Catholic Civil Rights League Letter to The Province

Vancouver  Province Runs  Kempling Article and Invites Responses on the Issue.

For the information of our readers, we post these news releases from the Christian Legal Fellowship and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada:

For Immediate Release from the CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP

May 17, 2011

CLF TO MAKE ORAL SUBMISSIONS BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CASE

OTTAWA – On May 18, the Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF) will make oral submissions before the Supreme Court of Canada in S.L., et al. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, et al., a case originating in Quebec, which will decide parental rights with respect to religious instruction.

“This case, at its core, is about freedom of conscience and religion,” says Robert Reynolds, legal counsel for CLF.  “More specifically, it is concerned with the freedom of conscience and religion of parents and protecting the rights of believing parents to pass on their religion to their children without interference from the State.”

The appeal arises from the case out of Drummondville, Quebec where Christian parents sought to have their children exempted from participation in the mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture Curriculum but were refused by their local school board.  The course is mandated from grade 1 to grade 11 for all public and private schools. While the course has as its objective the promotion of tolerance and respect, the curriculum advances certain rights and values at the expense of others including the Appellants.

The CLF, which was granted intervenor status in the case, intends to argue that the rights of the Appellants as Christian parents includes the right to teach and disseminate their faith to their children, and to ensure that their children’s religious education is in conformity with their own convictions.

“For Christians, the right to teach and disseminate one's faith begins with one's children,” explains Ruth Ross, CLF Executive Director and General Legal Counsel. “Christians must be free to shield and protect their children from competing ideologies and teachings which are at odds with their own religious convictions.”

Other applications to intervene in the SCC appeal were granted to groups including the Canadian Catholic School Trustees Association, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Council of Christian Charities, Christian Group for Parental Rights in Education, Coalition for Liberty in Education, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Association of Quebec School Boards.

To access documents submitted by CLF, click here.

- 30 -

Ruth Ross will be available for comment at the Supreme Court of Canada before the hearing and throughout the day. For further information or to arrange an interview, please contact:

Helen Stephenson

helen.clf@primus.ca / ross.clf@primus.ca

CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP

Alliance des chrétiens en droit

Phone: (519) 641-8850 Fax: (519) 641-8866
www.christianlegalfellowship.org

The Christian Legal Fellowship is a national not-for-profit association of legal professionals in Canada. The association, among other functions, explores the complex interrelationships between the practice and theory of law and Christian faith. The Fellowship has some 500 active members from several dozen Christian denominations working together to integrate Christian faith with law.

For immediate release from The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

May 17, 2011

THE EFC TO APPEAR BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ON PARENTAL RIGHTS/RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CASE 

OTTAWA – The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) will be presenting oral arguments to the Supreme Court of Canada on May 18, 2011. S.L., et al. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, et al., a case originating in Quebec, will address the issue of whether parents have the right to choose the kind of education their children will receive, particularly in regard to religious and moral instruction.

“This case will cut to the core of what freedom of religion and conscience and parental authority mean in Canada,” states Don Hutchinson, EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel. “Parents simply want the right to teach morality and religion from their perspective, or decide who will do so on their behalf. The right to pass on one’s religious and cultural heritage to their children is a fundamental aspect of religious freedom and parental authority in Canada.”

At issue is the Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) program, a mandatory course which must be taught to all québécois children, from grade 1 to grade 11, whether they attend public or private schools, or are homeschooled.  The course, which states its objective as the instruction of children in a manner that will promote tolerance and respect, thus equipping them to live a pluralist society, has proven to be polarizing and controversial. Its mandate, while at first appearance seeming at home in Canada’s multicultural society, actually sacrifices certain rights and values in order to advance others.

“Parents in the evangelical Christian community are split on the ERC program,” explains Faye Sonier, EFC Legal Counsel. "Some welcome the opportunity for children to learn about the contribution of religious communities to the culture of Quebec. Others are concerned that teaching young children about a variety of religions in the manner required by the course will convey to them that all religious beliefs and all moral codes are relative or of equal merit. However, most agree that parents should have the right to choose whether or not their children participate in the program. Unfortunately, all parents who have requested that their children be exempted from the classroom have been refused.”

 “Parents are asking that their parental authority be affirmed so they can exempt their children from course material that is inconsistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs”, explains Hutchinson. “Provinces across Canada permit classroom exemptions, either in regulation or practice, or other forms of accommodation. Further, the province of Quebec has yet to demonstrate why this course is mandatory to ensure a peaceful and tolerant society. Canada’s longstanding tradition of education from a Judaeo-Christian foundation has bred a vibrant, multicultural nation known for its acceptance of others and tolerance for differing opinions and religious beliefs.”

“To compel tolerance is to dispense with it. Every religion is, in essence, exclusive. Compelling tolerance by state-mandated compulsory religious and moral education can only be accomplished by violating the freedom of religion and conscience of each religiously devout individual,” concludes Sonier.

A related case still in the Quebec court system involves Montreal’s Loyola High School which sought the right to teach the ERC program from a Catholic perspective. The Ministry of Education denied the school permission to do so. Justice Gérard Dugré of the Quebec Superior Court stated that the decision to impose the course on the Catholic school demonstrated “a totalitarian character essentially equivalent to Galileo’s being ordered by the Inquisition to deny Copernican universe.”

For more information about the case or to read the EFC’s written submission please visit www.theEFC.ca/SL.

-30 -

Don Hutchinson will be available for comment immediately after the hearing at the Supreme Court of Canada and throughout the course of the day.

For more information or an interview contact:
Anita Levesque
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
(613) 233-9868, ext. 325
MediaRelations@theEFC.ca

We have received the following press release regarding an important new campaign:

For Immediate Release

New Campaign Challenges the Assault on Freedom 
by Canada’s Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals

(Vancouver) November 9, 2010: As Canada prepares to remember those who paid the supreme sacrifice for our freedom, a grassroots campaign has been launched today to protect this freedom from an unlikely source; our country’s human rights commission and tribunals.

“As strange as it might sound, it’s in the very name of human rights that our fundamental freedoms are being challenged” explained Neil Dykstra, the campaign’s spokesperson. “These quasi-judicial bodies have wandered far from their original mandate. They hold up fabricated “rights” and use these to undermine the freedoms that we easily take for granted, including freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly and association.”

The campaign was kicked off with seven events in BC and Ontario in the past few weeks and is now reaching all Canadians through a action-oriented website www.HumanRightsCommissions.ca. The site features brand new technology through which readers can send customized letters straight to their MP about the issue in a matter of seconds. It also provides petitions, sample letters, and talking points for meeting with elected officials. The site even includes a video interview with one MP who sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, calling on Canadians to contact their MP’s about the commissions.

“We know that there is broad-based support among politicians to reform or even remove these commissions and tribunals” explained Dykstra. “Just last week Saskatchewan announced its plans to reform their human rights code and dissolve their human rights tribunal. BC is also considering disbanding its Tribunal and sending complaints to a dedicated employment tribunal. These are positive developments that must continue across the country. It will take grassroots action to achieve this and our hope is that this campaign will be a catalyst for spurring every-day Canadians to stand up for our fundamental freedoms.”

The commissions and tribunals attracted significant attention in the past few years because of several high-profile complaints, including one against Maclean’s newsmagazine about an article on Islam that was an excerpt from a Mark Steyn book, and another complaint against Ezra Levant and the Western Standard for republishing the infamous Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammad. Not quite as well known, the commissions and tribunals have been taking on dozens of other complaints in which pastors, business persons, charities, and corporations have been found guilty of offending people and sentenced to forced apologies, re-education, fines, speech bans, and huge legal bills.

Parliament began an investigation into the conduct of the Canadian Human Rights Commission last year. Numerous political leaders and media outlets have come out criticizing the commissions and tribunals but as of yet few reforms or changes have been made. Even a commission-initiated investigation concluded that significant reforms were necessary, only to be ignored by the commission that paid for the review.

Some of the problems highlighted on the campaign website include:

1. The Tribunals do not have to abide by the long-standing rules of justice that are the norm in our court system. The due process of law is ignored, evidence can be based on hear-say, and hurt feelings are enough to find someone guilty of inciting hatred. Regular legal defences of truth, fair comment, and lack of intent to harm don’t apply in the HRT’s.
2. With this kind of criteria, it isn’t too much of a surprise that for 32 years the Canadian Human Rights Commission had a 100% conviction rate for all Section 13 cases it brought before the Tribunal. That finally ended when Section 13 was declared unconstitutional by the federal Tribunal in 2009.
3. The HRC complaint process has itself become a favourite tool of activists to silence and bankrupt their political enemies. If a case is accepted, complainants do not have to pay any costs, even if they lose the case. On the other hand, defendants must cover all of their own legal expenses, even if they win. Simply being brought before a HRC is a significant penalty.
4. Human Rights Commissions have actively sought complaints of borderline legitimacy in order to increase its workload. CHRC staff have also stated that they post their own online comments on anti-Semitic and racist forums to find and entrap others.
5. The Commissions actively lobby parliament to create more civil rights that further restrict our fundamental rights. Some have even gone so far as to use their policy-making powers to “read in” new rights into the provincial human rights codes.
6. The Commissions have more investigative powers than the police. The Commissions have no procedures or safeguards to ensure that their investigations are carried out in a proper and ethical manner.
7. There is no complaint mechanism by which the Commission and its staff can be held to account. In the face of widespread public criticism, the Canadian HRC hand-picked their own expert and paid him $50,000 to review their practices. This back-fired when the investigator himself concluded that the censorship powers of the CHRC had to be removed. The CHRC has ignored this report and now continues its censorship unabated.

“We urge Canadians to check out the website, use the simple email program on it, and share it with their families, friends, and co-workers” stated Dykstra. “When enough people stand up for freedom it will be a political liability not to act.”

-- 30 –

To arrange an interview please contact Mark Penninga at 1-866-691-2772 or info@humanrightscommissions.ca.

  Liberty Counsel Files Brief On Behalf of Santa Rosa County Teachers and Staff [in Florida]

September 21, 2010

www.LC.org

Santa Rosa County, FL – Liberty Counsel filed its Initial Brief at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf of the Christian Educators Association International (“CEAI”). CEAI sought to intervene in a federal trial court to defend the rights of the faculty and staff of the Santa Rosa County School District, but the court refused the request and refused to dismiss the case brought by the ACLU, even though the case had become moot following the graduation of the two high school seniors who brought the suit under the pseudonym of “Doe.”

The ACLU-crafted Consent Decree is being used to threaten employees with fines and jail time for praying over a meal. These outrageous actions prompted Liberty Counsel to request to intervene in order to stop this crackdown on constitutional rights. In August of 2009, Liberty Counsel successfully defended Michelle Winkler from contempt charges brought by the ACLU after her husband, who is not employed by the district, offered a meal prayer at a privately sponsored event in a neighboring county. On Constitution Day, Liberty Counsel successfully defended Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman against criminal contempt charges, after the ACLU complained when Freeman offered a blessing for a lunch meal, served to about 20 adult booster club members.

Under the Consent Decree and the guideline issued by the district, teachers are always considered to be acting in their “official capacity” whenever a student is present, even at private functions off campus. Teachers cannot pray, bow their heads, or fold their hands to show agreement with anyone who does pray. Teachers and staff cannot “Reply” to an email sent by a parent if the parent’s email refers to God or Scripture. Teachers either have to delete such references from the original email or reply by initiating a new email. Teachers and staff are also required to stop students from praying in their own private club meetings. During witness testimony, Winkler cried as she described how she and a coworker, who had recently lost a child, had to hide in a closet to pray. 

The two anonymous plaintiffs who initiated the case graduated in May 2009, and the case brought by the ACLU became moot. But the judge has not dismissed the case. In addition to this appeal regarding intervention and mootness, Liberty Counsel has another suit pending against the district on behalf of faculty, staff, students, and people in the community whose rights are infringed by this Consent Decree.

Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “Public schools are not religion-free zones, yet this ACLU-crafted court order criminalizes Christianity and censors religious expression, even outside of school time. We will not rest until this unconstitutional order is overturned.”

Quebec Jesuit school wins right to teach ethics from religious perspective

Judge rules Quebec was ‘totalitarian’ in trying to impose secular approach to Roman Catholic ethics instruction; Charest says government will appeal

[Read the whole Globe and Mail article online.]

Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission Seeks Supreme Court Case 
against Catholic Activist

By Patrick B. Craine

REGINA, Saskatchewan, April 1, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has announced their intention to take their case against Bill Whatcott, a Christian fighting the encroachment of homosexualism, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Whatcott told LifeSiteNews (LSN) Thursday that the SHRC has informed his lawyer, Tom Schuck, of their intention to appeal the February 25th decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals.

Whatcott suggested that, while he does not want to take the case “for granted,” the SHRC's appeal is a poor strategic move in light of the current negative feelings over Canada's human rights commissions.  “Strategically, though I don't want to discourage them from doing it, ... it's a sign of desperation and poor judgment,” he told LSN.  “Politically and legally, ... human rights commissions and their powers to censor opinion are not really politically all that popular right now.”

“If I was them what I would have done was just keep my mouth shut and wait about 10 years and try to build the momentum to censor people like myself when there wasn't so much scrutiny on these bodies,” he added.

The SHRC brought Whatcott before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal in 2006 over his practice of distributing flyers about the dangers of abortion and homosexuality.  They launched their case following several complaints over a series of flyers that he had delivered in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002.

The flyer at issue was penned in objection to a classified ad in a homosexual newspaper that sought “boys/men for pen pals, friendship, exchanging video, pics.”  It also criticized the promotion of homosexuality in Saskatoon public schools and the University of Saskatchewan.

The Tribunal found that Whatcott had violated section 14(1)(b) of the province's human rights code, which prohibits speech that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.”  He was ordered to pay a $17,500 fine and to cease publicly spreading his beliefs about homosexuality.

The Tribunal decision was upheld in 2007 by the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, but it was overturned February 25th by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

Justice Darla Hunter ruled that Whatcott had not violated the human rights code, and that the Tribunal decision unjustly limited the freedom of expression.  "It is acceptable, in a democracy, for individuals to comment on the morality of another's behaviour,” she wrote.  “Anything that limits debate on the morality of behaviour is an intrusion on the right to freedom of expression."

In his interview Thursday with LSN, Whatcott insisted that he is not letting the case prevent him from speaking out, noting that he has a mission to Quebec planned for June to preach the Gospel in light of the Quebec government's recently-announced effort to normalize homosexuality.

“I'm not going away regardless of what the outcome of this case is,” he said.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Sask. Court Overturns Human Rights Ruling against Anti-Homosexuality Activist
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10030105.html

Catholic Activist "Banned for life" From Publicly Criticising Homosexuality
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121306.html

Homosexual Activist Appeals Exoneration of Canadian Pastor Boissoin

By Patrick B. Craine

CALGARY, Alberta, March 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The homosexual activist who has pursued Alberta Pastor Stephen Boissoin on a complaint of discrimination since 2002 has re-launched his campaign after a December court defeat, taking his case to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

Dr. Darren Lund is appealing the December 4th  Court of Queen's Bench decision by Justice Earl C. Wilson, who overturned a 2008 ruling against Boissoin by the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). 

The AHRC was dealing with a complaint from Lund over a June 17, 2002 letter to the editor from Boissoin regarding the promotion of homosexuality in the school system.  The AHRC ruled that the letter could expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt and ordered Boissoin to cease expressing his views on homosexuality publicly, to pay $7,000 in damages to Lund, and to publish a personal apology in the local paper.

According to Justice Wilson, however, Boissoin's letter “does not go so far as to fall within the prohibited status of 'hate' or 'contempt.'”

"Inferring some sort of call for discriminatory practices prohibited by provincial law is an unreasonable interpretation of the letter's message,” he added.

“The problem lies with the laws of our land,” Boissoin wrote Tuesday in an e-mail to LifeSiteNews.  “According to our laws (across Canada) anyone can file an accusation of hate or prejudice to a Human Rights Commission and as Ezra Levant has so correctly pointed out. ... the process then becomes the punishment regardless of the ruling.  Years and years of fighting a malicious accusation.”

He noted that Lund's case against him will likely end up taking 10-15 years and cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.  “Of course every penny is worth it but this fight should not have to take place,” he said.  “My prayer and hope is that the Appeals Court smacks this down and stands behind Justice Wilson's ruling. Please pray to this end too.”

“Regardless, I will, by God's grace, always find the strength to stand,” he added.  “I will oppose to my last breath in word and deed the HRC's, the Lund's of this world and any ruling that attempts to inhibit my freedom of speech and religious conviction.”

Free Speech Victory in Whalcott v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal

[February 6th, 2010]

CALGARY: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) today responded to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal, a case in which the CCF had intervened in support of free expression.

In a decision released February 25, the 3-member court ruled that William Whatcott did not violate section 14(1)(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code by distributing flyers to oppose the teaching of homosexuality in Saskatoon’s public schools.

The flyers distributed by Mr. Whatcott in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002 were polemical and inflammatory, and the court noted in its decision that many people would find his words “crude, offensive, and pejorative.” The contents of the flyers are re-printed in the court’s decision, posted HERE.

The CCF intervened in support of free expression. Its factum is posted HERE . You will note that many of the CCF’s arguments were adopted by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, sometimes with an express reference to the CCF (see paragraph 130 of the court’s decision) and sometimes without an express reference.

