Promoting Hatred

[Guest]

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression to all Canadians. However, all Charter rights are subject to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether or not section 319(2) of the Criminal Code (the crime of wilfully promoting hatred) violates our constitutional right to freedom of expression, in the Keegstra case.

James Keegstra was an Alberta high-school teacher who taught his students that the Holocaust did not occur and was part of a Jewish conspiracy. The Court held that, although section 319(2) does limit free speech, it is a reasonable limit consistent with a democratic society, and is therefore constitutional.

I was wondering if anyone knows why Keegstra's "teaching" or "opinion" on this subject is/was classed as "hatred" or "promoting of hatred?"

As whacky as his apparent opinions are on the subject of the holocaust; I don't get it why it is "promoting hatred?" Is it now to be classed as "hatred" whenever we publicly disagree?

I use the Keegstra case as one example; but it seems to me that it is even more important to define what is promoting of hatred" as from a Christian standpoint, some of what we say could certainly be seen as such; by the same people who drafted this court and judicial action against Keegstra.

When I say "what we say" I do not confine the thought to only Adventists.

Are current developments in the courts re "promoting of hatred" something that we, as Christians should be concerned about? if so; where do we draw the line? Do we content ourselves with the lines drawn by the judicial system and legislators; or should there be other concerns? Where do we draw the line? Should it be illegal too to talk about judgment or the mark of the beast, for two eg.s of many possible.

[Dr. Shane]

I am assuming this Alberta high school is a public high school. I would think that in a private high school he would be free to teach such a bizzarre teaching.

Many consider the Adventist teaching that the papacy is the anti-christ as being bizzare and would classify that as promoting hatred. However, most Adventists would agree that a public school teacher, who is also a member of the Adventist church, doesn't have the right to teach such a thing in the public school system. However within our private school system, we are free to teach such things.

The no-Holocaust teaching is considered to be hatred because it is based on the belief that it is all a Jewish conspiracy. Thus it teaches the Jews cannot be trusted and we should be suspecious of them.

[there buster]

You bring up something important. Too many Adventists have a knee-jerk reaction about the political right, fearing the union of church and state.

In U.S. terms, this is concerning "the establishment clause" of the first amendment to the Constitution.

However, they ignore the repeated restrictions on "the free exercise clause."

A Canadian printer was fined for refusing to print the business cards of a homosexual group. He was further fined when he took out an advertisement that quoted a Bible verse. This was defined as "hate speech."

The U.S. Senate, now in control of the left, has introduced a bill forcing churches to report what is said from their pulpits. They also want to impose "fairness" on public airwaves. This could easily be interpreted that for every religious broadcast condemning a particular sin, "equal time" should be provided promoting it. That would mean the end of many religious broadcasts, as radio stations could not afford to provide the "equal time" mandated by such a law.

The danger from the political right was largely theoretical and future. The danger from the political left is already well advanced, just ask the Canadian printer prohibited from printing a Bible verse.

[Guest]

I am assuming this Alberta high school is a public high school. I would think that in a private high school he would be free to teach such a bizzarre teaching.

Many consider the Adventist teaching that the papacy is the anti-christ as being bizzare and would classify that as promoting hatred. However, most Adventists would agree that a public school teacher, who is also a member of the Adventist church, doesn't have the right to teach such a thing in the public school system. However within our private school system, we are free to teach such things.

The no-Holocaust teaching is considered to be hatred because it is based on the belief that it is all a Jewish conspiracy. Thus it teaches the Jews cannot be trusted and we should be suspecious of them.

I really don't understand this reasoning at all. Even if it did "promote distrust" against the Jews, that is a lot different than actually promoting hatred.

I can see Jewish and other people being really offended at Keegstra's antics and doctrine; but to say that it promotes hatred of the Jewish race; is a bit far-fetched. One can be distrustful of someone without hating them.