|
BACK TO TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal Bans The Bible
On June 15, 2001, a one-woman Human Rights Board of Inquiry ordered
all parts of the Bible referring to homosexuality be publicly banned
in Saskatchewan. In this decision, political correctness dictated
that the protection of homosexuals' "feelings" is a right
which is superior to the centuries-old protection granted to religion
in our western civilization. This decision is the pinnacle of the
many absurdities that Canadians have had to endure from reckless and
uncontrolled Human Rights Tribunals.
Background
Hugh Owens, a Christian living in Saskatoon, placed
an advertisement in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix on June 30,
1997. The advertisement consisted of a picture of two stick figures
holding hands inside a circle with a slash through it. The ad also
included four Biblical references. The Biblical references (but
not the actual wording) were: Romans 1:26; Leviticus 18;22; Leviticus
20:23 and 1 Corinthians 6:9.
Three homosexual activists laid a complaint against
Mr. Owens and the StarPhoenix, claiming that their feelings
were hurt by the ad, and two of the complainants alleged that the
ad made them fear for their lives.
The one-woman Board held that although the circle
with the slash was not in itself communicating hatred towards homosexuals,
that symbol, combined with the references to the Bible, did expose
homosexuals to hatred and ridicule. Further, she held that the advertisement
was an affront to their dignity on the basis of their sexual orientation
and therefore, was contrary to the provisions of the Saskatchewan
Human Rights Code.
She then ordered:
- the three complainants to be paid $1,500 each
by both Mr. Owens and the StarPhoenix (total $3000 each);
- the StarPhoenix be prohibited from accepting
the advertisement, the subject of the complaint.
The editor of the StarPhoenix stated he would
not appeal the decision and that he would never again allow a similar
ad to be published in his newspaper. That was exactly the purpose
of the exercise - to shut down dissent against homosexual activities.
Moreover, this decision has serious ramifications
for priests and ministers and public spokespersons if they speak
against homosexuality. Clearly, by this decision, there is no longer
any immunity. It is hoped that this truly outrageous decision will
be appealed as it cannot be sustained in a democratic country.
The Problems With Human
Rights Commissions
The problems with Human Rights Commissions are
numerous. They are operated by zealots intent upon forcing society
to adopt their own special interest views. The Commissions have
unlimited discretion as to the evidence they may admit, and are
not bound or limited in any way by legal or court procedures. The
biggest problem with them, however, is that the costs of the complainants
are totally paid by the Commission, while the person accused must
pay his/her own legal costs. This is precisely why Mr. Owens argued
his own case before the Board of Inquiry, as did Scott Brockie,
the Christian printer in Toronto who refused to print material for
a homosexual organization and who was also found guilty of discrimination
and fined by a Human Rights Tribunal in Toronto.
Because those laying a complaint before the Commission
face no financial consequences, this amounts to an open invitation
for activists to stir up trouble against those who do not agree
with them. The activists also benefit by way of a sympathetic media
account of their complaint, often with derogatory statements made
against the accused, who is provided no similar opportunity to put
his/her case before the public. In addition, the accused must struggle,
not only with his/her loss of reputation, but also with the financial
costs involved. It is little wonder that the Commission's hearings
have become a reservoir into which political activists may dip to
further their special interests.
Realistically, although competent legal assistance
may have been of some assistance to Mr. Owen and Mr. Brockie, it
would not, unfortunately, have won their cases for them before these
latter day Inquisitions.
On the other hand, competent legal assistance would
make the Tribunals more careful when making their nonsensical decisions,
and would provide competent evidence and arguments on which to launch
an appeal to the proper courts, which are bound by strict
rules of evidence and the rule of law.
Legal Defence Fund
On October 1st, last year, in Vancouver, a meeting
was held by about 25 pro-life/family lawyers from across the country
in an attempt to establish a Legal Defence Fund to train lawyers
in significant pro-family/life areas, and to provide competent help
to accused individuals such as Mr. Owens and Mr. Brockie. The formation
of such an organization presents some problems, however, not the
least being a financial one, since most lawyers dedicated to the
pro-life/family cause are not in a personal financial position to
provide pro bono (without cost) legal services. This project
is a very important and necessary one, however, and it is
gratifying to know that it is now in the process of formation.
It is obvious that the Christian faith is now subject
to relentless and unreasonable attack. We must defend not only our
faith, but also the rights of all other religions caught up in this
net.
BACK TO TABLE OF
CONTENTS
|
