|
The news in early December that Mark
Steyn and Macleans Magazine are the subject of a complaint
to the B.C. 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.
The League is concerned about this disturbing trend,
since it often involves opinions based on religious
beliefs. In several cases, some of which has seen the
League participate as an intervenor, 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.
In fact, in two recent cases people applying to human
rights commissions to have their religious rights respected
in freedom of speech issues have been refused. Federal
and provincial human rights commissions refused to hear
the cases of Susan Comstock and Dave MacDonald, who
sought to have their union dues diverted to charitable
organizations in protest of the union’s use of
their dues for political activism and anti-Catholic
activity. In refusing, the commission noted in Mrs.
Comstock’s case that “no prohibited ground
of discrimination was established.”
The League believes that the continued incursion of
human rights’ commissions in matters of peaceable
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.
In some of the cases listed here, the League was involved
as an intervenor. Some of the cases involve viewpoints
that the League does not share, or would not have expressed
in the same way. Nevertheless, we believe the right
to the peaceable expression of these opinions should
not be in question, and that our human rights’
tribunals should not be turned into a forum for enforcing
political correctness.
Here is a sampling of recent cases:
-
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. Among other things, Mr. Gray
was told by a HRC mediator that “freedom of
expression is an American concept.”
-
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.
(The complaint was later withdrawn after a meeting
with the complainants, and substantial expense.)
-
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 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. 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 dialogue will help
make defamation rare.
Catholic Civil Rights League (www.ccrl.ca)
assists in creating conditions within which Catholic
teachings can be better understood, cooperates with
other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada,
and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics
on the basis of their beliefs. CCRL was founded in 1985
as an independent lay organization and has chapters
across Canada.
The League relies on the generosity of its subscribers
for all its initiatives.
Joanne McGarry
Executive Director
Catholic Civil Rights League
www.ccrl.ca
416-466-8244
joanne.mcgarry@ccrl.ca
|
