Attacks on Freedom of Conscience

Religious persecution in Canada is now a sad reality. As our country descends more and more into a decadent culture, Christians and other people of faith and conscience will be confronted with tyrannical laws and commissions which seek to impose their twisted ideologies on hard working Canadians. Here are some examples:

  • PORT COQUITLAM, BC, November 30, 2005 ( – A member of the Knights of Columbus who is in charge of renting the fraternity’s hall for weddings and other events alleges he was fired from his day job at Costco for his involvement in denying two lesbians the facility for their same-sex “wedding.”  The human rights case in which the lesbian couple successfully sued the Knights of Columbus over the denial of the hall made international headlines. (see coverage: ) David Hauser told in an exclusive interview that Tracey Smith, one of the lesbians involved in the human rights complaint against the Knights, was also a co-worker of his at Costco. Hauser related that Smith and many of the management at the Port Coquitlam warehouse were openly homosexual. He related that for months before Smith and her same-sex partner approached his wife for the hall rental, these same individuals had been asking him about his involvement with the hall, and knew that he was in charge of bookings. “In retrospect, they picked a time when they knew I would be at work to call my wife Sandra, who shows the hall when I am unavailable,” Hauser said. He is convinced the entire fiasco was orchestrated before the event.  However, in the human rights complaint against the Knights the lesbian couple claimed they did not realize the hall was affiliated with the Catholic Church. Tracey’s partner, Deborah Chymyshyn, claimed to the Vancouver Sun in November that, “If they would have let us know up front who they were, we probably would have never even gone there.” Terry Kidwell, State Deputy of the B.C. Knights of Columbus, told in an interview Dec.12 that Chymyshyn “said that ‘she just happened to be driving around and saw the sign'” for the rental of the hall. “Well, that’s a dead end street,” Kidwell said. He indicated “you don’t just happen to drive around” and find that hall and that one would have to deliberately drive to that location and stop to see the small 8 1/2 X 11 sign on the door. “You can’t see it from the street,” Kidwell stated, adding “You would have had to get out of your car and go right up to the hall to see the sign. There is not a great big sign saying, ‘hall for rent.'” A big question therefore is how the two women would actually have known that the hall was for rent. All of this appears to support Hauser’s contention that the two women knew about the hall and its connection to the Knights and their Catholic co-worker’s involvement prior to their visit to the location. Kidwell says these questions were probably not brought up in the human rights trial against the Knights because the focus of the defence was that, “because of our core religious beliefs we were entitled to not rent the hall to them.” Hauser said he and his wife were not initially aware of the couple’s intention to wed each other, because the two had vaguely referred to a “wedding” without saying it was their own that they were planning. Hauser did not suspect anything when he read the names on the rental agreement, because he only knew Tracey at work by her first name. Hauser alleges, “They [Smith and Chymyshyn] knew exactly what they were doing.” The three-acre parcel where the Knight’s hall is situated is also the location of Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic Church and Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic School. “There’s a huge cross on that Church,” Hauser said. “There’s a huge picture of the Pope in the hall . . . there’s no way they didn’t know we were connected to the Church.” (see coverage: ) Hauser was fired from Costco November 3, 2004 – one year and two days after Smith and her same-sex partner Deborah Chymyshyn rented the hall. Hauser’s very openly gay boss, Mike Checko, and a friend of Smith’s, fired Hauser. Hauser contends that his firing was completely without cause. He said his letter of release cited “violence in the workplace,” allegedly committed in early August 2004. Hauser related that he and his wife were on vacation for two weeks during the early to mid-weeks of August. Another homosexual co-worker alleged in writing that Hauser had said he wanted to meet a fellow worker outside after work for a brawl. “The workplace was absolute trouble for me – the manager of the 225 employee Costco warehouse constantly badgered me about it [the hall issue].” Hauser said the homosexuals in management at the store “constantly tried to lure him into arguments.” Hauser’s claims to unfair treatment are supported by other former supervisors at Costco.  