LAW
OF THE LAND
The Bible as 'hate
literature'?
Canadians advance
bill that chills speech about homosexuality
Posted: October 21,
2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art
Moore
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
A prison
sentence for quoting the Bible in Canada? Holy Scriptures treated as "hate
literature"?
That could
happen if a proposed bill is passed by Parliament, according to opponents who
believe it would criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior.
A
self-described homosexual member of the House of Commons, Svend Robinson, is
expected this week to reintroduce bill C-415, which would add sexual orientation
as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate crimes
legislation.
Christian
groups lined up against the bill admit they can easily be misunderstood for
opposing a measure apparently designed to protect people.
"We don't
want to promote hatred against anyone and are opposed to violence for whatever
reason," said Bruce Clemenger, head of the Evangelical Fellowship of
Canada's Centre for Faith and Public Life. "Our concern, though is that ...
courts have not distinguished between the identity of the person and the
activity. So sexual orientation refers to both the sexual disposition as well as
the activity."
But
homosexual activists contend such a distinction cannot be made with homosexuals
any more than it can with matters of race or ethnic origin.
"The argument
of separating the person from the behavior is their concept," insisted Kim
Vance, president of Ottawa-based EGALE, Equality for Gays and Lesbians
Everywhere.
"In reality
they are the same thing," Vance said in a WND interview. "That's language that
they use to justify [opposition], but it's language that we don't agree with."
The bill's
backers argue that statements against homosexual behavior for religious reasons
are exempted in the current law.
In a letter
Robinson sends to inquirers, he quotes Alberta Attorney General Dave Hancock,
who insists protecting gays from hateful propaganda has nothing to do with
endorsing homosexuality.
"There are
appropriate ways to discuss issues in our country ... and you don't need to put
forward hateful literature," Hancock said. "It doesn't matter what you believe
about sexual orientation."
But opponents
point out that the law addressed by Robinson's amendment spells out three
different types of actions or speech considered criminal, and only one can be
excused by a religious defense. And even that one, opponents maintain, has not
always held up in court, because its vagueness leaves wide discretion to judges.
The most
dangerous aspect of this amendment is that "hate" and "hate propaganda" are not
defined, says Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition in
Calgary, Alberta.
"I would have
no way of knowing I'm conducting a criminal act until I'm charged with it,
because there is no clarity in the law," Rushfeldt told WND.
"Sexual
oriention" also is not defined in the law. Prime Minister Jean Chretien, when he
was justice minister, told a constitutional parliamentary committee in 1981 that
"sexual orientation" should not be in the Canadian constitution because it is
too "difficult to interpret, to define."
Religious
defense?
No religious
defense is contained in section 318 of the current law, which has a sentence of
up to five years in prison for advocating "genocide," nor in section 319(1),
prohibiting public incitement of "hatred" against an identifiable group that is
"likely to lead to a breach of the peace."
Section
319(2), which prohibits a public statement that "willfully promotes hatred"
against a protected group, does have an article that excuses statements
expressed in "good faith," including religious expression.
Clemenger,
however, points to a 4-3 Supreme Court decision in which the minority opinion,
written by current Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, expressed deep reservations
about whether these defenses are of any use.
"What they
are saying is, that if you willfully promote hatred, you can use this defense,
but no one in good faith would promote hatred," Clemenger said. "So that 'good
faith' clause almost eliminates the defense."
Rushfeldt and
his allies note that provincial human rights commissions, which already include
sexual orientation as a protected category, have penalized people for actions
motivated by their conscientious objection to homosexual behavior.
A
Saskatchewan man recently was fined $5,000 for buying a newspaper ad that quoted
verses from the Bible condemning homosexual behavior.
Two years
ago, the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized printer
Scott Brockie $5,000 for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy
group. Brockie argued that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject the
group's request.
Robinson's
amendment would make both of these men criminals, opponents contend.
Rushfeldt
also recalled instances in which the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council rules
have been used to censure programs addressing homosexuality. In 1997, the
council ruled that the airing of a James Dobson "Focus on the Family" program,
called "Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction," violated the requirement that opinion,
comment, and editorializing be presented in a way that is "full, fair, and
proper."
The rules are
"so vague," said Rushfeldt, "that if somebody says something that hurts feelings
it can be considered a violation of the broadcast standards."
In a current
case, a British Columbia teacher could lose his job for making "derogatory and
demeaning" statements against homosexuals, according to the judgment of a
teachers association panel. Though none of the statements in question were made
in class, the panel cited letters to a newspaper that indicated veteran teacher
Chris Kempling's attitude could poison the class environment.
One Kempling
letter cited by the panel said: "Gay people are seriously at risk, not because
of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behaviour, and I challenge
the gay community to show some real evidence that they are trying to protect
their own community members by making attempts to promote monogamous,
long-lasting relationships to combat sexual addictions."
The Vancouver
Sun reported Sept. 25 that the panel does not need to find direct evidence of a
poisoned school environment to determine that a member is guilty of conduct
unbecoming. The panel said, "It is sufficient that an inference can be drawn as
to the reasonable and probable consequences of the discriminatory comments of a
teacher."
In June,
Sweden passed a constitutional amendment that adds sexual orientation to groups
protected against "unfavorable speech." The amendment must be voted on again
this fall, and if passed, would be enacted in January. In effect, it outlaws any
teaching that homosexuality is wrong, carrying a sentence of up to four years in
prison.
