Canadian free speech

Does Preaching Against Gay Sex Mean You’re Attacking Gays Themselves?

Can you call anal sex between two men absolutely abhorrent and disgusting without violating laws that prohibit you from discriminating against gays? Canada’s Supreme Court will soon decide!

By “soon” we mean a year or so, because first an appeals court must issue its decision (sometimes Canada is just like America!), and it’s on its way to doing that having accepted a petition from the Human Rights Commission.

Bill Whatcott, an infamous Canadian anti-gay and anti-abortion activist, spent 2001 and 2002 distributing four different flyers on behalf of the Christian Truth Activists. The propaganda was distributed to Saskatoon and Regina arae homes — which had citizens filing complaints with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, saying the flyers were tantamount to hate speech, since they “promote[d] hatred against individuals based on their sexual orientation.” Whatcott successfully won his rebuttal in front of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, saying the flyers targeted acts, not identity.

“Our children will pay the price in disease, death, abuse and ultimately eternal judgment if we do not say no to the sodomite desire to socialize your children into accepting something that is clearly wrong,” reads one of the flyers, which certainly entered a arguably gray area by targeting on “sodomite desire”; does that refer to “sex” or the innate sexual desire that’s part of being a homosexual person?

Let’s play this game: Could somebody legally distribute flyers warning against the dangers of “offering haircuts to blacks” because a person believes the way blacks grow their hair is abnormal and threatens to indoctrinate children? After all, the flyers would just be targeting an activity (haircuts), not an immutable characteristic (being of African origin). But it still sounds god awful. Now you go!

[Toronto Sun; Montreal Gazette; Yes, the bottom photo is likely from an American demonstration, not a Canadian one]