Saskatchewan Court overrules Human Rights Commission.

Many people applauded the recent decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal which unanimously overturned a 2002 decision by Court of Queen's Bench and a previous Human Rights Commission ruling that an advertisement criticizing homosexual conduct and citing Bible passages was hate literature under Section 14(1) of the Code.

During a 1997 Gay Pride Week, Mr. Hugh Owens responded to the celebration by running his own advertisement in the StarPhoenix for the sale of a bumper sticker. The sticker consisted of four Bible passages (Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9-10) and two stick men holding hands. A circle with a line running diagonally (the "not-permitted" symbol) was super-imposed on the stickmen. The HRC adjudicator, Valerie Watson, fined Owens; this decision was upheld by Justice R. Barclay on an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench in 2002.

In arriving at their decision, the Appeal Court concluded that the bumper sticker did not express feelings of an "ardent and extreme nature," or "unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification" that would support a conviction. Their finding, however, left a cloud of uncertainty over what kind of comments would violate the Code.

Court ignored religious freedom

In the end, the Court failed to appreciate the conflict between freedom of religion and sexual orientation, and in particular, the conflict between the duty of religious people to comment upon the harmful sexual practices of some, and the "gay" activist's desire to silence all critics under the auspices of sexual orientation. The court appears to have decided the case as though it was only one of free speech, and ignored religious concerns.

Owens and the interveners stressed that the issue was behaviour and not sexual orientation. The behaviour distinction is critical, for if one is unable to criticize the behaviour of homosexual people because sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination, then it would follow that one would be unable to criticize a person who engages in adultery or fornication, as "marital status" is also a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code. Comment upon sexual behaviour has always been part of religious freedom and expression.

Although Owens won the battle, the comments by the Court clearly had an ominous foretelling of continued persecution of people objecting to same-sex sexual relations. Consider the following:

First, although the Court mentioned that the "sensibilities and vulnerabilities" of the homosexual person.... should not be disregarded, the "sensibilities and vulnerabilities" of the Christian person who is attacked by the state-financed Human Rights Commission to advance the homosexual agenda did not appear to be a concern.

Secondly, the Court added that the law should be used "to protect the dignity, rights and the security of gay men, lesbians, bi-sexual and trans-identified persons." There was no similar enthusiasm for using the law to protect those who preach the word of God.

Third, the Court appeared to embrace (erroneous) homosexual doctrine that is used to stifle any criticism of homosexual behaviour. The Court said:

"Sexuality and sexual practices are such intimately central aspects of an individual's identity that it is artificial to suggest that the practices of gays and lesbians in this regard can somehow be separated out from those individuals themselves."

There was no similar statement referring to the faith of some as being an "intimately central aspect of an individual's identity."

The Court may not have appreciated the fact that its comments about sexual identity and behaviour would be equally applicable to the sexual practices of pedophiles, or those who engage in bestiality. Nor did the court appreciate that some homosexual people do not engage in same-sex sexual activities, and that some people who do engage in same-sex sexual activities are not homosexual.

This case would have been a real victory had the Court commented upon how the faith of Christians requires them to speak out against immoral sexual behaviour, or how Owens, through his prosecution, has been belittled, vilified, exposed to hatred, and financially hurt for proclaiming what he believes. Instead we got platitudes and statements of faith that could have easily come right out of one of our state-funded gay lobby groups.

But for now, though, at least, we can keep our Bibles out of the closet.

In his appeal, Hugh Owens was self-represented. However, there were two interveners, namely the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Religious Freedom Alliance, consisting of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Catholic Civil Rights Association and the Christian Legal Fellowship. Tom Schuck was lead counsel for the Religious Freedom Alliance. (See also Rory Leishman, "Canada's thought police," p. 8.)