Printer Friendly

Canadians' right to speak freely.

In October the Minister of Justice, Vic Toews, reflected on the need for a Defence of Religions Act. The nature of the concerns that are being raised with me are relating to freedom of religion and freedom to practice religion [and] freedom of expression" (Globe & Mail, Oct. 4, 2006).

A Defence of Religion Act--dubbed DORA by the media--is much needed, except that to the word "religion" we should add the word "speech" (DORSA). It is free speech that is as much under attack as religion. The right of churches to decline same-sex "weddings" is protected, even in the 2005 SSM (same-sex "marriage") legislation. Therefore, that is not an issue here.

The real issue is the right to publicly oppose the homosexual lifestyle in speech and writing, and even the right to not want to be involved in promoting this lifestyle--in business, schools, and as owners or employees of companies of any size.

Why has it come to this? There are several reasons. First, the Supreme Court has arrogated powers to itself which it should not have. Not only has it presumed to read into the Charter of Rights the concept of "sexual orientation," and did so even though the term is undefined, but it then went on to create this concept into a human right, in defiance of the framers of the Charter, as well as of science, reason and the natural moral law.

Secondly, through these actions the Supreme Court has distorted an already one-sided Charter of Rights even further, by propounding the lifestyle of a tiny minority (1-2%) of Canadians into a universal right at least equal, if not higher, to the right of free speech and conscience of those who disagree.

Thirdly, the Liberal governments of Chretien and Martin saw fit to enlarge the Hate Crimes Act by adding sexual orientation. This re-inforced the homosexualist denial of the Christian principle, "hate the sin, but love the sinner," a principle also rejected, for example, by the Ontario Press Council and the Globe & Mail In the eyes of "gay" activists, all opposition is now "hatred" or "a hate crime."

This development explains the vehement and intolerant language of out-of-the-closet MPs Svend Robinson, Bill Siksay, and Guy Menard during presentations to the parliamentary hearings on SSM, and from others in letters to the editor, and in cartoons. Recent letters in the Globe (12 letters published; 10 against DORA, 2 in favour) and in the National Post, claim that (religious) opponents of SSM are "bigots," "homophobics," "demonizers," "intolerant," and "hate-filled."

What has been the consequence of this verbal violence? During the last ten years homosexual activists, by appealing to Human Rights Commissions and the courts, have succeeded in bullying away the right of speech and action of the following Canadians:

1995: Twelve or more city mayors, who were coerced to proclaim Gay Pride Days;

1996: Trinity Western University's teachers, who were-deleted for Christian moral standards;

1998: Surrey, B.C. parents, who rejected same-sex kindergarten books;

1999: Robert Davies in Nova Scotia, who was censored for opposing special "gay" union status; a Manitoba professor, who was denounced for listing 18 homosexualist "myths;"

2000: Ontario printer Scott Brockie, who refused lesbian/gay advocacy business.;

2001: P.E.I. couple, who refused to rent bed and breakfast to "gays;" an abstinence-only youth group, which was called "one-sided;" Saskatchewan's Hugh Owens, who quoted scripture in advertisement;

2002: Calgary Pastor Stephen Boisson, who wrote a letter to editor; a Manitoba Mennonite camp, which refused access to homosexualist choir;

2003: B.C. teacher Chris Kempling, who wrote letters to the editor;

2004: B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan marriage commissioners, who disapproved of SSM; Royal Bank-Toronto employees, who refused to display rainbow triangles on their desks.

2005: Calgary bishop, who posted a pastoral letter on his website; B.C. Knights of Columbus, which declined to rent a hall to lesbians.

2006: PSAC Ottawa union member, who wanted to change her dues from union to charity; Cape Breton Univ. professor David Mullan, who was docked two weeks' salary for discussing Anglican "gay" disunity on website; parents and students in B.C., Nova Scotia, and Ontario, who rejected mandatory SSM school classes; Calgary's Craig Chandler, who opposed the "gay" way of life on his website.

Finally, in October 2006, Mr. Darrel Reid was declared unfit to hold a political post by MP Bill Graham, interim leader of the Federal Liberals, because Reid is an evangelical opposed to gay "marriage." Reid is now a symbol of millions of believing Canadian Christians, Protestant and Catholic, whose right to speak and write is under siege.


COPYRIGHT 2006 Catholic Insight
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:de Valk, Alphonse
Publication:Catholic Insight
Geographic Code:1CANA
Date:Nov 1, 2006
Previous Article:Citizens of the Heavenly City: A Catechism of Catholic Social Teaching.
Next Article:Re September issue.

Related Articles
Can democracy survive?
More "gay" attacks on freedom of speech.
Commencement victory.
From the beginning.
Canada's tsunami.
Supreme Court's indecency interpretation unacceptable.
The essence of Christianity is love.
Pope Benedict XVI: Catholic voters, know your duty!
Culture: with or without God.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |