Conservative Christians are worried about a federal private member's bill ( C250) to include sexual orientation as a protected category under Canada's hate-crime legislation. They believe it will contribute to suppressing the Bible's teaching on human sexuality and silence public debate on homosexual behaviour.

Canada's pro-faith and pro-family organizations -- such as the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Focus on the Family, REAL Women of Canada and the Canada Family Action Coalition -- are pessimistic about their ability to block or soften the legislation, backed by a homosexual lobby group and buoyed by past court rulings.

"The worst thing about this bill is its total lack of clarity about what hate is, what propagation of hate is, and what sexual orientation is," said Brian Rushfeldt, director of the Calgary-based Canada Family Action Coalition.

"If I'm talking about the morality of homosexual acts or the medical effects of sodomy, I have no way of knowing if what I'm saying is a crime. If I simply express a high standard of sexual morality, referring to homosexual behaviour, I could end up charged."

Rushfeldt cited a number of cases in recent months where public agencies have suppressed comments about homosexuals in the name of sexual orientation, even without benefit of a hate-crime law:

- Saskatoon Christian Hugh Owens was fined $4,500 for publishing an ad in his local paper, citing biblical quotations that condemn homosexual acts;

- Christian printer Scott Brockie of Toronto was fined $5,000 for refusing a print job from a gay advocacy group, contrary to his conscience;

- Christian teacher Chris Kempling faces expulsion by the B.C. College of Teachers, for publicly objecting to the BCCT's promotion as classroom resources of Xtra West, a gay newspaper;

- Prince Edward Island Christians Dagmar and Arnost Cepica, running a bed-and-breakfast in their home, were forced to close their business and pay a fine to two offended gays, for refusing a P.E.I. Human Rights Commission order that they rent rooms in their home to the practicing homosexuals.

Existing law bans "wilful promotion of hatred." But it also has a good faith clause that seems to exempt religious or public policy discourse from prosecution.

Yet, Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has said she doubts that any "hateful speech" could be defended successfully as being uttered in "good faith." So the defence may be only hypothetical.

"The problem with this bill is that it doesn't distinguish between (condemning) the person or the behaviour," said Evangelical Fellowship of Canada spokesman Bruce Clemenger.

"We're opposed to violence against anyone, for any reason," he says.

But the proposed bill "could ban any sort of public discussion about the morality or immorality of sexual activities."

Clemenger said evangelicals are divided on whether they oppose the whole notion of speech-limiting hate-crime laws altogether, or simply want hefty safeguards to protect religious speech from charges. So, as a diverse coalition, the EFC's main legal concern
has been limited to protecting the Bible, if someone uses it as anti-gay hate propaganda.

For example, Clemenger said, the Old Testament book Leviticus (20:13) says, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." So, if a single fringe preacher such as Rev. Fred Phelps of Kansas uses Leviticus in his campaign against gays themselves, would his conviction on a hate crime charge effectively ban the text?

(MP Svend Robinson uses the Kansas-based Phelps, his www.godhatesfags.com web site, and his "Pink Swastika" anti-gay propaganda as his primary example of the need for his law.)

Calgary lawyer Gerry Chipeur, a religious freedom specialist, said that if Christians oppose Bill C-415/250 simply on religious freedom versus sexual orientation grounds -- "us but not them" -- they will lose. The real problem, Chipeur said, is the whole notion of
hate-crime laws altogether.

"This isn't about religious rights; it's about preserving a free society. Censorship laws strike at the very heart of our democracy," Chipeur said. "Christians in a free society must allow homosexuals to say Christians are cannibals, if they want to, because Christianity flourishes in a climate of freedom."

Chipeur said religion is protected in Canada's existing hate-crime law, but Christians shouldn't want it there. Despite a mountain of anti-Christian defamation in the popular culture, there has never been a prosecution of an anti-Christian hate crime, he said.

"Christians and homosexuals both must be prepared to have a free debate with hate-mongers. If we aren't prepared to debate with hate-mongers, we can't have a free society," he said.

"You can't criminalize hatred. You can condemn it, belittle it, criticize it, marginalize it. But a law against hate is a law against free speech. This law already violates everyone's free speech."

Conservative gay activist John McKellar, the Toronto-based director of Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism, said, however modest Bill C-250 seems, his group opposes it as part of a larger pattern of gay radicalism, seeking to suppress traditional religious values.

