Supreme Court of Canada rules that politically incorrect speech is a criminal offense

Political map of Canada

Canada is hostile to free speech, as shown in the recent Supreme Court decision.

Excerpt:

Canada’s top court has released a unanimous decision today that critics say has struck a monumental blow against freedom of speech, opinion, and religion across the country. The court ordered the defendant, a Christian pro-family activist with a reputation for intense activism, not only to pay a fine, but also to pay court costs which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[...]In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court decided that born-again Christian William Whatcott was guilty of hate speech for distributing flyers to neighborhoods in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002. While the flyers used vehement language against homosexual practices and the homosexual agenda, they did not directly attack homosexual persons.

[...]The Court focused on Whatcott’s main argument, namely that he loves homosexuals with a brotherly Christian love, and it is only their sexual activity that he denounces.

But the Supreme Court found that with regards to hate speech, the distinction between ‘sin and sinner’ no longer applies.

“I agree that sexual orientation and sexual behaviour can be differentiated for certain purposes,” the Court stated. “However, in instances where hate speech is directed toward behaviour in an effort to mask the true target, the vulnerable group, this distinction should not serve to avoid s. 14(1)(b) [the hate-crime clause of the Code].”

“Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself,” the Court stated.

The Court ordered Whatcott to pay the Human Rights Commission’s legal fees and to pay $7,500 in compensation to two homosexuals who were offended by his flyers.

Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada, called the ruling “very depressing” and “bad news”.

[...]“On the one hand they’re saying, ‘Oh, no, no, no, we’re not really infringing on freedom of religion and freedom of speech and freedom of opinion’, but in fact, what they say is not what they’ve done,” she said in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com.

Next time we have an election, can we vote in favor of free speech? I don’t agree with anything Whatcott did – form or content. The man is a fool. But I can easily see how this ruling could be used to silence reasonable speech that disagrees with homosexuality and gay marriage on secular grounds. The motivation of these judges is to silence speech critical of the gay agenda, and we should all be concerned about that. They pick these kooks like Whatcott to attack because they won’t get any opposition from normal people. But later you’ll find out that these legal precedents will furnish the foundation for eliminating free speech altogether. It’s happened before.

Apparently, there is some effort to repeal section 13 in Canada, which is the part that criminalizes speech deemed offensive by the political left. That might affect future rulings of the Supreme Court if it is made clear that the right to free speech is absolute.

Related posts

• Free speech under attack from the secular left in the UK and Canada
• By repealing section 13, Canada takes a baby step toward freedom of speech
• Free speech hero Mark Steyn reflects on the demise of Section 13 fascism
• Canadian conservatives pass bill to repeal Section 13 speech code
• Youtube reverses decision to ban video critical of gay activism in Canada
• Alberta judge rules that it is legal to disagree with homosexuality
• Conservative MP’s bill to repeal Section 13 moves to committee
• Conservative MP introduces bill to abolish Section 13 speech code
• Ezra Levant on the new Sun News television network
• What happens when same-sex marriage conflicts with religious liberty?
• Human Rights Tribunal finds Catholic school board guilty of discrimination
• Saskatchewan planning to abolish its Human Rights Tribunal
• In Canada, Blazing Cat Fur is being sued for linking to Mark Steyn
• Canadian Human Rights Commissions continue war on Christians
• Video of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn testifying against Canadian HRCs
• The Conservative Party takes up free speech in British Columbia
• The Conservative Party takes up free speech in Ontario
• Video of Ezra Levant discussing free speech on the Michael Coren show
• Video interview with Ezra Levant by the libertarian Fraser Institute

Filed under: News, Bill Whatcott, Canada, Communism, Fascism, Feminism, Free Speech, Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Tribunal, Leftism, Nanny State, S. 13, Section 13, Socialism, Speech, Speech Code, Supreme Court, The Left, Thought Crime, Thoughtcrime, William Whatcott

Jennifer Roback Morse on the injustice of the American family court system

I find myself thinking about life-long married love on Valentine’s Day, so I’m going to post an article by marriage-defender Jennifer Roback Morse about one of the biggest challenges to life-long married love.