One letter, from co-worker Jared Gilles who was also Hauser’s former supervisor, dated August 4, 2004, said, “In my view, Dave was sunk before all this ever happened. Our management isn’t open and objective towards him,” Gilles explained. “They get hourly [employees] to write hearsay letters of certain instances – whether it’s true or not and whether they are witnesses or not. Dave’s guilty because he’s blacklisted. People can just write letters about people they don’t like and if management doesn’t like you, you’re in trouble. No one will support Dave’s views, whether he’s done something or not.” “He told me to watch out because this guy was after you from the day you walked in,” Hauser added.Events at Costco following Hauser’s firing suggest that there was some problem with the supervisor who fired Hauser.  Checko was demoted two weeks after Hauser’s firing, “from a $120,000 per year position, to a checkout clerk,” Hauser said. On November 23, 2004, Human Resources Canada, after initially refusing Hauser’s claim for employment insurance payments, responded to Hauser’s appeal of the refusal. After HRC asked for clarification from Costco, a letter was returned that stated a different reason for Hauser dismissal that the one given on his dismissal letter. “[Costco’s] statement contradicts the letter of dismissal,” stated L. Bell, an insurance benefit officer with HRC, in a letter in Hauser’s possession. “In the letter of November 3, 2004, the employer states that the employee was dismissed because of an incident that occurred in August. The incident involved allegations of threats made by the claimant to a co-worker. The employer has not provided detail of the alleged incident.” “Given the lack of clarification from the employer, we’ll conclude that the claimant was dismissed due to a series of minor incidents. Some of the incidents may have been genuine violations of company policy, but there is also a sense that there was some friction between the claimant and the employer. Fault is sometimes difficult to define, but it is often mutual. Clearly the employer was not happy with the claimant, and although the violations of company policy may or may not have been genuine, there is an indication that they were looking for reasons to terminate his employment. It is not even clear what the final incident was that ultimately led to the claimant’s dismissal and therefore we cannot conclusively prove there was misconduct involved in the final incident. Under the circumstances, we have no choice but to allow the claim.” Hauser further explained that he “was fighting a 90-day demotion for allegedly driving a fork-lift at a guy’s head,” in June-August of 2004. “I should have been arrested for something like that,” Hauser said. “I got three fellows to write statements who had seen the whole thing. I then went to the regional manager, Patrick Noon – Mike Checko’s boss.” The suspension was over-ruled by Costco’s regional office. “The day I walked in [Checko] wanted me out,” Hauser emphasized. “It went on and on – he treated me terribly. When Hauser went into work the day after the two women were told that they could not have the hall, Hauser says Checko ordered him to re-book the hall for then, stating, “Get those people back in there now!” In the end, claims Hauser, “he fired me for kicking them out [of the K of C hall].” Hauser said he had hoped his 14 years at Costco would lead to life-long employment. “The company is doing very well,” he said. Because of the circumstances of his firing, Hauser has been unable to find other work. “It’s hard to get a job when your reference letter says you were fired for violence in the workplace,” he said. He has focused on home painting, something he did part-time to support his stay-at-home wife and three young children before. His business is called “Passion for Painting.” Hauser, who initially re-financed his mortgage after the job loss, faces the prospect of losing his home if nothing changes in the next few months. “It’s pretty degrading and humiliating for Sandra and I . . . and all for that cause.” Michael A. Wagner, the lawyer representing Mike Checko, had his office call to say Checko was unable for comment.Several calls put into Costco for comment were not returned. Calls placed to Costco’s lawyers were also not returned.
