The Pointless and Futile Persecution of William Whatcott

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Bill Whatcott, and its aftermath:

The Supreme Court of Canada may have technically ruled against Bill Whatcott, but beyond enhancing his notoriety, it's difficult to see what the ruling accomplished.
That's not to understate the impact of last month's ruling, which upheld two provisions of Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code and re-imposed a finding from a human rights tribunal that two flyers produced and distributed by Whatcott violated provisions prohibiting the publication of materials that might expose people to hatred - in this case, homosexuals.
The court did acquit Whatcott for two separate flyers, and struck down the wording in the code dealing with the prohibition of speech which might "ridicule, belittle, or otherwise affront dignity".
It's a mixed ruling which may in fact offer some improvement to the status quo, but falls well short of the rigorous defence of freedom of expression that many were hoping the high court would deliver. Said hope would be reasonably derived from the passionate dissent in the 1990 Taylor case, which narrowly upheld the censorship provisions of the federal human rights legislation - a dissent authored by the now-current Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin.
With some clarification, we now return to the legal reality in this country where human rights tribunals and commissions can (upon receiving complaints) police what is written and said by Canadians. Furthermore, they can impose financial penalties with the proceeds going to the complainant, even if he or she is not a member of the group that was allegedly exposed to "hate".
We still lack a cohesive understanding of what constitutes "hate" other than to rely upon the judgment of a hypothetical "reasonable person" - except that another "reasonable person" might reasonably disagree with the first. Reasonable people have been known to do that.
It should also be noted that truth and intent offer no defence. The latter is especially ironic given that the Supreme Court ruling republishes Whatcott's four pamphlets in the appendix.
Which brings us back to Bill Whatcott, who believes it's his religious duty to warn us all about what he sees as the evils and dangers of homosexuality (and abortion, too - though none of his publications on that topic are at issue here).
When one considers the fact that such anti-gay sentiment is quickly fading in Canadian society, replaced with growing tolerance for homosexuals and support for gay marriage and other rights, it is clear that Whatcott's campaign is failing. It may not be that his flyers are directly harming his cause, but it's certainly plausible that the blunt depictions of his own intolerance would increase sympathy for gays and lesbians.
Whatever the case, it is beyond any doubt that the prosecution of Bill Whatcott has only served to give him greater national profile and to give him a much larger platform. Far more people have been exposed to his views than otherwise would have been the case. That certainly undercuts the argument of those who believe that enforcing these human rights codes will lead to less exposure to hateful material.
In fact, Whatcott has picked up right where he left off. He has produced new flyers, one of which denouncing "Sodomites and the Supreme Court", and over the last several days has been handing them out on university campuses in Saskatchewan and Alberta - including a weekend stop at the University of Calgary.
Presumably now we could go through his whole process all over if someone is so inclined to file a new human rights complaint. A human rights panel or tribunal could pronounce judgment, followed, perhaps, by multiple court rulings. All the while more people will become aware of Whatcott's views and Whatcott himself will certainly thrive on the notoriety.
Mind you, I'm sure Whatcott would just as soon be left alone from state harassment, and those who value freedom of expression should welcome the same.
It would be much more effective - and much more in keeping with a free society - to counter the likes of Bill Whatcott with reason and evidence.
In the meantime, politicians could protect us from these pointless, costly, and unjust persecutions by removing the laws that were at issue in the Supreme Court ruling, as our own Premier Alison Redford once promised to do.