The Court set aside a Human Rights Tribunal Order that Mr. Whatcott pay $17,500 to four gay complainants who were offended by his flyers. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code prohibits the publication of any statement which “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons” on the basis of age, race, religion, sexual orientation, and other grounds.

“This court decision is good news for free speech,” stated lawyer John Carpay, Executive Director of the CCF, which intervened in support of the right of citizens to express their religious and political opinions on matters of public policy.

“Unfortunately, the court did not strike down the restrictions on free speech. But nothing prevents our federal and provincial politicians from repealing these laws,” continued Carpay.

Religious charities in limbo, court told

Rights tribunal ruling could force groups 'out of business'

Charles Lewis, National Post  Published: Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Free Speech Clause in U.K. Gay Hate Crimes Bill Defeated in 
House of Commons

By Hilary White

WESTMINSTER, November 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - MPs have voted down a proposal that would have ensured that Christians in the UK retained the freedom to criticise homosexual activity in the country under a proposed hate crimes bill. A free speech amendment in the proposed hate crimes legislation was rejected 342 votes to 145 by MPs on Monday night.

The defeated amendment, proposed by Lord David Waddington, reads, "For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

In the proposed bill the offense of "stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation" carries a sentence of up to seven years' imprisonment. Government ministers contend that the clause is unnecessary.

The clause has been batted back and forth between the House of Lords, who reinserted it last July, and the Commons, which has repeatedly rejected it. The bill is to return to the House of Lords November 11th and 12th for debate. 

Tory MP Dominic Grieve, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, said on the night of the vote that without the amendment, the bill could have a "chilling effect on freedom of speech" and that there is "plenty of evidence" that existing similar "public order" ordinances already have this effect.

Such laws, he said, are "based upon a form of political correctness" that are "leading to abuse in a number of circumstances by the police who threaten individuals with prosecution unless they desist from expressing perfectly legitimate views."

Grieve said, "I would be more reassured if the Government were taking the public order legislation problems that have arisen more seriously." The problem is continuing, he said, and for that reason, "we should be very wary of legislation that fetters freedom of speech."

Lord Waddington, the author and sponsor of the amendment, told the House of Lords on Monday, "We are not talking about the terrible threat that is faced by many gays, because that threat can be dealt with - and often is dealt with - under the present law."

He said it is simply "not the case" that the "free speech clause opens the gates to incitement to violence against gays." He pointed to the same incidents referred to by Mr. Grieve in which citizens expressing religious or other opinions opposing homosexual activity have been "interviewed" by police as possible offenders. Such people, he said, "were told by the police that they were very close to the serious offence of homophobia, punishable by seven years' imprisonment."

The most recent case in which a citizen expressing an opinion against homosexual behavior has been interrogated is that of Mrs. Pauline Howe, 67, a Christian who was denounced to police by her local Norwich Council when she wrote complaining of the local "gay pride" events. Mrs. Howe was visited by police who questioned her and said she could be open to a hate crime charge. She is considering legal action, saying the visit frightened and intimidated her, although police said they concluded they had no grounds for a charge under existing statutes.

In October, Lord Dear, a former HM Inspector of Constabulary, said that the amendment was "essential" if police officers are to enforce the Government's 'homophobic hatred' law with "good judgment and a light touch."

"The police need to be free to make a judgment in the moment, not harnessed by a one-size-fits-all policy dictated from above," Lord Dear said.

The bill has been heavily criticized in its long journey through Parliament, even by homosexuals themselves. In 2007, British actor and comedian Christopher Biggins warned that it would quash freedom of speech and result in a backlash against homosexuals. Biggins called it "yet another step in the grim march of authoritarianism now afflicting Britain, with people terrified of speaking their minds for fear of the knock on the door."

BCCLA demands equal treatment for U Vic pro-life club

[a press release from the website of the B. C. Civil Liberfties Association--October 21, 2009]

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is taking up the case of Youth Protecting Youth (YPY), a pro-life club at the University of Victoria.  Despite repeated appeals by YPY, the UVic Student Society (UVSS) has consistently denied funding to the group on the grounds that its pro-life advocacy is inconsistent with the pro-choice position of both the Society and the Canadian Federation of Students, and that it amounts to harassment of women by creating an atmosphere of "ambient violence". The BCCLA believes that the actions of the UVSS are an infringement of the Charter freedoms of conscience and expression of the YPY group.

We have always seen academic freedom - freedom from government interference - against the background of the public university as an institution specially devoted to freedom of inquiry and speech,” said BCCLA Director and former President John Dixon. “When the university forgets its core identity by preferring censorship over debate it undermines the legitimacy of its claim to independence, and to that extent, its immunity from Charter scrutiny."

At the October 5th meeting of the UVSS Board, the Society confirmed its stubborn determination to withhold the funding ordinarily disbursed to clubs, citing particular alarm at YPY plans to hold a public debate between distinguished UVic philosopher Eike-Henner Kluge representing the pro-choice side, and Stephanie Gray of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform on the pro-life side.

The BCCLA has written to the UVSS, asking for an opportunity to address its Board, in the hope of achieving a resolution.  The BCCLA has also sent letters to the President of UVic, the Chancellor of UVic, and the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development, urging them to intervene if the UVSS refuses to relent.

The directive expands anti-discrimination protection beyond employment to health care, social benefits, education, and "access to goods and services." Originally intended to prChotect the disabled, the proposal was expanded to include discrimination against religion and belief, age, or sexual orientation. Exemptions in the draft legislation for "organizations based on religion and belief" were removed before the final vote.

"In its present form, I would say I am extremely concerned," said Don Horrocks, head of public affairs for the European Evangelical Alliance "It is very serious, though many regard it as extreme." He believes the directive is unlikely to be passed in its present form, and expects that the government may hold public consultations before it is finalized.

If the directive were passed into law, faith-based social services would face problems, said Luke Goodrich, legal counsel at the The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

For example, faith-based schools and daycare centers could be barred from taking applicants' religion into account for enrollment and employment. Marriage counselors and adoption agencies could have less discretion in accepting clients.

[Read the whole article "Stopping Discrimination" in Christianity Today online.]

British Churches to be Forced to Hire 
Active Homosexual Youth Workers under Equality Bill

By Hilary White

LONDON, May 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com ) - British churches will be forced to accept practicing homosexuals or "transsexuals" in positions as youth workers and similar roles, under upcoming equality legislation, the government has said. The Labour government's Equality Bill will prohibit churches from refusing to hire active homosexuals even if their religion holds such behavior to be sinful, said deputy equalities minister Maria Eagle.

The legislation is due to come into force next year, and churches fear that it will force them to act against their religious convictions in a broad range of areas. Eagle indicated at a conference called "Faith, Homophobia, Transphobia, & Human Rights" in London, that the legislation "will cover almost all church employees."

"The circumstances in which religious institutions can practice anything less than full equality are few and far between," she told delegates. "While the state would not intervene in narrowly ritual or doctrinal matters within faith groups, these communities cannot claim that everything they run is outside the scope of anti-discrimination law.

"Members of faith groups have a role in making the argument in their own communities for greater LGBT acceptance, but in the meantime the state has a duty to protect people from unfair treatment."

The bill allows a religious exemption for roles deemed to be "for the purposes of an organised religion" but restricts this definition to those who conduct liturgical celebrations or spend their time teaching doctrine.

The Daily Telegraph quoted Neil Addison, a Roman Catholic barrister and expert on religious discrimination law, who said that the bill will leave churches powerless to defend the fabric of their organization. "This is a threat to religious identity. What we are losing is the right for organizations to make free choices," he said

Equality commissioners include the homosexual lobbyist, Ben Summerskill, the head of the leading British homosexualist activist group Stonewall. Summerskill has called for churches to be forced to employ homosexuals and for the police to stop Christians who were peacefully protesting against 'gay rights' laws outside Parliament.

Tony Grew, a homosexualist activist and the former editor of PinkNews.co.uk, wrote recently that the Equality Bill will "entrench gay rights in all aspects of public life." Grew wrote on PinkNews that the bill will open unprecedented opportunities for homosexuals.

The bill, he said will cover central government departments, local authorities, education bodies, NHS bodies and the police service, plus a wide range of other public and private bodies, including churches and church-run institutions. It will impose the "Equality Duty" on all organizations providing public services, he said, such as residential care homes that "would have to consider the needs of same-sex couples."

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Enforced "Diversity" will make Britain "First Modern Soft Totalitarian State"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09050602.html

UK: Religious Schools May Not Teach Christian Sexual Morals "As if They Were Objectively True"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07030504.html

Even an Openly Homosexual Actor has Condemned New UK Law Which Would Criminalize Criticizing Homosexuality
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07101101.html

"Climate of Fear" Growing in Britain for Christian Civil Marriage Registrars
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052204.html

Jim Hnatiuk - Leader of the Christian Heritage Party

 CHP NEWS RELEASE
Jan 27, 2009

For immediate release

Human Rights Commission 'Dismisses' hate charges against CHP Canada!

