Yesterday’s decision really bodes badly for Canadian free
speech and particularly the freedom of Christians to express what they believe
to be divinely ordained truth, i.e. the Bible, traditional Christian teaching
etc.
From LifeSiteNews…
Canada’s top court has released an 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
Catholic 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.
From Jonathan
Kay at National Post…
The complication is that millions of Canadians do see
homosexual behaviour in exactly those fire-and-brimstone terms, even if the
rest of us (myself included) do not. They include not only many religious
Christians such as Mr. Whatcott, but also many religious Muslims and Jews. And
there is no sugar-coating the fact that — despite its claim to be “balancing”
the rights of all concerned — the Court effectively has privileged the
protection of gay Canadians over the right of religious Christians to promote
what they view as the established, Biblical take on homosexuality.
Moreover, the Court wrongly chose to wipe away any distinction between hating acts associated with homosexuality, and hating homosexuals as people. That distinction may be meaningless for most Canadians. But it is an important distinction in Christian doctrine. Whatcott himself specifically invites gays to “repent” their ways and attain salvation — which suggests, crucially, that he does not regard any person as permanently stained by sin.
Moreover, the Court wrongly chose to wipe away any distinction between hating acts associated with homosexuality, and hating homosexuals as people. That distinction may be meaningless for most Canadians. But it is an important distinction in Christian doctrine. Whatcott himself specifically invites gays to “repent” their ways and attain salvation — which suggests, crucially, that he does not regard any person as permanently stained by sin.
Ezra Levant is frustrated with this ruling and points out
the stupidity and confusion of the Court: