Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Simplified)
Home更多基督教會動態.....高院判沙省男子反同性戀者傳單侵犯人權

高院判沙省男子反同性戀者傳單侵犯人權

 

編者按:反對同性戀行為是堅持信仰原則還是犯了「仇恨罪」?基督徒可否公開宣講相關的聖經真理?同性戀維權組織會不會推動修改聖經?這些都是擺在基督徒面前的迫切問題,呼籲各教會、福音機以及主內肢體給予關注。聖經有提及同性戀的經文嗎?直接提及同性戀的經文有利十八:22和二十:13; 羅1:26-27; 林前6:9-10和提前1:9-10 (間接的有創19:1-11;士19:22-25。請帶禱告的心態仔細查考。

據多倫多生活網(http://www.t88.ca/viewthread.php?tid=40438)報導,加拿大憲法基金會譴責加拿大最高法院,裁定沙省反同性戀者沃科特(William Whatcott)所派發的傳單,違反當地人權法。基金會認為,裁決等同關上了言論自由的大門,又指出所有的表達方式,尤其是有冒犯性的種類,都需要受到保護。

最高法院指,沃科特在 2000 同 2001 年,所派發的四款傳單當中,有兩款用「雞姦者」 和 「有戀童癖的人」等字眼來形容男同性戀者,違反了沙省人權法。

沃科特的代表律師指,裁決會使持基督教信仰的人失望。沃科特就形容有關裁決是垃圾,會將基督教教義中、大部分與道德及同性戀有關的内容,變成「犯罪」言論。他指出,會就有關觀點,用同樣直接的語句,製作新的傳單派發。

有本國的憲法自由維權機構聲稱,該項裁決令人失望,並認為沙省的相關法例侵害了言論自由。

在另一方面,沙省人權委員會則對裁決表示歡迎,聲稱有必要強硬應對仇恨言論;委員會又感謝向他們投訴這些傳單的人,形容對方是在「一個仇恨的海洋中,為自身權利挺身而出」。

加拿大猶太議會亦都作出回應,指裁決有助釐清本國仇很罪案相關的法例,並形容當局仍需更新針對仇恨言論同保護的措施,以確保在言論自由同仇恨保護方面,有適當的平衡。

亦請參考以下的英文報導:

Anti-gay flyers violated Saskatchewan human rights code: Supreme Court
The Canadian Press and Terry Pedwell, The Canadian Press February 27, 2013 4:25 am

http://www.news1130.com/2013/02/27/saskatchewan-anti-homosexual-crusader-to-hear-fate-in-freedom-of-speech-case/


OTTAWA – A Saskatchewan anti-gay crusader says he'll ignore a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that he violated human-rights rules when he distributed pamphlets denouncing homosexuals.

In a 6-0 decision Wednesday, the high court found two of the four flyers distributed by William Whatcott violated Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code.


Those flyers referred to gay men as sodomites and pedophiles.


But the court struck down some language in the provincial code, clearing Whatcott of any wrongdoing in connection with two other flyers.


Whatcott dismissed the ruling, insisting he won't stop distributing material expressing his religious views.


"I believe God has called me to speak on these moral issues," Whatcott told The Canadian Press.


"So looking at it from that perspective. I'll likely put out another flyer articulating the Judeo-Christian viewpoint on homosexuality in my usual blunt and forthright manner."


Whatcott also referred to the high court justices as socialists "who've butchered our law, or our tradition of free speech."


"I'm not going to pay a lot of attention to it. I view this ruling as rubbish and I think that our seven Supreme Court justices are a disgrace."


Whatcott produced and distributed leaflets in 2000 and 2001 that contained inflammatory statements about gay men, prompting complaints to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.


A tribunal ruled that Whatcott violated the province's human rights code — but that finding was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.


The commission appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Whatcott's flyers essentially asserted that gays and lesbians are less than human, exposing them to discrimination.


