Download entire 232-page book HERE (PDF ... - MassResistance

the GLA’s job, he set into motion a series of events that cost him time and treasure
– more than $100,000 and a half-decade defending himself first before the tribunal
and then in the courts. In the end, he lost, had to pay a $5,000 fine and pledge to
never refuse work from the GLA or another gay activist group again. Brockie refused
to abide by the decision and challenged it in court – where he lost.
In 1997, the Hugh Owens saga began when he purchased an advertisement
in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix newspaper that depicted two men holding hands in a
circle with a diagonal bar through them, along with references to several biblical
passages condemning homosexuality (but not the actual texts). Three complainants
claimed the ad exposed or could have exposed homosexuals to hatred, ridicule or
belittlement.
Owens said he had the right to express his religious convictions, while the
paper argued that, considering that homosexual rights are a public issue, “We have a
responsibility to provide a forum to the public for public discussion.” The Saskatchewan
Human Rights Tribunal sided with the complainants, so Owens and the paper
were both required to pay each complainant $2,000. The StarPhoenix capitulated on
the principle of freedom of the press, agreed to pay the fine and promised not to run
“anti-gay” advertisements, while Owens appealed the decision to the courts.
In 2002, Bill Whatcott of the Christian Truth Activists organization was
found guilty by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal of offending homosexuals
after he distributed pamphlets that stated facts about topics such as the prevalence of
AIDS among homosexuals and whether homosexuals are born gay. He presented
supporting evidence of his claims, but as Rory Leishman noted in his book Against
Judicial Activism, most human rights codes do “not make any provision for truth as a
defence against a charge of expressing an idea” deemed politically incorrect and likely
to offend protected classes of people. Whatcott was fined $17,500 and ordered
not to distribute flyers critical of homosexuals. He refused to pay the fine and several
weeks after the decision was rendered, he was handing out leaflets entitled,
“Sodomites and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.”
In 2005, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled against the
Knights of Columbus council in Port Coquitlam, after it had refused in 2003 to rent
its hall to a lesbian couple who were getting “married.” The tribunal said that, as a
religious group, the Knights had the right to refuse the lesbian couple, but were
nonetheless fined for the “undue hardship” of canceling the event. The couple found
a hall the day after the cancellation, but the tribunal nonetheless said the Knights
should have worked with the couple to locate another space for their reception and
reimburse them for any costs incurred.
In 2005, Alberta gay activists filed complaints against Calgary Bishop Fred
Henry in the province’s HRC. He had denounced the federal government’s bill on
same-sex “marriage” in a pastoral letter and a Calgary Sun newspaper column. Lesbian
Carol Johnson claimed the words of the Catholic bishop were “likely to expose
homosexuals to hatred or contempt.” The case was eventually dropped by the complainants,
but the Alberta Human Rights Commission should have – and could have
Redeeming the Rainbow 66