Supreme Court labelled truth ‘hate speech’ in homosexuality case
WEYBURN, Saskatchewan, 4 March, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Not finding vindication in Canada’s highest court, the country’s most controversial self-styled Christian evangelist has taken to the blogosphere to defend his innocence and exonerate himself from the judges’ unanimous pronouncement that he is guilty of “hate speech”.
“The reasoning for ruling that two of my four flyers should be deemed ‘hate speech’ is specious and fantastical at best, or dishonest and totalitarian at worst,” wrote Bill Whatcott today on his blog FreeNorthAmerica.
Bill Whatcott
Whatcott said that two of his flyers deemed hate speech by the Court contained only facts about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle and the biblical word for men who have sex with men.
“The Supremes didn’t like that I used the Biblical word ‘sodomite’ to describe folks who commit sodomy and they thought using statistics showing the down side of homosexual behaviour, even if backed up with peer reviewed studies, should be censored if it could cause someone to get a negative impression of homosexual behaviour.”
“The Supremes did not like my facts,” he said.
While many object to Whatcott’s use of strident language and tone to convey his points in his flyers, many of the same have also condemned the Court’s decision as an unprecedented infringement of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
In a statement that has practically received universal condemnation from both left and right, the Supreme Court Judge Rothstein wrote that “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.”
Critics across the spectrum have slammed the Court for ruling that truth is subject to restriction. Some lawyers have argued that what this means legally is that truth is no longer a defense.
“Even if something may be true, it’s not a defense at Human Rights Tribunals, and that is particularly scary,” said Chris Schafer, executive director of Canadian Constitution Foundation, to Sun News.
“The court didn’t just ban hateful religious views,” wrote Ezra Levant, lawyer, political activist, and broadcaster for Sun News. “It banned hateful speech that was objectively, scientifically true. As in, indisputable facts, if they might cause someone to hate someone else.”
Whatcott called the judges’ restriction of truth an “excuse for censoring.”
“There you got it. Label truthful statements you don’t like ‘hate speech’ and therein lies your excuse for censoring the statements you don’t like.”
Whatcott said that medical studies vindicate his warnings about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. He pointed to the secular U.S. Centre for Disease Control (CDC), which found that the “rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM (men who have sex with men) is more than 44 times that of other men, while the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men.” For this reason, the CDC called HIV, hepatitis, and other STDs “of particular concern” for gay and bisexual men.
“Well facts are facts, so the Supremes have simply ruled in their Whatcott decision that if facts meet the ‘Hallmarks of Hate’ they are illegal and liable to prosecution,” said Whatcott.
Despite the ruling, Whatcott has decided to continue publicly witnessing against homosexuality with plans to hand out more flyers this week.
“I won’t stop speaking the truth and am prepared to lose my freedom and what few assets I have, rather than be silenced and reject the cross my Saviour has for me,” he said.
“The good news is God is still in control and truth which is rooted in Scripture and natural law has a way of prevailing, even when courts with supposedly learned men and women seek to suppress it.”
