In the Supreme Court of Canada today a fellow argued that Mr. Whatcott has a right to his views and opinions but either he can’t say or write them or can only say them in language his opponents like.
He particularly is offended by the word “sodomite”. The corollary to that is he would be offended by sodomy, Sodom and Gomorrah as in the historical Biblical account. He says that sodomite is like the word “nigg...” ( deletions mine.) Now there is quite a few differences. There are people who pronounce window, windder, widow, widder, and pronounce the Spanish word for black in a similar fashion. Obviously not standard English. The word has become a pejorative term for people with a high degree of melanin under their skin. Obviously not standard English nor good manners. But the word is Not illegal in any country and will not land anyone in court or jail. It defines what people look like and their genetic ancestry. It does not define a chosen act.
Sodomite is a precise term defining a person involved in a chosen specific act. It is not racist or in some ways not even gender specific. It doesn’t assume a particular life style such as education, social class, locality, nationality, appearance, skin colour, or place of origin. The history of the word is from the Biblical account where God destroys two towns after extending mercy over and over again. It is a word rooted in an example of compassion then accountability. If the word is made illegal then obviously the Biblical account would be made illegal and the expounded lessons of the account would be illegal.
So why should the Biblical bad press on the acts occurring in Sodom be protected more than others? Must we then not mention adulterers, liars, murderers, scandal mongers, drunkards, fornicators, dishonourers of parents et c, et c.? .Is the idea of sin and judgement what is really offensive?
Premier McGuinty and others believe that children should be given choice as to how they define themselves sexually. These choices must be imposed on them at the earliest age Being a sodomite is a choice. It is not a genetic condition If it was there would be no push to impose choice on children as a recruitment campaign. One doesn’t recruit people to be
“ whiteys”. Some people are just born with very little skin colour making them susceptible to sunburn, skin cancer, freckles, and the occasional racial term in some areas among some people. This is hardly a Supreme Court issue even though the word Whitey has been known to be said with vehemence.
Mr. Whatcott is a Christian. He used to be, according to his account, a sodomite. Does Mr. Whatcott’s conversion offend some people? And if it does are conversions now illegal ?
A sober used to be drunkard sometimes offends those still hitting the bottle. A former evolutionist turned creationist can be really annoying in a science class or research centre for those who hold the goo- to- you faith. In some Muslim countries to convert to Christianity is a capital offence. But this is usually not considered our human rights standard. Mr. Whatcott can hardly be called a hate mongerer to himself. He obviously rejects his former life style and wants to warn people about a similar one. Are former drug users and dealers going to be denied the opportunity to warn people that marijuana, cocaine or speed doesn’t do great things for your marks, your career, your marriage or your health? Health personnel committed to prevention tell people of the dangers of cigarette smoke. It is their duty. Why should they be considered hate mongerers when they tell people of the dangers of the act of sodomy? Preachers denounce deceit, gossip, pornography and abortion. It’s their job to denounce sin, all sin. They teach mercy and must warn of judgement in this world and the next. In the days of Noah even peoples’ thoughts were evil but they never managed to stop Noah in a hundred years by a Supreme Court decision from preaching and warning. We need our Noahs. Gay