (through fines by “human rights commissions”) expropriate the God-fearing with impunity. The plain people of Canada are free to keep their mouths shut while sodomites, communists and imams recruit their children at school and the Queen’s enemies build bomb factories in the backrooms of Saudi-funded mosques, and pay for the privilege. We are expected to be grateful that it is no longer considered in good taste to crucify men like William Whatcott for preaching the gospel.
But then, what did you expect? Defending British liberty—never mind God’s law—might have resulted in their no longer being welcome at Rosedale or Plateau booze-ups, much less being invited to speak to audiences who can afford to buy them supper and announce the time and place of the lecture well in advance without having to fear a sodomite, communist or Muslim mob will get there first. To their mind, the Law, Prophets and Gospels are fairy stories, only fools, Christians and Zionists take God’s dominion over the heavens and the earth seriously, and the whole of the law is whatever they can convince the RCMP to let them get away with.
These people are headed for grave punishment.
Special interest groups should take a bow, now our SC is ruled by special interests and free speech isn’t on their agenda. I personally have started a hate file on progressives, everytime they post hateful diatribe against Christians I plan to record said hate online via comments at the Globe, NP and other venues and when I have enough hatred on file I shall file mass complaints against those who spewed the hatred. If we can’t defeat the left let’s use the system to show the public the real purpose of hatelaws is not to stop hatred but to enshrine supremacist’s power onto special interest groups. We should flood the HRCs with complaints against the radical leftwing activists who spew hatred sans any government interference.
“The Supreme Court of Canada has just ruled that objective facts may be subject to legal prohibitions on the basis of how said facts may make someone feel.”
Technically, their reasoning is that they may be subject to legal prohibitions on the basis of how public proclamation of said facts may incite someone to *act*. Which is conveniently unfalsifiable by any common-sense test one might imagine.
The irony is that if the Court had allowed truth to be relevant they could still have penalized Whatcott for the flyers they did condemn; exclusive same-sex attraction is *not* the same condition as pedophilia, and implying all those subject to the former are so prone to the latter as to be just as publicly dangerous is factually incorrect. But just because the facts coincide with a particular social agenda here doesn’t mean they will everywhere, so better to rule out fact and truth as irrelevant and concentrate solely on unfalsifiable claims of “likely effect”.
So what the Supreme Court of Canada is saying, is that the Constitution of Canada, doesn’t really mean what it says, exactly.
That it’s open for interpretation. I’ll check to note the asterisk beside those parts they haven’t already been nuanced down for us.
and truth under the law, is subjective.
Hilarious.
I’m sure Brad Wall will get rid of the Sask Human Rights busybodies as soon as he’s elected. Oh wait.
So what the Supreme Court of Canada is saying, is that the Constitution of Canada, doesn’t really mean what it says, exactly.
No, the SCOC is affirming that the Constitution of Canada does really mean what it says, exactly. And what the Constitution does say, exactly, is that unlimited freedom of speech is not a guaranteed “unalienable” right in Canada. The SCOC didn’t write the Charter, elected politicians did.
Andrew Coyne: sometimes, he really doesn’t suck.
My point exactly. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, may he burn in hell for all eternity and soon be joined there by all his accursed house, drafted the Charter to be so flexible and ambiguous that the law might be whatever he and the Liberal Party thought best. Finally he made it impossible to amend so as to prevent British liberty from ever being restored.
Go read by contrast the law God gave to Moses, or the Gospels of our Lord. God’s word is not a legal rigmarole only lawyers may be trusted to interpret. It is written for all of His people to read, understand and keep, that they might have no excuse if they do not. The Hebrew of the Law and the Greek of the Gospels was written for slaves, and as such is so easy to follow that anybody who had eyes and could read at all could read and understand the word of our Lord.
That Law, by the way, is still very much in force, and the Kingdom very near. The fools who put their names to this travesty of justice will live to envy the fate of the men of Sodom whose allies they are, and to weep at the memory of the day they heard the name of William Whatcott.
My take is that it is now open season on Christians and the Bible. Not on the savage muzzies and that bullshit koran of theirs. Even the judges are too afraid to go after them. We live in a country run by pussies. We’ll reap what we sow.
So here’s what we should do, file tens of thousands of complaints against the SC website, using their logic-or lack of it-the truth is no defense ergo they can’t argue that posting the evidence ala leaflets on their site will expose gays to hatred. Sure that’s the evidence and it’s the truth but using their warped logic the truth is no defense so they are in effect in violation of their own ruling.
