|
What
exactly is Bill C-415?
It is a private member’s bill that would add the
term "sexual orientation" to Subsection 318(4)
of the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).
The House of Commons Summary of the bill says that it
would expand ‘the definition of "identifiable
group" relating to the area of hate propaganda in
the Criminal Code to include any section of the public
distinguished by sexual orientation.’
Section
318 concerns advocacy or promotion of genocide. Section
319 concerns hate propaganda more generally. Section 319(7)
states that ‘"identifiable group" has the
same meaning as in section 318.’ This bill would
therefore effectively amend two sections of the Criminal
Code.
Where
does Bill C-415 stand?
The bill has passed two readings in the House of Commons.
Despite the proroguing of Parliament, Bill C-415 is not
effectively dead, because new Standing Orders permit a
private member to reintroduce a private member’s
bill in the House at the same status as it had attained
previously. Therefore Mr Svend Robinson has only to choose
to reintroduce this bill and it goes automatically to
the Justice Committee and from there to a third and final
reading and vote in the House of Commons.
If the third reading results in a vote passing the bill,
it goes to the Senate for three readings. If it passes
the Senate, then it goes to the Governor General for royal
assent and becomes law.
What
does "sexual orientation" mean?
This is an important question. The term is not defined
in law or in judicial decisions.
The then Justice Minister Jean Chretien told the Special
Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on
the Constitution of Canada in 1981: "It is because
of the problem of the definition of those words (sexual
orientation) that we do not think they should be in the
constitution. Do not ask me today to tell you what it
is, because those concepts are difficult to interpret,
to define and that is why we do not want them in the constitution."
Over
twenty years later the term "sexual orientation"
is still not defined, although it has been read into law
by unelected judges. But if an undefined term should not
be in the constitution, why should it appear in any law
at all?
The
parliamentary summary of Bill C-415 states that the bill
includes "any section of the public distinguished
by sexual orientation." A definition of "sexual
orientation" is important, since "any section
of the public distinguished by sexual orientation"
is included. Any section?
It
is reported that an Ontario Member of Parliament has stated
that sexual orientation includes all forms of sexual behaviour:
sodomy, bestiality, paedophilia, homosexuality, bisexuality,
transsexuality, polygamy and even sado-masochism. Are
these behaviours to be protected by Bill C-415?
Paederasty
as a Sexual Orientation
In the year 2000 SafeHaven Foundation Press published
David L. Riegel’s book, Understanding Loved Boys
and Boylovers. This book is for sale by the popular Amazon.com
bookseller. Riegel says this in his book: "Men who
sexually pursue young boys are not monsters, but sincere,
concerned, loving human beings who simply have a sexual
orientation that is neither understood nor accepted by
most others."
Riegel
is not alone in condoning "intergenerational sex."
In 1998 Bruce Rind and Philip Tromovitch published their
permissive views in the American Psychological Association’s
Psychological Bulletin, saying that sex with children
isn’t necessarily abuse. The U.S. Congress condemned
the study and the APA itself repudiated it, but the University
of Minnesota published Judith Levine’s book, Harmful
to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex,
which cited Rind and Tromovitch in support of her views.
It should be clear that strong voices have been raised
in support of adults having sex with children and that
such behaviour is described as a sexual orientation.
Would
Bill C-415 lead to legalization of paederasty, paedophilia
and/or ephebophilia? These pathologies are regarded by
Riegel and others as sexual orientations. They would argue
that sexual orientation includes their behaviours and
that they should be protected under the terms of Bill
C-415 if enacted into law.
Polygamy
as a Sexual Orientation
It could also be argued that polygamy is a sexual orientation.
Are polygamists to be protected from criticism by Bill
C-415? The Department of Citizenship and Immigration gave
permanent Canadian residency to the three wives of polygamist
Winston Blackmore from the United States in 1994. Mr Blackmore
is reported to have 30 wives (National Post, Oct. 8, 2002).
Polygamy is illegal in Canada today but some commentators
think that it could withstand successful prosecution on
grounds of the Charter of Freedoms. It could be argued
that criticizing polygamy is a hate crime.
The
question of defining "sexual orientation" is
as relevant today as it was in 1981. Without definition,
the term is like a blank cheque. Parliament should not
sign blank cheques.
What
has sexual orientation in common with colour, race, religion
or ethnic origin?
Sections 318 and 319 would protect sections of the public
distinguished by colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin.
What has sexual orientation in common with these distinctions?