U.S.
opponents of this kind of legislation fear that the United States is heading in
the direction of Canada and Sweden as battles continued to be waged over the
addition of sexual orientation as a protected category in hate crimes laws and
employment discrimination.
"I think the
U.S. is not far behind Canada," said John Paulk, gender and homosexuality
specialist for Focus on the Family in
Colorado Springs.
Canadian
pro-family activists also are concerned about challenges to the definition of
marriage, especially after an Ontario court ruled earlier this year that
restricting marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional and
discriminatory.
'Hate
literature'
In an "action
alert" distributed last week, Rushfeldt wrote that if C-415 becomes law in
Canada, "the following consequences will result, especially once hate crime
charges are brought before the courts":
·
The Bible, at least certain
portions of the Bible, may be declared "hate literature."
·
Churches will not be able to
mention certain Scriptures.
·
Clergy may be subjected to
criminal charges if they refuse to marry homosexuals.
·
Parents may be subjected to
criminal charges if they refuse to allow their children to attend classes that
teach about and promote homosexual behavior.
·
Expressing disagreement with
homosexual behavior or the homosexual agenda, either verbally or in writing,
would be considered hate propaganda.
·
Educators, including those at
private religious schools, will not be able to refuse to teach homosexual
curriculum.
·
Religious institutions will
not be allowed to teach anything non-supportive of homosexual sex.
·
Canadian Blood Services will
not be allowed to screen risk-behavior donors.
·
Governments (including local
municipalities) will be prevented from passing (even debating) sex standards
laws.
In his letter
to constituents, Robinson defends the necessity of the bill by using the example
of American Fred Phelps, known for his website "www.godhatesfags.com." Robinson
said that when Phelps wanted to come to Canada to "pursue his campaign of hatred
against gay and lesbian people," Canadian police lamented that there was nothing
in the criminal code to stop him.
Robinson
quotes Sgt. Pat Callaghan, head of the hate crimes unit of the Ottawa-Carleton
Police Department: "If we had that legislation, we wouldn't have to put up with
his nonsense … . We could have told him, 'If you show up and start spreading
this hate, we'll arrest you.'"
Opponents
point out, however, that Phelps, pastor of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka,
Kan., bases his views on religious grounds, which contradicts Robinson's claim
that he does not intend to shut down religious discussion.
EGALE's Vance
told WorldNetDaily that she believes, however, that religious speech must be
limited.
"There's a
huge difference between someone being allowed to practice their religion and
taking out ads in the newspaper saying that gay and lesbian people are sick and
immoral," said EGALE's Vance. "There is a line there, and it's been crossed."
Responding to
concerns about free speech, Robinson said the law has an additional protection
in that no criminal proceeding can be instituted without the consent of the
provincial attorney general, which "will prevent frivolous or trivial
prosecutions."
Clemenger
said, however, that provincial law officials across the country have expressed
support for the bill and have shown deference to homosexual activists in their
decisions.
Robinson said
the Canadian Association of Police Boards adopted a resolution in support of
C-415 at its annual general meeting Aug. 23, "noting that equal protection and
treatment of all citizens is fundamental to a fair justice system."
Not
a dead issue
Robinson's
bill passed a "vote in principle" in the House of Commons in May – with just 16
MPs present – and must pass a final vote before submission to the Senate, where
opponents say it likely would be rubber stamped. Bills that become law pass a
final formality of "royal assent" from the queen's representative, the governor
general.
Some
Canadians mistakenly have believed that the bill is a dead issue, according to
opponents, because when a new session of Parliament convenes, all legislation
from the previous session dies.
But according
to the rules, if Robinson resubmits the bill within 30 days of the Sept. 30
"Speech from the Throne" – which outlines Parliament's plans for the year – the
legislation will continue on its track from the same position it had before.
Bill Siksay,
Robinson's assistant at his Burnaby, B.C., office, said Robinson was unavailable
for comment. He told WND, however, that the MP has indicated his intent to
reintroduce the bill this week.
Patrice
Martin, clerk of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the
House of Commons, which would handle the bill, said he expects C-415 to be
reactivated.
Martin's
committee then would prioritize the bill among other submissions by government
and members of parliament. The committee could either delay C-415 – a private
members bill – or send it back to the House for a "third reading" and final
vote, possibly with amendments.
Enough
votes
Vance
believes that based on the voting pattern of MPs, enough votes are there to pass
C-415. She notes passage of a law that added sexual orientation as a factor in
sentencing for crimes motivated by hatred.
"Our sense is
there is very strong support for [C-415]," she said. "To me, this is just a
natural extension of the sentencing law. If you agree that sexual orientation is
a motivating factor for hate crimes, then it's logical to have it for speech."
Her group is
preparing a brief for the justice committee and plans to submit a petition that
it circulated in the summer.
The issue has
received little attention in the Canadian press, says opponent Jim Enos, vice
chairman of the Hamilton-Wentworth Family Action Council in Ontario.
"We're asleep
as a nation," said Enos. "Outside of families who are made aware through the
churches, you never hear anybody talking about it."
"I don't think people are all that politically minded as a whole, unless they are closely linked to a church," Enos added. "They're more concerned about the price of a VCR or DVD