American_Jihad
Flaming Libs/Koranimals
Supreme Foolishness
March 5, 2013
By Janice Fiame
Coarse and rebarbative though his words undoubtedly were, William Whatcott was not far wrong when, in a flyer titled Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoons Public Schools, he pinpointed the massive shift in law and public opinion that had taken place in Canada over the previous 30 years. In 1968 it was illegal to engage in homosexual acts, he wrote in one of four flyers he distributed in 2001 and 2002 to denounce the normalizing of homosexuality in schools and the mainstreaming of gay desire in the media, and now it is almost becoming illegal to question [homosexuality].
...
Even more confounding to logic is the Courts related claim that proof of actual harm need not be established in relation to hate speech. The seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups, the Court states, is so great that it needs no demonstration, being part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians. In a culture in which storefronts sport the rainbow flag to declare their allegiance with gay people, Hollywood celebrates gay heroes (and condemns evangelicals), and thousands applaud Gay Pride Parades in every major Canadian city, it is not clear that homophobia is part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians. The Courts fundamental assumption about the self-evidence of prejudice and therefore of the harm of hateful speech is demonstrably false.
Given that the Supreme Courts own reasoning defines hate speech by its likelihood to cause an identifiable group to be subject to prejudice and discrimination, one could reasonably conclude that the judgment is itself an example of hate speech directed at bible-believing Protestant evangelicals, a religious minority comprising about 8% of the Canadian population according to a recent report. Is it not likely that many of the self-righteous and politically correct members of the chattering classes who read about the Supreme Court judgment in their Thursday newspapers experienced a satisfying frisson of disgust and smug horror against Christians? A main concern of the Court is that hate speech may cause people to reconsider the social standing of a vulnerable group. Many well-heeled secularists are already inclined to feel contempt for Christians who believe the Bibles moral injunctions; now they have an enhanced reason to do so, and from a source far more respectable and influential than Whatcotts crudely written flyers.
...
The Canadian Supreme Courts overarching imperative to protect the societal standing of vulnerable groups makes the answer No. I am still shaking my head in disbelief.
Supreme Foolishness
March 5, 2013
By Janice Fiame
Coarse and rebarbative though his words undoubtedly were, William Whatcott was not far wrong when, in a flyer titled Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoons Public Schools, he pinpointed the massive shift in law and public opinion that had taken place in Canada over the previous 30 years. In 1968 it was illegal to engage in homosexual acts, he wrote in one of four flyers he distributed in 2001 and 2002 to denounce the normalizing of homosexuality in schools and the mainstreaming of gay desire in the media, and now it is almost becoming illegal to question [homosexuality].
...
Even more confounding to logic is the Courts related claim that proof of actual harm need not be established in relation to hate speech. The seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups, the Court states, is so great that it needs no demonstration, being part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians. In a culture in which storefronts sport the rainbow flag to declare their allegiance with gay people, Hollywood celebrates gay heroes (and condemns evangelicals), and thousands applaud Gay Pride Parades in every major Canadian city, it is not clear that homophobia is part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians. The Courts fundamental assumption about the self-evidence of prejudice and therefore of the harm of hateful speech is demonstrably false.
Given that the Supreme Courts own reasoning defines hate speech by its likelihood to cause an identifiable group to be subject to prejudice and discrimination, one could reasonably conclude that the judgment is itself an example of hate speech directed at bible-believing Protestant evangelicals, a religious minority comprising about 8% of the Canadian population according to a recent report. Is it not likely that many of the self-righteous and politically correct members of the chattering classes who read about the Supreme Court judgment in their Thursday newspapers experienced a satisfying frisson of disgust and smug horror against Christians? A main concern of the Court is that hate speech may cause people to reconsider the social standing of a vulnerable group. Many well-heeled secularists are already inclined to feel contempt for Christians who believe the Bibles moral injunctions; now they have an enhanced reason to do so, and from a source far more respectable and influential than Whatcotts crudely written flyers.
...
The Canadian Supreme Courts overarching imperative to protect the societal standing of vulnerable groups makes the answer No. I am still shaking my head in disbelief.
Supreme Foolishness
