The War on Religious Freedom in Canada Continues

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

The gay "rights" movement's war on orthodox religion and against religious people's freedom of speech is continuing in our neighbor to the north, as LifeSite reports. A Catholic magazine in Toronto is under the gun:

Closely following an uproar in the media against government-sponsored censorship via HRC against Maclean's magazine and columnist Mark Steyn and an Alberta HRC judgment ordering Alberta news media to not publish any comments on homosexuality by a Christian pastor, Toronto's Catholic Insight magazine has reported they stand accused in an HRC complaint of "targeting homosexuals".

Catholic Insight is a Catholic political and cultural general interest magazine that regularly and accurately expounds orthodox Catholic teaching, based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on homosexuality as well as harmful consequences to individual persons and society of the active homosexual "lifestyle".

The magazine now reveals that Rob Wells, a homosexual activist associated with the Pride Centre of Edmonton, in February this year filed a nine-point complaint against Catholic Insight. Wells alleges that the magazine made "negative generalizations" about homosexuals; portrayed them as preying upon children, as dangerous and "devoid of any redeeming qualities and...innately evil".

Catholic Insight (CI), however, bases its editorial policy very strictly on Catholic Church teaching which is at pains to separate what it says is the deviant behaviour and disordered inclination of homosexuality from the person.

Pay attention all the way to the article's end, where a gay-left activist in Alberta insisted that "anti-gay" views be forbidden in public:

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favour of Lund who demanded that Boissoin "apologize for submitting the article and for his views on homosexuality." If he did not, the Commission panel has the power to "provide an Order disallowing the publication of Mr. Boissoin's views on homosexuality in any of the major print media in Alberta".

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No comment

I'm so disgusted I don't even want to make a comment.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

All along, this has been

All along, this has been the tactic of the homosexual lobby...incrementalism. First tolerance, then acceptance.

Next, making it "unacceptable" to disagree. And finally, censoring the publication or verbal expression of opposing views.

Canada has already required someone to take down a billboard with a scripture regarding homosexuality on it. The Catholic Church may soon find itself outlawed in Canada.

Wake up people!! This is where we are heading in the US!

 

 

  I've said it before but I

  I've said it before but I wish someone would take these 'homosexuals' to court to force the creation of a legal test and definition to accurately determine who is a homosexual.  If there is no test there are no homosexuals.  Merely engaging in homosexual behavior does not mean a person is homosexual, that is, someone who is distinctly different from a normal heterosexual.  My guess is that a lot of 'homosexuals' are merely lifestyle homosexuals and that the number of clinically homosexual will be quite small.

I think that you are getting

I think that you are getting a little bit away from the issue here Mid. Think of the ends of your proposal, if possible. It really makes no sense to define someone as a homosexual or not. The real issue to me is that the gay rights movement while hoping to be uncensored in schools and public, wish to censor the catholic church in those same venues. They claim to be open and free, except if it is something that disagrees with them; typical liberal BS

zipline

i think mid-america may have a point.  How do you enforce this law if you don't have a victim?  Habeus Corpus tells us if the corpse says "I'm not dead" you don't have a murder.  How can a crime against homosexuals occur if there are no (legally defined) homosexuals?  Yes it is hypocritical of the left so i am not arguing against that point but merely saying i see both points.

"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger

   I don't think I'm away

   I don't think I'm away from the issue at all.  Legal decisions are being made to protect persons who cannot be verified as being actual victims.  Now if the focus is to make homosexual 'behavior' off limits to criticism that's a different deal altogether. That's just a free speech issue.  But the real agenda I believe is to make 'homosexual' off limits to any restrictions which leads us to the question of who is a legitimate homosexual.  At present any person can claim this additional legal protection based on their own testimony.

OK i see your point, and it

OK i see your point, and it seems to be pretty valid. Thanks for the clarifacation!

 

"give me a break!" - John Stossel

Legal decisions are being

Legal decisions are being made to protect persons who cannot be verified as being actual victims.-MidAmerica

That's very true... how many (other) cases have been thrown out of court because the person bringing the complaint had no "legal standing" to sue? For example, the Michael Newdow case wehre he complained on behalf of his daughter. But he had no standing because he is not a legal guardian of his daughter, or something to that efffect. Other cases too, where the complainant wasn't actually the victim...they get thrown out.

Mark Steyn

We're going to see more judicial activisim in our own country by "radical" groups as well.

As Tim mentioned in is article, the Canadian HRC is also taking on Mark Steyen, at the behest of the Canadian Islamic Center.

Can anyone here say flying imams?

Here is a site that has all kind of information about the Steyn situation, the CIC, the text of the HRC Act, etc.

Look out folks, we're next.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

vote for

SCOTUS   SCOTUS   SCOTUS

Thanks!

Thanks for the link, Blonde.

The religous people bring it on themselves by fornication

When a majority the country seeks pleasure over God then the homosexuals don't understand why they can't seek pleasure too.

The people who push seeking

The people who push seeking pleasure over God and homosexual pleasure are
one in the same. They are the secular progressives. There is no right and wrong,
no such thing as morals. They want an open and free society with no rules or
punishments. They also demand you agree with them. They have been slowly pushing
their ideals for several decades. A little at a time, they keep the pressure on
till those that disagree finally give up or shut up. If they finally create this
utopia then the country will be nothing but chaos run by a dictator. There will be two
classes of people, the elites and then the rest of the suppressed
population, and corruption will run wild.

This is accelerating

In Canada, it's easier for the left/homosexual proponents to censor people who disagree with them because their governmental basis does not recognize that rights come from GOD. In Canada, the rights come from the government and thus can be taken away or abridged at the whim of the government.

The homosexual proponents are affraid of dissenting opinion and therefore are trying everything to silence it. The argument is not against the people themselves, but against their actions. Much like a cleptomaniac who is compelled to steal things, it's their behavior that is the problem, not them. If it is OK to engage in sexually immoral activity, then it is OK to engage in non-sexual immoral behavior like pyromania, cleptomania. The arguments are the same.

The bottom line is that the forces of the Great Enemy are gaining strength and beginning to surpress and oppress those who want to follow The Way. This is all predicted in The Revelation of Yochanan (Revelations). In order to remain faithful, it will soon be necessary to place yourself and family in jeapardy of impreisonment and even death, much as it was in the early days of the followers of Yahushua (Jesus in english-ized German translated from Greek). Revelations says that eventually, all the faithful will be "snatched up" and serve The Messaih as he sets up his eternal temple. The sad and telling part is that there are only 144,000 of those faithful. Of the billions on earth, there will be only 144,000 deemed worthy.

How many will decide that it is "easier" and "better" to become oppressed and silenced because the earthly governments make speaking the truth illegal? How many will continue to attend "churches" who ordain open homosexuals? How many will put their allegiance to country above their allegiance to GOD?

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

People are angry

I've been listening to a Quebec talk show on XM (Cha 172) for a few days and this Alberta thing has often been the topic under discussion. What I gather from the talk show comments, are that people are boiling over the Alberta issue, and are not shy to voice their comments. It would seem that Canadians are increasingly angry by the really nasty atmosphere of political correctness that exists today in Canada. I sense a revolt of the people. This will be interesting to watch--because it's coming here soon.

Legalizing culture

What a Pandora's Box we have here! Here's a classic case why we don't use the law to enforce culture. This is the real world proof of the Thought Police.

  1. Law can never be about belief. It must always be about actions. Actions are objective and can be demonstrated with evidence in a court of law. The only way to legalize (and punish) beliefs is to abandon the necessity of objective evidence. If you want a Thought Police, then you necessarily have to abandon the demand for objective evidence.
  2. There is a connection between an act and the opinion that underlies the act, but we only punish opinions that can only lead to a criminal act.
    1. It is illogical to argue that every difference of opinion fosters a crime against people who believe differently. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that some people are wrong, or even immoral, without plotting a crime against them.
    2. I believe that adultery is wrong, but that cannot be used in a court of law as evidence that I'm trying to commit violence against adulterers.
  3. Fifty years ago, the cultural majority could have used the same mechanisms of government to punish homosexuality, and often did. But if homosexuals complain about the unfairness of it then, they have no justification to support it now.
    1. At best, this current abuse of the law is nothing but a settling of old scores. They're using the law to extract cultural revenge. And if the majority acquiesces to it, they're agreeing to their own demise.

I pride myself on avoiding insults, but these people are morons. They're sawing the branch between themselves and the tree. If they want to undermine all of the bases of a free society, and justify it by the fact they get away with it, then they're pushing society to a might-makes-right arena. And since homosexuals are decidedly in the minority, even in Canada, they can only be unleashing the forces that will destroy them.

This abandons rationality. It is insane.

And this is different from

And this is different from Mark Finkelstein threatening to ban me and FORBIDDING me from posting anything resembling a critical analysis of Mormonism vs. Christianity, how?

Keith, this thread discusses using the legal system

to shut Christians up.  Are you saying Mormons also want to shut Christians up?

If not, then just how do you think the thread resembles "critically analyzing" Mormonism vs. Christianity? 

It's different because it's

And this is different from Mark Finkelstein threatening to ban me and
FORBIDDING me from posting anything resembling a critical analysis of
Mormonism vs. Christianity, how? -
Keith

It's different because it's his (and the other administrators') website and they can decide what gets posted here. No one is telling you you can't post your Mormon/Christianity stuff on the Internet...just not at this site.

In Canada they are making laws that people can't speak out against homosexuality in any venue.

You want to post Mormon vs. Christianity stuff, get your own website. It's easily done, there are "site-builder" websites galore. or you could just use a MySpace page, or a Facebook page or whatever. The owners of a website are not obligated to open their website to any and all postings.

mother keith

actually you can do it here;  start a forum, Mark did not want his thread to go in that direction

"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger

botg... That is exactly

botg...

That is exactly how I took it too....

Use the forum keith

Good idea, I forgot about the forum.

Why would that be a problem, Keith? He's not even saying you can't post it at this site...he's just telling you to go to the forum. And he's entitled to do that. (It's good to be the king! LOL)

If you have a problem with even that, you are just looking for a fight.

Hi mb.... Merry Christmas

Hi mb....

Merry Christmas to you and yours..

I only commented under botg to keith because I was on the thread that night with him, Ct and others when all this was going on regarding Mark asking to cease and desist...lol...

Hi bt....Merry Christmas to

Hi bt....Merry Christmas to you and yours too. I'm glad I have all my stuff done. Weather is nasty here today..rain and lots of wind...I'd hate to be out doing last-minute errands.

I think Keith needs to realize that free speech means you can say what you want, but no one is obligated to provide you with a venue to do it.