Is Free Speech Dead In Canada?

In the recent case against William Whatcott of Saskatchewan, the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled hate speech laws are a constitutionally valid limit to freedom of expression.

According to the National Post, the judges decided that 

Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect.

The judges gave the following advice in applying hate speech laws 'objectively':

• The focus is on the effects of the hate speech rather than the intent of the speaker.
• Hate must be understood to be extreme manifestations of emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification” but nothing less.
• The focus must be on the effects of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others.
• The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination.
• The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm.

Anyone who has any moral standard that compels them to speak should be concerned over this ruling since it essentially eliminates freedom of speech for anything but the most benign of subject matter. Firstly, there seems to be no justification, whether it be moral or political, for speaking your mind. In other words, any form of true political activism for a cause, for example the criminalisation of abortion, could be considered a hate crime if the judge should deem that it causes “extreme manifestations of emotion” and has the potential to vilify a person or group.

If the audience, in the mind of the judge, has reason to think the message is advocating sufficient harm to an individual or group, you could be charged with a hate crime. Since the law apparently does not require proof of either intent or of actual harm, one could be charged with a crime, having innocent intentions and no victims.

How many criminals will use this as a way to avoid responsibility for their crimes? After all, if a non-violent protest can move a person to “extreme manifestations of emotion” and cause mindless “vilification” of a person or group, it is but a step away from blaming your criminal actions, as an audience member, on the protester. Are we as a society really so deluded that we think someone's speech, hateful or otherwise, has got to be the cause? Do we not have the intellectual capacity and judgement to determine for ourselves the truth and an appropriate reaction? If that is no longer the case, I would say government needs to start banning television and movies because those things are full of lies and hypothetical stories that could very easily stir a person into action.

I find it ironic that the government is attempting to protect us from discrimination while perpetrating a discrimination of its own. Some groups of people, for example uncompromising Bible believing Christians such as myself, are being discriminated against by limiting our right to practice our religious beliefs. We do not believe in hiding or compromising the truth in favor of political correctness or unity, any more than Jesus would compromise His teachings to satisfy the religious and political leaders of His day.

Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. (Luke 12:51)

This is not to say our goal should be to cause divison (some translations say controversy), but this is the most likely result of standing fast in our belief as Christians. We will be controversial and divisive simply because we stand against those things our society loves. We are called to publicly preach the truth of the Gospel, including sin. To ignore certain sins is an attempt at hiding truth and reducing our need for Jesus Christ as our Savior. In essence, the government is trying to change how we practice our religious beliefs.

source

These are troubling times for those who feel a moral obligation to stand up for our beliefs. It used to be that standing up for my beliefs earned me a “judgemental” label, which is fine. After all, if I want the right to free speech, I must also respect the other person's right to speak. Not to belittle the suffering of Christians in other countries like Iran and North Korean, but it seems Canada now has a developing system of Christian persecution. We're ok if we leave Jesus in the church, but once we hit the street, we might end up with a nasty fine, or worse, if we don't either shut up, or agree that every lifestyle gets His personal thumbs up. Can I as a Christian really claim to live in a free country when my choices regarding free speech are either compromise my faith or expect my government to punish me?