editorial

Rachel MorganIs it a crime to distribute pamphlets denouncing homosexuality? Or is it fair comment to call homosexuals sinners? That’s the question the Supreme Court is weighing. In mid-October, the court heard a landmark case involving a Saskatoon man named William Whatcott who distributed thousands of pamphlets railing against homosexuality.  The case pits free speech rights against anti-hate laws. The result will affect all of us.

In his pamphlets, Whatcott accuses homosexuals of being “Sodomites” who spread filth and disease.  He was prosecuted in 2002 under Saskatchewan’s anti-hate laws and fined $17,500. But that verdict was overturned by the provincial appeal court. It is now up to Canada’s top court to decide whether Whatcott’s rights have been violated or if the anti-hate laws should stand. 

The decision is expected to hinge on whether hate can be clearly defined. That sounds like it should be easy, but it is turning out to be a challenge that is confounding courts and the governments that write the laws.  Any anti-hate law must be written in such a way that it doesn’t prevent legitimate discussion of contentious issues. 

If the Supreme Court sides with Whatcott and strikes down Saskatchewan’s anti-hate laws, it is expected similar laws in other provinces would also be nullified. It’s unclear what the full impact of that would be. Potentially, homophobes, racists and bigots would be free to come out of their caves and spew all sorts of hatred.  We could see rabid anti-gay rants in print, broadcast and digital media. Anti-homophobia programs in schools would end and kids would be subjected to anti-gay epithets in the name of free speech.

How did we find ourselves in this precarious situation? Whatcott, the man at the centre of the court case, has a long history of harassing gays. He once barged to the front of a Pride parade to disrupt it. He has also harassed staff at a Planned Parenthood clinic, accusing them of being baby killers. He ran for mayor in Edmonton on a platform of fundamentalist Christian values. He called himself the “pro-life, pro-family, pro-father, pro-gun alternative.” He is determined that nothing should stop him from saying whatever he wants.

The back story – when he was 18, he was living on the streets and doing drugs. He paid off his drug debts by having sex with men. In his words: “I was without morals and I had no self-respect. It’s a little inaccurate to say I was gay.” Somewhere along the way, he found religion and joined the Christian Truth Activists. “Christ saved me from a life of drug and sexual addiction,” he told one reporter. “I am very grateful to be alive and to have the opportunity to save my Lord in the political arena.”

Whatcott hardly seems deserving of so much attention from the Supreme Court. But freedom of speech is a pillar of democracy, so the court is an appropriate place to hear the issue.  On the other hand, the protection of minorities is an equally important principle. If the court does overthrow existing hate laws, it is vital that the GLBT community gear up immediately to help provinces write new hate laws – laws that strike the right balance between the two principles. If we remain quiet, we will be subjected to abuse. That cannot be allowed to happen.    

– Rachel Morgan is the editor of Outwords.