After encountering Bill Whatcott in some on-line forums, I've come to the opinion that he's a bit of a nut-bar and holds some pretty strange views.  Foutunately, Canada's Supreme Court has just determined (indirectly) that Whatcott is allowed to both hold, and, express those views:

REGINA - The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed an application by an association of nurses for leave to appeal against former nurse and anti-abortion protester Bill Whatcott.

As is the court's practice, it gave no reasons for its decision on Thursday.

"It's a very important principle, and it would be nice to have a more definitive answer," said Chris Bailey, executive director of the Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses (SALPN).

Whatcott, formerly of Regina and now living in Alberta, was suspended by the association in 2005 for 15 days and ordered to pay $15,000 in costs after the association's discipline committee found him guilty of unprofessional conduct for his protests outside Planned Parenthood Regina in 2002 and 2003.

The committee sanctioned the licensed practical nurse for making untruthful and defamatory comments on his picket signs, including: "Planned Parenthood will give you AIDS." The decision was originally upheld by the Court of Queen's Bench, then overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

During the appeal hearing, Whatcott's lawyer, Thomas Schuck, said a professional body had no business sanctioning its members for demonstrating on their own time. The appeal court agreed and ruled the association was infringing on Whatcott's constitutional right to freedom of expression.

For the association, the issue wasn't about free speech, but when an nurse's professional responsibilities end.

[...]

But the three appeal court judges, Whatcott, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association - which went to bat for the outspoken activist - took a different view, saying it was a constitutional issue.

"It really cast a chill on all professional bodies, where professional bodies themselves take a political position - and they do - and then start disciplining their members who speak otherwise," Schuck said in an interview Thursday. He contended the original ruling, had it stood, could have affected other professionals, such as lawyers or teachers, who take unpopular views.

Things just got a little more difficult for Canada's HRC's 

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Dinosaur, May 30, 2008

It's almost like we have a section 2 in the charter.

...
written by Merle, June 01, 2008

Upcoming events
By Ezra Levant on June 1, 2008 12:18 AM | Permalink | |

"Jews that I know love freedom of speech -- more than most cultures, we seem to be drawn to expressive pursuits. Censorship is anathema to how Jews life their lives, and even to theological Judaism itself."

Ezra Levant.com

hmmm how does that fair with defamation law???

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

Add Comment