  • RED DEER, Alberta, September 2, 2005 ( – Currently Reverend Stephen Boissoin, a young Albertan pastor who spearheads a youth ministry that makes hundreds of weekly contacts with at-risk youth, is in the process of learning Arabic so he can better minister to the many Muslim youth who he says come to his centers. And with two children of his own, in addition to his full-time ministry, he repeatedly remarked during an interview with that he just doesn’t have a lot of time on his hands. But increasingly these days the young pastor’s thoughts are set on preparing for his Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) hearing that he says will likely be heard in October. Without the money to pay for legal representation, Stephen has no other alternative but to prepare his own defense. “I know nothing about human rights case law,” he says. “I’m trying to learn. Understand this, I work every single day, have two kids…and right in the middle of that I’m trying to learn human rights law. So, I’ll be very happy when it’s over.” The only problem with that, he points out, is that when it’s all over he may very well be in prison. Boissoin is being hauled before the Human Rights Commission to answer to a complaint filed by Darren Lund, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary. Lund made his complaint after Boissoin published a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, in which he denounced homosexuality as immoral and dangerous, and called into question new gay-rights curriculums permeating the province’s educational system. In that letter to the editor, Boisson lamented that “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.” Boissoin, who is himself no stranger to the dangers of homosexual and bi-sexual activity, since many of the youth he works with fall into that category, repeatedly expressed his concern that behaviour that is dangerous, and sometimes fatal, is being presented as normative and even healthy to the most impressionable. “I was just writing a letter to the editor, to the heterosexual population,” he says, “saying this is something to be very, very concerned about.” For expressing that view, however, Boissoin has been called a “bigot” and a “hate-mongerer”, and worse. Darren Lund has likened the young pastor to Terry Long of Aryan Nation, a local white supremacist, and James Keegstra, a holocaust denier. Should Boissoin lose the hearing with the Human Rights Tribunal, he will be forced to pay $7000 in fines. $5000 will go to Darren Lund personally, and another $2000 will go to the rabidly pro-gay-rights group EGALE Canada, which has received large sums of money in the past from the federal government for its court challenges. In addition, Lund has requested that Boissoin be forced to apologize to his readers in another letter to be published in the Red Deer Advocate. Boissoin, however, says that he will not pay those fines, nor will he apologize, even should that mean prison. He is not hopeful about the outcome. A few days ago, he says, he met with an officer of the Human Rights Commission, who indicated that in publishing his letter Boissoin had gone against the “position” of the Commission. “According to what they have decided is the law, I will probably be found guilty,” he admits. Nevertheless, the pastor is carefully preparing for the hearing, asking a number of witnesses to come forward and speak on his behalf. “I feel almost too humble to say this, to be honest with you,” he says about those who are willing to come out in his defense, “but they say they’ve worked with me, and they’ve seen my devotion to teens, bi-sexual and homosexual alike, and they’re hurt that I can be fined, and potentially, if I don’t pay these fines, I can be imprisoned.” “I’m ok with whatever the outcome is,” he concludes. “I’m just going to trust God. I’ve been through a lot in my life…I’m just going to trust Him. He may have me speaking just before the panel and judges and it may touch someone’s heart and minister to them. I’m just going to go in humble, and leave the outcome to God.”
  • SASKATOON, SK, May 18, 2005 ( – A Saskatchewan man has been charged and ordered to pay $17,500 in damages to several homosexuals as a result of a flyer he distributed in Regina, containing warnings against the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle that a human rights tribunal ruled was “hate speech.” On May 2, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ordered William Whatcott to pay homosexual Guy Taylor $2,500 and $5,000 each to homosexuals Brenden Wallace, James Komar and Kathy Hamre for damages. The four had sued Whatcott for a flyer he had distributed in mailboxes between September 2001 and April 2002 for what they considered “hate speech.” “I believe homosexuality activity is a sin,” Whatcott said, according to a CP report. “To give me a $17,500 fine and say I can’t say that is quite frankly garbage and is not something I am going to abide by. If I have to sit in jail for the rest of my life, I am not going to be quiet.” Quotes found to convict him included, “Our children will pay the price in disease, death, abuse…if we do not say no to the sodomite desire to socialize your children into accepting something that is clearly wrong,” and “Sodomites are 430 times more likely to acquire AIDS and 3 times more likely to sexually abuse children!” Whatcott added bible verses referring to homosexuality such as the following: “The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination,” and “Sodom and Gomorrah was given over completely to homosexual perversion and as a result destroyed by God’s wrath.” Whatcott argued in his own defence that “he had himself engaged in homosexual acts and that the Lord had set him free,” according to court testimony. He added that “only 2% of homosexuals were monogamous or semi-monogamous, while 43% of male homosexuals estimate having had sex with 500 or more different partners, and 28% of male homosexuals estimate having sex with 1,000 or more different partners.” See CP coverage:…