Excerpt:

Easy divorce opens the door for an unprecedented amount of government intrusion into ordinary people’s lives. This unacknowledged reality is the subject of Taken Into Custody, by Stephen Baskerville. With penetrating insight, the political scientist exposes the truly breathtaking consequences of no-fault divorce for the expansion of state power and the decline of personal autonomy.

First, no-fault divorce frequently means unilateral divorce: one party wants a divorce against the wishes of the other, who wants to stay married. Kim Basinger dumped Baldwin for no particular reason, unleashed the power of the Los Angeles Family Court system to inflict pain on him and, in the process, inflicted untold damage on their child. Second, the fact that one party wants to remain married means that the divorce has to be enforced. Baldwin wanted to stay married and to continue to be a husband and father. Yet, the coercive and intrusive machinery of the state must be wheeled into action to separate the reluctantly divorced party from the joint assets of the marriage, typically the home and the children.

Third, enforcing the divorce means an unprecedented blurring of the boundaries between public and private life. People under the jurisdiction of family courts can have virtually all of their private lives subject to its scrutiny. If the courts are influenced by feminist ideology, that ideology can extend its reach into every bedroom and kitchen in America. Baldwin ran the gauntlet of divorce industry professionals who have been deeply influenced by the feminist presumptions that the man is always at fault and the woman is always a victim. Thus, the social experiment of no-fault divorce, which most Americans thought was supposed to increase personal liberty, has had the consequence of empowering the state.

Some might think the legacy of no-fault divorce is an example of the law of unintended consequences in operation. That assumes its architects did not intend for unilateral divorce to result in the expansion of the state. But Baskerville makes the case in this book—as well as his 2008 monograph, “The Dangerous Rise of Sexual Politics,” in The Family in America—that at least some of the advocates of changes in family law certainly have intended to expand the power of the state over the private lives of law-abiding citizens.

She explains who is really behind the attempt to destroy marriage, and the answer might shock you.

It’s important for people to understand the real reasons why people are not getting married, so that we can do something to encourage them to marry that really fixes the problem. Talk to any man and he will tell you that aside from the concerns about the economy and the national debt, the main reason why he is not willing to get married is the unfairness of the family courts. If you don’t understand the threats that men are seeing with respect to marriage, it might be a good idea to take a look at this essay by Stephen Baskerville, hosted by the Christian Touchstone magazine. It’s a summary of the book that Dr. Morse reviewed. I consider that book “Taken Into Custody” to be a must-read for anyone contemplating marriage.

Filed under: Commentary, Family, Fascism, Father, Feminism, Feminist State, Government, Jennifer Roback Morse, Manoshere, Marriage, Men's Role, Nanny State, No-Fault Divorce, Politics, Sex Role, Sexual Politics, Single-Motherhood, State, Stephen Baskerville, Welfare

Man shoots robbery suspect to protect his 2-year-old son

Here’s a local news story from Columbus, Ohio about gun violence.

Excerpt:

A Columbus man said that he fought back when a man tried to rob him at gunpoint in west Columbus Monday night.

Kelby Smith, 34, told police he was in the driveway of the home on Crescent Drive just before 9 p.m. when he was approached by a robber.

Smith said that he had his 2-month-old in a car carrier and had to shield him from the robber who held a gun at Smith’s head.

The suspect took Smith’s money and started to flee the scene as he pointed the gun back at Smith and his child.

That’s when Smith pulled out his own gun and fired at the robber.

The robber continued to run, but police said that a man fitting his description arrived at Mount Carmel West a short time later with a gunshot wound.

Authorities said Smith does have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and they believe he was trying to defend himself.

Police are continuing to investigate, but the man at the hospital could face charges if it’s determined he is the robbery suspect.

Smith and his child were uninjured in the robbery.

