Freedom of Religion - Freedom to Hate?

Freedom of Religion – Freedom to Hate?

Next: Freedom to Harm

Another difference between Canada and the United States is that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are not without limits. Hate speech is not justified by claiming freedom of expression or freedom of religion.

This has been well brought out in two noteworthy Supreme Court of Canada cases: Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 (CanLII), [2013] 1 SCR 467, which was decided unanimously by Canada’s Supreme Court in 2013, and R. v. Keegstra, 1990 CanLII 24 (SCC), [1990] 3 SCR 697. ( Principles established in Whatcott and Keegstra – with case law references. )

When the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society incite hatred of former members, is that in harmony with public policy or is it contrary to public policy? Are former Jehovah’s Witness members “likely to be exposed” to hatred or contempt?

Can relevant case law on Hate Communication  be ignored?

“Canadian law recognizes that reputation is an integral and fundamentally important aspect of every individual. Reputation fosters self-image and self-worth. Reputation is closely linked to the ability of the individual to participate in Canadian society. The Supreme Court of Canada has thus recognized that the protection of reputation has “quasi-constitutional status” in Canadian law.

“Respect for the inherent dignity of a person is essential in a free and democratic society.

“Canadian law recognizes that privacy is central to physical and moral autonomy. It has been observed that privacy is at the heart of liberty in the modern state. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the reasonable expectation of privacy as a principle of fundamental justice within the meaning of section 7 of the Charter.”

Purpose of the Law of Defamation – with case law references

In the process of the Watch Tower Society’s Ecclesiastical Court, the “accused” is already considered to be guilty of a “disfellowshipping sin,” although the accused is never advised that he is already considered guilty. As far as the elders are concerned, this would mean that the person had not done something trivial, such as chewing gum in church, but that the person has “a serious moral problem.”

Canada Supreme Court
Wall vs Highwood Congregation (2017)

Then, when the person is disfellowshipped or disassociated, a letter is read to the congregation. [1] This is the signal that all other Jehovah’s Witnesses, including all family, must indefinitely shun him, and this becomes effective upon every Jehovah’s Witness in every congregation globally.[2]

Contrast the Watch Tower Society’s policy with Canadian public policy:

Watch Tower Society policy

“Really, what your beloved family member needs to see is your resolute stance to put Jehovah above everything else – including the family bond…
Suppose that a doctor told you to avoid contact with someone who is infected with a contagious, deadly disease. You would know what the doctor means, and you would strictly heed his warning. Well, apostates are “mentally diseased,” and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings. (1 Tim. 6:3, 4) Jehovah, the Great Physician, tells us to avoid contact with them. We know what he means, but are we determined to heed his warning in all respects?” – The Watchtower magazine, September 15, 2011, page 16

“Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.” – The Watchtower magazine, October 2017, page 16

“Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.” – The Watchtower magazine, November 15, 1952, page 703 

Cooperating with the Scriptural arrangement to disfellowship and shun unrepentant wrongdoers is beneficial…a brother and his fleshly sister realized that they needed to make adjustments in the way they treated their mother, who lived elsewhere and who had been disfellowshipped for six years. Immediately after the assembly, the man called his mother, and after assuring her of their love, he explained that they could no longer talk to her unless there were important family matters requiring contact. – Kingdom Ministry, August 2002, page 4

 “A Christian must hate the person with whom the badness is inseparably linked.” The Watchtower magazine – July 15, 1961, page 420

Canadian public policy

Definition of a defamatory statement. A statement is defamatory if it tends to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in his or her community in the estimation of reasonable persons. A person’s reputation includes all aspects of the person’s standing in the community at the time of the publication of the defamatory statement.

Exposure to hatred, contempt, fear or ridicule. Words are defamatory if they tend to cause the plaintiff to be regarded by reasonable persons with hatred, contempt, fear or ridicule. Words are also defamatory if they impute improper and disreputable conduct, even though a reasonable person might not regard that conduct with hatred, contempt, fear or ridicule.

Tendency to cause plaintiff to be shunned or avoided. Words can also be defamatory if they tend to cause the plaintiff to be shunned or avoided, even though no allegation of moral fault may be involved. It may also occur where the words attribute to a person a serious contagious disease, or a state of mental illness. The same may result from a statement that a person has socially undesirable traits.

Definition of a Defamatory Statement with case law references

Next: Freedom to Harm

 

  1. The Watchtower magazine, May 1, 1961, page 275 – “When a letter is read to the congregation disfellowshiping someone for wrongdoing, what do you feel?…Do you seriously consider those acts of conduct that have contributed, step by step, to the consequences your brother’s course has resulted in?” ↑

  2. The Watchtower magazine, July 1, 1963, page 413 – “If it occurs that someone visiting in the congregation or at a larger assembly is not aware that a person has been disfellowshiped and attempts to talk to that one, other brothers observing will tactfully inform him of the situation.” ↑