A case in point: Chris Kempling.

The first two freedoms guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are "freedom of conscience and religion" and "freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression." But much has changed in Canadian society since the Charter was written twenty years ago. Today freedom of religion and freedom of opinion and expression are routinely under attack, challenged, and frequently trumped by any number of competing rights in this country.

A case in point is the matter of Chris Kempling in his struggle with the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT). The BCCT is responsible for establishing standards for the education of teachers, issuing teaching certificates, and where necessary, suspending or cancelling teaching certificates.

Several years ago the BCCT refused to certify Trinity Western University's teacher education program because TWU asked its students to uphold Christian standards and refrain from "premarital sex, adultery, and homosexual behaviour" while attending the University.

It wasn't the restriction on premarital sex and adultery that got the BCCT hot and bothered. Rather, it was the rejection of homosexual activity. It maintained that this would bias the school's graduates against homosexual persons and therefore make them unsuitable to teach in B.C. schools. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada which ordered the BCCT to certify the TWU program (Editor: see C.I., September 2002, p.20, as well as our website under homosexuality).

Well, the BCCT is up to its old tricks again. In May 2002, they found Chris Kempling, a teacher and counsellor in a Quesnel, B.C., high school and chair of the Quesnel District Community Health Council, guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the B.C. College of Teachers.

Kempling s crime wasn't the usual charge levelled against teachers facing disciplinary action by the College--that of sexual abuse. He was found guilty of the heinous offence of raising concerns about the pro-homosexual educational initiatives being promoted by the B.C. Teachers' union.

After reviewing Kempling's articles on this matter, the College declared "Everything that you have written in its entirety is derogatory and discriminatory." Kempling is to be sentenced January 23 of this year. I contacted Chris Kempling and had him send me the same articles the College had reviewed in coming to their conclusion. In my reading, Kempling's writing is the very model of the kind of charity, prudence, and restraint that is necessary when raising concerns about the super-sensitive issue of homosexual-friendly resources and our children.

The points Kempling makes are well and clearly reasoned and, social scientist that he is, liberally supported with responsible research from the social scientific literature. Though a Christian, Kempling avoids arguments based on Biblical or religious precept. His language is respectful of homosexual persons. He raises principled objections and makes important distinctions and clarifications and expresses himself in a thoughtful, balanced, and fair-handed way.

So what's the problem the College has with the Kempling critiques? I don't believe for a minute it is "the way" Chris Kempling has raised his concerns: he's done that well. Rather, one suspects it's "the fact" that he's dared to challenge the teachers' union. Any objections to homosexual programs, however reasonable and principled those objections may be, are ipso facto intolerable.

Of course, the College could surprise us all; it could offer Chris Kempling specific guidelines on how to more delicately raise his concerns without giving offence. It could do what responsible educators do in the classroom and offer a written sample of just how objections to this material might be raised in a manner the College finds acceptable. It could even go so far as to demonstrate some integrity by responding in detail to the specific problems Kempling has with the material and programs. But I'll take my turn on "Fear Factor" if they do.

My prediction is that their final judgment will be pure sweeping generalization. It has to be. Given what Kempling has written, I believe the College is incapable of making a detailed critique that will stand up to scrutiny. But even more disturbing is the fact that the College found no evidence that Kempling had brought his opinions into the classroom. The College is objecting to a series of letters to the local paper, the Quesnel-Cariboc Observer.

"I thought I had the rights of any citizen," says Kempling. "This is undue infringement on my private life. Apparently I'm free to have thoughts, but I just can't tell anybody about them. That's not freedom of speech. It's absurd, and I won't stand for it." Mr. Kempling has already filed an appeal in B.C. Supreme Court claiming the College violated Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms by penalizing him for expressing his views about homosexuality on his own time.

If I had any judicial clout, I'd turn the tables and censure the College for conduct unbecoming a professional association, noting in my judgment that its treatment of Chris Kempling, has been "in its entirety derogatory and discriminatory." Then, at the sentencing, I'd impose what I consider a just punishment. I'd require each executive member of the College to write out the Oxford English dictionary definition of "derogatory" and "discriminatory" a hundred times on the blackboard. And then I'd require them to write a 3000 word essay explaining why "freedom of conscience and religion" and "freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression" are the first freedoms guaranteed all Canadians under the Charter and why these freedoms must be protected in Canada.

J. Fraser Field is Executive Officer of the Catholic Educators Resource Centre (www.catholiceducation.org), and Western Media representative for the Catholic Civil Rights League. He lives in Powell River, B.C.