Skip to comments.Toronto Catholic Magazine Faced with Human Rights Complaint by Homosexual
Posted on 12/20/2007 4:12:32 PM PST by wagglebee
TORONTO, December 20, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Another Canadian publication has come under attack for its opinions through the agency of the government-funded Canadian Human Rights Commissions (HRC). Closely following an uproar in the media against government-sponsored censorship via HRC against Maclean's magazine and columnist Mark Steyn and an Alberta HRC judgment ordering Alberta news media to not publish any comments on homosexuality by a Christian pastor, Toronto's Catholic Insight magazine has reported they stand accused in an HRC complaint of "targeting homosexuals".
Catholic Insight is a Catholic political and cultural general interest magazine that regularly and accurately expounds orthodox Catholic teaching, based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on homosexuality as well as harmful consequences to individual persons and society of the active homosexual "lifestyle".
The magazine now reveals that Rob Wells, a homosexual activist associated with the Pride Centre of Edmonton, in February this year filed a nine-point complaint against Catholic Insight. Wells alleges that the magazine made "negative generalizations" about homosexuals; portrayed them as preying upon children, as dangerous and "devoid of any redeeming qualities and...innately evil".
Catholic Insight (CI), however, bases its editorial policy very strictly on Catholic Church teaching which is at pains to separate what it says is the deviant behaviour and disordered inclination of homosexuality from the person.
Wells' complaint cites articles from Catholic Insight dating back to 1994 but Catholic Insight counters that the citations are "without context" and do not give an accurate picture of what the magazine has actually published. "In fact," the magazine said in an editorial, "most of them are even out of context from the sentences from which they were taken."
The magazine considers the complaints unfounded and "made with the intent to harass" and will "defend itself vigorously should the CHRC proceed". CI continues to emphasize with the Catholic Church, however, that "homosexual acts are ones of grave depravity and intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law, close the sexual act to the gift of life, do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity and cannot be approved under any circumstances."
The Human Rights Commissions have become a powerful tool available to homosexual activists to silence critics of their lifestyle and opponents of their political agenda. With a complainant's expenses fully paid by tax payers and no requirement to follow normal judicial rules for evidence or due process, there is little to lose and in nearly every case, the HRC Tribunals have found in favour of the complaints when it has been homosexuals against Christianity.
In only one case amongst many, in November this year the Alberta HRC ruled against a Christian pastor, Stephen Boissoin, executive director of the Concerned Christian Coalition, who had published an article in the Red Deer Advocate in 2002 saying that the homosexual political movement's goals were "wicked" and harmful to young people. Boissoin wrote as a Christian minister against a political movement that he feared was corrupting young people and Canadian society, not against particular persons.
The Human Rights Commission compliant, made by Dr. Darren E. Lund a long time homosexual political activist, claimed, however, that the article had incited "hatred against homosexuals" as individuals. He told the Commission panel that he was "fearful that the writings of Mr. Boissoin are likely to expose people to hatred and contempt as well as the potential for physical danger" and "foster an atmosphere of violence and intimidation for people, based on their sexual orientation". He said he viewed Boissoin's letter as a "call to arms letter."
The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favour of Lund who demanded that Boissoin "apologize for submitting the article and for his views on homosexuality." If he did not, the Commission panel has the power to "provide an Order disallowing the publication of Mr. Boissoin's views on homosexuality in any of the major print media in Alberta,"
The ruling listed the media outlets subject to its order as the Red Deer Advocate, Red Deer Express, Calgary Herald, Calgary Sun, Edmonton Journal, Edmonton Sun and Lethbridge Herald.
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Rules Against Christian Pastor Boissoin
Quebec Mayor Suggests All "Organized Religion" Should be Subject to Government Control
Mark Steyn Case Wakes Up Canadian Press to Human Rights Tribunals' Threat to Free Speech
Catholic Activist "Banned for life" From Publicly Criticising Homosexuality
Christian Political Party Before Human Rights Commission for Speaking Against Homosexuality
Human Rights Complaint Dropped Against Canadian Conservative Website
Human Rights Complaint Filed Against Catholic Bishop for Defence of Traditional Marriage
Homosexuals Seek to Shut Down Canadian Pro-Family Websites
CHRISTIAN COUPLE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN B&B FOR REFUSING HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE
This type of thinking already is prevalent at many universities.
Slouching towards Gomorrah.
wow...That is an excellent observation...Never thought of it that way—that they are “being used as a mascot for the people who are in charge.”
It would be more accurate to say that Canada has officially outlawed free speech, secular or religious. Mark Steyn is in trouble because Maclean's Magazine published an excerpt from his book America Alone. Here is an excerpt from the Hugh Hewitt Show today, in which Steyn explains how this Commission works:
MS: Well, the Human Rights Commission up there is, you know, almost the textbook definition of a kangaroo court, in the sense that of the complaints that have been brought under this section, since it was introduced almost thirty years ago now, no defendant has ever won.