The high court agreed with respect to two of the flyers, saying they constituted hate-speech under the code.


"The tribunal's conclusions with respect to (the two flyers) were reasonable," Justice Marshall Rothstein wrote on behalf of the court.


"Passages of (the flyers) combine many of the hallmarks of hatred identified in the case law."


The vilifying and derogatory representations used in the flyers created a "tone" of hatred against homosexuals, said Rothstein.


"It delegitimizes homosexuals by referring to them as filthy or dirty sex addicts and by comparing them to pedophiles, a traditionally reviled group in society," he wrote.


Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission chief David Arnot applauded the ruling and thanked the complainants for coming forward "with courage in what was absolutely a sea of hatred to stand up for their rights."


"It is necessary to sanction hate speech in our society and the court has been very, very clear," Arnot said.


However, in its ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Saskatchewan charter.


It found that language in the code which defines hate literature as something that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person" is unconstitutional.


The ruling could have implications for other provinces with similar language in their human rights codes.


Arnot dismissed the ruling as minor, noting that the phraseology rejected by the court hasn't been applied in Saskatchewan in nearly two decades.


The tribunal originally ordered Whatcott to pay the four complainants a total of $17,500.


The Supreme Court decision means he'll have to pay one complainant $2,500 and another $5,000.


Several groups that intervened in the case expressed hope that the decision will help to clarify the hate speech laws.


"It reaffirms the case law as we have understood it for the last 25 years," said Mark Freiman of the Canadian Jewish Congress.


"It reaffirms that there is a very high standard in order for communication to qualify as hatred."


But another group, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said hate-speech provisions still need to be updated to reduce or eliminate abuse.


"Canada's hate speech protections need significant overhaul in terms of both content and process to ensure a proper balance between freedom of speech and protection from hate," centre chair David Koschitzky said in a statement.


"The Jewish community of Canada understands all too well the corrosive impact of hate speech on vulnerable minorities."


The ruling provides a clearer and more narrow definition of hate speech, said the group Canadian Journalists for Free Expression.


But the organization expressed continued concern that human rights tribunals hold the ability to restrict free speech.


The Canadian Constitution Foundation denounced the ruling, saying it slams the door shut on free speech.


"The Supreme Court missed an excellent opportunity to rein in the power of various human rights commissions and tribunals to censor the expression of unpopular beliefs and opinions," said foundation director Chris Schafer.


"Free expression is the lifeblood of democracies and all forms of expression, especially the offensive kind, needs to be protected."


John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, was also disappointed with the decision, even though he disagreed with Whatcott's opinions.


"I think (Whatcott) was dead wrong," Carpay told CJWW radio in Saskatoon.


"(But) I think the way to counter his speech is by fellow citizens explaining why it's wrong and repudiating it, rather than running to big brother government and launching a state prosecution."


— With files from Jennifer Graham in Regina

 

第三屆大溫華人宣教大會

Reaching

頂級影片製作人才培訓營

FilmMk

教會建造系列講座

Hakka

加拿大華人神學院開放日

CCST

大溫國語聯合佈道會

Gvec

重尋本位的事奉

CCST 1

愛城華人浸信會

Church EdmontonBaptist

主愛基督教會

Church Agape

大溫哥華聖道堂

Church ECBC

列治文救世軍教會

ChurchSalvationarmy 180x90

愛城宣道會城南堂

Church SeaChurch

香港牧職神學院

Adv HkCMITheology

麥城華人浸信會聘牧

Pastor MCBC

溫哥華基督教頌恩堂聘牧(國)

Pastor Winnipeg

溫哥華基督教頌恩堂聘牧(粵)

Pastor Pgmbc Can

列治文華人宣道會聘牧

Pastor Rcac

ECBC Seeking Pastor

Pastor ECBC Coq

本立比頌恩堂聘牧

Pastor BPGMBC

奧根湖區華人浸信會聘聘牧

Pastor Ocbc

Go to top