Kennedy, LIBERAL REPUBLICANS, Urge Protection for Homosexuals

Cybercast News Service. ^ | May 05, 2003 | Lawrence Morahan

[Polycarp]

An inflammatory statement not supported by facts.

Your ignorance of extensive facts to the contrary is astounding.

My suspicion is that you know damn well that the facts support the statement, but like many homo apologists, facts are inconvenient and lies therefore deemed necessary in the pursuit of the agenda.

[george wythe]

Please post your "proof" that priests and ministers are barred from saying that homosexuality is a sin.

[Polycarp]

The cases are well documented already in Canada and England. Post your proof that these cases are fiction.

[upcountryhorseman]

"liberal Republican" isn't that an oxymoron?

[george wythe]

You quoted the outrageous statement and keep asserting it is a fact.

I don't have to proof a negative.

Your childish Proof that little green men don't live in Mars shows that you know you are fibbing

[Remedy]

We WILL suffer persecution

New York Gay Legislator Advocatesdiscrimination Against Catholic Priests Thomas Duane, a gay state senator from New York, declared yesterday that all Catholic priests should be barred from leading a prayer in the legislature.

Gay Nazis: the Role of Homosexuality in Nazism & Hitler's Rise to ... Thus butch hypermasculinity, visibility for homosexuals, and organization were the three necessary ingredients in the mix which allowed the SA leaders to make their unique and essential contribution to the rise of Nazism. Another important consideration is that visibility is enabled when homosexuality assumes a political voice. In this way, the politicization of homosexuality, which supported gays in the process of socially identifying themselves as such, was a necessary condition for Hitler's success.

"The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches"

[Polycarp]

shows that you know you are fibbing

You are full of crap as usual. Do you read any current events? Do you need to be spoonfed facts or are you an adult?

Koran hate literature? Won't happen: But when a Christian quotes Bible in an ad, he and the paper get fined

By Lorne Gunter
Edmonton Journal
February 12, 2003

Imagine the outcry from Official Canada -- the politicians, the editorialists, the professors and special-interest cause-pleaders -- if a Canadian court ruled passages of the Koran constituted hate literature.

Don't worry. That's not going to happen. Among the Canadian establishment there is no group more reliably liberal, and therefore more tolerance-obsessed, than its judges -- except perhaps for its academics.

Far too many judges see it as their missionary obligation to impel Canadian society to evermore "progressive" heights. If the politicians won't codify gay marriage, if the churches resist, if the degeneration of the family is not progressing quickly enough, if welfare is not made a birthright under the Charter, if visible minorities are not represented in large numbers in workplaces -- hundreds of this country's judges hesitate not a second to recreate entire laws in their own, self-important image.

So Muslim Canadians have nothing to fear from the courts. Our judges are too politically correct to declare the Koran to be hateful.

Nor am I suggesting the Koran be banned for inciting hatred against identifiable groups, such as Jews and Christians. Even though in many places the Koran encourages Muslims to "kill the unbelievers ... capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush" (Chapter 9, v. 5), or to "fight against those who believe not in Allah ... nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah," (Chapter 9, v. 29). Or, "when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite their necks until when you have overcome them" (Chapter 47, v. 4), it is a legitimate and sacred religious text. While some of what it says may be objectionable, even threatening, to non-Muslims, the Western traditions of religious tolerance and free speech should, and do, give Muslims the right to believe what they wish and worship as they choose.

But let's get back to the thought exercise I proposed above -- imagining the hand-wringing if ever a federal court labelled the Koran hate literature and forced a devout Muslim to pay a fine for printing some of his book's more astringent passages in an ad in a daily newspaper.

Editorialists from coast to coast would be outraged. The judge would be denounced as a dinosaur. Rights groups and lawyers would demand a public inquiry, after which the Minister of Justice, no doubt, would impose mandatory multicultural sensitivity training for judges.

In December, a federal court in Saskatchewan ruled the Bible amounted to hate literature and there has been not a peep from Official Canada. There have been almost no news stories, and not a single editorial about the decision. MPs who can be counted on to fuss every time a politically favoured group so much as hiccups have been mum. My guess is, these rights pimps have not even heard of the Saskatchewan decision, and those who have have applauded it.

Christianity is so disdained by Official Canada, and freedom of expression so badly misunderstood, this double standard is not even recognized for the appalling hypocrisy that it is.