Coyne is one of Canada’s best. He rarely ‘sucks’.
we don’t NEED conservative jurists that adhere to conservative values, WE NEED APOLITICAL jurists that understand they work for the people, and not some ingrained ideology!!!!
Hans, it’s fools like U that play rite into the hands of these idiots, our rites are not god given (there is no god in my world or in many other’s world), so if we can subserviate to another entity, god, them why not the “government”. Our rites are “natural”, and given by no person/entity, therefore shouldf not be restricted by anyone/entity, except the government, ONLY WHEN ADMINISTERING THE WILL OF THEN PEOPLE. Try putting your bible down, as when you pound the damn thing you are as dangerous as the lefties!!!!
This is the natural outcome of liberals writing laws …. now to the supposed conservatives…
So change the effin law already and right these wrongs.
Dick Slater, “Prophets and Gospels are fairy stories, only fools, Christians and Zionists take God’s dominion over the heavens and the earth seriously,”, well said, and true.
When I blogged and now even on twitter I have often stated that Canada does not have free speech. It has State-determined politically correct speech. The Courts confirmed this yesterday with its momentous, monstrous decision.
And that is a cause for weeping.
Apparently the supreme court justices are now the supreme high priests since only THEY can interpret the tea leaves. Wow. If truth is not an option then reason as it applies to our rights is dead. These freaks should be shot.
Keep in mind boys and girls, Canadians never were and never have been free. You do not even own the land your home stands on. The Crown in Right does and you just pay taxes/rent on it and if you don’t you will be thrown on the street. You have no right to Free Speech. No Right To Self Defense, well you have that right but it will cost you 1/2 a million to prove it each time in court. You are dumb ass Canadians who willing allow the state to confiscate your property anytime anywhere. You pay more in taxes and fees than you are allowed to take home to keep your family in food, clothing and housing. Taxes in Canada today are far, far higher than what medieval serf’s paid, and you kneel and tug your forelocks like the landless peasants you really are, Canada is and has always been a Slave Ship and you have been allowed to serve on that ship at the oars. Now shut your mouths and bend your backs to your work before you, you Tax Slugs and Farmed Slaves. The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves…
Our rites are “natural”, and given by no person/entity…
Yeah, you assert your rights in the natural world, one to one up against a predator. Let us know how it works out. Rites won’t help either. heh
Meanwhile, learn the definition of unalienable rights.
Ezra Levant:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/the-top-courtrsquos-whatcott-decision-is-a-setback-for-freedom/2196152665001
Is there any procedure for impeaching the Supreme Court?
I had my say on this totalitarian crock last night in Reader Tips.
DN @ 2:17 p.m. points out the worst part of the decision. That and “The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm”, from the same summary paragraph.
The real problem is the Trudeau Charter. Time to start from scratch, and do it right this time.
One interesting point about Andrew Coyne. He has written a few times about his opposition to the “notwithstanding clause”, s.33 of the Charter, on the grounds that rights should not be overridden by the legislatures. Perhaps he did not realize his implication that judges are always right. Today’s column puts the lie to that fiction.
I suggested recently that Supreme Court judges should be subject to a public approval vote every few years. This decision underscores the need for the public to have a say.
The judgment was written by Marshall Rothstein but it has Rosalie Abella’s pawprints all over it.
stradivarious @ 7:07 p.m.:
Our rights are natural, not gifts from the authorities. They only apply in dealings with other human beings, not “predators” who are what they are.
Just watched Ezra (link by marc in calgary @ 7:23 p.m). He rips them to shreds and makes fun of them at the same time. Superb!
666 – Leave Dick alone! I think this is the first time I’ve seen a post of his that doesn’t blame every wrong on the Catholics.
Canada truly is the land of the losers. We have no property rights, no free speech–which means no free thought and we’re not allowed to defend ourselves. I’m starting to think that the motorcycle gangs and organized crime have it right. At least they’re living by their own rules…the rest of us are just a bunch of suckers who pay(in the form of taxes)for the right to be dictated to by our “betters”. It’s kind of sad when you think of it that way.
One single point all miss here…ALL people who work with or for gubermint are psychopaths.Their main goal…control you.Well this little puppy will not be controled by a freak in gubermint.