Whatcott Decision, Condensed

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code is mostly constitutional:

 For the same reasons set out in the s. 1 analysis in the case of freedom of expression, the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” are not rationally connected to the legislative purpose of addressing systemic discrimination of protected groups, nor tailored to minimally impair freedom of religion.  The remaining prohibition of any representation “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred” any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground is a reasonable limit on freedom of religion and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Woth noting that in testimony, reps from the Sask. Tribunal said that, in looking at a case, the real weight fell on the clause judge to be constitutional.  So no great loss.

And two of four of Whatcott's pamphlets constituted hate speech; two were merely offensive:

The tribunal’s conclusions with respect to the first two flyers were reasonable.  Passages of these flyers combine many of the hallmarks of hatred identified in the case law.  The expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that threatens the safety and well‑being of others, makes reference to respected sources in an effort to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred.  The flyers also expressly call for discriminatory treatment of those of same‑sex orientation.  It was not unreasonable for the tribunal to conclude that this expression was more likely than not to expose homosexuals to hatred.

                    The tribunal’s decision with respect to the other two flyers was unreasonable and cannot be upheld.  The tribunal erred by failing to apply s. 14(1)(b) to the facts before it in accordance with the proper legal test.  It cannot reasonably be found that those flyers contain expression that a reasonable person, aware of the relevant context and circumstances, would find as exposing or likely to expose persons of same‑sex orientation to detestation and vilification.  The expression, while offensive, does not demonstrate the hatred required by the prohibition.

Suck on it Bill!  Suck on it Speechys!

PS.  Also, Bill is out $7,500 and a whole whack for costs.

PPS.  Another good bit, re the issue of whether the speech in question reflects a sincerely held belief:

[143]                      Apart from that concern, the fact that a person circulates a hate publication in the furtherance of a sincere religious belief goes to the question of the subjective view of the publisher, which is irrelevant to the objective application of the definition of hatred. Allowing the dissemination of hate speech to be excused by a sincerely held belief would, in effect, provide an absolute defence and would gut the prohibition of effectiveness.