(A3a4a1d) Hugh Owens folder

As of this date, 06-06-06, this folder contains 1 item. ******* item 1 A SMALL VICTORY FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION ******* From: Lorne Gunter via "Robert A. Jason" ******* National Post, Mon 17 Apr 2006, Page: A17, Section: Issues & Ideas ******* Last Thursday, a three-judge panel of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal unanimously overturned one of this country's most notorious judgments against freedom of religion and freedom of speech: 2002's Owens v. Saskatchewan. ******* In 1997, Hugh Owens, a Saskatchewan prison guard and evangelical Christian, placed an ad in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. He did so in response to ads celebrating Gay Pride Week. ******* Owens's ad featured two stickmen holding hands, covered by a circle with a line drawn through it. Next to the stick figures were citations for four Biblical passages condemning homosexuality as sinful -- not the full text of the passages, just their chapter and verse numbers. Between the figures and the citations was an equal sign. ******* Three gay men brought a complaint against Owens and the paper claiming "their dignity was affronted" by the ad, and that they "suffered in respect of their feelings and self-respect." ******* A Board of Inquiry of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission agreed that hate speech was in the ear of the hearer rather than in the mind of the speaker. If gays felt the ads were hateful, then by definition they must be. Hurt feelings trumped freedom of _expression. ******* While no evidence was introduced that any of the complainants suffered discrimination personally as a result of Owens's ad, the board declared "there can be no question that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule." The board found the ad in violation of Saskatchewan's human rights code, even though the code contains clear exemptions for religious belief and free speech. ******* In 2002, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench upheld the board's ruling, indulging in especially convoluted judicial reasoning: Yes, the court conceded, Saskatchewan's human rights law did protect religious _expression, but the Biblical passages Owens cited were clearly hateful, and since no major religion sanctions hatefulness among its adherents, the passages couldn't possibly be religious, so weren't exempt. ******* Last Thursday, the specious reasonings of both the board and the lower court were overturned when the Court of Appeal declared that "although bluntly presented and doubtless upsetting to many," Owens's ad did not evoke the "strong sense of detestation, calumny and vilification" required by the Supreme Court in order to justify a curtailment of free speech. ******* The appellate decision is not a robust defence of free _expression. It is nonetheless welcome, if only because it reverses the travesties perpetrated by the human rights commission and the lower court. ******* Last week's ruling allows that extremely hateful speech would violate the provincial human rights code, and declares only that Owens's ad did not constitute extremely hateful language. Unfortunately, since the determination of what is extremely hateful is every bit as subjective as what it merely hateful -- just slightly harder to prove -- Thursday's decision will not end gay-rights organizations' witch hunts against those who dare speak out against them. ******* The judges also allowed that the feelings of those who believe themselves to be discriminated against should be considered when deciding "whether there has been a violation of the Code." In cases where guilt or innocence hinges on value judgments, this is a dangerous indulgence, particularly in a politically correct age when some fashionable victims are more equal than others and human rights commissioners and judges tend to listen disproportionately to their tales of woe. ******* However, the judges tempered their indulgence with the caution that injecting too much of "that sort of subjectivity into the analysis" would make the reach of the law "entirely unpredictable and, as a result, would create an unacceptable chilling effect on free speech." ******* Saskatchewan's highest court also hinted that the same ad, if it ran today, might not be permitted. It had to be considered in the context of the time in which it ran, a time when the national debate on gay rights was in much greater flux, when gay pension benefits and same-sex marriage still had not been settled by Parliament and the courts. ******* But it is precisely when elite opinion seems entirely settled that the freedom to dissent from established views is most in need of protection. ******* Owens is no less entitled to express his beliefs now than in 1997 just because even more politicians, jurists, professors and editorialists are opposed to his views today. ******* The appeal courts caveats are worrisome. They leave religious _expression and free speech vulnerable to attack from special interests. ******* Still, at least for now, Canadians are slightly freer again to voice their beliefs. ******* Lorne Gunter, Columnist/Editorial Writer, National Post Columnist, Edmonton Journal, Tele: (780) 916-0719, E-mail: [email protected], Fax: (780) 481-4735 ******* Address: 132 Quesnell Cres NW, Edmonton AB T5R 5P2 ********************************************************************************

Links to other sites on the Web

(A3a4a1d6) (A) home page

The following warning is a prophetic message given to me, Frank Wagner, in November of 1974. ******* LISTEN TO THE CRY OF THE ABORTED CHILDREN. THEIR CRY IS NO. THEIR CRY IS A CRY OF TERROR. HEED THEIR CRY. ******* This prophecy is now being fulfilled. ******* For details about the source, meaning and fulfillment of this prophetic message go to ******* http://ca.geocities.com/fwagner4/index.html ******* email me at *** [email protected] ***