Hate speech case goes before the Supreme Court - Macleans.ca

Hate speech case goes before the Supreme Court

Anti-gay activist challenges Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission’s authority to restrict hate speech


A landmark hate speech case is being debated in the Supreme Court of Canada on Wednesday, pitting an anti-gay pamphleteer from Saskatchewan against defenders of Canada’s restrictions on speech that is considered hateful. Bill Whatcott was convicted of promoting hatred by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal in 2005 and ordered to pay $17,500 to the complainants after he distributed flyers calling gays sodomites and child molesters. But the ruling was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in 2010, where Whatcott argued his stance was against homosexuality, not gay people. Whatcott’s lawyer will argue that the Supreme Court should strike down the hate speech provisions included in Saskatchewan’s human rights legislation.

CBC News

Filed under:

Hate speech case goes before the Supreme Court

  1. Hate is alive and well in Canada. For many days, a ‘boris moris’ posted inflammatory comments about Conrad Black at The Globe and Mail. (The Globe may have blocked any more of these homophobic, antisemitic, and anti-intellectual comments.) At “Edward Greenspan rebuts Conrad Black.” 

    And what hatred could motivate someone to post that an innocent black man in BC was responsible for a murder? 

    The Ubyssey is the latest victim of the ‘boris moris’ hate brigade. What is the country coming to? 

  2. This is an example of how hatred closes down discussion in Canada. Having been pursued to The Ubyssey by the ‘boris moris’ hate brigade, I had my comments on UBC bookstore policy deleted, along with the hate posts of one “Sherlock Hammer,” an associate, he said, of ‘boris moris:’ 

    McElroy: How the Bookstore’s purpose went astrayBy Justin McElroy
    One CommentJustin McElroy says:October 12, 2011 at 7:20 pmThis story has been closed for commenting.TOP RATED McElroy: How the Bookstore’s purpose went astray (+19 rating, 14 votes)

  3. Michael Caines, The TLS:
    It seems to me that there is an undercurrent in your analysis. As if English were not the world language of the future, even more so than it has decimated the ancient languages during the past 500 years.
    Let’s all set our minds to learning English up to the highest standards. That is why I have brilliantly designed my 60 verb elements of the past (English is the most beautiful language for its subtle treatment of the past):
    In my analysis of the prison case of Conrad Black, I angered some rubes in British Columbia by designating him: “Saint Conrad Black.” They were also infuriated when I disclosed that I am one of the most intelligent people in the world. You can’t please all of the dullards in our precarious world.
    Thanks for your commentary, but I feel that it was weakened by the lack of material on ergative verbs:
    “Jack slammed the door.” “The door slammed.”
    I am working on ergatives now, chock-a-block:
    Jack erected his penis.Jack’s penis erected.
    Jack ejaculated his penis.Jack’s penis ejaculated.

  4. I think everyone has the right to be an asshole in what they believe.
    I do though think that the second a non-taxable institution starts being political that they become a different entity and that status should be removed.

    You deserve every right to your own religion, but you don’t get ANY say in others. If you don’t want to marry someone and your job description says to do it, then you can exercise your freedom of religion and resign your job. If you don’t want to rent to people with the money, then close the your hotel.

    Religion is a BEHAVIOR if you are going to define homosexuality that way. Hate the Christian not the man…it’s just their RELIGION we object to, not the person if they were an atheist as all logic supports is the NON insanity version of a man. Like those arguments coming out your own analysis?
    Statistics say that the stronger ones religion the stronger the urge to kill people, as the vast majority of all soldiers who kill for a living are raving religious proponents. So getting rid of religion is LOVE helping them live longer lives and the lives of their imaginary enemies that they have never met are determined to kill just for existing because some religion said they are. Funny how logic really hurts when you are religious. Same arguments. Same results. 

  5. freedom is very hard to uphold.many of todays freedoms were won by standing up for the rights of some not very nice people. censorship is a curse. ones own moral values ought not to be forbidden. the right we all have to live our lives as we see fit is not for heterosexuals or anti hate speech to decide. what we all can decide is to live a gay lifestyle if you so choose and for others to approve or disapprove. if you have the right to publicly endorse it then you also have the right to condemn it.equality and freedom of speech is for all not just the popular opinions for they dont need protection.but for unpopular ones for they need to be protected.