Following is the text of Don Hutchinson’s presentation, made on behalf of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada before the Supreme Court of Canada on Wednesday, October 12 in the case of Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. William Whatcott.
*****
As my time today is short, I will paint my picture using broad brush strokes.
As noted in paragraph 4 of the affidavit of Bruce J. Clemenger, submitted with our application, Evangelical Christians are an identifiable minority representing 12% of all Canadians.
Christian engagement in public discourse has greatly benefited the development and life of Canadian communities and the nation as a whole; with admitted imperfections, as in any community, due to the human condition – we call it our sinful or fallen nature. In this regard I draw your attention to our Book of Authorities, particularly the items at:
Tab 6 – a Church & Faith Trends article [Evangelicalism and the Advancement of Religion]
Tab 5 – the Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World document, a document produced by the 3 representative international bodies of the largest confessing communities of the 2.1 billion Christians on the planet
Tab 10 – a Christianity Today article, “Proselytizing in a Multi-Faith World”
Jesus’ command to his disciples found in Matthew 28 compels Christians to public engagement in word and deed.
Jesus’ motivation, and that to which he called us, was love of sinner and hatred of sin; separation of the identity of a person from behaviour unacceptable according to His teaching.
All of this fits within Justice Dickson’s description in paragraphs 94 and 95 of his decision in Big M and Justice Gonthier’s description in Chamberlain at paragraphs 134 and 135, where he notes the need for a “truly free society” to permit disagreement with others:
… and even disapprove of the conduct or beliefs of others. Otherwise, claims for “respect” or “recognition” or “tolerance”, where such language becomes a constitutionally mandated proxy for “acceptance”, tend to obliterate disagreement.
Justice Gonthier continues by observing that Justice Dickson’s words in Big M are the essence of freedom of religion and also the essence of freedom of expression generally in an inclusive secular democracy.
Increasingly, Evangelical leaders, pastors and congregants across Canada are feeling and experiencing that the expression of religious positions on matters of public debate is not welcome.
Even today, counsel for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission referenced the reading of Paul on television as hate speech, in his opinion.
I direct your attention in our Book of Authorities as well to Tab 7 – The Price of Freedom Denied [only chapter 7, “Do Religious Freedoms Really Matter” provided in the B of A]. It speaks about freedom of religion and persecution of Christians, particularly Evangelicals, around the world.
Calling opinion leaders ‘hypocrites’, ‘whitewashed tombs’ or a ‘brood of vipers,’ as Jesus did, might well subject one to both complaint and conviction under section 14 (1) (b) in today’s Saskatchewan.
The case law on 14 (1) (b), and similar provisions in other jurisdictions, paints a checkerboard of application by tribunals and various levels of the courts, displaying an inability to effectively apply the decision in Taylor and evidencing the vagueness and subjectivity of this remedy.
Proponents contend that 14 (1) (b) has been virtually, although not actually, read down; which bears testimony to an overbroad reach and the chilling effect on freedom of expression in general and freedom of religiously informed expression in particular. My friend from the Alberta Attorney-General’s office has even re-characterized “hate speech” as “discriminatory expression.”
There is no defence to section 14. Not truth. Not sincerity or reasonableness of belief. The subjective “feeling” of offence, affront to one’s dignity or a loss of self-respect empowers contemporary penalties that – for the average Canadian required to retain counsel and be subject to multiple appeals, fines or both – seem more worthy of an ideologically driven society than a free and democratic society.
In Canada, when a citizen shares personal religious beliefs on a matter of public dialogue and does not coerce compliance with those religious views, then the government, by virtue of sections 2(a) and 2 (b) of the Charter, and prior decisions of this Court, must allow and even protect this expression of religious opinion, not censor it.
*****
You can watch the video of the full day hearing (or simply Don Hutchinson’s presentation beginning at minute 392) on the Supreme Court of Canada’s website.