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