Courts threaten civic freedoms.

Catholic Insight staff

Catholic Insight published Rory Leishman's article "The judicial imposition of "gay" rights in our November 2001 edition in order to raise the readers' awareness of the growing threat from the courts and the homosexual movement to the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Since that time, we have published many references to the "gay" quest and responded to them as well (see, e.g., the editorial of March 2002, p.3).

Also, in 2002, we have examined the homosexual influence among the Catholic clergy: "Crisis among the clergy," March; "Fighting back," April; "Catholic activists prepare assault," May; "U. S. Cardinals visit Rome," June; and this series we continue in the current edition, together with news from elsewhere. In the July/August edition we analyzed the "Marc Hall" court case. Below, we provide a survey of where we stand today. Editor

1: Chamberlain vs Surrey School Board, or how parents may lose their right to safeguard their children from homosexual indoctrination in the public school

History

In 1997, James Chamberlain, a kindergarten teacher and "gay" activist, asked the School Board of Surrey, B.C., whether he could use three books dealing with same-sex parents in his class. The books are entitled Asha's Mums, Belinda's Bouquet, and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads.

The Board said no, because many parents consider homosexuality a sin, and children of school age are too young to deal with the issues raised. That began a five-year legal battle in which two lower courts reached split decisions, before the case came to the Supreme Court of Canada on June 12, 2002 (see C.I., Mar.' 99, p.32; April '99, p.6).

B.C. Supreme Court Judge Mary Saunders overturned the School Board's decision on the basis that its ruling was significantly influenced by "religious considerations." This, she ruled, was contrary to section 76(1) of the Schools Act that schools should "be conducted on strictly secular principles."

In turn, the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned Saunders' judgement, contending that the Supreme Court judge had erred in her interpretation of "secular." The relevant section of the Schools Act does not require that religious parents be excluded from the public school decision-making process. Janet Epp Buckingham, arguing for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said, "If the decision of the school board is overturned because it was based on the concerns of religious parents, the implication is that any parent can be heard on educational issues except religious parents." She called this discriminatory: "Religious parents have just as much right to be heard as any other parent."

Chamberlain appeals to the Supreme Court

Chamberlain claims he has gone into debt to fight the case, which he says will set a precedent for school boards all across the country. What the case makes clear is that whenever homosexuals see an opening to advance their cause, they will be quick to seize it. As for expenses, Chamberlain is not acting alone; he is a member of EGALE (Equality [for] Gays And Lesbians Everywhere), which is financed by the Chretien government to support court appeals. Its B.C. branch, as professor Ian Hunter pointed out in a Globe and Mail column of June 13, demands the inclusion of these three kindergarten books extolling same-sex parenting as "learning resources." After the School Board had had the books reviewed by a series of committees--all of which concluded that the books would cause parental concern--the Gay and Lesbian Educators "went to court," as mentioned, financed not by Chamberlain but by the Federal government.

Reporting on the Supreme Court of Canada hearing in the Toronto Star, Tonda MacCharles made it clear that several judges were annoyed by the School Board's argument that playful stories depicting same-sex parents as loving and caring are "inappropriate" at certain ages. One after the other, the judges challenged John Dives, lawyer for the Board, to persuade them why even very young children should not be taught tolerance and respect toward a group whose rights are recognized in the Constitution. Dives contended that the books advocate a positive view of the morality of homosexual relationships which is inconsistent with the moral and religious views of many parents, whose rights to teach their own moral code should not be challenged.

Chamberlain's lawyer, John Arvay, slammed the trustees for banning books not for educational reasons, but because "they do not fit parents' views that homosexuality is immoral." He insisted that when school boards cave in to pressures from parents who do not want their children to learn the message of respect for gays and lesbians, that is discrimination. Typically, he brought up and rejected the Catholic teaching, 'we love the sinner but hate the sin' (see also the "Marc Hall case," July/August, pp.14-16). The position of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, supported by a number of other intervenors including the Archdiocese of Vancouver and the Catholic Civil Rights League, is that religion and religious freedom may not be excluded from the Charter values which the Supreme Court says must be taught in schools.

Gary Walsh, president of the Evangelical Fellowship, contends that "the Christian community cannot stand silent as courts take away our right to participate in the public life of Canada."

Comment:

Given the past record of the Supreme Court, it is impossible to conjecture which side of this classic confrontation it will come down on. And that is the most frightening part of all. It may well be that sodomite literature will be imposed on all public schools and thereby begin to crush family values. Sodomy, needless to say, is destructive of the common good.

