To: (Multiple email addresses may be specified by separating them with a comma)
Several people and organizations of faith have come under the scrutiny of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for apparent “persecution” of homosexuals. But Christians are beginning to feel persecuted themselves.
BY PETE VEREREGISTER CORRESPONDENT
TORONTO — Catholics in Canada and
the United States are coming out in support of Basilian Father Alphonse de
Valk, a Toronto-based priest being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights
Father de Valk is the founding
editor and publisher of Catholic Insight, a
monthly magazine that promotes Church teaching on moral issues.
During Canada’s debate over same-sex
“marriage” (Canada’s federal parliament legalized such unions in July 2005),
the magazine published several articles critical of homosexual activists
attempting to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions.
Homosexual activist Rob Wells filed
a complaint against Father de Valk and Catholic Insight with
the Canadian Human Rights Commission, a federal agency that investigates
alleged hate speech complaints under Canada’s Human Rights Act.
Some of the allegedly hateful
statements cited in the complaint were quotations from recent papal encyclicals
and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Father de Valk told the Register.
Canada’s largest pro-life news
service, Lifesite News, ran several articles detailing the complaint against
Father de Valk and asking its readers to donate to the priest’s legal defense
“Father is one of the founders of
Canada’s pro-life movement,” said John-Henry Westen, editor of Lifesite News.
Wells has also filed a complaint
with Canada’s privacy commission and is trying to have an outside grant for Catholic
Insight revoked, Westen said.
Insight was forced to hire legal counsel to deal with another
situation involving a former Catholic seminarian now living in a same-sex
“marriage,” Westen said.
South of the Canada border, Catholic
Answers President Karl Keating has sent out a fundraising letter asking his
readers to support Father de Valk’s legal defense fund.
“Father de Valk and Catholic
Insight deserve our support because they support Catholic
teachings,” Keating wrote, adding that he had donated $500 to the fund. “I’d
like to see Father de Valk have a kitty large enough for him to do whatever it
takes to defend his magazine and, derivatively, the Church, because the
complaint filed against him and Catholic Insight
really is an attack on the Catholic Church and Catholic moral teaching.”
Canada’s federal and provincial
human rights commissions have a recent history of prosecuting Christians for
alleged discrimination against homosexuals:
In 1999, the Ontario Human Rights
Tribunal ordered Evangelical printer Scott Brockie to pay a $5,000 fine after
he refused to print homosexual-themed stationery.
A Knights of Columbus chapter in
British Columbia was fined $2,000 in December 2005 for declining to rent its
hall to a lesbian couple for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony.
• In April, Christian Horizons, a Christian
ministry that cares for the severely disabled, was fined $23,000 by the Ontario
Human Rights Tribunal for dismissing an employee who had signed a declaration
of Christian moral living as part of her employment contract, but who later
assumed an active homosexual lifestyle.
Refusal to pay such fines can lead
to charges of contempt of court and possible jail sentences.
Should the Canadian Human Rights
Commission proceed with the complaint against Catholic Insight,
Father de Valk will be forced to defend himself before the Canadian Human
Rights Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body that adjudicates cases investigated by
the Human Rights Commission.
“The social climate right now is
that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the
commissions are being used as thought police,” said Bishop Fred Henry of
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
operates without most of the usual legal protections afforded an accused party,
said Bishop Henry, who described Father de Valk as “an orthodox, very straight-forward
individual.” For instance, Canada’s human rights tribunals operate according to
a reverse onus, whereby the accused is presumed guilty and must prove his
innocence, said Bishop Henry and Father de Valk.
Moreover, Canada’s human rights
tribunals have a 100% conviction rate when investigating complaints filed
against Christians by homosexual activists, both men said.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission
also covers the legal costs of the complainant, whereas the accused is solely
responsible for the legal costs he incurs when a case goes before the tribunal.
Thus far, Father de Valk has
incurred $20,000 in legal expenses, he said.
Mark van Dusen, a media consultant
for the Human Rights Commission, denied the organization operates according to
a reverse onus when investigating complaints.
Van Dusen also said the commission
does not cover the legal costs of the complainant, but rather introduces
individual cases with the tribunal, with the commission acting as a separate
Van Dusen denied that the Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal rubber-stamps cases introduced by the human rights
commission, but he was unable to name a specific complaint introduced by the
Human Rights Commission in which the tribunal decided in favor of the accused.
“The commission only refers cases
that it considers are of such a vilifying nature that they are likely to be
upheld at the tribunal,” van Dusen said.
The spokesman refused to comment on
the specifics of the commission’s investigation into Father de Valk, but said
the commission had the power to dismiss the complaint.
When asked if the commission
considers it hateful to oppose legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” because
of sincerely-held religious belief, van Dusen replied, “We don’t set public
policy or moral standards. … But the hate is defined in the Human Rights Act
under section 13.1.”
That section of the act prohibits
the electronic dissemination of “hate messages,” defined as “any matter that is
likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the
fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a
prohibited ground of discrimination.”
“Sexual orientation” is one of the
grounds of discrimination prohibited by the act.
Keith Martin is a Liberal Member of
Parliament who has introduced a motion to have section 13.1 repealed. As a
visible minority and an immigrant of East Indian ancestry, Martin is well-known
among Canadian parliamentarians as an anti-discrimination crusader.
However, he expressed concern that
Canada’s human rights commissions and tribunals have overstepped their
authority and are now trampling freedom of expression.
“Freedom of speech is a human
right,” Martin said. “As a citizen of a free country, I am deeply concerned and
disturbed by the fact that the bar of freedom of speech has been moved, quite
significantly, in a way that is a serious violation in a serious democracy.”
Pete Vere writes from
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.