The Houston Voice reports (scroll down) that in Saskatchewan, Canada, gay activists are worried about "gay bashing" following a decision by the province's highest court:
The complaint pitted religious freedom of expression against the rights of gays to protection against hatred and ridicule. On April 13, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals ruled Hugh Owns did not violate the Human Rights Code when he placed an ad in the Star-Phoenix in June 1997 that reflected his anti-gay views. The ad cited the Bible verses condemning homosexuality.
And here's how one of the gay activists responded:
"Im very disappointed," said Gens Hellquist, one of three Saskatoon gay activists who initiated [the] human rights complaint against [Owen].
Could there be a better example of how illiberal and censorious some activists are? And of course, the Christian right is making hay of it all. As the Mission News Network puts it (again, scroll down):
It is debatable whether Mr. Owen's ads were an appropriate means of communicating the Biblical teaching on homosexuality. What makes the [earlier, now overturned] Saskatchewan ruling so disturbing, however, is that the adjudicator, Ms. Watson, concluded that it was the Bible verses that pushed the advertisement over the line that separates questionable judgement from intolerance.
The Christian rightists couldn't have hoped for a better example to buttress their own claim of being the party that's victimized (by gays).
Relatedly. Beth Elliot weighs a 9th Circuit Court of Appeal decision upholding the high school disciplinary action against a senior who wore "a snarky, gay-dissing t-shirt." On this, I'd agree that freedom of expression for students on school grounds is expected to be restricted, to a degree.
Still more. Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says "no one has a right not to be offended." But James Taranto of the WSJ writes (scroll down):
This is one of those situations in which everyone involved is wrong. The school should have concentrated on reading, math and the like and not gotten involved in issues of sexual orientation. If Harper insisted on protesting, he should have done so in a less obnoxious way. When he failed to do so, school officials should have shown some tolerance and let it go.
The U.S. Supreme Court should not have ruled, in Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), that minors have a First Amendment right to engage in political speech at school. But since that is the law, the Ninth Circuit should not have carved out an exception for, as Judge Stephen Reinhardt put it, "speech that attacks high school students who are members of minority groups that have historically been oppressed, subjected to verbal and physical abuse, and made to feel inferior."
I agree that Tinker was one of those '60s "power to the
students" rulings that led to constitutional contortions in matters
such as restraining students from wearing offensive T-shirts to
school. High school kids are not adults, and public schools are not
public squares. But school choice would be a better option, giving
parents more say in the sort of school envirnment (protective or
permissive) their kids are suited for.
-- Stephen H. Miller
13 Comments for “Loss for Anti-Speech Activists.”
posted by Lori Heine on
Hey, as long as I — a gay Christian — am free to express my opinion that anti-gay bigotry is a sin, I don’t care what the fundies say. The problem is that what they really seem to want is freedom of speech only for themselves. They don’t want to debate gay Christians, so they try to pretend we don’t exist.
We have the same degree of freedom of expression as do anti-gay Christians. The right way for us to handle this is to stand up and tell the truth about this — and not let the anti-gays whitewash it away. Of course, in order to accomplish this, we need to keep those in “the community” who hate all religion from shutting up all people of faith.
Nice work if we can do it. But that’s a pretty big “if.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The last people I feel sorry for are Christian activists — they’re the same ones who lobby for laws which ban criticism of religious groups as “hate speech” and lobby for laws which protect them from “private sector discrimination.”
While the gay activists are in the wrong on this issue, they’re simply using the infrastructure and legal precedent set years before by the Christian activists who are now boiling in their own persecution complex.
posted by EssEm on
If I’m not mistooken, it wasn’t Christians who cooked up the “hate crime” fad that now infects our legal sysem and leaks in to “hate speech” and practically “hate thought”. Wasnt’t it the leftliberal secularists? Regardless, it’s an anti-liberty concept that deserves to die.
posted by Anon on
EssEm,
Due to the many christian sects around that came to the Americas, it was actually an incremental effort by the christians of those sects to gradually erode the rights of private organizations on free association. The progressives than ran with that framework after emancipation.
posted by raj on
EssEm | April 22, 2006, 11:34pm |
If I’m not mistooken, it wasn’t Christians who cooked up the “hate crime” fad…
I suppose that you could blame it on the Negros and the Jews.