2: Brockie case, or how judges and Human Rights Commissions will determine what you may or may not hold in conscience

Toronto, On--On June 17, Ontario Divisional Court released its ruling in the case of Scott Brockie, who was fined by the Ontario Rights Commission after a homosexual group claimed discrimination when he refused to print their materials.

The Court found that the Human Rights ruling was too broad by failing to give sufficient weight to Brockie's right to freedom of religion under the Charter. Yet it also upheld the fine and refused to give him relief of the $100,000 it cost him for legal services. In other words, it sustained the objection by ruling that this did not pertain to Brockie's "core beliefs.

Course of events

Mr. Brockie was approached six years ago in 1996, by the then president of the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archive (CGLA), Ray Brillinger, to print their letterhead and business cards. Upon his refusal, on the grounds that homosexuality is against his religious beliefs, he was reported to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC).

After a warning letter, Mr. Brockie was required to appear before the OHRC board in early 2000. Judging that Brillinger's "gay" rights trumped Brockie's religious ones, the board fined him $5000 and required him to give the assurance that he would in future accept all and any print work from the Archive; this could well have included materials promoting the "gay" lifestyle. Brockie refused to do so. The argument that Mr. Brockie was only one of hundreds of printers in Toronto and, therefore, could not be said to have a monopoly in printing made no impact.

Mr. Brockie appealed to the courts and on June 17, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ontario Divisional Court delivered its ruling. The court stated that Mr. Brockie has the right to a religious conscience and is not required to "print material in direct conflict with the core elements of his religious belief" He, however, was still required to fulfil the Archive's original work order, as the panel in its wisdom decided that this would not contravene his conscience. Moreover, the original $5000 fine to be paid to the Gay and Lesbian Archive was allowed to stand. As Report News Magazine put it: "the courts now claim the right to decide the limits of Christian conscience.

Some pro-family advocates, including lawyer lain Benson, who was part of Brockie's legal team, see the decision as a partial victory. They argue that the ruling recognized the printer's religious convictions by dropping the requirement that he print all gay and lesbian materials as the OHRC had demanded.

Consequently, the news report written up for Canadian Catholic weeklies carried such headlines as "Ruling described as significant step forward for religious freedom in Canada." It quoted Janet Epp Buckingham, another member of the defence team and general counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, as saying, "It is the first time this kind of right of freedom of conscience or religion has been recognized for business owners under human fights codes. This is a significant step forward for religious freedom in Canada" (New Freeman, June 28/02).

Comment:

The defence team seems to argue from within the narrow confines of the Canadian legal system without notice of human rights based on natural law. They then see the slight legal reduction of the area under dispute as a partial "victory."

In our opinion, the original conviction by the extralegal and biased Ontario Human Rights Commission (its director Keith Norton is an "out-of-the-closet" homosexual) was invalid to begin with. It is contrary to the natural law of the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, rights which come from God and not from the Canadian Charter of Rights or Canadian lawgivers or judges. When Canadian judges encroach upon these rights in the name of Canadian law, this is not a victory but a defeat.

Aside from that, businesses now have to look over their shoulder to see if it is safe to refuse a client and not get sued. In other words, ordinary business actions are now being threatened with criminalization.

Scott Brockie decided not to appeal his case further, "after much thought, prayer, and discussions with many lawyers." He believes that the grounds for appeal are fairly thin, as well as risking losing any slight gains already made (Files from LifeSite, and Canadian dailies);see also Rory Leishman's column "Prisoner of conscience" in this issue, page 11).

3: The Marc Hall case, or how Catholic parents may lose the right to safeguard their children from homosexual indoctrination in Catholic schools

(See "Marc Hall case," C.I., July/August, pp. 14-16).

A summary of its implications is as follows:

First, the rights of those who identify themselves as homosexuals will triumph over the rights of the Boards and the Catholic school community.

Secondly, the ruling attacks and rejects the Catholic teaching "hate the sin, but love the sinner." Both the advocates of the seventeen-year-old homosexual boy and the judge rejected this 2000-year-old teaching as an impossibility. Their attitude reinforces that of others, such as the Globe & Mail, which claim that this teaching is sheer hypocrisy and therefore not legally acceptable.

Thirdly, if the ruling is upheld, it will open the door to lawyers telling the principal and pastoral care staff in schools what they may and may not do with respect to those who claim to be homosexual.