  • CALGARY, March 30, 2005 ( – A supporter of same-sex marriage is using the human rights process to take away Bishop Fred Henry’s right to freedom of religion and free speech.  Despite the Catholic Church’s established role in preparing men and women for marriage and conducting religious marriage ceremonies between men and women, it appears that supporters of same-sex marriage do not want religious leaders to be part of the debate on this issue.  Bishop Frederick Henry wrote a letter to the Catholics in his Diocese in January, 2005 outlining the opposition of the Catholic Church to same-sex marriages (see coverage ).  Bishop Henry called on Catholics to talk to their political representatives and express their opposition to legislation to change the definition of marriage to allow persons of same-sex to marry.  A Complaint filed with the Alberta Human Rights Commission alleges that Bishop Henry’s letter discriminates against homosexuals.  Bishop Henry filed a response to the Complaint on March 29, 2005 saying in part: “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 favour 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.” Bishop Henry points out that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are important rights too.  They are fundamental to Canadian democracy.  Bishop Henry feels compelled to stand up for these fundamental rights on behalf of all religions in Canada.  In comments to Bishop Henry noted, “If the Human Rights Complaint is successful, it will prevent me from expressing my views and the position of the Roman Catholic Church.  It prevents me and other Church leaders from speaking out freely in opposition to same-sex marriage.  It also prevents me from outlining the position of the Roman Catholic Church to those who attend church in my Diocese.” Several calls to the Alberta Human Rights Commission were not returned by press time.
  • REGINA, February 3, 2005 ( – A second Saskatchewan marriage commissioner has filed a complaint with the provincial Human Rights Commission after being told he must perform same-sex “weddings” or resign. Regina Marriage Commissioner Orville Nichols added his complaint today to that of Prince Albert commissioner Bruce Goertzen, who filed his complaint Friday. Nichols argues that, although marriage commissioners are technically self-employed, the province actually prescribes the fees set, the location and hours of work, so commissioners are in reality employees of the province. As such, commissioners are entitled to protection from human rights violations, as are all employees in the province. “It is my contention that Justice Minister Mr. Frank Quennell is in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when he refused to make provisions for the freedom of religion for myself and other Marriage Commissioners,” Nichols’ complaint states. “Same-sex couples would not face an unreasonable burden if they initially came across a marriage commissioner who was unwilling to perform a marriage ceremony for them,” Nichols argues. “A couple may phone a marriage commissioner and find they are not able to perform a ceremony for any number reasons.” “My religious beliefs have not been hidden from anyone. As a person who performs a duty for the residents of Saskatchewan, I respectfully request that my religious beliefs be upheld, in the same manner as others would expect their views to be upheld.” Meanwhile Goertzen also contends that forcing commissioners to toe the line or resign is a violation of his human rights. “I don’t deny other people have rights too, but when you give one person a right, you shouldn’t take a right away from another,” he said, according to an Edmonton Sun report. “I contend that this order by the Justice Department discriminates against my freedom of religion and therefore is a violation of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, not to mention a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Goertzen’s complaint stated. Saskatoon Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott said in January that the government should be willing to accommodate the religious convictions of its marriage commissioners, as prescribed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. “You’ve got specifically the conscience right and religion right that are very explicit (in the charter),” Vellacott said. See related coverage:
    Saskatchewan Commissioners Resigning or Refusing to “Marry” Homosexuals
  • VANCOUVER, January 26, 2005 ( – When the Supreme Court of Canada declined to rule against changing the definition of marriage, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops praised and thanked the Court for not forcing them to officiate at gay nuptials. Other groups, however, were not so optimistic about the Supreme Court’s generosity in declining to engage directly in the persecution of Christians. Campaign Life Coalition called the ruling a ‘disaster.’ Mary Ellen Douglas, National Organizer for CLC said, “One wonders when even these (religious) freedoms will be compromised by judicial activism.” Canadian Catholics did not have to wait long for the test case. The CBC reported Tuesday that two lesbians are in the process of an action against the Catholic men’s organization, the Knights of Columbus, for refusing to rent them a hall for their same-sex ‘wedding’ reception. In 2003, Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith rented a Knights of Columbus hall in Port Coquitlam. When the Knights became aware that it was to be for a homosexual couple, they cancelled the booking. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal began hearing their case on Monday and a ruling is expected tomorrow. Despite the fulsome praise from some Canadian bishops, it is notable that the Supreme Court offered no protection for non-clerical objectors. Thus, Christian groups such as the Knights of Columbus and the Catholic Women’s League, not being priests who are asked to officiate, are just as vulnerable as always to gay activist attacks in the courts and Human Rights Tribunals. Thus far, Canada’s judicial courts and extra-judicial Human Rights Tribunals have maintained a near-perfect record of finding against Christians’ right to freedom of religion over gay activist demands. In an unusually strong editorial today, the National Post warned that a victory by the lesbian couple “would set the province – and indeed, the entire country – down a very dangerous path.” The editorial noted that “Those who seek to humble traditional religion in this country in the name of radical identity politics know just what they are doing.” That “doing,” explained the Post, is to deny religious organizations the freedom to discriminate and choose what they believe to be moral or immoral. The editorial concluded, “for that right to be taken away even before gay marriage has been enshrined in federal law would be an immensely dark omen.”
