The Canadian front: It’s not like they didn’t hear the truth on homosexuality:

[Mark]

It’s not like they didn’t hear the truth on homosexuality: Waiting on Canada’s Supreme Court: Part 1


In much of the judicial world today arguments are made which don’t get to the heart of the issue, but are made to fit within judicial precedents and court standards in order to achieve specific rulings.  That reality is often frustrating for the public who are led to wonder if the fullness of truth ever reaches the ears of judges called to provide justice.

It’s been nearly two months since the Supreme Court of Canada heard what will likely be the nation’s seminal case on homosexual ‘hate speech’ and religious freedom. The case, Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) v. William Whatcott involves a well-known pro-family activist who pushes the boundaries of free speech with what many regard as crude flyers detailing the physical health risks of homosexual sex acts.

The Tribunal found that Whatcott had violated section 14(1)(b) of the province’s human rights code, which prohibits speech that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.”  He was ordered to pay a $17,500 fine and to cease publicly spreading his beliefs about homosexuality (a ‘lifetime speech ban’ as Whatcott refers to it).

The Tribunal decision was upheld in 2007 by the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, but it was overturned in 2010 by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The man at the center of this case though is anything but hateful, especially towards those who suffer the ravages of AIDS due to their homosexual activity.  In fact, Bill Whatcott was – until he was removed from his position for his political views, a homecare nurse who attended to hundreds of patients suffering from AIDS. He offered them professional care, but also took personal interest in their lives helping those he could and praying for them. 

He has also walked in the shoes of those engaged in homosexual activity as he engaged in homosexual behaviour as a male prostitute to fund his drug addiction prior to a conversion to Christianity.

Whatcott is however controversial from just about any standpoint. Some of his flyers use graphic images taken from ‘gay pride’ parades to drive home his points about the degenerate nature of such parades. He uses the term ‘homofascism’ to describe the ideology he combats and uses the term ‘truth assault’ to characterize his mass distribution of disturbing flyers pointing to the danger of homosexual acts and the agenda promoting them. 

He is also a man on a mission.  After arriving in Ottawa at 2pm two days prior to the hearing, he and an assistant delivered 800 of his flyers to homes in various Ottawa suburbs by 11pm. He also dealt with a police officer responding to a complaint about his activities.

The next morning the pair delivered another 400 flyers while Whatcott took media calls at the same time. He was also accompanied on his leafleting by an enterprising journalist.

That afternoon he took his flyers to Carleton University where, after distributing flyers on 4 floors of the library, he was found out by a group of homosexual activist students who shouted to any and all to refuse to take the pamphlets. Shortly thereafter a security guard told him he had to leave campus to which he agreed after unsuccessfully trying to argue his case for freedom of speech.

Day three was taken up with the Supreme Court hearing. And what a hearing it was. The four-hour-long hearing had a record 21 interveners, more than any other Supreme Court case in the nation’s history.

And while it was true that arguments on legal technicalities and precedents were made by many of those interveners, the Justices did get to hear the straight goods. That came thanks to Whatcott’s lawyer Tom Schuck, a dedicated pro-life lawyer who has spent his life and legal career defending the defenders of life and family.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/its-not-like-they-didnt-hear-the-truth-on-homosexuality-waiting-on-canadas

[Mark]

It’s not like they didn’t hear the truth on homosexuality: Waiting on the Supreme Court (Part 2)


In defending Bill Whatcott before the Supreme Court of Canada, lawyer Tom Schuck laid out for the Supreme Court Justices the extensive and irrefutable medical evidence of the harm of homosexual sex acts.

When Justice Rosalie Abella pointed to one of the sections of the offending pamphlet that warned parents against allowing their children to be taught positively about homosexuality and noting for one thing that their children would die from it, Schuck replied, “And they will, the medical evidence is before you madam Justice.”

“The fact is the medical evidence before you is that people who engage in same sex activities have a life expectancy of twenty years less than anybody else, he said. “Why would any parent want their child exposed to that.”

Justice Abella was a favorite judge of the homosexual activist community long before her appointment to the Supreme Court.  In addition to unilaterally redefining ‘spouse’ in Ontario to include practicing homosexual couples she is also the judge who was responsible for lowering the age of consent for sexual acts from 18 to 14.

At one point in the Whatcott hearing Justice Abella, was caught displaying her bias on her sleeve as she let slip that she thought Whatcott’s statements were hateful.  Responding to a point Abella raised, Mr. Schuck noted that Whatcott should be able to preach his religious beliefs forcefully and drive home his points to his target audience.  Abella retorted, “He can. Why does he have to use hate to do it?”

Schuck acknowledged her point saying: “Yes Madam Justice that’s your characterization - that it was hate.”

There was some comic relief in the courtroom as Justice Marshall Rothstein, while questioning Schuck, demanded to know how Whatcott can justify saying, if “sodomites have their way the school board will be celebrating buggery too”.  After listening to Schuck’s explanation, Justice Rothstein began to indicate that he did not believe buggery and sodomy are the same.

Remaining politely deferential by using the words ‘I think’ and ‘I could be wrong’ to downplay his reply, Schuck informs the Justice that buggery was the term for sodomy used in the criminal code prior to the law being struck down.

Justice Rothstein responded, “isn’t buggery having sex with animals” with Schuck retorting that that would be bestiality. 

The robed lawyers in the background were seen covering their smiles looking down with hands shielding their embarrassed laughter.

A key moment in the hearing came when Justice Morris Fish asked Schuck to defend some of the harshest language in the pamphlet.  Asked to defend a section of the pamphlet claiming homosexual activists were trying to “spread their sickness” to your children, Schuck returned again to the medical evidence showing the harm of homosexual sexual behaviours.

Schuck added however, “it’s not just same-sex promiscuity. Heterosexual promiscuity has many of these same problems. The fact is there is a lot of grief in this world because of misuse of sexuality.”

Justice Fish pressed the point. “You say that it isn’t hateful to describe homosexual conduct as filthy and sick?”

While many a lawyer may have shied away from a straightforward reply, Schuck responded plainly and matter-of-factly. “Mr. Justice I think that putting a **** in an anus would be considered filthy by most people except those that have been sensitized to the gay culture,” he said. “Lots of people find that revolting and it spreads disease.”

It’s straight talk like that that is not heard in most courtrooms today. It’s talk like that that needs to be heard. It addresses the matter head-on, without shying away.  In addition to religious freedom, this court is dealing with the matter of sexuality and thus there is a great need for plain and simple facts. I’m grateful Mr. Schuck was there to tell it like it is.  Now at least none of the Supreme Court Justices can say that they didn’t hear the truth on homosexuality.

See fascinating video of Supreme Court hearing here.
http://scc-csc-gc.insinc.com/en/clip.php?url=c%2F486%2F1938%2F201110120501wv150en%2C001Content-Type%3A+text%2Fhtml%3B+charset%3DISO-8859-1

 Tom Schuck 45-minute presentation begins at 221 minutes in the time line.
Note: requires Microsoft Silverlight player to be installed. This is free, safe and easy to install.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/its-not-like-they-didnt-hear-the-truth-on-homosexuality-waiting-on-the-supr