MS: So I may buck the odds, but I wouldnt bet on it.
HH: Well, tell people what the process is, what youre accused of, and I assume this is a pain in the neck.
MS: Well, it is a pain in the neck. It also has, you know, serious implications, I think, because the Muslim lobby groups have had quite good luck using courts outside the U.S. to block particular books and other ideas that theyre not partial to. And eventually, that does ripple through to New York publishers and so on who dont want to take a flyer on a book if you wont be able to sell it in Canada, or get an overseas sale. So it does have implications. But what this is, basically, is a special commission thats set up, its like, think of the most politically correct professors at Berkeley, put them on a commission. The plaintiff, the guys who make the complaints, their legal expenses are paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. The defense has to fund his or her own essentially, theres no rules of due process or evidence. And you know, they levy things that would be extraordinary. A woman posted some content on a Christian website in the United States, shes opposed to homosexuality, she quotes some relevant Biblical passages. The Human Rights Commission banned her from ever publishing in any public forum again those Biblical passages for life, even though they were published on a U.S. website. And if she breaches that order, shell go to jail.
So, we can thank our Founders for providing us with a constitutional right to free speech.
People become frightened when there’s a possibility of losing their job. I’ve seen otherwise strong and opinionated people melt during “diversity training” and repeat things they knew to be untrue. Political Correctness is a form of totalitarianism. It’s a form of bullying, and just like the bullies we remember from childhood, it will only back down if you stand up to it.
It often needs only the power of words to frighten people into subservience (homophobia, racism, sexism, bigotry....). If you’ve ever noticed, even on anonymous internet forums the forces of PC get enormous mileage from these words. But if you stand your ground and don’t back down, the PC bullies will become confused and disoriented. Because without the mythical power those words wield, there is no intellectual basis for Political Correctness. On this issue, for example, there is no logical argument for homosexuality. There is no positive case to be made for it.
The problem is so dire now because we’ve let it grow so large. Instead of stopping this nonsense in its formative years, too many conservatives tried to be “nice” and appeased the bullies. Now the bullies are moving into position to actually get people fired, fined, or jailed for dissent.
Can one unring a bell?
I fear the slippery slope—once “commissions” such as these are established, are they ever abandoned?
I hope and pray our country never comes to this...but I am not optimistic, even with our great Constitution!
Socialism has always been hostile to Christianity and ultimately this is what is driving the issue. The socialist abhores the idea that government is subsidary to insrtitutions like Church and family. The socialists wish to reduce all individuals to the status of wards of the state, the state, of course, being THEM.
IMO we started down this kangaroo court and legislation banning un PC speech slippery slope, when folks gave homosexuals the benefit of the doubt and allowed them to be elected into office. Now there are so many in the US, right down to the town level, they are dictating policy.
They are even now in the “big tent”, bringing that party left. It is a frightening time, prayers have never been more needed at any point in history. And yet still, people will continue to promote liberals for office. America need a good swift kick you know where, and a serious wake up call! As does Canada.
The more gays among a party's movers and shakers, the fewer future competitors for a politically active family. When a gay leader dies, someone else's Junior can fill his place. Most of this is probably not a conscious design, but the end result of politicized gays will be fewer, more powerful "breeders" whose family ties are more effective than fleeting homosexual relationships.
Sorry. That's when the guns come out.
And, no, even though the Internet issues everyone a pair of testicles when they log on, I have two of my own thank you.
>>Just one Democrat President away.<<
Given the lack of fortitude among our contemporary RINO’s, I wouldn’t limit your statement to just the D aisle. There are plenty of R’s who would love to do the same.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - both sides of the aisle want the same thing - power and control. The only difference is whether we drive over the cliff at 60mph or 90mph...
“negative generalizations” about homosexuals; portrayed them as preying upon children, as dangerous and “devoid of any redeeming qualities and...innately evil”.
Hell, I agree 100% with the above statement.
“Once commissions such as these are established, are they ever abandoned?”
Yup. I can think of several instances where such commissions were established and then abandoned. Generally they were abandoned because of pressure put on the commissioners through force of arms — a rifle or cold steel can be a effective persuader.
On the other hand, I can think of very few instance where similar commissions were abandoned because those on them simply got bored with their power, and decided to go home.
To quote Thomas Jefferson, “The Tree of Libery must be fed the blood of tyrants and patriots. That is its natural manure.”
These Human Wrongs Commissions are extremist bunches that need to be abolished immediately. The only reason they exist is to make evil laws that would never have a prayer of making it through Parliament.