  • REGINA, January 5, 2005 ( – Eight Saskatchewan marriage commissioners have resigned because of new laws requiring them to “marry” same-sex couples, according to Justice Minister Frank Quennell. Three others said they would go to court if they were fired for refusing to “marry” same-sex couples, according to Saskatoon Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott. If same-sex couples are refused “marriage” by a commissioner, the complaint will be reviewed by the Justice Department, Quennell said Tuesday, as reported by the Saskatchewan News Network. “We’d have to investigate the circumstances and potentially remove their power to perform civil marriages because they weren’t willing to administer the law as it stands,” he said.
    Vellacott said the government should be willing to accommodate the religious convictions of its marriage commissioners, as prescribed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. “You’ve got specifically the conscience right and religion right that are very explicit (in the charter),” Vellacott said. Regina marriage commissioner Orville Nichols said he would sue the government rather than resign if challenged for refusing to officiate at a same-sex “marriage.” “I will definitely not resign,” Nichols said. “If something like this happens, I’m prepared to go to court . . . We got a letter from them saying that we must do it and if we don’t, we’re breaking the law and we could lose our commission appointment.” “My definition of marriage is opposite — male and female — not two males and two females,” Nichols emphasized. “That’s why I oppose it.”
  • WINNIPEG, November 12, 2004 ( – Federal Conservative MP Vic Toews charged Thursday that the Manitoba government’s policy of forcing its marriage commissioners to perform same-sex “weddings” or resign is discriminatory and in violation of the province’s human rights code.
    “Why should these individuals be discriminated against?” he said, as reported by the Winnipeg Sun. He said that commissioners who refuse to perform the ceremonies for religious reasons should be given that freedom. “As a matter of law they’re entitled to carry out their functions without this kind of threat.” Toews is justice critic for the federal Conservative Party of Canada. Toews compared firing marriage commissioners for refusing to do something contrary to their religious beliefs with forcing orthodox Jews to work on Saturday. Since Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Douglas Yard overturned the province’s marriage laws in September, 11 commissioners have resigned. Toews has asked Manitoba Justice Minister Gord Mackintosh to change the policy. If there is no action from Mackintosh, Toews plans to take the issue to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. A former marriage commissioner, Les Magnusson, who resigned after justice Yard’s ruling, said commissioners should be given the choice to perform or refuse the services. “If they want to have a union between gay people that’s fine, but it’s not a marriage as far as I’m concerned,” he said.