Finally, the overall effect will be to strengthen the idea that under Canada's law, sodomy is not a vice to be rejected, but a virtue to be protected.

4: The Trinity Western University case, or how we are free to be hearers of the Word but not doers

Here the court ruled that graduates of TWU can indeed teach in the public schools, despite their religious objections to the homosexual lifestyle. However, the court added that "the freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act upon them."

Please refresh your memory by re-reading Rory Leishman's "The judicial imposition of "gay" rights," C.I., November 2001, pp.13-17. (It is also available on our website. <www.catholicinsight.com/archives/political/homosexuality>.

5: Same-sex unions case, or how the acceptance of the Sodomite lifestyle is already destroying people's understanding of the nature, rights and responsibilities of marriage and the family

Toronto-On--July 12, a three-panel division of Ontario's Supreme Court, headed by Associate Chief Justice Heather Smith, Toronto regional justice Robert Blair, and Mr. Justice Harry LaForme, declared the rejection of "gay marriage" unconstitutional. They allowed Parliament 24 months to recast the existing definition of marriage as "the lawful and voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." If the Federal government does not take action within that time, the court said, then the definition of marriage in Ontario will change to the union of two persons. On July 29, the Federal Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon, announced that he would appeal the ruling.

History

On January 14, 2001, two homosexual couples participated in a "marriage ceremony" in Toronto's homosexual Metropolitan Community Church. Knowing they would not be issued marriage licences by the city, they pretended to use the ancient Catholic tradition of the triple "reading of the banns." Armed with certificates from the self-appointed pastor, himself a homosexual activist, they unsuccessfully attempted to register their "marriages" with the Province of Ontario. Consumer Affairs Minister Bob Runciman pointed out that the definition of marriage falls under Federal, not Provincial jurisdiction.

In fact, in 1999, Parliament almost unanimously voted that the definition of marriage was the "lawful and voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." (The motion was brought forward by former Alliance MP Eric Lowther, who lost his Calgary seat to Tory leader Joe Clark in the November 2000 federal election, not least because of the all-out support from the homosexual community For Clark).

As is the style nowadays when individuals don't get immediately what they want, the sodomite couples lost no time in filing a lawsuit against the province and the city (other homosexual couples having previously done so). The case was heard in November 2001, and on July 12, 2002, the decision was announced.

This is the third case involving the issue of gay "marriage." Last year B.C. Judge Pitfield ruled against it and that appeal will be heard by the B.C. Court of Appeal early in February next year. Also, a judge in Montreal has reserved judgement in a similar case.

Media's reaction

In the week following the July 12 decision, the opinions of reporters and columnists who wrote about it had either a tone of approval, or one of resignation that "same-sex marriage" was pretty well inevitable.

The four Toronto dailies front-paged photos of "gay" crown attorney Michael Leshner puckering up to his "sweetie," carried columns of soap-opera sagas of long-standing homosexual pairs, now jubilantly free to pop the question to their significant others. Star columnist Ian Urquhart speculated on provincial and federal options. The Globe & Mail of July 16 editorialized that a Supreme Court decision in favour of "gay" marriages is a "perfectly reasonable direction for the law to take." Such a ruling, it thought, would "upset tradition, no question, but in a good cause."

Even the so-called conservative press has shown little antagonism to the ruling. Toronto Sun commentators Christina Blizzard and Doug Fisher seemed resigned to this development. Fisher's July 17 column had an interesting conclusion. Justice Heather Smith happens to be the wife of Chretien's top Ontario advisor, the anti-life, pro-abortion Senator David Smith. Describing Smith as "an old hand at fast-tracking legislation," Fisher anticipates that Madam Smith's decision will soon be in truth the law of the land.

National Post commentator Andy Lamey, an atheist, was also in favour of the Smith decision and goes on to excoriate critics of "judge-made law." One of the more interesting comments came from Andrew Coyne (Nat. Post, July 15) who, noting the national decline in marriage numbers at a time when homosexuals "want in," traces the process by which "gays" have become successful to the federal government's equating of legal marriage to common-law relationships.

July 30, 2002

The views on the federal government's July 29 decision to appeal the July 12 ruling divided editors. The Toronto Sun approved the appeal because, it said, the issue should be decided by Parliament. If there is one certainty, then it is that "Canadians don't believe such fundamental matters should be dictated by unelected judges" (July 30). If anything, the Canadian people as a whole should be consulted.

