![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fpbAn account of recent events in Canada, from CATHOLIC INSIGHT magazine:
New York—On March 4, 2005, Dr. Chris Kempling of Quesnel, B.C., was given the opportunity to address various UN representatives and NGOs on the topic of limitations on religious freedom in Canada. His talk, sponsored by Focus on the Family Canada, took place in the UN building in New York and was attended by, among others, the just-retired U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
Chris Kempling is a secondary-school teacher, employed as a counsellor since 1990, who was denounced by the B.C. Teachers Federation for supposedly discriminating against “gays.” He was suspended from his duties for writing letters to the editor of his local newspaper opposing homosexual practices. (For background, see C.I., March 2004, p. 32 and April 2004, p. 9.) He appealed his case and, in an April 4, 2005 decision, Quesnel School District Superintendent Ed Napier suspended him for three months without pay. Commented Dr. Kempling: “It is a sad day for freedom of speech. It is truly unfortunate that the Quesnel School Board believes that only those who support same-sex marriage are able to comment publicly on a matter of national importance.”
Kempling’s speech at the UN zeroed in on the Canadian experience—where, as Bishop Fred Henry pointed out in the Calgary Sun, “Our Charter of Rights includes a theoretical guarantee of religious freedom which is turning to dust in practice (“Religious freedom falls under threat,” Feb. 27, 2005).
One should understand that all this bullying and harassing is initiated by homosexual activists.
Human Rights Committee
Kempling gave examples of cases dealt with by provincial Human Rights Commissions (HRCs). There is Bill Whatcott, recently fined $20,000 by his provincial Nurses Association in Saskatchewan for speaking out against homosexuality. Also in Saskatchewan, Hugh Owen was convicted and fined in 2001 by the Saskatchewan HRC for placing a newspaper ad with Biblical references (not even the actual verses) condemning sodomy. Thus the Bible became “hate-literature.”
In Ontario, printer Scott Brockie was convicted and heavily fined in 1996 by the Ontario HRC for refusing to print materials for the Gay and Lesbian Archives. It cost him $15,000 in legal fees. In PEI, a couple who refused to rent a room in their Bed and Breakfast to homosexuals eventually had to close down their business. An Alberta Protestant pastor, currently under HRC investigation for a newspaper letter, had a fundraising dinner disrupted by an invasion of “gay” activists.
Some of the most egregious of HRC interventions have been the prosecution and fining of mayors of half a dozen cities for refusing to proclaim Gay Pride Days. Many have surrendered to the bullying; others have avoided the issue by no longer proclaiming any “days”.
Teachers’ unions
The complicity of teachers’ unions and others of the educational establishment in the homosexual cause is also working to curtail Canadians’ religious freedoms. In 2001, the private Christian Trinity Western University in Langham, B.C., spent $1.5 million on legal fees in an effort to have their teachers’ certification recognized. It had been originally denied because the university prohibits immoral sexual conduct by their students. Their principal adversary in the case was the B.C. College of Teachers, the same body which today continues with its persecution of Kempling.
B.C. also had the case of the “gay” kindergarten teacher in Surrey (Chamberlain v. Surrey School District, Dec. 2002). He sued over the rejection for classroom use of books promoting “gay” families. A similar case is the homosexual teacher currently trying to have the provincial Education Ministry change the curriculum to include such items as “queer studies” and “queer role models.”
In Ontario in May 2002 homosexual student Marc Hall, with the help of a “gay” lawyer and a provincial MPP successfully forced his Catholic high-school to allow him to bring his “boyfriend” to the graduation prom. In this case, young Mr. Hall also had the support of the Catholic Teachers’ Union (Hall v. Powers, 2002)! An appeal is still pending.
In Manitoba the Winnipeg School District has forbidden its schools the use of four Christian camps for their students. This move was instigated by yet another HRC case (not yet settled) in which the Mennonite Camp Ames is being sued for “discrimination” on refusing a booking from a “gay” choir.
Same-sex “marriage”
Kempling notes—as have others—the disturbing anomaly of civil marriage commissioners. While Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler claimed, in December 2004, that no one would be forced to officiate at a homosexual marriage, civilian commissioners—many of whom have religious convictions—were being dismissed by the provinces which have jurisdiction over the administration of marriages. Already some have been forced to resign in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Newfoundland.
Church property does not seem to be immune either, as the Coquitlam B.C. Knights of Columbus found out in December 2004. They are being sued by a pair of lesbians for refusing a hall rental for their “wedding reception.”
With the coming of same-sex “marriage” legislation, the assault on religious and intellectual freedom has widened. Evangelical and Catholic religious leaders in Ottawa revealed, in the spring of 2004, that Churches opposed to same sex “marriage” were called in by the Liberal government to discuss a possible loss of charitable status. Revenue Canada officials warned them not to cite Christian teaching on homosexuality in advice to voters before the June 2004 election. Kempling shares the concern with the Bishop of Calgary that “religious freedom is central to the current debate about the re-invention of marriage.” He notes that where the “rights” of homosexuals and religions collide, the former trumps every time under the present system.
