Chief Justice McLachlin overthrows parental rights.

On December 20, 2002, Canada's Supreme Court ruled in favour of homosexual BC schoolteacher James Chamberlain and his nationwide allies, against the Surrey School District No. 36. It ordered the School Board to "reconsider" its refusal to allow literature justifying homosexual behaviour as supplementary reading for five and six-year olds. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who wrote the 7 to 2 majority opinion, ordered it to follow her interpretations of British Columbia laws, including the School Act's emphasis on "strict secularism." McLachlin declared the Board's decision--which reflected the views of the vast majority of parents--to be "unreasonable."

The drive to make the sodomite lifestyle "acceptable," morally and legally, goes back 40 years, coinciding with the arrival of the permissive society in the sixties and exploiting its cultural and social loopholes as it progressed. In Canada its legal breakthrough came when the Supreme Court "read" sexual orientation into clause 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms--the so-called equality clause--in 1995 (Egan vs. Canada). The Court did it in full knowledge that the framers of the Charter had considered and rejected it with an overwhelming majority in 1981. Clearly, they foisted their private opinions upon the country.

This development was part of another false concept, namely the idea that morality "evolves," which became popular among judges and politicians alike: what was true yesterday, may well, or will likely not be true today or tomorrow. Package all this in the idea that what counts in Canada is only our own law and nothing else, and gone is the idea of natural moral law with its divine commands. Secularism will not tolerate it.

The purpose for reading sexual orientation into the Charter was obvious. In one strike the sodomite lifestyle moved from being a vice to being a virtue. It now had equal status with race, ethnicity, and even religion. It was also the fulfilment of Beverly McLachlin's view that it is law, not politics or religion, which binds a nation together.

The Chief Justice expressed these views at an October 2002 conference on Religion and Politics held at McGill University. In her view, law and religion are competing (and often conflicting) jurisdictions in which law must dominate and limit religion. Said the Chief Justice, "The Charter of Rights has articulated the core values of our society;" and, again. "The law has been charged with creating space for religion." Together, these ideas are disturbing but they form a perfect foundation for Canadian judicial activism.

2002 was a banner year for both judicial and homosexual activism. On May 8, Ontario Judge Robert MacKinnon ruled that the rights of 17-year-old Marc Hall, a self-confessed homosexual, overreached the rights of the Durham Catholic School Board and school community. He also rejected the Catholic teaching "hate the sin but love the sinner" as hypocrisy.

On May 17, the Supreme Court ruled in "Trinity Western University versus the B.C. College of Teachers" that the "freedom to hold a belief is broader than the freedom to act on that belief," meaning that religious ideas must remain private and may not be acted upon or expressed, for example, by a teacher when a student enquires what the Bible says about homosexuality.

In June 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ontario Divisional Court ruled against businessman Scott Brockie for refusing to print "gay"-lesbian letterheads as contrary to his conscience. Their judgment implied that they, the judges, will determine what does and what doesn't pertain to ones s conscience.

Then in July, 2002, three Ontario judges, Heather Smith, Robert Blair, and Harry LaForme, took it upon themselves to declare the lack of legal recognition for gay "marriages" unconstitutional (i.e., contrary to the Charter's equality clause). They ordered the federal government to change the definition of marriage within two years.

The curious thing is that Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin didn't wait for this change to be implemented but simply took it for granted. In her December Chamberlain vs. Surrey School District No. 36 ruling she told the School Board that homosexual "families" are perfectly ordinary and "valid family models" (#20 and #38). This itself explains why Justice Minister Cauchon's 2003 proposal to make same-sex unions legal is unacceptable. Once that passes, everyone will claim that "gays" and lesbians form "valid family models" and then accuse objecting parties of intolerance and illegal discrimination.

The judiciary has divided the country more than ever. Those who think that the Christian community and even other religious communities in this country will ever accept the sodomite lifestyle as normal and legitimate are pursuing an illusion. Just as the Catholic community cannot, and will not, accept the legitimacy of killing the unborn, so, too, it cannot and will not condone sodomy. The courts are alienating many Canadians and providing them with new reasons for a complete overhaul of law and politics.