It
is argued that sexual orientation is innate and that it
is not chosen. If this is true, then sexual orientation
would have that much in common with colour, race or ethnic
origin, for one is born with a particular colour and as
part of a particular race or ethnic origin. There is no
choice in colour, race or ethnic origin. Is there any
choice in sexual orientation? Is one born homosexual or
heterosexual or whatever?
Attempts
to find a gene for homosexual behaviour have proved unsuccessful.
A hundred zeroes still add up to zero. No one is born
homosexual. Masters and Johnson’s conclusion in 1986
still stands: "In summary, we should point out again
that there is no firm agreement about what ‘causes’
homosexuality or heterosexuality" (Wm.H. Masters,
V.E. Johnson, R.C. Kolodny, Masters and Johnson on Sex
and Human Loving, p. 353), John McKellar, National Director
of Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism, correctly notes,
"First of all, there is an element of choice in all
behaviour." One could argue that every human being
is born with a tendency to engage in violent behaviour.
The tendency does not excuse the behaviour. Behaviour
is a choice. We may feel like murdering some one, but
most of us choose not to do so. Similarly one may at times
feel same-sex sexual attractions, but one can choose not
to engage in homosexual behaviour.
There
is moreover increasing evidence that homosexual orientation
has been changed. There is no evidence that anyone’s
colour, race or ethnic origin has been changed. Ex-gays
and ex-lesbians are numbered in the thousands. Persons
who lived homosexual lifestyles have changed to live heterosexual
lifestyles, specifically to live in monogamous marriage.
The change is seldom easy or quick, but it has happened
in thousands of cases. See Exodus International North
America, P.O. Box 540119, Orlanda, FL 32854 (www.exodusnorthamerica.org).
To
add sexual orientation to the list of colour, race or
ethnic origin is to add a distinction that has little
if anything in common with colour, race or ethnic origin.
Adding sexual orientation to Sections 318 and 319 of the
Criminal Code is therefore inappropriate as far as protecting
innate distinctions from hate is concerned.
Sexual
Orientation and Religion
What has sexual orientation in common with religion? Despite
the tendency of persons born into a religious group to
stay in that group, it is possible to choose to leave
the group. Since it is possible to choose to leave a homosexual
orientation, sexual orientation has that much in common
with the distinction of religion. One can leave it.
But religion as practised by the major religions of the
world has certain ethical standards such as the Ten Commandments
in Judaism and Christianity. C.S. Lewis drew up a list
of many moral precepts held in common by most religions
of the world in the appendix to his short book, The Abolition
of Man (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1943, 1946). The eight
pages of this appendix covered the law of general beneficence
(e.g., do not murder; give alms); the law of special beneficence
(e.g., love your wife); duties to parents, elders, ancestors;
duties to children and posterity; the law of justice (e.g.,
do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not bear false
witness); the law of good faith and veracity (e.g., don’t
lie); the law of mercy (e.g., take care of widows, orphans,
old people); the law of magnanimity. In general these
standards are common to religion.
What
has homosexuality in common with these standards? The
promiscuity that is common to the majority of homosexuals
(see A.P. Bell & M.S. Weinberg, Homosexualities, 1978)
is in conflict with religious standards. There is no reasonable
comparison of homosexuality with religion. To include
sexual orientation in a list that specifies religion is
not only inappropriate but also a trivialization of religion.
Even
lifelong, caring homosexual relationships occur only in
ten percent of the homosexual population, according to
Bell and Weinberg, and many of these minority relationships
permit other liaisons as a matter of course. Again there
is no reasonable comparison of homosexuality with religion,
and its inclusion in Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal
Code is inappropriate.
Would
Bill C-415 lead to banning the Bible?
No. Not even Communist China bans the Bible.
Would
Bill C-415 lead to prosecution of people quoting from
the Bible?
Yes. Those portions of the Bible which condemn homosexual
behaviour might indeed result in prosecution if quoted
in an advertisement or speech or website. The evidence
is clear that the publication of portions of the Bible
has already resulted in prosecution.
For
example, Hugh Owens published an advertisement in a local
newspaper that included quotations from Leviticus, the
third book of the Bible, against homosexual behaviour.
Owens was convicted of discrimination against homosexuals
by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. The case
is under appeal. Whether his appeal is upheld or not,
the point is that Mr Owens has been subjected to prosecution
and onerous legal costs for quoting from the Bible.
The
same people who launched the complaint against Owens’
advertisement before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission
could petition for prosecuting him under Canada’s
hate law if Bill C-415 is passed.
