CATHOLIC CHURCH: THE WORD TRUMPS HUMAN RIGHTS

Just how important is freedom of speech to the Catholic Church?  Much more important than you thought.

In fact, the Canadian Catholic League would have you believe that it's even more important to the Church than human rights and human life.  Now that's quite a transformation for a religion that used to stage auto-da-fe's for men and women for no other reason that their heretical words.  Who says the Vatican is incapable of progress?

The Canadian Catholic League, founded in 1985 as an independent lay organization, was authorized by the Canadian Catholic Church and works in cooperation with local bishops across Canada.

And in what may be one of the most ironic and revealing moves to date by the Church, the Canadian Catholic League has gone to war with with Human Rights Commission because the Commission has gone after Catholic bigotry.

According to the League, "The news in early December that Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine are the subject of a complaint to the British Colombia and federal Human Rights Commissions because of an article the magazine published, excerpted from Mr. Steyn's book "America Alone", is a higher-profile example of an ongoing pattern in the use of human rights' commissions to penalize the expression of unpopular opinions.

Unpopular opinions?

Unpopular opinions, like attacks on the human rights of innocent men, women and children?  Oh wait, there's that Bible thing which divinely authorizes the Church to peddle hate language, persecution and bashing against members of the flock who don't meet the "moral" standards of a sexually repressed 81-year old witch doctor who loves to wear huge precious jewels and fabulous silk and satin dresses.

The League is concerned about the disturbing trend of Human Rights advocates having the power and influence to clamp down on human rights violations and attacks on the civil rights of Canadian citizens.

"In several cases," explains the League, "...attempts have been made to characterize scriptural passages as hate literature. While these commissions and their tribunals have generally been sympathetic to complaints of "offended feelings" brought by homosexual rights activists, those brought by Christians seeking support for their right to freedom of religion or religious expression have been less successful."

The Church has a point.  Canadian law is discriminating against criminals and bigots, who, according to the divine word of God should be allowed the freedom to act on their delusions and psychopathologies.  To borrow some good old-fashioned Republican logic, the problem, of course, with allowing Catholics to commit constitutional and human rights crimes in the name of their infallible leader, is that it could easily lead to the legalization of cult murder orgies of the Charles Manson sort, legalized slavery of foreigners and those of dark skin, and the stoning to death of women who engage in extra-marital sex.

The League believes that the continued incursion of human rights' commissions in matters of free speech will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. "When someone's words are disagreeable or contentious, the normal give-and-take of human discourse should be all the regulation that peaceable free speech requires," says the League.

The League provided a list of recent cases where human rights tribunal were used to quash or attempt to quash free speech:

• As noted above, Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine for the publisher's reprinting of a chapter of Steyn's book "America Alone," Complaint brought in November by the Canadian Islamic Congress, which said the article subjects Canadian Muslims to discrimination, hatred and contempt.
• Ron Gray, leader of the CHP, brought before the Ontario and Canadian HRCs by Edmonton activist Rob Wells for an article on the party's website critical of homosexual conduct.
• Catholic Insight magazine is the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission due to material on its website critical of homosexual conduct. The passages of articles in question were written in the context of speaking out against the activists who agitated for adding so-called sexual orientation to the Hate Crimes Act in 2003, and the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in 2005.
• Steven Boissoin, a Christian pastor who faces punishment by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for a letter published in the Red Deer Advocate. (Case brought by University of Calgary professor Darren Lund.) The judge claimed a "circumstantial causal connection" could be made between the letter and an attack on a homosexual teenager in that city.
• John Di Cecco, a Kamloops, BC city councilor, fined $1,000 for by the BC Human Rights Tribunal when a complaint was brought in response to comments he made about homosexual conduct.
• Knights of Columbus of Port Coquitlam, BC, fined by the BC Human Rights Tribunal in December, 2005 for how they handled their refusal of the use of their hall for a lesbian "wedding" reception.
• Bishop Fred Henry in 2005 was on the receiving end of a human rights complaint for articulating the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage in a pastoral letter.
• In 2002, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to three complainants because of the publication of an advertisement that quoted Bible verses on homosexuality. Four years later, this was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal after the court ruled that the message, though offensive, didn't reach the level of inciting hatred. The League was part of an intervention to protest the labeling of Scriptural passages as hate speech.
• Bill Whatcott, charged with spreading hate against homosexual persons for the distribution of material objecting to an advertisement that ran in Saskatchewan's largest newspaper for homosexuals, Perceptions, seeking boys for activities that specifically mentioned that their age was "….not so relevant".  The material distributed by Mr. Whatcott also objected to material promoting "gay" culture and beliefs entering into the Saskatoon Public School System and the University of Saskatchewan. The appeal by Mr. Whatcott to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench from his conviction and fine of $17,500.00 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal was denied by the Judgment of Mr. Justice F. Kovatch in a decision received on December 11, 2007.
• In British Columbia, Chris Kempling, a teacher at a public high school, was cited in May 2001 for professional misconduct by the BC College of Teachers (BCCT) for anti-gay letters published in a local newspaper. As punishment he was suspended from teaching for one month. He appealed his suspension all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which finally refused to hear the appeal in 2006.  When some CBC interviews in 2004 became the basis for a formal reprimand by the Quesnel School District, Kempling complained to the BC Human Rights Tribunal on the grounds that his religious freedom was being infringed, a complaint that the Tribunal rejected in November 2005.
• In 1999, Toronto printer Scott Brockie was ordered by the Ontario commission to pay a Gay activist group $5,000 for refusing to print their letterhead.

