The Whatcott's Case Against Saskatchewan?

Mr. Wayne Beatty, the plaintiff brought a claim against his former employer Canadian Mill Services Association (CMSA), the defendant is suing for wrongful dismissal and contending he is eligible for increased damages due to the way the dismissal was handled. The damages include an additional 13 months’ notice and for the loss of a number of fringe benefits.

Robin Blencoe was a minister of the British Columbia government who was accused of sexually harassing his assistant, Fran Yanor in March 1995. In the Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission case) h became the respondent in the case. Once he was accused, Blencoe stepped down from his position and a month later he was removed from his cabinet by the premier. Along with this, he was dismissed from the NDP caucus. Four to five months later, Blencoe was yet again faced with two complaints of “discrimination conduct in the form of sexual harassment” (Westcoastleaf, page.2) by two other women who were employees of Blencoe named Andrea Willis and Irene Schell. There were various incidents that took place in between March 1993 and March

Snyder v. Phelps case is about the protest of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) supporters at the funeral of Albert Snyder’s son protested against the acceptance of homosexuality by the US (Facts and Case Summary - Snyder v. Phelps). They showed different anti-gay signs targeting many people. Albert Snyder then sued the demonstrators by saying that these signs caused him anxiety, sorrow and pain. The Court didn’t protect Albert Snyder because they say that the demonstrators were protesting against society as a whole and not against his son. They also add that the signs shown on protest were protected under the First Amendment and told Snyder that if he continues this case he will have to pay a large amount of money to the church. In this case the main problem is whether the protesters have the right to protest at funerals of soldiers against homosexuality. In this policy memo, based on the concepts of equity, freedom of speech and liberty three main alternative solutions will be considered to this problem.

Snyder V. Phelps is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a matter of a public concern, on the public street, cannot be the basis of liability for an “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” even during circumstances when the speech is viewed or interpreted as “offensive” or “outrageous”. At the Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps and his followers believed that God punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly within the military. “To demonstrate their belief Phelps and his followers often picket at military funerals.” [Copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps and http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-snyder-v-phelps. Be careful not to plagiarize.

Another important Supreme Court case that examined the reasonable limits on freedom of expression is R v. Whatcott. The Whatcott ruling also challenged the jurisdictional issues of free speech. William Whatcott, a Christian activist who advocated strongly against homosexuality and same sex marriage. Whatcott distributed several flyers in Saskatchewan that discussed political, social and moral issues. Many of these flyers heavily denouncing homosexuality using strong offensive language denouncing homosexuality. The public distribution of these anti homosexual flyers put Whatcott under a great amount of scrutiny by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission found that Whatcott violated section 14 of the human rights code which states no one shall publish or distribute material that promotes hatred of any group of people. Whatcott’s activities were ruled as hate speech against homosexuals and was ordered to pay compensation to his complainants. After this case was appealed several times it was eventually heard by the Supreme Court. The question and arguments of the R v. Whatcott decision was whether human rights tribunals should be allowed restrict freedom of expression under Charter framework. (Schutten and Haigh:3-5) However, there was a golden opportunity that was missed to define the jurisdiction between political expression and hate speech. The Supreme Court could have looked at past precedent cases and Supreme Court doctrines, but

In the case of Shanna’s Shirt, the school district had a written policy in place stating that “clothing may not advocate or advertise drugs, alcohol, or tobacco and may not contain lewd, profane, or vulgar language or symbols.” Clearly, Shanna’s shirt did not violate the policy. The school district should consider adding another criteria that bans clothing that causes substantial disruption and also include banning hate messages. In the case of Shanna’s shirt, a previous case of Harper v. Poway (2006) ruling by the U.S. Supreme court upheld the ban of a similar shirt that read “Homosexuality is Shameful. Romans 1:27.” The court used the reasoning that the language violated the rights of other students by being hurtful to the offended

Although the book was challenged nearly seventeen years ago, the school district suffers their own form of injustice in today’s community; problems that would have impacted the challenging even more, are just now being brought to the surface. The hate crimes were no different, these acts of violence and intolerance put the safety of the high school on the line. One day a student found a swastika drawn in a bathroom of Paul Schreiber high school, students in the community don’t tolerate that kind of behavior “hate does not represent who were are, or who we are meant to be as a community,” (McAtee 1). The book being challenged was the board’s way of deflecting these kinds of actions from happening, ultimately they happen anyway. Just last year, a bomb threat was made at the local high school. The bomb threat was notified and police increased to safely watch the schools in the area. It was classified as an “unconfirmed and unrealistic” bomb threat, but nonetheless, the police came to protect anyway. The students don’t want this kind of behavior in their schools as well as board members. The Board was not just looking at the time of the present, but wanted to ensure the safety of the students that had yet to come. Banning a book does not change what goes on outside the pages of a book.Violence is in everyday society, there’s no stopping