Bishop Henry of Calgary
Just how the threat to religious freedom keeps expanding became clear again when two homosexuals in Alberta secretly denounced Calgary’s Catholic bishop Fred Henry to the provincial HRC for saying in June 2004 the government should use “its coercive powers” to proscribe homosexuality in society’s interest (Globe, Mar. 31, 05). Wrote Edmonton journalist Lorne Gunter in the National Post, “Like everyone else, members of Canada’s political establishment are making a great show of respect for the passing of Pope John Paul II. But even as they are doing so, the forced secularization of Canadian society is continuing apace” (“Chipping away at freedom of religion”, April 4, 2005).
In the spring of 2004 Bishop Henry was called by a Calgary Revenue Canada agent—and ordered to remove the pastoral letter from his website on grounds that an election had been called. The bishop pointed out that his letter was in no way partisan—it named neither persons nor parties—and that he had a right to inform his faithful. He flatly rejected the demand.
Some of these people may be nuisances; I have condemned Bishop Henry's statement myself on this blog (http://www.livejournal.com/users/fpb/58448.html). The point however is freedom of conscience, speech, and belief. These cover even those consciences you disagree with, those speeches you do not want to hear, and those beliefs you find mistaken. Anyone who does not find these Canadian developments sinister does not believe in liberty. At least, s/he does not believe in liberty for his/her opponents.
New York—On March 4, 2005, Dr. Chris Kempling of Quesnel, B.C., was given the opportunity to address various UN representatives and NGOs on the topic of limitations on religious freedom in Canada. His talk, sponsored by Focus on the Family Canada, took place in the UN building in New York and was attended by, among others, the just-retired U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
Chris Kempling is a secondary-school teacher, employed as a counsellor since 1990, who was denounced by the B.C. Teachers Federation for supposedly discriminating against “gays.” He was suspended from his duties for writing letters to the editor of his local newspaper opposing homosexual practices. (For background, see C.I., March 2004, p. 32 and April 2004, p. 9.) He appealed his case and, in an April 4, 2005 decision, Quesnel School District Superintendent Ed Napier suspended him for three months without pay. Commented Dr. Kempling: “It is a sad day for freedom of speech. It is truly unfortunate that the Quesnel School Board believes that only those who support same-sex marriage are able to comment publicly on a matter of national importance.”
Kempling’s speech at the UN zeroed in on the Canadian experience—where, as Bishop Fred Henry pointed out in the Calgary Sun, “Our Charter of Rights includes a theoretical guarantee of religious freedom which is turning to dust in practice (“Religious freedom falls under threat,” Feb. 27, 2005).
One should understand that all this bullying and harassing is initiated by homosexual activists.
Human Rights Committee
Kempling gave examples of cases dealt with by provincial Human Rights Commissions (HRCs). There is Bill Whatcott, recently fined $20,000 by his provincial Nurses Association in Saskatchewan for speaking out against homosexuality. Also in Saskatchewan, Hugh Owen was convicted and fined in 2001 by the Saskatchewan HRC for placing a newspaper ad with Biblical references (not even the actual verses) condemning sodomy. Thus the Bible became “hate-literature.”
In Ontario, printer Scott Brockie was convicted and heavily fined in 1996 by the Ontario HRC for refusing to print materials for the Gay and Lesbian Archives. It cost him $15,000 in legal fees. In PEI, a couple who refused to rent a room in their Bed and Breakfast to homosexuals eventually had to close down their business. An Alberta Protestant pastor, currently under HRC investigation for a newspaper letter, had a fundraising dinner disrupted by an invasion of “gay” activists.
Some of the most egregious of HRC interventions have been the prosecution and fining of mayors of half a dozen cities for refusing to proclaim Gay Pride Days. Many have surrendered to the bullying; others have avoided the issue by no longer proclaiming any “days”.
Teachers’ unions
The complicity of teachers’ unions and others of the educational establishment in the homosexual cause is also working to curtail Canadians’ religious freedoms. In 2001, the private Christian Trinity Western University in Langham, B.C., spent $1.5 million on legal fees in an effort to have their teachers’ certification recognized. It had been originally denied because the university prohibits immoral sexual conduct by their students. Their principal adversary in the case was the B.C. College of Teachers, the same body which today continues with its persecution of Kempling.
B.C. also had the case of the “gay” kindergarten teacher in Surrey (Chamberlain v. Surrey School District, Dec. 2002). He sued over the rejection for classroom use of books promoting “gay” families. A similar case is the homosexual teacher currently trying to have the provincial Education Ministry change the curriculum to include such items as “queer studies” and “queer role models.”
In Ontario in May 2002 homosexual student Marc Hall, with the help of a “gay” lawyer and a provincial MPP successfully forced his Catholic high-school to allow him to bring his “boyfriend” to the graduation prom. In this case, young Mr. Hall also had the support of the Catholic Teachers’ Union (Hall v. Powers, 2002)! An appeal is still pending.
In Manitoba the Winnipeg School District has forbidden its schools the use of four Christian camps for their students. This move was instigated by yet another HRC case (not yet settled) in which the Mennonite Camp Ames is being sued for “discrimination” on refusing a booking from a “gay” choir.