Nearly six years ago, Hugh Owens, a particularly strident evangelical Christian, placed an ad in Saskatoon's Star-Phoenix newspaper. The ad cited, but did not quote, four Bible verses condemning homosexuality as sinful. Next to the citations was an equal sign with a circle and a line through it, then two stickmen holding hands.

That's it. Owens's ad did not call for readers to hunt down gays and beat them, against which there are already, sensibly, laws. It did not even quote the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality. Rather it merely cited passages that condemn. To see the actual condemnations, readers would have to have found a Bible and looked them up for themselves.

Even this was too much for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

Owens was clearly expressing a valid opinion in an important public debate based on his own creed, his own religious convictions.

But Saskatchewan's human rights law, like the human rights law of many provinces, permits members of politically favoured groups to determine when they have been victimized. Three Saskatoon gays felt offended by Owens's ad, which was enough for the commission. Never mind that being confronted by discomforting, opposing opinions is the price we pay for being allowed to express our own strong views. "The complainants suffered in respect of their feelings and self-respect," the commission found, and ordered Owens and the Star-Phoenix to pay each complainant $1,500.

The December ruling of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench upheld the commission's ruling, concluding "the Bible passage ... exposes homosexuals to hatred" -- i.e. the Bible is hate literature.

What makes this all the most troubling is a private member's bill now proceeding through Parliament that would ban the public recitation of any opinions exposing homosexuals to hatred. The bill's author, Svend Robinson, scoffs at predictions that its passage will lead to persecution of Christians.

But surely Robinson is being disingenuous when he dismisses these fears. Should opinions opposing homosexuality be ruled hatred, his bill will have the effect of ending free speech on this subject.

Lorne Gunter
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Editorial Board Member, National Post
tele: (780) 916-0719
fax: (780) 481-4735
e-mail: lgunter@shaw.ca

[Polycarp]

__NEWS__Canada_________________________

Gay Rights as Trumps
A provincial human-rights commission has ruled that certain Bible verses
pertaining to homosexuality cannot legally be published

By John-Henry Westen

A June 15, 2001 decision of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (HRC) marked the first time in Canadian history that a man was punished by the government for citing the Bible. Hugh Owens, a Christian living in Regina, Saskatchewan, was ordered to pay $4,500 ($1,500 each) to three homosexual activists who complained about an ad Owens paid $1,700 to run in a local paper, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix. The HRC also ordered the newspaper to pay $4,500. Moreover Owens and the newspaper were forbidden from future publication of the ad. 

The case began when homosexual activists Jeff Dodds, Jason Roy, and Gens Hellquist filed complaints with the HRC after Owens’ ad was published on June 30, 1997. Owens had published the ad to coincide with Gay Pride Week in Saskatoon. The ad cited four Bible passages—from Romans 1, Leviticus, and First Corinthians—which condemn homosexual activity. The list of citations was followed by a mathematical equal sign, which was followed by two stick-figure men holding hands. This drawing was contained within the universal prohibition symbol (a circle with a diagonal slash across it). Viewed in its entirety, the purpose of the ad was to indicate that the Bible says No to homosexual behavior.

At the hearing before the HRC tribunal hearing two years later, “experts” on homosexuality and “religious” leaders were witnesses for the complainants. Dr. Madiha Khayatt, an “expert in human sexuality” from York University, testified that an individual’s sexual identity and his ability to express the same is an essential part of his identity. She deemed the ad threatening. Two of the complainants testified that they saw the ad as a death threat. The Rev. Brent Hawkes of the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto (who recently attempted to “marry” homosexuals, sidestepping legal boundaries by using the reading of the banns and thus challenging anyone to state an objection before the ceremony began), said the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. He called religious denominations such as Roman Catholicism and Judaism “extreme” in their moral prohibitions on homosexual acts, and added that fundamentalists are “satanic.” Mr. Hawkes testified that as he interpreted it the ad said, in effect: “Stop gays; the Bible calls for extermination of gays.”

A Catholic priest, Father Paul Donlevy; a Lutheran minister, the Rev. Erwin Buck; and a Jewish rabbi, Steve Kaplan, testified on behalf of Owens, saying that his publication of the ad was an exercise of his proper religious freedom. Lyle Sinkewicz, the chief operating officer at the Star Phoenix at the time the ad was published, testified that the paper had in the past published ads and letters to the editor supporting homosexuality. “In that the Bible is the best-selling book in the world and it is generally not thought to be hate literature, I thought it was OK to run the ad,” Sinkewicz told the board of inquiry. 

The fault is in the Bible
The board of inquiry consisted of one sole adjudicator, feminist lawyer Valerie G. Watson, who would act as judge, jury, and executioner in the case. Watson was to decide on whether the ad contravened the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, which says:

. . . no person shall publish, or display, or cause, or permit to be published or displayed . . . in a newspaper, television, or radio . . . (anything) which exposes, or tends to expose, to hatred, ridicules, belittles . . . any person, any class of persons because of his race, creed, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, family status, marital status, disability, age, nationality, place of origin, or receipt of public assistance.

In the ruling, Watson conceded, “there is no question that Mr. Owens believed that he was publicly expressing his honestly held religious belief as it related to his interpretation of the Bible and its discussion of homosexuality.” However she also ruled the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code issues a “reasonable restriction on Mr. Owens’ right to freedom of expression,” since she determined that as a result of the ad the complainants “were exposed to hatred, ridicule and their dignity was affronted on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

Of note, Watson singled out the Bible passages themselves as the reason for the ruling that the ad was a hateful act. “The Board accepts that the universal symbol for forbidden . . . may itself not communicate hatred. However, when combined with the passages from the Bible, the Board finds that the advertisement would expose homosexuals to hatred.” Watson said in her ruling, “It is obvious that certain of the Biblical quotations suggest more dire consequences and there can be no question that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule.” 

While the Star Phoenix does not plan to appeal the ruling, Owens plans to appeal the ruling as a violation of his religious freedom and freedom of speech.

Despite the seeming absurdity of the HRC judgment, the difficulty with the case lay not so much in the ruling as in the code itself. The politically correct ideology, expressed by some of the “expert” witnesses in the case, considers homosexual sex an inalienable characteristic of the homosexual person. This ideology has given rise to the inclusion of “sexual orientation” on par with race as a ground on which discrimination is forbidden. This new ideology and subsequent legislation must eventually reach the conclusion that the Bible and orthodox Christianity in general are discriminatory, since they condemn homosexuality—despite the fact that they make a clear distinction between condemning the practice of homosexuality and loving those persons with an inclination toward homosexual acts. That distinction is not recognized within the politically correct ideology of the day, nor within the wording of the consequent legislation banning discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.”

The struggle reflected by this case in Canada is already well advanced in various other countries throughout the world. However, the United Nations is set to raise the entire question to a new international level with its World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance—a conference scheduled for August 31 to September 7 of this year. The draft document produced as a basis for discussion during that conference seeks a ban on discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation,” and encourages countries to take a pro-active stance to stamp out all forms of legal discrimination against active homosexuals. The fact that the conference will serve as another opportunity for the UN to push homosexual activism has not been lost on gay-rights activists. The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) has gone so far as to demand that the UN treaty should place a ban on all media broadcasts critical of homosexuality.

Canada’s leading role
Canada will undoubtedly lead the way for pro-homosexual activism, as it usually does at the United Nations. In fact EGALE, Canada’s foremost homosexual activist group, boasted that officials in the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, “confirmed that Canada would continue to push for recognition of sexual orientation equality issues at the World (Racism) Conference.” 

Taking the Canadian case as an example, a UN-sponsored globalization of laws banning discrimination based on “sexual orientation” could make for dire consequences. Beyond the Owens case, the campaign against “discrimination based on sexual orientation” in Canada has led to: 

• the prosecution of Christian mayors, who were fined up to $10,000 for failing to proclaim “Gay Pride” celebrations in their cities;

• legal setbacks for Christian schools, which have lost Supreme Court cases after firing teachers who were open and active homosexuals;

• a $5,000 fine for a commercial printer who refused to produce homosexual propaganda—and was ordered to accept such business in the future; and

• continuing campaigns by government and the mass media to indoctrinate

Canadians of all ages with the gay-rights ideology. 

Commenting on the case during the hearings, University of Western Ontario law professor Ian Hunter wrote:

If Mr. Owens cannot express his opinions through a paid ad in the Star Phoenix, can he express them from a street corner soapbox? From the pulpit of a church? Should he get himself elected, in the House of Commons? Do we have the right to express anti-consensus views anywhere in Canada? 

John-Henry Westen is editor of LifeSite News (www.lifesite.net), an Internet news daily from Canada’s pro-life pro-family newspaper The Interim.

Back to Catholic World Report August/September 2001 Table of Contents

Back to Catholic.net Magazine Rack

[breakem]

.........homo apologists, culture of death, culture of life, juggernaught........

You might be able to get a point across if you'd weed out the propaganda.

[Polycarp]

SWEDEN TO CRIMINALIZE OPPOSITION TO HOMOSEXUALITY
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, June 12, 2002 (LSN.ca) - The Swedish government is moving toward prohibiting citizens from opposing homosexuality according to a pro-life Swedish member of Parliament.

If it goes ahead next year, the move would amend the country's constitution to ban speech or materials, such as biblical injunctions, opposing homosexuality and other "alternative lifestyles." Violators could face prison.

Annalie Enochson, described by Focus on the Family news services as "a Christian member of Parliament," said the homosexual lobby in Sweden is small but powerful. She noted the measure passed with only 56 percent in Parliament. "Usually, if you change the constitution it should be nearly everybody - I mean, it should be about 80 or 90 percent," Enochson said. "Fifty-six is very, very low."

The amendment must be voted on again after elections this September. If it passes again, it would become effective next January. Enochson said under the amendment, Christians could be arrested for speaking out in churches. "That means people coming from [the homosexual] lobby group could sit in our churches having on the tape recorder and listen to somebody and say, 'What you're saying now is against our constitution.'"

To read the Focus on the Family report see: http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0021073.html

[Polycarp]

HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS TRUMP RELIGIOUS RIGHTS PROVINCIAL RIGHTS COURT RULES
Bible Verses Regarding Homosexuality Ruled Unpublishable

SASKATOON, June 19, 2001 (LSN.ca) - The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (HRC) has ordered both the Saskatoon StarPhoenix newspaper and Hugh Owens of Regina to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the Saskatoon newspaper quoting bible verses regarding homosexuality. The ruling issued Friday by the sole adjudicator, feminist lawyer Valerie Watson, also prohibits Hugh Owens, who purchased the ad, from "further publishing or displaying the bumper stickers submitted in evidence in a newspaper or any other medium," and prohibits The StarPhoenix from accepting the ad for any future publications.

On June 30, 1997, Owens placed the ad in the StarPhoenix to coincide with Gay Pride Week. His intention, as a committed Christian, was to draw people's attention to the Biblical teachings on homosexuality. The ad gave four Bible passages from Romans I, Leviticus and First Corinthians, which condemn homosexuality. The list was followed by a mathematical equal sign, which was followed by two stick-figure men holding hands. This drawing was contained within the universal prohibition symbol (circle with a slash across it). Viewed in its entirety, the purpose of the ad was to indicate that the Bible says no to homosexual behaviour.

Homosexual activists Jeff Dodds, Jason Roy and Gens Hellquist, submitted complaints to the Saskatchewan HRC and Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Jewish religious leaders testified on behalf of Owens' religious freedom. Meanwhile a witness on behalf of the complainants, Rev. Brent Hawkes of the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto (who recently attempted to 'marry' homosexuals sidestepping legal boundaries by using the reading of the banns), said the Bible did not condemn homosexuality and called religious denominations such as Roman Catholicism and Judaism, "extreme," and said that fundamentalists were "satanic".

In the ruling, Watson conceded, "there is no question that Mr. Owens believed that he was publicly expressing his honestly held religious belief as it related to his interpretation of the Bible and its discussion of homosexuality." However she also ruled the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code issues a "reasonable restriction on Mr. Owens' right to freedom of expression" since she determined that as a result of the ad the complainants "were exposed to hatred, ridicule and their dignity was affronted on the basis of their sexual orientation."

Commenting on the case during the hearings, University of Western Ontario law professor Ian Hunter wrote, "If Mr. Owens cannot express his opinions through a paid ad in the StarPhoenix, can he express them from a street corner soapbox? From the pulpit of a church? Should he get himself elected, in the House of Commons? Do we have the right to express anti-consensus views anywhere in Canada?"

[Polycarp]

HOMOSEXUAL HATE CRIME LAW EXPECTED IN COMING MONTHS
OTTAWA, Dec 22 (LSN.ca) - An exchange in the House of Commons last week confirmed fears that Canada's justice minister is scheming to outlaw "propaganda which promotes violence and hatred based on sexual orientation." A law such as this would in effect ban bible verses condemning homosexual behaviour and discriminate against those holding traditional religious and moral beliefs that have been respected for many centuries throughout the world.

Homosexualist MP Svend Robinson questioned Justice Minister Anne McLellan last Monday demanding to know: "When will the minister finally bring forward her long overdue omnibus bill on equality for gays and lesbians? Will she assure the House that the bill will amend the criminal code to outlaw propaganda which promotes violence and hatred based on sexual orientation?" McLellan responded by indicating that she discussed "the issue of hate propagated against gays and lesbians with my provincial and territorial colleagues last week." She said the provincial governments were working together with the federal government and "will be the making necessary changes to the criminal code in the coming months."

Robinson and his ilk see "propaganda which promotes violence and hatred based on sexual orientation" as including statements of church doctrine on homosexual behaviour. This is evident from the recent altercations between him and Fr. Tony Van Hee as LifeSite reported Monday.

See the Robinson, McLellan exchange in the House at:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/038_1999-12-13/han038-e.htm# LINK156

See the full story on Robinson's attack on Fr. Van Hee's display:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1999/dec/99122001.html

[Polycarp]

BROACAST AUTHORITY RULES AGAINST STATION FOR VIEW ON HOMOSEXUALITY
Ruling Seen As Attack On Religious Freedom
OTTAWA, November 19, 2002 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Vision TV, the only multifaith and multicultural television network in the world, has been ruled in violation of Canadian broadcasting standards for the airing of a program by a TV evangelist who spoke of deliverance from the demon of homosexuality. Vision, which is mandated to "provide religious broadcasting that affords an outlet for single-faith viewpoints within a broader multifaith context" apparently, went wrong when it played a "Power Today" episode hosted by U.S. evangelist R.W. Schambach.

Chroniclers of different Christian denominations note that belief in a "demon of homosexuality" is common, especially among those denominations who hold to "spiritual warfare" teachings. The belief suggests that a person afflicted with homosexuality can be freed of the condition by casting out the demon of homosexuality. Pastor Schambach indicated that he wanted to "set people free" from possession by the demon of homosexuality. In his words, "Homosexuality is not another lifestyle. It's a demon spirit. … God's given me power to cast out devils and if you are a homosexual, I can deliver you! And I can set you free! Hallelujah!"

While Pastor Schambach's style may be tasteless to some, he is presenting a viewpoint held by many Christians. In making its ruling, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) said, "The intolerance and bitterness that drip from his lips are extreme; they constitute abusive and unduly discriminatory comment; they have no place on Canadian airwaves, much less in the generally positive and tolerant broadcast environment of the multi-faith and multicultural Vision TV. In any event, the program was broadcast and Vision TV has, in consequence, breached the provisions of Clauses 2 and 14 of the CAB Code of Ethics."

Vision TV's Director of Mosaic Programming defended its airing of the program saying that "Vision TV will not allow any faith group to encourage any harm or victimization of any identifiable groups including homosexual people. Pastor Schambach was trying to state his understanding of biblical sexual injunctions. He did not suggest that any harm be done to gay and lesbian people."

Bruce Clemenger of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada told LifeSite that the issue boils down to two different approaches to religious expression. Whereas Vision TV draws the line at encouragement of harm or victimization, the CBSC dictates the form of religious advocacy it permits, said Clemenger. Quoting from the ruling, Clemenger noted that the CBSC relies on the standards of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters which holds "the purpose of the religious broadcast to be that of promoting the spiritual harmony and understanding of humanity." Clemenger said, "It's the Gospel according to the CBSC - a restrictive application of what religious broadcasting should be about. And that's not religious freedom."

See the ruling by the CBSC:
http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decision/021115.htm

To express your views:

CBSC comment email:
info@cbsc.ca

VISIONTV
80 Bond Street, Toronto, ON
Canada M5B 1X2
Phone : (416) 368-3194
NEW TTY/TDD 416 216-6311
Fax : (416) 368-9774
visiontv@visiontv.ca

[Polycarp]

CATHOLIC BOARD THREATENED WITH LAWSUIT ON FORBIDDING HOMOSEXUAL PROM DATE
Gay Activists Willing to Take Case to Supreme Court

TORONTO, April 4, 2002 (LSN.ca) - At press conference yesterday, the male 17-year-old Catholic high school student, whose request to bring his homosexual 21-year-old boyfriend to the school prom was refused, threatened to take legal action against the school board. The student, Marc Hall, is to address the Durham Region Catholic School Board Monday April 8 on the issue. "If nothing happens April 8, I'll probably take legal action," said Hall at the press conference.

Buzz Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers, Toronto Centre-Rosedale MPP George Smitherman, Councillor Joe Mihevc (Ward 21, St. Paul's) and Marilyn Byers, president of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays in York Region joined Hall at the conference. The meeting raised both the option of taking the case through the courts even to the Supreme Court level and also of taking the matter to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Keith Norton, another gay activist who was appointed by the Conservative government, seemed to encourage taking the case to the Commission that he presides over. Norton told the Toronto Sun it "might be difficult" for faith-based schools to argue religious freedom as a reason to discriminate against someone simply because they're openly gay. "An individual may well be able to invoke the protection of the human rights legislation," he said. Apparently Norton believes that Canada's traditional rights to religious practices and belief no longer apply to Catholic schools.

News reports suggest that the lanky, green-haired youth was very shaky during the conference. The parents of Hall, who proclaimed himself homosexual at 16, are supportive of his bringing his male date to the prom.

See related LifeSite coverage:

MEDIA CIRCUS OVER CATHOLIC SCHOOL BANNING STUDENT'S HOMOSEXUAL DANCE PARTNER
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/mar/0203202 .html

AUTO UNION WORKER PRESIDENT THREATENS CATHOLIC SCHOOL OVER HOMOSEXUALITY
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/mar/0203254 .html

GAY ACTIVISTS INCREASE MEDIA HYPE AGAINST FAITHFUL CATHOLIC SCHOOL BOARD
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/apr/0204023 .html

See coverage from the Toronto Star, Sun and CP at:
http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Ty pe1&c=Article&cid=1017874910877&call_page=TS_GTA&call_ pageid=968350130169&call_pagepath=GTA/News
http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoNews/ts.ts-04-04-0028.html
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSLaw0204/04_prom-cp.html

[Polycarp]

CANADIAN WEBSITE ORDERED SHUT DOWN FOR OFFENDING HOMOSEXUALS
OTTAWA, August 21, 2002 (LSN.ca) - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal yesterday ordered John Micka, Machiavelli and Associates Emprize Inc., Joanne Vestvik and Ken Fast to immediately cease communicating 'hate' messages on a particular Internet Web site http://www.citizensresearchinst.com/.

Mark Schnell, a self-proclaimed homosexual filed complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 1999 and 2000, claiming that John Micka and Machiavelli and Associates Emprize Inc. discriminated against him. He felt the site communicated messages likely to expose "persons to hatred and contempt based on their sexual orientation." Schnell alleged that the comments on the site were "offensive and derogatory, and that these messages implied that homosexuals are paedophiles," according to the tribunal.

In reaching his finding, Tribunal Chair Grant Sinclair said, "If the telephone is ideally suited to spread prejudicial ideas, the Internet is even better positioned. It is a very public form of communication, inexpensive, easily accessed, and can communicate many messages simultaneously to a world-wide audience."

Mary Gusella, newly appointed Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said that the Commission had a message for operators of hate Web sites. "Spreading hate is against the law in this country and will not be tolerated," stressed the Chief Commissioner, "and we will continue to serve the interests of Canadians by ensuring that meritorious complaints are reviewed by the Tribunal."

See the Commission's release at:
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/news-comm/2002/NewsComm082102.asp?l=e

[lurky]

"They force prosecutors to inquire into the motivations of criminals, and the essence of criminal law in the Anglo-American tradition has been the determination of external acts, not internal dispositions,"

What are we doing when we rate murders and other crimes by "degrees", then?

[Polycarp]

RADIO STATION CHASTENED AFTER HOMOSEXUAL COMMENTS
Canada's radio and television regulator, the CRTC, has reprimanded Winnipeg radio station Talk Radio 1290 over remarks made by two program hosts that have been deemed as expressive of "hatred and contempt for homosexuals."

John Collison, the host of the 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. talk radio slot was already fired by the radio station three weeks ago after leading a campaign against a committee ostensibly set up to eliminate homophobia in city high schools.

The other talk show host being investigated is Gerald Fast, who hosts the 12:00 to 3 p.m. call-in show.

The CRTC's investigation is primarily focused on eight complaints made between October and November of 1998, reported the National Post. Among the comments being investigated are a reference to Winnipeg's homosexual mayor as "a guy who gets his advice from drag queens" and the comment that citizens should "lock up [their] sons for the next few years."

Whether or not the above comments qualify as constructive comment, many social conservatives oppose the power of the CRTC, which appears to be increasingly used to censor non- politically correct comment. The regulatory body has also long been condemned for its regulatory regime surrounding religous broadcasting. The National Post noted that in this case, the radio station has promised to "immediately implement measures to reduce controversy."

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP

[Polycarp]

AUTO UNION WORKER PRESIDENT THREATENS CATHOLIC SCHOOL OVER HOMOSEXUALITY
TORONTO, March 25, 2002 (LSN.ca) - The President of the Canadian Auto Workers union has raised the specter of dragging a Catholic school board through the Human Rights Commission over its decision to forbid a male student from bring his homosexual "boyfriend" to a school prom.

The open letter endorsed by the Auto Workers union National Executive Board, and signed by CAW President Basil 'Buzz' Hargrove, describes the union's pro-homosexual activism. The letter, addressed to Michael Powers, principal of Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic Secondary School in Oshawa where the controversy occurred, explained the actions of the CAW noting: "We are honoured and proud to work alongside them (the homosexual student and his supporters) as they push for recognition and rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people."

The CAW warns: "As you are no doubt aware, the school board can drag this issue out through the Human Rights Commission. It may take two or ten years and a lot of wasted resources. Rest assured, in that time society will continue to move forward, and the Catholic school board will lose relevancy."

Commenting on the letter, Michael Connell, of the Canadian Catholic Civil Rights League told LifeSite, "Tragically, by attempting to bully the Church, the CAW betrays the Church's historical support that was instrumental in helping unions build their credibility. It would appear that the time has arrived when Catholics will need to address their ability in good conscience to remain members of an organization which works to subvert their religious rights."

Connell was not surprised by the CAW attack on the Church, recalling that Kathleen Howes, the Canadian representative of the vehemently anti-Catholic group 'Catholics for a Free Choice' is a lawyer for the Canadian Auto Workers.

See related LifeSite coverage:
MEDIA CIRCUS OVER CATHOLIC SCHOOL BANNING STUDENT'S HOMOSEXUAL DANCE PARTNER http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/mar/0203202 .html

See the full letter by the CAW:
http://www.newswire.ca/releases/March2002/22/c3581.html

[Polycarp]

DR. LAURA SCHLESSINGER VICTIM OF HOMOSEXUALIST CENSORSHIP
OTTAWA, May 15 (LSN.ca) - Last Wednesday the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) ruled against the immensely popular pro-family radio talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger, calling her "abusively discriminatory" and suggesting that her views "fertilize the ground" for "brutality." In a remarkably extremist statement for an alleged defender of independent broadcasting, the CBSC ruled in favour of complaints about the Dr. Laura show submitted by homosexual activists. One such complaint came from Ian Crowe of Halifax, Nova Scotia, a member of the leading activist group Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere.

The decision of the CBSC pressures stations to promise to censor her comments when they are deemed inappropriate. However, some radio stations are vowing to continue airing the popular show unedited. The CBSC is a voluntary trade association, so its decisions are not binding, however, its rulings are deemed significant enough by the CRTC that stations which refuse to abide by its rulings do run the risk of not having their licences renewed by the federal agency.

The decision is very disturbing to pro-family Canadians as well as others who respect the findings of peer reviewed scientific and medical research. Dr. Laura identifies homosexual acts as "aberrant", "deviant", and "disordered" in keeping with her Jewish Orthodox faith, but demonstrates her own brand of hard-nosed concern for the individuals who engage in such practices. Nevertheless, the CBSC would not recognize this separation of behaviour from the person: "Since the sexual practices of gays and lesbians define them as homosexuals and are inseparable from their personas, any attempt by the host to justify her statements on the basis that she is speaking about the practices rather than the individuals must fail."

The CBSC decision can be found at:
http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decision/000510.htm

To express your concerns with this ruling to the CBSC: Canadian Broadcast Standards Council P.O. Box 3265, Station D Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6H8

Call them at (613) 233-4607 or fax them at (613) 238-1734.

E-mail addresses: Ron Cohen, National Chair: ron.cohen@cbsc.ca Ann Mainville-Neeson, Executive Director: ann.mainville-neeson@cbsc.ca