OTTAWA, Jan. 27, 2009 - The Christian Heritage Party of Canada and the CHP's former leader have been notified by the Canadian Human Rights Commission that allegations of 'hate' by an Edmonton man against the Party, one of its Electoral District Associations and former leader Ron Gray have been dismissed.

The CHRC dismissed the three complaints because "the content and context of the material which forms the basis of the complaint is not likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on sexual orientation," says the letter from Lucie Veillette, secretary of the Commission, to Ron Gray. "Accordingly, the file on this matter is now closed."

Gray was critical of the CHRC's procedures, and the effect its proceedings can have of "chilling" public discussion of important policy issues.

"I wrote to the CHRC about these complaints Feb. 19, 2007--almost two years ago--and have not yet had a reply to that letter," Gray said. "The proceedings have cost about $50,000. Fortunately, there were people across Canada who believed in free speech enough to cover those costs with voluntary donations.

"I want to thank the hundreds of people who helped to defend free speech rights in Canada by contributing to our legal defense fund.

"But the CHRC's method of operation is both slipshod and unjust. The complainant bore no costs at all for filing a frivolous and groundless complaint; as Ezra Levant has said, 'The process is the punishment'--whether the respondent is innocent or guilty.

"The idea of protecting people and groups from 'hate speech' that incites to violence is still sound," Gray said. "But such incitement is already a criminal offence, and the defense against it belongs in criminal court, where the normal rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence apply. In a real court, these ridiculous charges would never have been admitted."

The new CHP Leader Jim Hnatiuk maintains that the CHP is the only federal political party in Canada that has and will continue to defend "traditional marriage" between one man and one woman.

The new CHP Leader, Jim Hnatiuk, re-affirms the commitment of the CHP to fight for the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. "We are the only political party which is taking seriously the threat to our freedom of speech posed by this repressive piece of legislation."

This follows on the heals of last summer's fight for freedom of the press, in which Human Rights Commissions were forced to back down from their investigations of Ezra Levant, Macleans Magazine and Mark Steyn.

These cases against the CHP and Ron Gray were a test of the political metal of our Party. Would  we kowtow to having our freedom of political opinion taken away? "We did not," Hnatiuk states, "and we will not!"

Hnatiuk also affirms his Party's will to fight against the repression of freedom of speech such as suffered by Rev. Stephen Boissoin and Dr. Chris Kempling.

"We're in this for the long haul; for the sake of all Canadians," Hnatiuk confirms.

-30- 

Contact:

CHP Leader Jim Hnatiuk, 1-888-868-3247 or leader@chp.ca

Dr. Chris Kempling is Leaving the Public School System    
[from the May-June, 2008, British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life E-Mail Bulletin]

Dr. Chris Kempling, the Christian teacher and school counsellor who has been harassed over the last number of years and penalized for speaking out in his own time against the pro-homosexuality propaganda program being promoted for use in the schools, has decided to leave the public school system.  We trust that this will bring a greater measure of freedom for Chris, but it does not prevent the BC College of Teachers from continuing their attempt to penalize him further for exercising his democratic rights and speaking out according to his conscience.  He is going to need our continued support in the months ahead.   

New Action of BC College of Teachers Against Chris Kempling Highlights the Perilous State of Freedom in Canada

We have just received word We have just received word

As we have said before, the action taken against Chris Kempling is significant because it represents a threat to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, political freedom, and the freedom of the educational system.  It should be a warning to Canadians of all stripes who value our national heritage.

An Important Message from Dr. Chris Kempling

Friends and Colleagues at BCPTL:

 On January 28, 2008, I received another citation from the BC College of Teachers.  They have laid 12 new charges against me for "conduct unbecoming a member".  They include:  writing a letter to the editor as the representative of my political party objecting to the then proposed same sex marriage law, submitting an essay for publication on the BCTPL website (which was also published in the Calgary Herald), submitting an essay to a family journal in Germany (which they have not read), for being the "local representative of the Christian Heritage Party", and for having "knowledge" that an article written about me by CHP Leader Ron Gray was published on the party's website.  The list goes on, and is the most Orwellian document I have ever read.  My lawyer told me that I should expect a very substantial suspension.  I've been subpoenaed for a four day hearing in late September. 

I've decided I've had enough of the College of Teachers.  I'ver resigned my position with the Quesnel School District to take a job with St. Ann's Academy in Kamloops.  Although the remuneration is less, it is worth it to me not to have to be a member of the BCCT.  Unfortunately, one side effect of this decision was that the BC Teacher's Federation has cancelled my legal aid, so my lawyer has withdrawn her services.  There is a great deal of legal preparation needed before the hearing, so I have appealed the BCTF decision to the executive committee on a technicality.  Should that appeal fail, I've asked Kevin Boonstra of Kuhn and Company to represent me.  I have sufficient funds in my legal defense fund to cover his costs for the hearing (but I was hoping to use those funds for my next Supreme Court appeal).  The Lord provided last time--every cent--and I'm trusting Him for this next battle, too.  Please pray for me as I continue to take a stand on this very important social issue.

Chris Kempling
[from an e-mail dated June 23, 2008]

Chris Kempling to Quit BC Teachers' College after Years of Harassment for Christian Beliefs

By Hilary White
 
QUESNEL, BC, July 7, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Chris Kempling will be leaving his position in the public school system after years of harassment for his Christian beliefs and his moral stand against the campaign to  promote homosexuality in schools. Kempling has announced he will be taking a job at St. Ann's Academy in Kamloops.

Earlier this year Kempling received a fresh list of citations for "conduct unbecoming a member" of the BC College of Teachers (BCCT) for his exposition of the Christian position on homosexuality, which fact Kempling said drove him to leave the College of Teachers.
 
Kempling said that although this move will afford him greater freedom, it will not prevent the BCCT from continuing their attempt to penalize him for having spoken out against their homosexualist program. 
 
In January this year, the BCCT laid 12 charges against Kempling, citing him for his letters to editors; for quoting biblical passages about homosexual behaviour in an interview with CBC Radio; and for having published an article, re-published by the Calgary Herald in December 2003, outlining the differences between social liberals and social conservatives.
 
"I've decided I've had enough of the College of Teachers," Kempling said in announcing his decision to change jobs. "Although the remuneration is less [at St. Ann's], it is worth it to me not to have to be a member of the BCCT."

One upshot of the decision to leave the College, however, is the loss of Kempling's legal aid fund, which was provided by the College. The schoolteacher will be covering his own legal costs for an upcoming hearing with the College, but he still faces enormous financial challenges as he throws himself into a fight that is anticipated to take years and which he has said he intends to pursue all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary.
 
Kempling was also cited by the College for publishing a scholarly article in a German periodical on homosexuality, for offering "orientation change therapy" to homosexual people and for mentioning this in a radio interview, and for "for having knowledge," while a candidate for the Christian Heritage Party, that an article written by party leader Ron Gray in support of Kempling was posted on the party's website.
 
Kempling says the list of charges is "the most Orwellian document I have ever read." He also says his lawyer had warned him to "expect a very substantial suspension" if he remained a member of the College. Kempling has been subpoenaed for a four day hearing in late September.
 
The mild-mannered teacher has been employed as a teacher and counsellor by the Quesnel School District at a high school in Quesnel, British Columbia since 1990. In 1997, he began his life in the limelight as one of Canada's most prominent proponents of free speech and traditional values when he wrote a series of letters to the local papers warning parents and citizens of the efforts of the school system to normalise homosexuality to children.
 
Kempling wrote in the Quesnel Cariboo Observer, "I refuse to be a false teacher saying that promiscuity is acceptable, perversion is normal, and immorality is simply 'cultural diversity' of which we should be proud."
 
For writing this, in 2001 Kempling was cited and suspended for professional misconduct by the BCCT. In January, 2003, Kempling expressed his views on CBC radio, at which point his school district instructed him not to express his views on homosexuality in school or in public. But Kempling has chosen to continue to speak out against the homosexualist political doctrines and has stood as a candidate for the Christian Heritage Party in the Cariboo-Prince George riding.
 

Human Rights Commission Drops Complaint Against Catholic Magazine
Judicial Review Still Possible

TORONTO, July 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Canadian Human Rights Commission has dropped a complaint by a homosexual activist against Catholic Insight a Toronto-based national Catholic news magazine.  A year and a half - and many thousands of dollars in legal fees - after a nine-point human rights complaint was filed by Edmonton-based homosexual activist Rob Wells, Catholic Insight has been informed that the case has been dropped.  However, a judicial review before the Federal Court is still possible should the complainant pursue that avenue.