McKellar says the radicals -- those who agitate for public affirmation or celebration of their fringe lifestyle -- are a tiny fraction of Canada's homosexual population.

"Gay radicals see a rational public rejection of their extreme and dangerous sexual conduct as akin to racism or bigotry," said McKellar.

"Among radical gays, the rhetoric is so childishly hostile to religion, because sexual orientation has become their religion. These guys should really lighten up and stop bitching about sincere Christians, Muslims and Jews."

Kansas preacher Fred Phelps is one of very few preachers of extreme anti-gay hatred in North America, McKellar said. He called it a sign of radical gay "provincialism" that they use Phelps as a foil to push human-rights legislation -- likeC-250 -- to limit discussion of their behaviour.

McKellar believes "virtually every society in history has resisted the spread of homosexuality," because it is destructive of stable family life. The radical push to win legal affirmation will disrupt already shaky public standards.

McKellar worries the radical push for political affirmation through laws like C-250 will prove self-defeating. He believes gay political aggressiveness will eventually provoke a popular backlash that -- regardless of any law -- will sour the widespread grassroots toleration of their private lives.

CFAC's Rushfeldt likewise said he thinks the proliferation of publicly sanctioned "sexual identities" is eroding family life. He repeated that the issue was not the right of Christians to spread hatred of homosexuals, but rather the right of society as a whole to enshrine a public norm for nurturing the next generation of healthy citizens.

"The issue isn't whatever homosexuals do in privacy; I think it's sad, but it's their choice," Rushfeldt said.

"Frankly, I wish they'd simply do away with the hate-crime law altogether, or maybe keep it only for race," Rushfeldt said.

"I mean, the church is going to preach the moral truth whether it's persecuted or not. So the whole hate crime thing just becomes a platform for promoting private behaviour."

woodardj@theherald.southam.ca

Gay NDP MP Svend Robinson (Burnaby-Douglas) first introduced private member's Bill C-415 into Parliament in May 2002, and it came back to the Justice Committee this fall as Bill C-250. The bill includes sexual orientation among the identifiable groups protected by Canada's "hate-crime" law, Criminal Code sections 318 and 319.

Under the new law, the promotion of genocide, public incitement of hatred, and wilful promotion of hatred against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals would become subject to criminal prosecution. Violators would be subject to a prison term of up to
two years.

The lobby group Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, or EGALE, is the major lobby backing the bill. The Herald interviewed John Fisher, EGALE's Ottawa-based executive director.

Q: What are the sorts of scenarios in Canadian life that EGALE would like to see the bill control or prevent with regard to the gay and lesbian community?

A: The threshold is very high. It doesn't cover routine expressions of intolerance, (but only) extreme statements, advocating physical violence against certain groups. If prosecutions under these sections are rare, that's appropriate, because it's not the intention to cover day-to-day comments that promote mere intolerance.

If you have hate speech laws, then gays and lesbians shouldn't be excluded from them. If you don't have hate laws, if it's legal to promote hatred against anyone, I wouldn't suggest we should get any special protection.

I don't see the law covering statements like homosexuality is sinful, homosexuality is against God's will, anything like that. But if someone suggests homosexuals should be killed or eradicated, that crosses the line.

Recently, I was in a debate in which somebody said that homosexuality is a pestilence that should be eradicated. We've received threatening calls here at my office from somebody calling himself the Army of God, threatening violence against gays and
lesbians.

Q: Conservative Christians claim that Bill C-250 threatens their right to teach publicly biblical sexual ethics, including the immorality of homosexual acts. Does the gay community feel threatened by the "religious right?"

A: There are plenty of religious groups that are tolerant, accepting that God's message is one of respect . . . I don't see this as an us-them thing at all, and I wouldn't say that we generally feel threatened.

I think there are some groups that seem threatened by us and go out of their way to restrict our human and civil rights. But that's within the democratic process. They're entitled to appear before parliamentary committees, before courts, and argue all they like that we should be treated with discrimination and inequality.

I think it's sad that any religious group would feel that promoting intolerance is part of their identity, but it's a pluralistic and democratic society, and they're entitled to do that.

Q: How do you see relations developing between the gay and lesbian community and various religious groups?

A: There's nothing at all inconsistent between homosexuality and religion. There are many churches which are accepting of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people, and there are many gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people themselves who are religious and participate in church and community life.