Right now, the Democrats are going to be pushing for restrictions on guns, but it’s important to understand what guns are most commonly used for. For every one school shooting, there are hundreds of thousands of cases where guns are used for self-defense. If you are a leftist who believes in banning guns, ask yourself what would have happened if that legally-owned gun had not been there in this story. What should the victim do when confronted with a criminal? What I hear from leftists when I ask that question is that they think that criminals have more rights to commit crimes than law-abiding people have to defend themselves. That’s their view, although they usually don’t come out and say it. For people on the left, those who have property and wealth didn’t get it by working, and so it can be stolen from them. Law-abiding people have no right to upset the poor criminals by defending themselves.

Filed under: News, 2nd Amendment, Ban, Constitution, Constitutional, Crime, Family, Feminism, Firearm, Freedom, Gun, Gun Control, Gun-Free Zone, Handgun, Liberal, Liberty, Male Nature, Man, Men, Misandry, Nanny State, Progressive, Protector, School Shooting, Self-Defense, Shooting, Victim, Violent

Woman uses gun to defend herself and her children from home intruder

From WSB-TV in Georgia. (H/T Pro-Existence)

Excerpt:

A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday.

The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar.

But the man eventually found the family.

“The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he’s staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver,” Chapman told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

“She’s standing over him, and she realizes she’s fired all six rounds. And the guy’s telling her to quit shooting,” Chapman said.

[...]In February, Slater was arrested on simple battery charges, according to the Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office. He has been arrested six other times in the county since 2008.

And here’s what makes this story interesting to me:

Kavanaugh was the first reporter at the scene as deputies investigated. The victim’s husband told Kavanaugh he’s proud of his wife. He was on the phone with her as the intruder broke in.

“My wife is a hero. She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do as responsible, prepared gun owner,” Donnie Herman said.

He said he’s thankful for his family’s safety.

“Her life is saved, and her kids’ life is saved, and that’s all I’d like to say,” Herman said.

I think that this last part is important. I have many reasons for being cautious about marriage in a time like this. Marriage is a particular thing and there are certain jobs that men and women need to perform in the marriage. Society can either support them or hinder them in those roles. Married men are supposed to be protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders in the home, but some laws and policies can hinder their ability to do those roles. For example, high tax rates prevent men from providing, by decreasing economic growth and decreasing take-home pay. Similarly, laws that regulate, ban and criminalize self-defense deter marriage-minded men from marrying. In the UK, homeowners are regularly arrested, tried and convicted for defending their property and family from criminals.

If I were to get married, I need to be able to defend my family. That means owning weapons and being legally protected to use them. Although gun regulations and bans are very popular with single women, I think that this is just another areas where single women need to change their view. Single women have to understand that marriage is a lot more complicated than “happily ever after”. There are specific tasks to perform in marriage. Each parent is suited to different tasks. Single women need to change their views to support policies that are marriage-friendly.

Filed under: News, 2nd Amendment, Anti-Male, Ban, Cinemark, Connecticut, Constitution, Constitutional, Crime, Family, Feminism, Feminized, Firearm, Freedom, Gun, Gun Control, Gun-Free Zone, Handgun, Liberal, Liberty, Marriage, Misandry, Multiple, Nanny State, Ownership, Principal, Progressive, Public, Rate, Right, School, School Shooting, Self-Defense, Shooting, Socialism, Teacher, Victim, Violent

John Fund: the facts about mass shootings

From National Review. This article was being shared a lot on Facebook.

Excerpt:

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

[...]First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.”New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. “Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law enforcement?” asks Professor Jacobson. “I doubt it.”

[...]Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

[...]Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue” laws.

Please read it. It’s good to have the facts when deciding what to make of individual tragic occurrences.

Filed under: News, 2nd Amendment, Ban, Cinemark, Connecticut, Constitution, Constitutional, Crime, Firearm, Freedom, Gun, Gun Control, Gun-Free Zone, Handgun, James Holmes, John Lott, Liberal, Liberty, Multiple, Nanny State, Ownership, Principal, Progressive, Public, Rate, Right, School, School Shooting, Self-Defense, Shooting, Socialism, Teacher, Victim, Violent