In a letter the Commission noted that it decided "to dismiss the complaint because the material (produced by Catholic Insight) is not likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on sexual orientation."  It added that "the file on this matter has now been closed."

Wells filed the complaint over the magazine's allegedly offensive coverage of homosexual activism and the issues it has affected. According to editor Father Alphonse de Valk, however, the magazine has consistently set out the Roman Catholic Church's position on such questions, making it clear that persons with same-sex attraction must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity and every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

"We welcome the Canadian Human Rights Commission's decision in this matter and were confident from the outset that we would be vindicated," said Father de Valk. He added that his publication not only has the right, but the responsibility, to report, analyze, comment on, and criticize where necessary, homosexual activism as it pertains to important social issues such as the nature of marriage, adoption rights, the allocation of social benefits, burdens on the health system caused by unhealthy behaviours and so on.

"It is chilling to think that a publication can be hauled before a government tribunal simply for reporting to interested citizens developments in these areas of controversy," said Father de Valk. "This matter underscores once again the necessity of urgent reform of the Canadian human rights system." He added that, coupled with a series of actions launched by a Toronto-based homosexual activist, Catholic Insight has been unnecessarily burdened with $20,000 in legal fees to date.

Given the consistently unsuccessful nature of these homosexual activist attacks upon it, Catholic Insight will now examine the prospects of launching countering legal actions against those who have been unnecessarily harassing and financially burdening the publication, said Father de Valk.

Rights commission ‘remedy’ flawed

[Click here to read the whole article on the website of the Red Deer Advocate.]

We hope that not only his fellow-Christians, but all who retain a love for our basic freedoms, will respond to Chris's appeal in the letter immediately below:
A Letter from Chris Kempling 
on the Latest BC College of Teachers Action Against Him

February 5, 2008

Friends:

I regret to inform you that the BC College of Teachers has again cited me for conduct unbecoming a teacher, in a letter dated January 28, 2008. They have cited me for participating in a CBC radio interview where I quoted the Bible saying that homosexual behaviour is a barrier to salvation, for contributing an essay discussing the philosophical differences between social liberals and social conservatives (published in the Calgary Herald on December 29, 2003), for publishing a scholarly article in a German family journal on the topic of homosexuality, for offering orientation change therapy as part of my private counselling practice and mentioning this in a radio interview, and, incredibly, for "knowing" that an article written by Christian Heritage Party leader Ron Gray in support of me was posted on the party's website. They also cited me for being "the local representative of the Christian Heritage Party". This is certainly true as I was the candidate for the CHP, Canada's sixth largest registered political party, in the last federal election in the Cariboo-Prince George riding (I came 5th out of 8 candidates.) All of the items listed occurred between February, 2003 and April, 2005.

The last time I checked, we had freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Canada, and the right to join the political party of our choice. It appears to me that these rights are in jeopardy, as the BC College of Teachers has threatened to withdraw my license to teach, despite the fact that there were no complaints registered with the College as a result of any of the items they listed. I am currently working in the Quesnel school district, am abiding by my letter of direction, and have been told by my principal that he has no concerns about my conduct or my job performance, which includes working professionally with students of all orientations.

This is extremely distressing for me and my family, and I would welcome your prayers. It appears that I may have to ask those who care about freedom to help me defend myself again. The registered trust fund is called the:

Christian Public School Teachers' Legal Defense Fund, c/o Mr. Jim Sagert, Trustee, 798 Beaubien Avenue, Quesnel, BC V2J 1A6.

Letters of acknowledgement will be issued, but, as it is not a charity, there can be no tax receipts.

I am not afraid to face them but please do not leave me like Uriah to face the enemy alone. I take comfort in the words of our Lord: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven..."

I am happy, because I know my Christian brothers and sisters will stand with me as I face this trial yet again.

Dr. Chris Kempling Psy.D. R.C.C.

Quesnel, BC

TORONTO, January 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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, says the Catholic League in a press release. 

The League is concerned about the 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 received a poor response from the human rights commissions. One has been refused and there have been strong indications of disinterest on the other.

Susan Comstock and Dave MacDonald 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."

David McDonald advised LifeSiteNews today that his case has not been dropped but the Canadian Human Rights Commission has still not communicated its final decision to him. An official with the commission left a Nov. 22 telephone message indicating the commission would not take the case because it involved religion and they lacked jurisdiction to hear religion cases. MacDonald was told he would receive a written report sent out the next day. However, he states he immediately sent a letter to the commission and has not yet received the promised written report or any other communications.

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," says the League.

The League provided a list of recent cases where human rights tribunal were used to quash or attempt to quash free speech:  [bold-facing by editor of this BCPTL website]

- 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," said the League. "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."

Precedent-Setting Ruling Reinstates Canadian Pro-Life Activist’s Nursing License, Cancels Fine

By Hilary White

REGINA, January 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Saskatchewan Court of Appeals has ruled that the suspension of a pro-life protester’s nursing license by the Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses (SALPN) was unconstitutional.

In 2002, Bill Whatcott, a licensed practical nurse, participated in a protest outside the Regina Planned Parenthood offices. The Association judged Whatcott’s protest to have constituted “professional misconduct” and suspended his nursing license and fined him $15,000.

Whatcott admitted in a court hearing to having carried signs with pictures of foetuses and captions saying “Planned Parenthood Aborts Babies” and “Planned Parenthood refers for abortions," "God's gift of life" and “choice is abortion”. Whatcott lost his initial case at the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench and his appeal was later dismissed.

Court documents in the appeal note that the SALPN disciplinary committee did not address constitutional issues of Whatcott’s freedom of expression. Whatcott’s appeal was upheld by the court that said the case raised “constitutional law issues pertaining to freedom of expression”.

The ruling said, “The Discipline Committee did not engage in any of the balancing necessary to weigh Mr. Whatcott’s right to work, the high standards to which nurses must aspire and free speech. Given the existence of the interim injunction and the means to enforce it, one would not think the Discipline Committee’s decision was a proportionate response.”

The justices wrote that SALPN had failed to demonstrate that the restriction on Whatcott’s freedom of expression was reasonable “and the decision is thus unconstitutional.”

Whatcott praised the court decision, not only on his own behalf, but because it sets a precedent for other health care professionals who conscientiously object to abortion.

He wrote, “Christians and other moral Canadians, Dentists, Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers as well as Nurses can reference my case if they are bullied by their professional organizations as a result of a stand they take on a moral issue during their time off work.”

The ruling can be viewed online .

Ohio Teacher Doesn't Have to Pay Dues to NEA

Groups' Representatives Draw Up Statement of Principles in Response to the Corren Settlement Agreement in British Columbia
On September 23rd (2006), representatives from a number of groups, including British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life, agreed to a "A Statement of Principles of Fairness for Students and Parents and of How They Can be Used to Remedy the Injustices of the Corren Settlement Agreement."  Among the other groups whose representatives agreed to the statement were REAL Women of British Columbia, Christian Social Fellowship, Catholic Civil Rights League, and Christian Coalition.  Below we give the whole "Statement,"  including the four general principles, together with supporting citations and and bv a list showing how the principles "can be used to remedv the inequity of the Corren Settlement Agreement." 

A Statement of Principles of Fairness for Students and Parents and of

How They Can be Used to Remedy the Injustices of the Corren

Settlement Agreement

Principles

1. We affirm our common desire to see established within the schools of British Columbia an atmosphere in which harassment or abusive conduct directed at any student is not acceptable, regardless of their actual or apparent association or identification with any group.

2. Access to the means of influencing the development of curriculum for all subjects in British Columbia public schools should be open to all citizens without discrimination.  No special rights of access or influence should be given to particular private citizens or groups.

3. Parents have the right to educate children in conformity with their moral and religious convictions. Public schools must be transparent and accountable to parents about what is taught to students. Teaching materials should be open to examination by parents, and particular care should be taken that parents are directly advised, well in advance, when sexuality or other controversial or sensitive topics are to be discussed.

4. Nothing in the curriculum or practice of British Columbia public schools should denigrate the legally protected moral and religious beliefs of parents and children.

How the above principles can be used to remedv the inequity of the Corren Settlement Agreement

Preamble: Because it unfairly gives privileged procedural access to Peter Corren and Murray Corren, the Corren Settlement Agreement has created a dangerous precedent in the curriculum review process. We ask for recognition of the 'prior right’ of parents to choose the kind of education their children receive. We request that the Minister extend full consultation to parents and other stakeholders.

I. New Internal Review Guidelines for the development of IRPs ("Integrated Resource Packages") must be drawn up with input from all interested parties, as identified in the Charter Article 15 (1).

