Effects of Homosexual Activism

 

Homosexual Activists in Europe, Canada Using Gov't to Silence Opposition

Feature by Ed Vitagliano

March 15, 2006

 

(AgapePress) - For decades homosexual activists claimed that they

were oppressed by societies that wanted them to remain silent and in the

closet. Now that homosexuals are experiencing cultural acceptance unheard

of in Western Civilization since the time of ancient Greece, they are no

longer unseen nor unheard. In fact, the homosexual community has obtained

a seat at the table of political power.

 

Apparently, activists consider turnabout to be fair play. In Europe

and Canada, those sympathetic to the homosexual movement are using

the coercive power of government to silence those who oppose their

agenda.

Pro-family groups in the U.S., meanwhile, are pointing to these other

countries with increasing urgency, warning that what is happening in

Europe and Canada is already starting to happen here. (See earlier

article) Trouble Across the Pond

 

In Europe, as the politically correct view of homosexuality takes

root within the legal system, the Christian view is increasingly

coming under pressure.

For example, when the Rev. Peter Forster, Anglican Bishop of Chester,

England, told his town's newspaper that homosexuals can leave their

lifestyle by getting professional medical help, he got an unexpected visit

from the police. Law enforcement officials went to Forster's residence

after a complaint was filed that charged him with a hate crime.

 

At least one homosexual group called Forster's remarks "evil." Martin

Reynolds, the communications director for the Lesbian and Gay Christian

Movement, told the Daily Telegraph (London), "These are irresponsible

remarks that could inflame latent homophobia."

 

The police investigated the complaint but decided against any further

action -- but only because the British law against inciting racial hatred

has not yet been extended to include sexual orientation.

 

Pro-family advocate and author Lynette Burrows also learned the hard way,

when she criticized homosexual adoption in a live radio interview in

Cambridge, England. According to the Daily Telegraph, after a member of

the listening public complained, police initiated an investigation --

claiming that her comments may have constituted a "homophobic incident."

 

"I was astounded," Burrows said of the inquiry. When she told the

female investigator that England was a free country that protected

freedom of speech, the policewoman told her "it was not a crime but

that she had to record these incidents. They were leaning on me,

letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is

sinister and completely unacceptable."

 

The same pressure is being brought to bear elsewhere in Europe:

Catholic Cardinal Gustaaf Joos of Belgium faces a lawsuit over his

comments, published in a magazine, about the Christian view of

homosexuality; in Spain Cardinal Antonio Varela of Madrid also faces a

lawsuit for preaching against homosexuality in a sermon; and in Ireland

Catholic clergy who distribute their church's publications against

same-sex marriage were told they could face prosecution under Ireland's

hate crime laws.

 

Meanwhile, as the European Union (EU) continues to attempt to oversee more

and more of the daily lives of member nations, the clash between

homosexual and religious rights becomes inevitable as well.

 

In January, for example, the European Parliament passed a resolution

condemning "homophobia" and demanding that member nations introduce and

then implement laws granting special rights for homosexuals in employment.

 

According to a story from the Rainbow Network, the resolution, which

passed on a 469-149 vote, called on the European Commission to begin

proceedings against countries that refuse to pass such laws.

 

Naturally, the passage of the resolution was applauded by

homosexuals, one of whom thanked Christians for their inaction as the

resolution came up. "Another positive point is that the lunatic fringe was

apparently very silent," boasted Joke Swiebel, a homosexual activist and

former member of the European Parliament. "It does not pay anymore to

shout against gays and lesbians in the Parliament itself."

 

Nuttiness North of the Border

 

In Canada, pro-family groups and other conservatives suffered a

serious defeat when that nation legalized same-sex marriage last

year. But government pressure against those who dare speak up against

homosexuality has been building for several years. For example, in 2001

William Whatcott produced and distributed a flyer warning of the medical

and spiritual dangers of the homosexual lifestyle, but that landed him in

legal hot water after four homosexuals got the flyer out of their

mailboxes and read it. They considered it "hate speech," and the

Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal agreed. Whatcott was ordered to pay

more than $17,000 to the homosexuals.

 

Meanwhile, the Knights of Columbus, a men's organization affiliated

with the Roman Catholic Church, was fined $2,000 by the British

Columbia Human Rights Tribunal after the Knights refused to allow two

lesbians to rent a hall for a same-sex "wedding." While the tribunal gave

the Knights of Columbus a pass on the basis of religious objections, the

fine was issued because of the lesbians' "humiliation" in having to find

another location -- even though it was the lesbians themselves who made

the matter public by informing the press.

 

However, the lesbians were not satisfied with the ruling, and said

they will appeal. Their attorney, Barbara Findlay, said, "This is

going to be the first real legal test of the [same-sex marriage law]. We

want the court to make the call -- how far does freedom of religion extend

under the charter? Where do we draw the line?"

 

The legal line may be irrelevant for David Hauser, the Knights of

Columbus member who was responsible for nixing the lesbians' nuptial

celebration at the hall. As it turned out, according to a story on

LifeSiteNews.com, Hauser got fired from his job at Costco soon afterwards,

and he alleges it was because of the fracas.

 

His reason for thinking so? One of the lesbians who filed the

discrimination allegation is actually a coworker of Hauser, and he

said many of the people in management at his former place of

employment are openly homosexual.

 

Ironically, other Christians are finding themselves on the wrong side of

the law. Nondiscrimination statutes and hate crime laws -- declared by

activists to be absolutely necessary in order to protect the homosexual

community -- are now weapons in the hands of those who would silence

Christianity.

