I campaign, for example, for the immediate forgiveness of Third World debt.
Coren and the Toronto Sun are standing on the front lines of the culture wars in Canada.
Freedom of Speech in Canada Quashed by Courts - Professionals Can be Disciplined for Speaking Against Homosexuality
VANCOUVER, June 15, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Christian Legal Fellowship is very concerned with the Kempling v. BC College of Teachers decision handed down Monday by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
Justice Lowry, writing on behalf of the court, asserted that Mr. Kempling's newspaper editorials articulating his religious beliefs on the homosexual lifestyle were not deserving of Charter protection because the court considered them discriminatory and damaging to the integrity of the public school system as a whole.
The Christian Legal Fellowship, along with other members of Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance (Alliance), intervened on behalf of Mr. Kempling in his appeal for constitutional protection of his right to express deeply held religious beliefs restrained by the Supreme Court of BC & Disciplinary Committee of the BC College of Teachers. Mr. Kempling's argument is that he is disadvantaged in that he is precluded from contributing to public debate on an issue of importance to him because he is a teacher in the public school system.
Kevin Boonstra, co-counsel for the Alliance, responded to the court's decision, "We are disappointed that Mr. Kempling did not succeed in his appeal and are concerned about the Court's conclusion that his statements do not deserve a high level of constitutional protection. The Court drew a distinction between 'reasoned debate' and 'discriminatory rhetoric'. It will be very difficult for people to distinguish between these when speaking publicly about controversial topics on sexual morality and the result will be a chill on free debate and expression."
Of paramount concern to the Christian Legal Fellowship is protection of the freedom of professionals to contribute to public debate on controversial religious issues. On appeal, the Alliance argued that there should be an analysis of the difference between critical speech and discriminatory speech, which was not done in this case.
Furthermore, the BC Court of Appeal's analysis of "harm" in this situation was disappointing.
According to Ruth Ross, Executive Director of Christian Legal Fellowship, "In the absence of proof of harm to the school, a student or parent, the court concluded that the harm was to the integrity of the school system as a whole. This is a dangerous precedent to set," stated Ruth Ross. "All professionals will be extremely cautious in speaking out on matters of public interest especially if they wish to speak out on the unpopular or 'politically incorrect' side of an issue, for fear of being cited for 'conduct unbecoming a professional'".
The Alliance, which is comprised of the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights League, and the Christian Teachers Association, is represented by co-counsel Kevin L. Boonstra of Abbotsford and David M. Brown of Toronto.
Click here for the Coalition intervention factum and related materials on CLF's website.
http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/interventions.htm
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Canadian Courts Approve Suspension of Teacher who Criticized Homosexuality in Letter to Editor
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05061408.html
"It's legal in Holland and Belgium but virtually so in Scandinavia."
What does that mean?
"And in Scandinavia marriage has become so shamed because of this that heterosexual people are abandoning the institution."
Now I'm really confused. Is it legal in Scandanavia or not? And why is he using Scandanavia as the example if it is only "virtually" legal there, while it's entirely legal in Holland/Belgium (for which he gave no such figures).
I'm extremely sympathetic with this guys cause and Canada is indeed going down the tubes... but this is not particularly professional or convincing writing.
There is no need to put that tag "traditional" in front of marriage. It's marriage PERDIOD! Common sense, not tradition.
If heterosexuals are abandoning marriage because gays can marry, than something is wrong with heterosexual values. The whole cause and effect thesis strikes me as near ludicrous. Of course, to the extent nations without a First Amendment tradition truncate free speech, that is even more awful. A robust debate is good, kooks included. The more, the better.
Exactly right!
I campaign, for example, for the immediate forgiveness of Third World debt.
Many of the men I know interpret it a bit differently than in the traditional sense.
Many also are looking for the "KEY"!!!
;-)