2. Similarly, input from all interested parties should be welcomed in finalizing each IRP.

3. The Social Justice 12 Course provided for in Section 3 of the Corren Settlement Agreement should be balanced with respect to Charter Article 15 (1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

4. Delivery guidelines to assist teachers in delivering the Kindergarten to Grade Twelve curriculum should be developed openly with recognition given to the prior right of parents to choose the kind of education their children receive.

5. Parents of students should be permitted to make arrangements for Alternative Delivery of sensitive topics in a manner that respects the individual needs and interests of their children.

6. Any further changes in matters covered in the Corren Settlement should arrived at by a regular democratic process in a manner authorized by the legislature and subject to alteration by that body.

7. The Ministry of Education should send a letter to the parties named in the Corren Settlement Agreement (Section IB) affirming the prior right of parents and stating  policy of openness in the development of curriculum.

¹  UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights  -- Article 26

In the United States:
Parents to Rally in Support of Jailed Massachusetts Father    
 9/4/2005
From an article by Robert Knight

Lexington Green, where Massachusetts colonists confronted the British in the opening battle of the American Revolution, will be the site for a rally to support a father who was arrested for questioning pro-homosexual materials at his children’s school.

Slated from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Tuesday, September 6, the rally will feature David Parker and his wife Tonia.

David Parker was arrested on April 27 at Joseph Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington after refusing to leave when school officials declined to show him materials related to the promotion of homosexuality in the school. He had been alerted to the school’s materials when his child brought home some books, one of which celebrates “gay parenting.”

Massachusetts state law mandates notifying parents before discussing issues of human sexuality in the classroom.

In the wake of the British Columbia Supreme Court's ruling against him, Dr. Kempling has appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which may or may not agree to hear the case.  In addition to the other persecution he has faced, Chris Kempling is now facing discipline for his testimony before a parliamentary committee.

Chris Kempling Update—September 15, 2005

In my . . . update in April, I related that I had been suspended for three months without pay for writing a letter to the editor opposing same sex marriage.  I have now served the suspension and am back teaching (after working as a dump truck driver in the summer to make ends meet).  Unfortunately, my struggle continues.  In early June, the BC Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the College of Teachers, saying that although there was no evidence of harm or disruption to the school system, it was appropriate for the College of Teachers to discipline me for expressing my opinion off the job in letters to the editor.  For this reason I have appealed the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.  My new lawyer, David Brown of Stikeman Elliott in Toronto, filed leave to appeal on September 9^th.  It is not known when the Supreme Court will make a decision on whether or not to hear the case—they only hear 15% of the cases referred to them.  If they choose not to hear it, I have will have to serve another one month’s suspension, and pay my opponents prior legal costs of over $23,000.  My lawyer has told me I have to pay their costs now, even if the Supreme Court chooses to hear the case.  This will deplete my legal defense fund entirely, leaving me without funds to proceed with the Supreme Court case or the Human Rights Tribunal case.  My lawyer feels that at least $50,000 will be needed for that, and a similar amount for the Human Rights case.

Note:  Chris's lawyer has informed him that he thinks the Supreme Court of Canada will make a decision by late January or early February on whether to hear his case, and that if they accept it, it will be 2007 before the case is heard.

My Human Rights Tribunal case against the Quesnel School Board for religious discrimination is still on-going.  I was disciplined for speaking with a CBC radio reporter about the orientation change services of my private Christian counseling practice.  They provided no evidence that anyone was concerned about this interview—they feel it is acceptable to prevent me from telling people that orientation change is possible.  I made it clear that most of my clients would be Christians, who know that acting on same sex attraction is sinful behaviour, and thus are more motivated to seek professional assistance.  I am currently providing treatment to a Christian client for this purpose, so I find it entirely unacceptable for my school district employer to interfere with a service offered by a Christian counselor to Christian people.  I was to have had a two day hearing in October, but my lawyer feels it will take 7-10 days and involve over a dozen witnesses.  A new date has yet to be scheduled.

 I’m hoping my employer will acknowledge that official witnesses of Parliament have special protection from harassment.

There is some good news to report, however.  Rev. Tristan Emmanuel of Equipping Christians for the Public Square held a fund-raising banquet for me in June in Hamilton, Ontario and presented me with a cheque for $18,000.  I have already given the entire amount to Mr. Brown as a down payment for the Supreme Court appeal.  God has supplied all my needs up to now—I’m just going to keep trusting Him for what it is still needed.  I’m very grateful for all of you who have generously given so far.  I would appreciate your prayers as I face the upcoming struggles.  Jesus warned us that we would face persecution for standing up for him.  He was right.
Note:  Chris Kempling sent us an addition to the above update.   In it he informed us that his lawyer told him that he thought the Supreme Court of Canada would make a decision by late January or early February on whether to hear his case, and that if they accepted it, it would be 2007 before the case was heard.

"Growing Support for Alberta Pastor Facing Human Rights Hearing Over Letters Against Homosexuality"

CALGARY, Alberta, September 14, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The case against Stephen Boissoin, a young Alberta pastor facing an Alberta Human Rights tribunal over letters he wrote on the issue of homosexuality, has received widespread publicity which is generating a growing wave of support for the Christian pastor, even from homosexuals.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com last night Boissoin revealed that he has received a barrage of phone calls from the US and Canada since the publication of the Sept. 2nd LifeSiteNews.com story on his case. A US organization is even seriously considering funding his legal defense.

All afternoon yesterday Boissoin sat with three homosexuals who came to him concerned about the charges. He says they "were disgusted" that his right to freedom of speech was being impinged upon and that they wanted to speak out on his behalf even though they did not necessarily agree with what he said. Stephen believes that after their lengthy discussions the three men experienced that he sincerely cares about homosexual persons.

A web page presenting documents and details on the case and background on the two principal persons has been set up on the web site of the Concerned Christians organization for which Boissoin was at one time the Executive Director. The page reproduces the original letter by Boissoin to the Red Deer advocate on June 17, 2002 (see Lund complaint) as well as subsequent letters and the detailed full complaint by University of Calgary assistant professor Darren Lund. The page also offers an opportunity for supporters to donate to Pastor Boissoin's legal expenses. See http://www.concernedchristians.ca/pages/campaigns/hrCommision/index.htm.

Concerned Christians is co-accused in the case since pastor Boissoin was in their employ at the time the letter was published and he signed it in his capacity as the central Alberta chairman of the organization. However, Boissoin told LifeSiteNews.com he believes the case against the organization is weak.

A large Free to Speak dinner is scheduled for October 29 at the Coast Plaza Hotel in Calgary. This awareness and fundraising benefit will have as speakers Calgary Bishop Fred Henry, Western Standard magazine publisher Ezra Levant, Dr. Chris Kempling and other prominent speakers. The dinner and the issue will have their own website in the next few days at http://www.freetospeak.ca. Comments on the controversy and its free speech aspects will also be able to be posted to the site.

 Dr. Kempling & the BC Court of Appeal

April 25, 2005

The final bell on “round two” has rung in the long-running match between Dr. Chris Kempling and the British Columbia College of Teachers, but it will likely be several months before the judges release their decision.  The case will decide whether Christian teachers have freedom of speech and the freedom to express their religious beliefs on their own time.  Dr. Kempling is appealing a decision of the College which suspended him for one month for writing letters to the editor objecting to the promotion of homosexuality in the public school system.  Dr. Kempling and his legal team faced off against the College of Teachers and their allies on April 21^st and 22^nd in Vancouver’s Court of Appeal.  The case arose out of a complaint filed with the College in July, 2000.

Dr. Kempling’s team consisted of William Clark of Harper Grey law firm, plus three lawyers from the intervenors:  J. Rogers for the BC Teachers’ Federation, and Kevin Boonstra (Kuehn and Company, Abbotsford) and David Brown (Stikeman Brown of Toronto), who represented the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance. (The CRFA is comprised of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights League, the Christian Legal Fellowship, and the Christian Teachers Association of BC.) 

The BC College of Teachers was represented by Mr. Bruce Laughton, who has handled the case from the outset.  Intervenors for the College included Elliot Myers of the BC Civil Liberties Association and Judith Anderson of the BC Public School Employers Association.  Hearing the case were Madam Justice Huddart, Mr. Justice Lowry, and Head Justice Ian Donald.  The only media in attendance was Frank Stirk of Christian Week.

The bulk of first day of the case was occupied by the Mr. Clark’s presentation.  He argued that Dr. Kempling’s Charter rights of freedom of speech were definitely violated by the College, and  given that no evidence of “harm” was presented, the “inference of harm” was not enough to impose discipline.  Furthermore, the one month penalty was excessive given Dr. Kempling’s unblemished teaching record, extensive community service, and numerous character references from a wide variety of supervisors and community leaders.  Mr. Clark noted that all other freedoms are an extension of freedom of expression, and that even if speech is “unpopular” it is worthy of protection in a free and democratic society.