 

Scott Brockie, a Christian printer, was fined $5,000 in 2000 by the

Ontario Human Rights Commission because he refused, on the basis of

his religious convictions, to print materials for a homosexual group. The

Commission told him he must also print anything else the group wanted.

 

Even though an appellate court gave Brockie a partial victory -- he

was told he did not have to print any more homosexual-themed

materials -- the original fine was upheld. Moreover, the entire

appeal process left him more than $100,000 in debt. Then the Human

Rights Commission filed and won a motion that Brockie pay its legal

costs. That saddled him with $40,000 more in debt.

 

But even when a Christian promotes his beliefs on his own time, in a

manner unconnected with his job, the results can be devastating. Chris

Kempling, a counselor at the Quesnel School District in British Columbia,

granted an interview to CBC Radio in 2003 -- while at home during his

Christmas vacation.

 

In the interview, Kempling, who is a licensed psychologist with a

doctorate in that field, explained about his specialty: counseling

homosexuals who want to leave the lifestyle.

Kempling was suspended for three months by the school district, but

when he tried to bring a religious discrimination complaint against

the school, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal refused him a

hearing.

 

In response, Rev. Tristan Emmanuel, an outspoken defender of the

traditional family in Canada, told LifeSiteNews.com, "The [British

Columbia] Human Right's Tribunal decision has made it clear that it's not

about tolerance -- it's about the suppression of all opposition -- a type

of jihad against free speech and freedom of religion."

 

Freedom of religion, in fact, continues to face pressure in Canada

just as it is in Europe. According to the National Catholic Register,

Catholic Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary ran afoul of the pro-homosexual

establishment when he opposed same-sex "marriage" in a diocesan letter.

Two homosexuals formerly charged the bishop with "discrimination."

 

In his own defense, Bishop Henry argued, "My rights to freedom of

religion and free speech have been violated. Those that support

same-sex marriage want to shut the churches out of this important

debate. Those who favor same-sex marriage have been given full

opportunity to state their views on this issue. But now they are

saying that anyone who speaks out against same-sex marriage is

discriminating against homosexuals."

 

For Christians north of the border, perhaps the most odious law was

the homosexual hate crime measure, Bill C-250, which was passed by

the legislature in 2004. As World magazine's Lynn Vincent explained, C-250

makes it "illegal to publish, distribute, mail, import, or speak any

communication that could be perceived as promoting or inciting 'hate'

against 'identifiable groups,'" which includes homosexuals. "Everyone who,

by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully

promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of ... an

indictable offence," the law says. Punishment includes imprisonment for up

to two years. Although an exemption was made in the law for religious

groups, Christians in Canada fear courts will close the loophole, since

the exemption only applies if a person expresses his religious opinion "in

good faith."

 

Vincent stated that "at least one Saskatchewan court has already held that

certain Bible passages expose homosexuals to hatred."

 

In light of the passage of C-250, at least one attorney in Canada is

advising churches to consider "avoiding public criticisms of identifiable

groups" and "limiting opinions to private conversations."

 

If churches followed that legal advice, it would appear to sound the death

knell for Christian witness in Canada. But then, it also appears to be

what homosexual activists want. Those who have come out of the closet want

to start stuffing Christians into a closet of their own .

 

 

*************************************************************

--

Charles W. Moore

Barquentine Ventures Newsfeatures

email moonlight@myrealbox.com

 

 

And in the U.S.  …

 

LifeSiteNews.com

Wednesday March 22, 2006

 

San Francisco City Government Calls Catholics 'Hateful,

Discriminatory, Insulting, Ignorant'

 

Top Cardinal is "decidedly unqualified", says resolution

 

By John-Henry Westen

 

SAN FRANCISCO, March 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In one of the most

startling attacks on the Catholic Church coming from a governmental body

in the United States in half a century, the governing body of the city of

San Francisco - the Board of Supervisors - voted unanimously Tuesday to

approve a non-binding resolution blasting the Catholic Church for its

opposition to homosexual adoption.

 

While many city's residents agree with the Church's stand against

homosexual adoption, the resolution stated "It is an insult to all

San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles

with and attempts to negatively influence this great city's existing and

established customs and traditions, such as the right of same-sex couples

to adopt and care for children in need."

 

The city supervisors levelled an ad hominem attack on former San

Francisco Archbishop William Levada, who has been appointed to head

the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), one of the most

senior posts in the Church.  " Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified

representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco

and the values they hold dear,'' the resolution stated.

 

The supervisors also demonstrated their childishness as they

attempted another dig at the Cardinal by indicating in the resolution that

the CDF was once known as the Office of the Inquisition.  "That the Board

of Supervisors urges Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity as head of

the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican (formerly

known as Holy Office of the Inquisition), to withdraw his discriminatory

and defamatory directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San

Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual

households," reads the resolution.

 

The resolution attacked the teaching of the Catholic Church that

homosexual adoption does "violence" to children since they would be

placed in an environment that is not conducive to their full human

development.  The resolution blasted the teaching as "hateful and

discriminatory rhetoric (that) is both insulting and callous, and

shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been

encountered by this Board of Supervisors.''

 

Demonstrating their own profound ignorance, at least in terms of

biological realities, the supervisors contend, "Same-sex couples are just

as qualified to be parents as are heterosexual couples."

 

Concluding, the board urged current San Francisco "Archbishop

Neiderauer and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San

Francisco to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada."