| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__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