David Brown had just 30 minutes to present his argument on behalf of the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance, but he gave an outstanding oration.  He argued that, in the absence of “harm” in the school community, the speaker should receive the benefit of the doubt.  Moreover, characterizing speech as “discriminatory” is a “show-stopper”, i.e. it has the effect of shutting down debate by labeling unpopular speech as inherently harmful.  Brown posited that there should be an analysis of the difference between critical speech and discriminatory speech, which was not done in this case.  Brown noted that it is quite possible to believe in the inherent dignity of a person while concurrently holding that certain behaviours practiced by that person are immoral.  Furthermore, tolerance ought not to mean “mandated approval”.  Though his time was short, Mr. Brown captured the essential elements of the case in a brilliant presentation.

Mr. Laughton took up the bulk of the second day, presenting the College’s case.  He stated that it wasn’t necessary for anyone inside the school system to complain, nor was it necessary to call any witnesses to prove their case.    The College was well within its authority to suspend a member for speech it had determined was discriminatory—the harm could be inferred.  He also stated that it was improper to present a “freedom of religion” defense, since the College didn’t know what religion Dr. Kempling belonged to.  That was a remarkable statement considering Dr. Kempling’s writings are full of Christian references and Bible citations.

Elliot Myers of the BC Civil Liberties Association stated that the BCCLA agrees that the College made the right decision, but for the wrong reasons.  They felt it was improper for the College to base its decision on private memos written to a superior, private letters to elected officials, and unpublished research essays.  Their main concern was that Dr. Kempling identified himself as a teacher in his letters to the editor.  They were particularly upset by Dr. Kempling’s statement that he would refuse to be a false teacher, teaching information that was morally questionable, and that he would encourage those who were confused about their orientation to come and see him, as it could save their life.  Mr. Myers asserted that Dr. Kempling had “announced his intention to discriminate” by making these statements.  Even though no evidence was presented he actually did discriminate against anyone, the possibility he might was enough to impose the suspension.

The lawyers for the BC Teachers Federation and the BC Public School Employers Association made no oral submissions, and merely submitted their written briefs due to time constraints.

Mr. Clark is actually not too hopeful of a positive outcome in the trial, and believes it will be necessary to carry on to the Supreme Court of Canada.  It is doubly difficult at this time since Dr. Kempling is currently enduring an additional three month suspension without pay for public objecting to the Liberal’s same sex marriage legislation as a spokesman for his political party. 

But, as Paul urged Timothy:   ”I solemnly urge you to preach the message, to insist upon proclaiming it (whether the time is right or not), to convince, reproach, and encourage, as you teach with all patience.  The time will come when people will not listen to sound doctrine, but will follow their own desires and will collect for themselves more and more teachers who will tell them what they are itching to hear.  They will turn away from listening to the truth and give their attention to legends.  But you must keep control of yourself in all circumstances; endure suffering, do the work of a preacher of the Good News, and perform your whole duty as a servant of God.” (2 Timothy 4:1-5)

The children of this land deserve to be presented with balanced information on same sex issues, so that they can avoid putting their lives at risk.  Without the freedom to present the Christian perspective in a public venue like the editorial page of a local newspaper, the safety of our children, and the freedom of all Canadians is at stake.

Teacher Suspended Three Months for Defending Traditional Marriage

[Please note that the action of this local bureaucrat and the school board are quite separate from the actions of the BC College of Teachers in seeking to have Chris Kempling punished for earlier public statements.  The audacity of the local superintendent of schools in joining in the persecution of Dr. Kempling may well have been encouraged by the climate of opinion created by the successful passing of Sven Robinson's bill limiting free speech and by some of the statements coming from ministers of the federal government. --editor of this website.]

News Release:

April 4, 2005

In a decision handed down today, Quesnel School District Superintendent Ed Napier suspended school counsellor Dr. Chris Kempling for three months.  Dr. Kempling has been employed as a counsellor since 1990, and has been active in a wide variety of volunteer positions in the community.  He is also the local spokesperson of the federal Christian Heritage Party, and had written a letter to the editor of the local newspaper on behalf of his party, criticizing the Liberal government's same sex marriage legislation.  The school district did not provide a single example of disruption to the school system, or any
negative effect of the letter.  They also ignored over a dozen letters of
reference from supervisors and community members written in support of Dr. Kempling.

"It is truly unfortunate that the Quesnel School Board believes that only those
who support same sex marriage are able to comment publicly on a matter of
national importance, " stated Dr. Kempling.  "It is a sad day for freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of political affiliation. But more
significantly, I am most concerned about the young children with serious 
emotional needs, who will be deprived of their counsellor at a time when they
need help most.  Counselling, much more than teaching, involves a close
personal relationship where trust develops over time.  I'm really very worried about their well-being."

Dr. Kempling plans to fight the suspension through the grievance process, as well as through the BC Human Rights Tribunal under the category of political discrimination.  n

This is probably a good time to repeat the information found elsewhere on this 
website:
How to Contribute Financially to Chris Kempling's Legal Defence

A trust fund has been set up.  It is the "Christian Public School Teachers' Legal Defense Fund."  Money contributed to this fund will help Christopher Kempling with the expenses of his legal defence.  Subsequently,  money in the fund after Chris's defence can be used to help other Christian teachers who may find themselves in a similar position.

If you would like to contribute to the trust fund, you may make a contribution at any Royal Bank branch.  The transit number is 4720. The account number is 101-030-5.

If you prefer to contribute by cheque, send your contribution to:

Christian Public School Teachers' Legal Defense Fund
      c/o Jim Sagert
      798 Beaubien Ave
      Quesnel, BC V2J 1S5

Letter Chris Kempling Wrote Posted on This Website
Dr.  Chris Kempling's letter of January 8, 2005,to the Quesnel Cariboo Observer is posted immediately below: 

January 8, 2005


Editor
Quesnel Cariboo Observer
Quesnel, BC

Sir:

The letters published in the January 9, 2005 edition of the Observer regarding
same sex marriage have highlighted the arrogance of the Liberal government, to
foist a monumental change to our social fabric by changing the definition of
marriage.  The Conservatives are dithering over how to deal with matter, while
the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens are all in favour.  The Christian Heritage
Party, which I represent locally, is actively working to maintain the
traditional definition of marriage (which, ironically, a majority of Liberals
including Martin voted to sustain less than six years ago).  I have personally
read editorials in gay publications which decry the push for marriage, calling
it a "straight" institution that they had little interest in. 

In Massachusetts, two-thirds of the same sex marriages are lesbians, even
though gay men outnumber lesbians two to one.  And when two researchers
(McWhirter and Madison) surveyed 236 men for their book, The Male Couple, they were unable to find a single couple who had remained faithful to one another. 
In other words, infidelity (and now adultery I suppose) is the norm, not the
exception for gay couples.  And it causes as much emotional heartache and
relationship break-ups as it does for heterosexual couples.  Is this the kind
of relationship we want to give official blessing to?

There's another problem.  Now that our liberal social activist courts
have "read" sexual orientation into the Charter, and mandated same sex
marriage, there is no logical reason to prohibit bisexuals or polyamorists
(which are both orientations) from demanding the right to marry as many people
as they want.  To forbid them would be discrimination based on sexual
orientation.  Coming soon to a court room near you.

Marriage is not a human "right".  It is an institution with obligations, for
fidelity, for raising children, and for ensuring social stability, that was
established long before government decided to get involved.  Not everyone is
currently allowed to marry (we have restrictions against those too young, blood
relatives, already married, etc.).  Furthermore, there were no discriminatory
prohibitions against same sex couples co-habiting, willing their estates to
partners and so on.  This whole affair has been orchestrated by a tiny minority
of activists with good connections, who don't even have the mandate to
represent their own social group.

We need to demand that our government allow a referendum on this radical change
to a basic social institution.  Canadians are smart enough to weigh both sides
of the argument and render a decision.  And the Christian Heritage Party will
lobby hard to help make that happen.

Chris Kempling
Quesnel

A Visit to New York to Speak at the United Nations

by Dr. Chris Kempling

Early in February, 2005, I received a surprising call from Anna Marie White of Focus on the Family Canada. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights was holding a Delegates' Briefing on March 4, and she was hoping I could represent Canadian Christians by speaking on the topic of religious freedom in Canada. Anna Marie explained that UN ambassadors and NGO (non-government organizations) representatives were aware of the official Canadian government position on religious freedom, but that the delegates wanted to hear from someone who had actually been subjected to persecution because of their religious beliefs. They were preparing for a major Human Rights conference to be held in Geneva in April.