  • OSHAWA, June 9, 2004 ( – The Durham Catholic District School Board (DCDSB) has issued a clarification of its position in the Marc Hall case after the airing of the made-for-TV movie which it says “took serious liberties with reality.” In the spring of 2002, Marc Hall, a grade 12 student at Msgr. John Pereyma Catholic Secondary School in Oshawa, won a court battle that forced the Durham Catholic District School Board to allow him to bring his homosexual date to the prom. After winning his battle to bring his male “partner” to the prom, Hall is suing the Board for $100,000 with the help of Ontario Health Minister and homosexual activist George Smitherman. In a press release, the DCDSB gives the date on which the trial will begin: October 11, 2004. “We are a Catholic School Board offering education that authentically and fully reflects the teachings of the Catholic Church. This is a matter of freedom of religion and of conscience,” said Mary Ann Martin, Chair of the Board. “It is also our constitutional right,” she added. Mrs. Martin went on to say, “We welcome and foster respect and compassion for all persons regardless of race, creed, religious or sexual orientation. The Catholic Church accepts individuals who are homosexual as persons who should be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity, like any other person. At the same time, however, the Church teaches that same-sex romantic activity is immoral. Students with a same-sex orientation are welcome in all Catholic schools, but we insist that they follow the moral teachings of the Catholic Church in school-related activities.” The case has highlighted the split within the Canadian Catholic Church and its institutions over doctrinal discipline and faithfulness to Catholic moral principles. A large number of self-professed Catholic individuals and organizations rallied to Hall’s side including the recently elected Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty; Toronto City Councillor, Joe Mihevic who served on the organizing committee of World Youth Day; then-federal Industry Minister, Allan Rock and the Ontario Catholic Teachers Union. Official representatives of the Roman Catholic Church were late and faint with their support of the Board. Mrs. Martin said that the case has to do with restricting the freedom of the Catholic Church to exercise its authority in its own schools. “To use the domestic example, a person would not go into a kosher kitchen and insist that bacon be cooked there. A person would not wear shoes in a mosque. These are meant to be places where religious norms apply to everyone. So it is with Catholic schools.” For a complete analysis of the Marc Hall case,…
  • TORONTO, April 15, 2004 ( – Christian printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000.00 in 1999 by the Ontario Human Rights Commission because he refused to print blank letterhead and envelopes for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. Brockie had printed materials for clients with homosexual inclinations, but would not print materials for the Archives because he believed the Archives further homosexual activity, which is contrary to his religious beliefs. The adjudicator claimed that Brockie was free to express his beliefs in his home or Christian community, but ordered him to provide printing services “to lesbians and gays and to organizations in existence for their benefit.” The Court of Appeal recently handed down their decision regarding the awarding of costs from Brockie’s time in the Divisional Court. Brockie was initially awarded $25,000 in costs from the Divisional Court, but the Human Rights Commission and the Archives appealed, and the Court of Appeal has reversed that earlier decision and now Brockie is on the hook for $40,000. “There is a point beyond which the conduct of judicial officers will bring the administration of justice into disrepute,” Catholic Civil Rights League spokesperson Sean Murphy said. “That point is passed when a Christian printer is ordered to produce business cards and letterhead for an organization that promotes pro-paedophilia essays, is fined $5,000.00 for having refused to do so, and is left with $40,000.00 in legal bills for daring to defend himself.” The Liberty Day Rally on Parliament Hill on 17 April is an opportunity to oppose our judicial and political elites. For details, visit Read the Interim report detailing the Ontario Human Rights Commission decision against Scott Brockie which concluded that his “rights as a Christian were subordinate to those of homosexuals not to be discriminated against,” and that “he must restrict the practice of Christianity to his home and church, and not take it with him into the public marketplace,” at:… Donations to Scott Brockie’s Defense Fund can be made at any Royal Bank branch, or mailed to Account #507-721-9, Royal Bank Branch #3132, 33 City Centre Drive, Mississauga, Ontario L5B 2N5