Regarding the latter:
About ADL
/Sarcasm
It is highly unlikely that Christians–particularly white Christians–would have been in the forefront of those pushing for anti-hate crime legislation.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Oh, sure, the received right wing wisdom is that only the left pushed for those protections. I guess that explains right wing “religious discrimination” law suits, the deceptively named “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” calls by conservative government at a state level to pass hate crime laws which include religion but exclude gays, and on and on.
The lefties must have penetrated deep into the upper echelons of the religious right! 🙂
posted by Eddie Brown on
What a load of all around BS. No one seems to be “victim” in this case. Freedom speech should not be limited simply because the speech is offensive.
Maybe if the preacher had said, “God wants us to kill all gays.”
posted by Ebonie on
I feel that guy had a right to post that ad, but did not have the right to be insulated from the consequences. If there was a case of gay bashing that was incited because of his ad, then he should have to face the consequences of that. Overall, any citizen has the right of free speech in this country, it just comes down to the idiots just letting go of a bad idea.
He is obviously highlighting parts of the Bible that support his hate. How about highlighting the passages of the Bible that are actually inspiring and gives you warm and fuzzy feelings?
posted by Lori Heine on
“He is obviously highlighting parts of the Bible that support his hate. How about highlighting the passages of the Bible that are actually inspiring and gives you warm and fuzzy feelings?”
Or better yet, how about having a real debate about with the fundies about gays and Scripture?
Bring it on. But these people are such cowards they will make sure it doesn’t happen. The gay preachers would have their lunch.
posted by raj on
Lori Heine | April 24, 2006, 12:21pm |
Or better yet, how about having a real debate about with the fundies about gays and Scripture?
You can talk with the fundies until you are blue in the face, and they won’t believe what you say. Fundies–at least most of them–have a mind-set that filters out that which does not conform to their pre-conceived mind-set, which is based on what they are told by their pharisees. I have seen that in regards evolution vs. creationism/”intelligent design.” I have seen that in regards equal rights for women. And I have seen that in regards equal rights for gay people.
Debates are useless. The people who attend the debates attend them because they want their preconceived notions reinforced, and they ignore anything from the other side.
posted by lheine on
“Debates are useless. The people who attend the debates attend them because they want their preconceived notions reinforced, and they ignore anything from the other side.”
If we’re trying to enlighten the minds of the loonies, that’s certainly true. But I’m not yet hopeless enough to believe our entire country is nothing but a gigantic insane-asylum. There are still at least some people out there who have not sold their souls to the pharisees and pitched their brains in the dumpster. If we can get them to recognize that the Religious Right is unworthy to be considered The Ultimate Authority on matters of faith and morality, then perhaps they’ll stop listening to them.
There have always been religious loonies, and they’ve always been irrational, hateful and downright hypocritical. But for some reason, in our current age, the mainstream media kowtows to them and a great many otherwise-intelligent people invest them with real authority. THAT’S what has to change.
posted by raj on
lheine | April 25, 2006, 11:00am |
Sorry, I had presumed that you were referring to a formal debate, not a discussion in the media. There are two problems with the former. First, the members of the audience has to be motivated enough to attend the debates, which usually means that the audience is mostly people who have pretty much already made up their minds. Second, the results of the debate oftentime turn on the rhetorical skill of the participants, not the facts.
Discussion in the media would be better, particularly the print media.
posted by NailMaster73 on
I search internet any info about nail fungus, to this time found only this page:
http://nail-fungus-cure.info/ – nail fungus cure
http://nail-fungus-cure.info/nail-fungus-symptom.html – nail fungus symptom
http://nail-fungus-cure.info/nail-fungus-treatment.html – nail fungus treatment
http://nail-fungus-cure.info/toe-nail-fungus-cure.html – toe nail fungus cure
http://nail-fungus-cure.info/toe-nail-fungus.html – toe nail fungus
Thanks if any sent more.