Appeal Court Decision Worries Gay Activists

REGINA, CANADA - Gay activists are concerned a decision by Saskatchewan's highest court may provoke "gay bashing" as the country enters another round of debate on same-sex marriages.
"I'm very disappointed," said Gens Hellquist, one of three Saskatoon gay activists who initiated a human rights complaint against a Regina man. The complaint pitted religious freedom of expression against the rights of gays to protection against hatred and ridicule.
On Thursday, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled Hugh Owens did not violate the province's Human Rights Code when he placed an ad in The StarPhoenix in June 1997 that refl ected his views on homosexuality.
The ad cited Scripture from the Bible condemning homosexuality and depicted two stick-figure men holding hands with the universal "not-allowed" symbol superimposed over the figures.
A human rights board of inquiry found Owens violated the code because the ad exposed members of the gay community to hatred and ridicule, and was an affront to their dignity because of their sexual orientation.
A 2002 Queen's Bench decision upheld that finding, but it was appealed by Owens, who called Thursday's decision a vindication of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
"This decision says sharing the gospel message concerning this particular sexual behaviour or any other behaviour is protected and not a violation of the Human Rights Code," Owens said.
In his decision Justice Bob Richards wrote on behalf of Justices Nicholas Sherstobitoff and Gene Anne Smith that the ad was "bluntly presented and doubtlessly upsetting to many," but it didn't violate the code.
Hellquist hopes the commission, which is reviewing the decision, launches a Supreme Court appeal.
"My concern about the ruling and my interpretation of the ruling is that if you wrap up hatred and intolerance in religious dogma you can get away with it. I think we live in a world where we see examples of that occurring every day," Hellquist said.
Richards stressed that provision of the code had to be read and interpreted in a way that respected the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion as guaranteed under the charter of rights.
This is a clear victory for Christians who have in recent years been marginalized in speaking out publicly on issues of morality, religion and unpopular topics, said Ruth Ross with Christian Legal Fellowship.
"While we may not all agree with Owens' methods, we could not allow the lower court decision to remain unchallenged. The Bible, which is the foundation of our faith, cannot and should not in itself be deemed hate literature," Ross said.
However, Richards made it clear that the Bible and any other sacred text cannot serve as a licence for acting unlawfully against gays and lesbians and that each case must be decided on its individual merit.
This case illustrates that the legislation is flawed and needs repealing by the political authorities, said Canadian Civil Liberties Association spokesperson Alan Borovoy. "You are dealing here with a provision of the legislation that could do great damage to legitimate free speech."
The difficulty with this provision of the code is that there is no requirement that there be any particular intention to promote hatred or contempt. Nor is there any specific defence in the legislation for truth or reasonable belief in the truth, he said.
from The StarPhoenix