The National Post took the same view of "judicial activism" in its editorial, "A job for Parliament." In addition, it saw a national referendum as the ultimate ideal, not least to by-pass the Justice Minister's half-hearted attitude to appeal.

The Toronto Star's editorial, entitled "Time has arrived for same-sex marriages," said it all. Its chief argument was that of Justice Harry LaForme, when he stated, "I find that there is no merit to the argument that the rights and interests of heterosexuals would be affected by granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry," and, "I cannot conclude that freedom of religion would be threatened or jeopardized by legally sanctioning same-sex marriage" (Editor: this is a key point that we are trying to answer here).

The Globe & Mail's editorial, "The politics of gay marriage" (July 30), argued that Ottawa should permit it. Yet the only reason the daily could muster in its favour was the argument that previous court rulings have given homosexuals already a variety of rights and so they should finish this by adding "gay marriage." No thought was given by Canada's most libertarian newspaper that the bestowal of these rights, following the Supreme Court's 1995 reading of "sexual orientation" into the Charter of Rights, might be a mistake.

6: Where do Canadians stand?

Polling is a risky enterprise despite the claims of the pollsters for near total accuracy. During recent years pollsters have been shown to be spectacularly wrong in several elections and referenda. Moreover, everything depends on how questions are formulated.

At any rate, a Liberal Party pollster--Pollara Research Inc--believes that Canadians split 48 per cent in favour of same-sex marriage while 43 oppose it (Globe & Mail, July 30).

A study conducted by Strategic Counsel and funded by Focus on the Family states that 46 percent of Canadians will accept gay marriage while 44 percent are against, and 10 percent are undecided.

Alongside the above, Focus on the Family also states that 76 percent also no longer care whether a child's parents are legally married. It indicates the growing contempt for the state of marriage so well illustrated by the recent recommendations of the Law Reform Commission that marriage be replaced by "relationships" (see C.I., April 2002, p.28). But when the Toronto Star did a call-in polling among its readers, it found 72 percent opposed and when the National Post did the same on-line, 79 percent rejected same-sex marriage.

7: From a letter to the editor M.F. Durkin, National Post, July 24

Mr. Durkin Wrote a letter criticizing Andrew Coyne of the Nat. Post for undervaluing the legal history of marriage. He wrote:

Marriage as a religious contract between a man and a woman has been in effect since biblical times, and as a civil contract between a man and a woman since at least the time of ancient Rome. Throughout that whole period, one single constant, one abiding principle, is to be found throughout the world. An examination of marriage customs, both ancient and modern, whether Hindu, Chinese, English, French, Hebrew, or other, reveals that for thousands of years the definition of the word "marriage" is the union of a man and a woman. In a multicultural and multiracial society, that common heritage should put the institution of marriage beyond the scope of a charter created by Parliament.

8: Action box

Several things should be clear.

* There is much at stake in halting the judicial onslaught against our civic and religious freedoms.

* The decision whether or not same-sex marriage will triumph is a question of political will. Even if the Supreme Court rules in its favour, Parliament must have the last word.

* Public opinion, some say, is equally divided. Even if this were so, this can change. While during the last decades homosexual activists have exploited every avenue to gain popular support, Catholics, both faithful and bishops, for all practical purpose have been silent for some 30 years. They even have allowed groups such as the Ontario Catholic Teachers Union and tiny groups of dissenters to take centre stage in the name of the Catholic community and contradict Catholic teaching.

* Catholic faithful should see to it that this stops. Catholics must write, e-mail, fax, and telephone their MPs and their provincial politicians and religious leaders to let them know that same-sex marriage and, indeed, the other rights already acquired, are unacceptable and that they expect them to vote and speak against them.

* Homosexual activists should be contradicted in letters to the editor. Parish priests should stop acting as if they have the right to remain neutral, as should bishops. The Canadian Catholic community should come alive and realize that we are fighting a "culture of Death," which together with the other forces of moral laxity and permissiveness will destroy the spiritual heritage and, therefore, the prosperity of Canada unless we fight it. No Catholic is exempt from this battle, not Cabinet Ministers, not business men, not academics, not professionals, and not the average "man in the street."

* Let us fight back. Remember how the former Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Antonio Lamer, admitted that he voted for the acquittal of Henry Morgentaler and the striking down of Canada's abortion legislation simply because he thought that the Canadian people wanted it, and that opinion polls had demonstrated it.