I readily agreed and started making travel arrangements. I had never been to New York City and was delighted when Anna Marie stated that Focus would be happy to cover my hotel costs for an extra day if I wanted to do a little sight-seeing.

I flew on Cathay Pacific Airlines for the five hour flight and booked into the Grand Hyatt Hotel on 42^nd and Lexington Streets, just a few blocks from the United Nations. On Friday morning, I met with American Focus on the Family officials, who were the hosts of the briefing, in the Helmsley Hotel. Two of the other speakers, constitutional lawyer Gerry Chipeur of Calgary, and lawyer Pers Karlson of Sweden, also attended. We then headed as a group to get our security passes in a separate building not far from the UN. Security is very tight at public facilities in New York. Thomas Jacobson, Focus on the Family's UN representative (Focus is an accredited NGO to the UN) was pulling a small rack with a couple of boxes of hand-outs. He was stopped by security, who radioed for the bomb detection unit to check his boxes.

The UN building is situated on the riverfront, with an adjacent park holding several impressive sculptures. The building itself was crowded with school tour groups, plus 6000 delegates attending a UN Women's conference. There were many delegates in their colorful national costumes walking the hallways and speaking a cornucopia of exotic languages. The Africans and South American delegates were quite flamboyant in their flowing robes and distinctive headgear.

We peeked into the General Assembly room and saw where the Canadian delegation was sitting. It looks pretty much like it does on TV. Our guide explained that simultaneous translation is done in the six official UN languages, but all UN delegates must have a working knowledge of English to be posted to the UN.

At the breakfast, Thomas Jacobsen said they were delighted to learn that they had received 98 confirmations of delegates wishing to attend the luncheon, three times what they were expecting. Furthermore, one-third were full rank ambassadors to the UN. They didn't invite the Canadian representatives, who are very strident in their support of abortion and gay rights causes. I spent the morning fine tuning my speech with Anna Marie White, Focus'  representative for Family Policy and Community Impact, and the representative from the British Focus equivalent, which is called CARE.

I was seated next to the Korean ambassador.  Sichan Siv, who just finished his term as the US ambassador to the UN, was also at the table, along with the ambassadors from Ireland, and an NGO representative from Belgium. The food was excellent and included Mesculn Salad in a basil lime vinagrette, with Sugar Cane and Cocoanut Glazed Chilean Sea Bass, Malanga Puree with Mango Salsa as the entrée. Dessert was a Chocolate Raspberry Ganache. (They gave us a souvenir menu, which is why I have all the details.)

Ambassador Siv spoke first, and related his very impressive "rags to riches" story as a Cambodian refugee who escaped the Pol Pot's killing fields in the 70's. His first job was picking apples in Connecticut, followed by a stint as a New York City cab driver. He eventually became the first Asian American refugee to join the American administration as part of President Bush Sr.'s cabinet, and finished his career as the Ambassador to the United Nations.

Gerry Chipeur spoke next, highlighting the various constitutional cases that he has been involved with at the Supreme Court level, including the Vriend and Egan cases. He told me privately that the only way to reverse Canadian policies is to defeat the Liberals in the next election.

I spoke next, outlining my particular struggles with the BC College of Teachers and my efforts to defend freedom of speech and freedom of religion for public school teachers. My talk was well received as there was a standing ovation. Janet Parshall, who hosts a national US radio talk show, invited me to speak on her show, while another woman, a Canadian lawyer working in Manhattan, said she was so upset at my treatment she wanted to return home to practice human rights law in Canada.

Pers Karlson, the Swedish lawyer, detailed the Ake Green case. Pastor Green was arrested and sentenced to one month in prison for preaching a sermon outlining what the Bible says about homosexuality. The Swedish Court of Appeal overturned that sentence, stating that the Swedish law forbidding any criticism of homosexuality went too far in penalizing pastors who perform their religious duties by explaining what the Scriptures say about behaviours deemed to be sinful. Mr. Karlson stated that Swedish embassies around the world had been flooded with protests. Nevertheless, Swedish prosecutors have now appealed the case to the Swedish Supreme Court.  Pastor Green has been invited to speak at the UN Human Rights conference in Geneva.

Overall, it was an excellent experience, and an honour to be invited to speak at the UN. The following day, I spent seven hours at the very impressive Metropolitan Museum situated in Central Park. I wasn't able to see it all, despite my best efforts, and missed the entire Egyptian wing. The medieval armor and Renaissance art was most impressive. On Sunday, I had the privilege of worshipping with the First Alliance Church congregation. This church is descended from the original Christian and Missionary Alliance Church founded in Manhattan in 1888 by A.B. Simpson (a Canadian from Prince Edward Island). They meet on the second floor of a commercial building on E26th Ave, and share space with a Messianic Jewish congregation.

Afterward, I took the bus towards Wall Street and boarded the ferry to Liberty Island. The ferry terminal is in Battery Park and houses an old fort, the original immigrant screening facility prior to the establishment of Ellis Island. It would have been the facility my great grandfather Joseph Kempling passed through in 1879. Security was intense, as all passengers were required to remove watches, belts, shoes, and jackets, plus pass through bag inspections and metal detectors. But I wanted to see the statue which is the worldwide symbol for freedom, something which we in Canada are beginning to lose a grip on. Unfortunately, it was not possible to climb up inside the interior of the statue, but it was pretty impressive just seeing it up close.

I'll close with a quote from Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), a Dutch Christian politician who founded the Christian Democratic Party in that country: "When the principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then the battle is your calling, and peace has become sin. You must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy with all the fire of your faith."   We no longer have the luxury of assuming that our country's leadership shares Christian principles and will uphold Godly values. As is clearly obvious, they are quite prepared to make laws which run counter to the principles upon which this country was founded, and are attempting to silence or marginalize anyone who would protest against them. Kuyper's call to arms rings true for today. But who will answer?  Ghandi said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."  It means a commitment to action--and the time for action is now.

Dr. Chris Kempling Psy.D. R.C.C.

Quesnel, British Columbia

A Message from Chris Kempling--February 4, 2004

A Message from Chris Kempling--December 7, 2003

BCPTL Friends & Colleagues:

Last month I attended the annual convention of the National Association
for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality in Salt Lake City, Utah, as one of
the speakers.  It was an excellent convention, with numerous presentations
by various experts in their fields.  While some therapists were
representing various faith traditions, some were operating strictly as secular
service providers.  There were, however, representatives from JONAH (the
orientation change program for Jews), Evergreen (Mormons), Courage (Catholics), and Exodus North American (Evangelicals).  Dr. Kristl vonHoldt and a colleague travelled all the way from Germany to attend.  They represent the German Institute for Youth and Society, and have requested to publish my NARTH speech, as well as my essay Sexual Orientation Curriculum:  Implications for Educators, in their organization's journal (translated by Dr. vonHoldt).

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of NARTH, gave the keynote speech,
outlining his therapeutic approach to orientation change treatment.  He advised us
that this is difficult work for clients to do, and there needs to be strong
motivation for change.  He also stated that he had had only one successful case
where the client was a teenager.  Apparently, the ideal age for this type of
therapy is early 20's to early 30's.  Success rates generally fall into
"thirds"--one-third completely revert to heterosexuality, one-third make significant changes in their behaviours, but still struggle with temptation and fantasies, while another third tend to drop out of therapy.

One of the reasons that psychology was so unsuccessful in treating
homosexuality in the early years was the way psychoanalytic therapists
were trained (to be emotionally detached from their clients).  Nicolosi says
that it is essential for men seeking orientation change to connect emotionally
with a salient heterosexual man without sexual involvement.  In fact, he
says he rarely talks about sex with his clients--the focus on is on changing
cognitions and behaviours, and dealing honestly with emotions,
especially their physiological component.

Another important speech was given by Dr. Christopher Rosik, based on an
article on unwanted same sex attraction published in the Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy.  Dr. Rosik outlined why social conservatives and social liberals are frequently at odds in areas of morality. Social liberals
tend to adhere to an Ethic of Autonomy, where personal behaviours which do not
"harm" others are accepted, even affirmed.  Social conservatives tend to adhere
to a different set of ethics:  the Ethics of Community (e.g. community
values, such as retention of the historical definitions of marriage), and the Ethics
of Divinity, where there is a belief in an absolute standard of conduct, as
revealed in divinely inspired texts.  It certainly explains why we
simply cannot seem to have rational discussions with those in the EOA camp.

In any event it was an outstanding conference, and as a result of the
training I received there I have decided to begin offering orientation change
therapy as part of my private counselling practice here in Quesnel.
Like all of you, I am anxiously awaiting Justice Ronald Holmes' judgment
in my case.  I appreciate of all the support you have provided me, in terms of
prayers, notes of encouragement, and financial donations in the past
year.  May God bless you richly this Christmas and in the New Year to come.

Chris Kempling
Quesnel, BC