Phelps (2011) in regards to what kind of speech should be protected under the 1st Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. While it is understandable that people are entitled to the freedom of speech, even with a buffer zone enabled, but I found compelling is in the content and impact the case permitted in the aftermath. Freedom of speech? Or fighting words? The United States has reviewed similar cases such as Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988); the exception is the issue of the picket signs held by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, while protesting the funeral of a fallen soldier as a matter of public concern regarding whether or not to cause emotional distress to a grieving family as a matter of a debate, but an 8-1 ruling ensured that even hateful speech was protected. I find it hard to believe that there was little to nothing SCOTUS would list as a constituting a compromise for both sides and how the majority claimed that Snyder’s right to privacy was not infringed upon—with only Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting, claiming that “in order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims.” As such, the Supreme Court’s ruling on this case led to a vulnerability in similar civil liberties: what

In fact,the balance of equities used in Everett v. Rogers will likely weigh in favor of Ms.Broward. Dr. Warren who currently has the possession of stolen painting did not inquire about the stolen paintings before he purchased it. However, Ms.Broward started contacting the police after the crime occurred and she had been searching for her painting by many means such as writing letters to art museums, some of local art dealers and auction houses and offering $25,000 in order to acquire information related to it as well as informing IFAR. Locating her stolen painting was a result of her efforts to retrieve her stolen painting.

“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for it’s picketing in this case.” -Closing Statement of Snyder Vs. Phelps

However, these ideas cannot be simply dismissed because they are central to the American perspective on the necessity of hate speech legislation. Waldron fails to address in an effective way why he is able to dismiss these central ideas. In doing so, he is practically admitting to the reader that his ideas are based outside of the framework of the reality of American free speech tradition. The strength of his argument suffers from the fact that his argument is not applicable to the reality of American society’s views on free speech.

Everyday people decide to use words in a hateful way or to bully others. Humans are fallible, which means that they can make bad choices. And the right of speech is not absolute, which means that the boundaries of protected speech have to be constantly assessed. All of these facts complicate America's commitment to free speech, but they also make this commitment courageous. In addition, they leave the legal system with a difficult challenge. On the one hand, the courts are entrusted with protecting this right to free expression, which is so central to our national experience. On the other hand, they are charged with identifying the often blurry edges of this freedom. The following case study is a spot-on example of the difficulty of the First Amendment in the United States.

However, a person’s hate or bad belief should not be punished due to freedom of speech. There was two different hate crime cases that show their outcomes. In the R.A.V vs. City of St. Paul case of 1992, a white 14-years-old boy burned a cross in front of a black family’s lawn. The burning cross symbolize the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that spread hatred across the country. The burning cross showed the black family that they are not welcomed at their neighborhood. The family filed a lawsuit against them and it went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court believed that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional, because they violated the boy’s First Amendment freedom of speech. The court ruled that the burning of the cross was not an illegal act, therefore; if the fire damaged the family’s property, it would have been a charged against the boy. The burning cross was a massage and not an action. The court attempted to punished white boy for his message.

John Stuart Mill presents a liberal view for the defense of free speech in favour for the fullest liberty to debate (1978, 15). Yet, Mill’s harm principle states the government can rightfully interfere with the pastor’s freedom of expression under the condition to prevent harm to the homosexual community (pg. 9) One problem that emerges is the lack of a universal consensus on among scholarly work on what constitutes hate speech. Boyle argues hate speech, “is intended to entice hatred or violence” (Boyle Freedom 6-7). While, Mill’s “On Liberty” provides a strong liberal view that makes it difficult to argue that hate speech directly causes any violence or interference of the homosexual’s community’s liberty, which is supported by the notorious corn dealer example. The pastor’s portrayal that homosexuals are dangerous and comparable to cancer would not be considered harm, as he does not advice to inflict physical harm upon the homosexual community. In particular, psychological damage is far harder to argue in terms of legal rights compared to physical damage. Even if the homosexual community are psychologically harmed by pastor remarks, Jacobson (2000) notes Mill would be resilient to placing any sort of limits on the freedom of speech.

“If you can do nothing else, do whatever is in your power to make the people in your life feel completely unashamed of who they are” (Killermann). As times change and our society continues to evolve, the importance of human rights and acceptance are constantly emphasized. Through the movie, “Slumdog Millionaire” directed by Danny Boyle I learned about discrimination relating to social class. Additionally, in the song, “Small Town Boy” by Bronski Beat, I learned about how gay individuals may be judged by society. Through further analyzing and exploring these texts, I could seek real-life examples of how human rights can be violated. These texts prove that we must move away from the deep-rooted issue of discrimination and learn to accept, love, and celebrate our differences not only as individuals but as a society.