Same-sex “marriage”
Kempling notes—as have others—the disturbing anomaly of civil marriage commissioners. While Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler claimed, in December 2004, that no one would be forced to officiate at a homosexual marriage, civilian commissioners—many of whom have religious convictions—were being dismissed by the provinces which have jurisdiction over the administration of marriages. Already some have been forced to resign in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Newfoundland.
Church property does not seem to be immune either, as the Coquitlam B.C. Knights of Columbus found out in December 2004. They are being sued by a pair of lesbians for refusing a hall rental for their “wedding reception.”
With the coming of same-sex “marriage” legislation, the assault on religious and intellectual freedom has widened. Evangelical and Catholic religious leaders in Ottawa revealed, in the spring of 2004, that Churches opposed to same sex “marriage” were called in by the Liberal government to discuss a possible loss of charitable status. Revenue Canada officials warned them not to cite Christian teaching on homosexuality in advice to voters before the June 2004 election. Kempling shares the concern with the Bishop of Calgary that “religious freedom is central to the current debate about the re-invention of marriage.” He notes that where the “rights” of homosexuals and religions collide, the former trumps every time under the present system.
Bishop Henry of Calgary
Just how the threat to religious freedom keeps expanding became clear again when two homosexuals in Alberta secretly denounced Calgary’s Catholic bishop Fred Henry to the provincial HRC for saying in June 2004 the government should use “its coercive powers” to proscribe homosexuality in society’s interest (Globe, Mar. 31, 05). Wrote Edmonton journalist Lorne Gunter in the National Post, “Like everyone else, members of Canada’s political establishment are making a great show of respect for the passing of Pope John Paul II. But even as they are doing so, the forced secularization of Canadian society is continuing apace” (“Chipping away at freedom of religion”, April 4, 2005).
In the spring of 2004 Bishop Henry was called by a Calgary Revenue Canada agent—and ordered to remove the pastoral letter from his website on grounds that an election had been called. The bishop pointed out that his letter was in no way partisan—it named neither persons nor parties—and that he had a right to inform his faithful. He flatly rejected the demand.
Some of these people may be nuisances; I have condemned Bishop Henry's statement myself on this blog (http://www.livejournal.com/users/fpb/58448.html). The point however is freedom of conscience, speech, and belief. These cover even those consciences you disagree with, those speeches you do not want to hear, and those beliefs you find mistaken. Anyone who does not find these Canadian developments sinister does not believe in liberty. At least, s/he does not believe in liberty for his/her opponents.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 10:50 am (UTC)I think the issue is that the political parties in just about every country have polarised constituents by demonising opposing values systems and moral beliefs, while just about offering the same thing economically and for departments such as health, education, etc. Or that's the way I see it, anyway. Instead of voting in a party on the basis of their performance and economic/health/education stances as well as their moral guidelines, it seems to be a pissing contest about who can inflame the largest group of people. I get the impression that if the 'family values' debate weren't entered into the US election last year, Bush would have failed by virtue of his failures in multiple political arenas.
(Not that I like Kerry. That guy was a bland asshole, but it was such a shitty lineup. It's like choosing between Pauly Shore and Clint Howard for the best actor Oscar.)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 11:11 am (UTC)I think you are mistaken on the "values" matter. I think it sneaked up on the politicians, and that it reflects a serious unhappiness from many Americans, including quite a few who voted for Kerry.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 11:28 am (UTC)At any rate, I'm of the stance that neither candidate was really pro-life insofar that they really offered little in the way of alternative to abortion. The current state of adoption laws are dreadful (as you mention), and when the so-called 'righteous' side are cutting expenditure to public housing and healthcare, so many women and couples are left with little financial and social help that one can't help but think so many of the pro-birth policies are hypocritical. It's one thing to ban abortion, which is such an easy thing to do, but to offer protection, education and financial support to women of a childbearing age is to truly take it as far as pro-life when people see that there are benefits to raising children.
I'm not for it in the sense that I do think it is a sad state of affairs, and I would never get one myself regardless of my personal circumstances, but at this point nothing is being done to offer women a viable chance at bringing babies to full-term or offering decent counselling, sex-ed and contraception, particularly in America.
Listen to me babble. It's the codral, I tell you.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 01:53 pm (UTC)Definitely the "lesser of two evils" choice for me. In this way, the values did make a difference, because John Kerry didn't have any. Besides, he pissed me off by claiming to be a Catholic.
Not like I love Bush, because I can no longer listen to any of his rhetoric. But I liked the fact that his getting elected pissed off my whole college student and faculty population (who really needed a reality check).
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 02:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 09:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 10:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 10:27 pm (UTC)Anyway, actors do what they can with what they get. Beggars can't be choosers.
Pauly Shore's just a talentless hack whose gimmick is acting like he's high or stupid or both all the time. I can't respect that, regardless of whatever box office success.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 11:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 02:46 am (UTC)Pauly Shore (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001736/), on the other hand, is an unfunny arsehole.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 07:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-02 01:58 am (UTC)