"The League has refrained from making hate speech complaints to any courts or commissions, even though some of the anti-Catholic content we address, and the remarks directed at us in the course of our work, could certainly be described as demeaning if not downright hateful," said the League.  "In our view, the importance of free speech supersedes whether we agree with what others are saying. That is why we have supported people in their right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, particularly religious expression, in various court and tribunal cases. When we protest anti-Catholic defamation in the media, we do so pointedly, but we have never once said that such content should be illegal. Our hope, rather, is that a spirit of true dialog will help make defamation rare."

Some might argue that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is doing a spectacular job of combating bigotry and providing a safer and more nurturing society for all men, women and children who wish to live in love, peace and harmony.  The Catholic League would argue that if you hear the voice of God in your head, you should be able to slaughter the innocent.

Of course, I would argue that if you're hearing the voice of God in your head and he's telling you to do harm to innocent men, women and children than you should go see a psychiatrist.  And fast.

Comments

[Winkelried]

you wrote:

"To borrow some good old-fashioned Republican logic, the problem, of course, with allowing Catholics to commit constitutional and human rights crimes in the name of their infallible leader, is that it could easily lead to the legalization of cult murder orgies of the Charles Manson sort, legalized slavery of foreigners and those of dark skin, and the stoning to death of women who engage in extra-marital sex."

you wrote:

"The Catholic League would argue that if you hear the voice of God in your head, you should be able to slaughter the innocent."
----------------------------------------------

Really? Any examples?

These are lies and hateful lies at that. But then you have the CHRC, EGALE and Richard Warman on your side, so what the hell, right?

Never in the history of mankind have homosexuals been safer and more prosperous than in North America at this time. Never!

When Sharia law becomes the law of the land gays can look forward to hangings and stoneings in public squares. Is this what you really want?

Do homosexuals even know what they want? Is so, what is it?

[jam b]

If your argument is typical of the sort of people who support the HRCs, then let's hope Steyn wins his case and brings the whole HRC system down.

[Dennis]

"The Canadian Catholic League would have you believe that [freedom of speech] even more important to the Church than human rights"

Freedom of speech IS a human right, you dimwit!

It is, in fact, the keystone supporting all other rights, for without it we have no means of exposing abuses of the others.

Human Rights - including the right to freedom of expression - apply to everyone, whether YOU like them or not.

[Jonny]

You don't seem to get the basic point of a liberal society. Where there is a system like the system of HRCs it would be all too easy for the composition of the HRCs to be changed to a bunch of people with different views who would then start pursuing people like you for making statements against Catholics.

Also if what Steyn has written about Islam is punishable, then surely so is what you have written above about Catholicism. This would apply even if every word of yours were true.... truth is no defence before an HRC - this is the problem.

[Harry Palmer]

I'm really disappointed by this post, yes, it's fine to disagree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, even to find them reprehensible. That does not make it fine to deny them their right to free speech.

I'm sorry, but that post came across as childish and petulant. Tolerance is a two way street, unless we can tolerate free speech for the people with disagree with, and that includes all the sexually repressed 81 year old witch doctors in silk dresses who want to burn people at the stake, then we are simply as bigotted and ultimately as foolish as they are.

[David m]

To the majority of the comments here: If you're tolerant of intolerance, you've gone too damn far.

Doesn't it make sense to want to stifle the words that inspire and mobilize massive sums of people to exclude or torture GLBT individuals and family constellations? Freedom of speech is one thing; when people use their voice on a massive platform to virally spread ideas that generate miseries in certain kinds of people's lives, it's no longer just about 'free speech'.

When HRC punishes speech, it's a defensive action against anti-social Religion. It's to protect the lives and well being of GLBT. When Religion protests, it's to preserve their right to dispense misery. So, the Catholic's action is not defensive at all. They're just clinging to the sticks they use to beat people with, so to speak.

Also, what are you barking about Winkelreid?