We see the Unitarian Church, the United Church, the Metropolitan Community Church -- the Anglican Church is certainly moving in that direction, Quakers and others. The reality is, Canada is a pluralistic society. There are lots of different religions, lots of different sexual orientations and other identities. There's no reason we can't live our own lives, celebrate our differences and do so harmoniously.

The difficulties arise only when people are not content to live their lives according to their own values, but seek to impose those values on others.

Of course, in society, if any of us go around saying, what's right for me is something I need to impose on everybody else, then of course politicians and courts are going to get involved, trying to balance those differences.

Q: Conservative Christians point to hefty fines levied recently by human rights commissions against Christians publishing newspaper ads with Bible verses condemning homosexuality. Should Conservative Christians have the right to teach publicly their belief that homosexual activity is immoral?

A: I believe so. And I don't believe that right will be circumscribed by hate propaganda legislation. Only the most extreme manifestations of hatred, tantamount to promoting violence, are captured by the legislation.

There's actually a defence or exception in the legislation for the expression of a sincere religious opinion, if it's a message communicated in good faith on a matter of public interest.

In other contexts, different standards apply. When the CRTC is regulating the airwaves, then it's not a criminal matter, but they do have certain broadcasting standards about not exposing certain groups to contempt . . .

In the workplace, we need an atmosphere of tolerance, and employers are justified in telling workers to keep their intolerance to themselves.

Q: Christians distinguish between "hating the sin" and "loving the sinner," that they provide love and support for alcoholics and drug addicts, even while hating alcoholism and addiction. Is this distinction viable?

A: I don't think so. What might play out in the legal context is hard to predict, but if you're asking us from the point of view of a gay person, being gay is who I am; you can't separate the identity from the person and say, I love you John, except (that). Being gay
is a large part of my identity . . . It sounds hypocritical: that person is great, but we just hate part of their core identity.

Q: When MP Dr. Grant Hill warned in Parliament about the health dangers of the gay lifestyle, there were calls from gays that he be charged with a hate crime. Would C-250 allow that?

A: I would say no. Obviously there are individuals who might call for anything, but that doesn't mean they'll have a legal case . . . I don't think it was an expression of hatred that would have been covered by C-250, had it been enacted.

Q: In 1982, during the debates over the Charter of Rights, then-justice minister Jean Chretien refused to include sexual orientation in the Charter because, he said, "we don't know what that means." Conservative Christians worry that, over time, such an open-ended term could include sado-masochism, bestiality and pedophilia. Given this anxiety, would it be advisable to have a legislated definition, explicitly excluding such an expansion?

A: Sexual orientation has been included in Canadian law for 25 years, since Quebec added it in to its (law) in 1977, and I'm not aware of any case where there's been any ambiguity . . . Obviously, things like pedophilia or necrophilia have got nothing to do with
one's lesbian, gay or bisexual identity.

It's just an offensive connection, a completely unrelated topic . . . It's a fairly odious attempt to draw links that don't exist. And suggesting in legislation that there is a link that needs to be excluded is not something we support.

Q: In the last few years, Prime Minister Chretien has consistently suppressed religion in public life -- for example, he called banning religion from his Sept. 11 memorial service "the best decision" of his career. Yet, there is a major homosexual presence in his cabinet and office, much greater than the proportion of homosexuals in the general population. So, there's anxiety among some, that the "Biblical worldview" and "sexual liberation worldview" will not be allowed to co-exist in the public square, that as gays emerge from "the closet," Christians will be forced into it. Can they co-exist?

A: It's sad, really, that anyone thinks that's a relevant thing to track. I'm not hearing any suggestions that these people are not doing their jobs well or are unequipped for public office. The suggestion is that the prime minister should not appoint these people to office (due to) their sexual orientation.

But I'm sure that, in making these appointments, the prime minister was concerned only with one thing, their ability to manage the portfolio.

There's no reason at all in a pluralistic society that everybody can't get along. The hate-crime law covers religious groups, as it will soon cover sexual orientation.

As a gay man, I don't feel at all threatened by that law, because I don't have any interest in promoting hatred against other groups . .

There seems a real fear (among conservative Christians) that young people growing up will be less intolerant of gays and lesbians than their parents, that they may even look to their parents and feel that their (parents') intolerance is inappropriate.

The reality is, in a pluralistic society, attitudes are changing, and that we all have a right to participate equally. But I guess some people who cling to old ways feel threatened by that.