Prosecution
under Canada’s hate law requires the permission of
the provincial Attorney General to proceed. But provincial
attorneys general have already shown considerable deference
to homosexual activists. Ontario’s Attorney General
failed to support the common-law definition of marriage
in the Ontario same-sex marriage challenge in November
2001. He also failed to stop his own department from dropping
charges of nudity against certain Gay Pride parade participants
in the summer of 2002; the charges were dropped by the
Crown on the absurd grounds that the nude men in the parade
had been wearing shoes. The Alberta Attorney General withdrew
from the legal challenge by a lesbian couple who wanted
to adopt a child. Svend Robinson says that he has strong
support for his bill from the provincial attorneys general
and from the federal Minister of Justice. The provision
that hate crime prosecution requires the consent of the
provincial attorney general is no guaran! tee that Bible-quoting
opponents of homosexual behaviour would not be prosecuted.
Would
Bill C-415 lead to prosecution of people upholding Christian
morality in public?
The Reverend Roy Hamel has suggested that Bill C-415 would
make it a criminal offence to preach, teach, or publish
negative commentary about homosexuality. In a radio interview
on CKNW in August of 2002 Mr Svend Robinson said that
Hamel’s concern was "complete nonsense"
and that the existing hate crimes section "specifically...exempts
any religious discussion."
But
Robinson targeted an American, Pastor Fred Phelps of Wesboro
Baptist Church, as the kind of hate propagandist who would
be liable to prosecution. Now Fred Phelps bases his opinion
that God hates fags on religious grounds. Phelps’s
interpretation of Holy Scripture is wrong, of course.
God loves the world (John 3:16), including homosexuals.
What God condemns is homosexual behaviour, not homosexuals.
God invites all, including homosexuals, to repent and
live (Ezekiel 18:23, 30-32).
Nonetheless
Robinson makes it crystal clear that, although "any
religious discussion" is specifically exempted, the
discussion of Fred Phelps would not qualify if Bill C415
is passed into law. Robinson cannot have it both ways.
If he shuts down Phelps who argues on religious grounds,
then he cannot say that "any religious discussion"
is exempted. Hamel’s concern that Bill C-415 would
impact negatively on Christian freedom to teach Biblical
morality is reasonable and calls out for C-415's defeat.
In
1997 Sylvia MacEachern, editor of the Roman Catholic journal,
The Orator, was interviewed on an Ottawa radio station.
She said that she subscribed to the assertion in the Catechism
of the Catholic Church that homosexual acts are intrinsically
disordered and depraved. The hate-crimes unit of the Ottawa-Carleton
Police placed MacEachern under investigation. The accusations
against her were eventually dismissed because the hate
propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code did not apply
to sexually active homosexuals (Rory Leishman, London
Free Press, June 18, 2002). But Bill C-415 would permit
her to be prosecuted by the hate-crimes unit of the Ottawa-Carleton
Police. Her crime? Affirming the morality of the Roman
Catholic Church as stated in its official catechism.
Bill
C-415 therefore would do nothing to ensure that "any
religious discussion" would not result in hate crime
prosecution. On the contrary, it would guarantee prosecution
of those holding historical Christian morality. Churches
and pastors as well as editors will be liable to prosecution
permitted by gay-friendly and gay-influenced attorneys
general responding to complaints by militant homosexual
activists. Churches and pastors will therefore be burdened
by costly legal defence even if they are found not guilty.
No congregation or pastor has the financial resources
to afford this kind of defence. Bill C-415 as it stands
is an invitation to homosexual activists to shut down
criticism by the threat of court costs and, if the critic
is convicted, of imprisonment for two years.
Is
gay-bashing not already a crime?
Yes, if gay-bashing means assault and murder. Toronto
lawyer Dani Shaw says, "If violence against gays
and lesbians is the concern, it is worth noting that murder
is already illegal in Canada, and so is assault"
(ChristianWeek, Sept. 17, 2002). There is therefore no
reason for Bill C-415 if threats to the life or physical
integrity of homosexuals is the concern.
Shaw
noted, "It seems the real problem is that gay and
lesbian advocates are concerned about attitudes that can
lead to violence against them, and are therefore attempting
to criminalize the fostering of such attitudes."
The
question is whether the basic thrust of Christian morality
fosters attitudes that can lead to violence against gays
and lesbians. The answer is found in Jesus Christ’s
summary of the Old Testament laws: to love God with all
you’ve got and to love your neighbour as yourself
(Mark 12:29-31). St Paul also said that all the commandments
are "summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You
shall love your neighbour as yourself’" (Romans
13:9). One would think that homosexuals concerned about
hateful attitudes would side with Christians and advocate
love and caring rather than lobbying for repressive laws
and the narrowing of freedom of religion to one’s
closet.
The
trouble is that many homosexuals so identify themselves
with their sexual behaviour, that they see any opposition
to their way of life as homophobic and hateful. Bill C-415
would give them the tools to silence their critics. Dani
Shaw says, "The best response to such advocates is
to remind them of the principles of liberal democracy–principles
that include freedom of religion, freedom of expression
and toleration of diverse viewpoints."
Religion
and Freedom
A recent conference on artificial reproductive technologies
in Melbourne, Australia, included a paper that argued,
"Democracy has nothing to do with morality; it is
about respecting individual choice." Michael A. Casey
counters that according to John Paul II, such a view is
incompatible with genuine democracy. "‘A democracy
without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised
totalitarianism,’ and unless values ‘are grounded
in the very nature of the human person’ they will
serve merely as ‘the justification or legitimation
of a system,’ rather than as ‘the safeguard
of all that is human in any system’" ("How
to Think About Globalization," in First Things, Oct.
2002, No. 126, p. 52).
Casey
quotes George Weigel: "‘Democracy is a way of
public life, a way of being a political community,’
and if it is going to work it requires a critical mass
of people ‘who have made their own the values, the
moral truths, that teach us to be civil, tolerant, respectful–in
a word, democratic.’" Casey says, "As Leszek
Kolakowski has pointed out, without truth, the freedom
of democracy becomes a realm where anything is possible.
This is not a triumph for the human spirit, but a profound
defeat."
The
importance of religion for human freedom is acknowledged
by Casey is these words: "...far from being a critical
obstacle, religion is in fact the critical ingredient
in making freedom around the world possible" (p.
55).
It
is no accident that the beginning of freedom, the Magna
Carta of 1215, was championed by a Christian archbishop,
Stephen Langton of Canterbury. Is it an accident that,
of the fundamental freedoms mentioned in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the first is "freedom
of conscience and religion"? A bill that would limit
freedom of religion to private thought and practice in
a closet has no place in Canada. Removing religious discussion
from the public square would inevitably jeopardize the
other freedoms that Canadians cherish. Bill C-415 should
therefore be defeated.
Can
Christians love the sinner and hate the sin?
Many homosexuals and at least one judge do not appreciate
the Christian distinction between loving the sinner and
hating the sin. In the recent case of high school student
Marc Hall versus the Durham Catholic District School Board,
Ontario Judge Robert MacKinnon concurred with lawyer David
Corbett that it was nonsensical for Catholics to say "It’s
all right to be gay as long as you don’t act gay."
This is a loaded variation on the distinction between
having an inclination toward homosexuality and acting
on it (or, between loving the sinner and hating the sin).
Christian
teaching does not condemn having an inclination or being
tempted (Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, Hebrews
4:15), but it does condemn yielding to temptation and
sinning--the condemnation intended to lead to repentance
and life (Ezekiel 18:23, 30-32; 2 Corinthians 7:10). In
any case Judge MacKinnon should think again, for if he
cannot distinguish between loving the sinner but hating
the sin, how can he expect a jury to accept his counsel
that the person charged with a crime is innocent until
proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?
Those
of us who have lost a parent to cancer know perfectly
well the distinction between loving one’s parent
and hating the cancer that would kill that parent. Any
sin has the potential for addicting a person and keeping
him forever from the abundant life that Jesus died to
provide for us. It is entirely reasonable to love the
sinner (and we are all sinners) but hate the sin that
would destroy us. Those Christians who oppose Bill C-415
on Christian grounds do not hate homosexuals. It is because
we love our neighbours that we care enough bear witness
to the truth that homosexuality and many other behaviours
are not only unhealthy but destructive of one’s journey
to the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
Conclusion
-
Sexual orientation is an undefined term open to including
paederasty, polygamy and other illegal behaviours.
An undefined term makes bad law.
-
Sexual orientation has nothing in common with the
categories of colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.
Including it in the genocide and hate propaganda laws
would be inappropriate.
-
Bill
C-415 would lead to prosecution of people quoting
the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexuality
or publicly stating Christian moral objections to
homosexuality.
-
Gay-bashing
is already a crime. Bill C-415 is not needed to make
it a crime.
-
Bill
C-415 would make criticism of and opposition to homosexual
behaviour a crime. In other words, Bill C-415 would
severely limit fundamental Charter freedoms, specifically:
freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Bill C-415 should therefore be defeated!
|