  • VANCOUVER, February 4, 2004 ( – The BC Supreme Court ruled yesterday to uphold the right of the BC College of Teachers to suspend Christian high school teacher and student counsellor Chris Kempling for one month, without pay. Kempling wrote letters to the editor in the local newspaper during the summer holidays of 2002 critical of homosexuality. Among his “crimes” is quoting Scripture to imply that homosexual acts do not meet with the highest standards of morality. Justice Ronald Holmes of the BC Supreme Court heard Kempling’s appeal in July of 2003 but reserved judgement until yesterday. In his statement, Justice Holmes said that Kempling’s editorial comments were “discriminatory”, and “could reasonably cause disruption to the school system.” In a letter written by Kempling to supporters in the wake of the ruling, he explains that Justice Holmes decision was reached despite the fact that there was no proof of such disruption nor were there any complaints, but rather that “All of my former administrators wrote letters stating that my public comments had no discernible impact on the operation of the school.” Kempling also writes that, contrary to Justice Holmes statement implying Kempling’s editorial comments were discriminatory and upsetting to homosexuals, “In fact, a prominent homosexual interviewed by College investigators offered no opinion that what I had written publicly was upsetting to homosexual people.” Kempling also writes that Justice Holmes “Ignored evidence that my credibility as a teacher and community leader were not impaired.” In his letter, Kempling writes of his intention to appeal the ruling to the BC Court of Appeal, but that, in order to do so, he will need financial help. To assist Kempling with his legal bills: Christian Public School Teachers’ Legal Defense Fund c/o Jim Sagert 798 Beaubien Ave Quesnel, BC V2J 1S5 Or at any branch of the Royal Bank, Transit #4720, Account #101-030-5. Read a summary of events by the BC Parents and Teachers For Life website at: Chris Kempling’s email:
  • REGINA, February 10, 2003 ( – In a ruling given virtually no media coverage, the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan, ruled that a man who placed references to Bible verses on homosexuality into a newspaper ad was guilty of inciting hatred. The December 11, 2002 decision was in response to an appeal of a 2001 Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (HRC) ruling which ordered both the Saskatoon StarPhoenix newspaper and Hugh Owens of Regina to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the Saskatoon newspaper quoting bible verses regarding homosexuality. The purpose of the ad was to indicate that the Bible says no to homosexual behaviour. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side. The symbol was comprised of two males holding hands with the universal symbol of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over top. Justice J. Barclay rejected the appeal ruling: “In my view, the Board was correct in concluding that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule. When the use of the circle and slash is combined with the passages of the Bible, it exposes homosexuals to detestation, vilification and disgrace. In other words, the Biblical passage (sic) which suggest that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred.” Janet Epp Buckingham, Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada told LifeSite that “The ruling that a verse from the Bible can be considered to expose homosexuals to hatred shows the danger for Scripture if Bill C-250 passes.” Bill, C-250, proposed by homosexual activist MP Svend Robinson would see “sexual orientation” added to hate crime law as a prohibited ground of discrimination.See the ruling online at:… HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS TRUMP RELIGIOUS RIGHTS PROVINCIAL RIGHTS COURT RULES For more information on Bill C-250 see:
  • OTTAWA, December 20, 2002 ( – The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a school board may not ban pro-homosexual propaganda books targeting children. The books must therefore be made available in the school library. However, the court did give the Board the decision to decide if the books should be in the classroom but stressed that the board must decide that question “according to the criteria laid out in the curriculum guidelines and the broad principles of tolerance and non-sectarianism underlying the School Act.” Janet Epp Buchingham, legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada – one of the interveners in the case – comments that the majority decision “indicates that religious parents are not excluded from processes regarding their children’s education but that these religious views may only be taken into consideration where they do not conflict with “tolerance and respect.” She alludes to the fact that religious parents have the right to homeschool their children or send them to private religious schools if their views differ from those of ‘tolerance and respect.'” Buckingham says: “The judgement is very strong on ‘inclusion’ and ‘tolerance and respect’ but does not indicate how this will happen for religious parents but only for same sex parents and teachers.” Mary Polak, chair of the Surrey School Board told LifeSite that while disappointed that the court found the Board’s process flawed, it was pleased with some aspects of the ruling. “The court rejected the idea that the board ignore concerns of religious parents.” She also suggested that the court decision envisions the possibility of rejecting the books from the classroom but has left the decision to be made by the seven elected representatives of the board, albeit with criteria set out by the court. The case arose when the Surrey School Board decided not to approve books promoting homosexual parents for use in kindergarten and Grade 1, largely based on the concerns of religious parents. James Chamberlain, a homosexual activist and kindergarten teacher in a Surrey school, challenged this decision in court. The judgement is available online at:…
  • RED DEER, AB, November 22, 2002 ( – Cases of harassment and economic penalties imposed upon Canadian Christians who speak out against the social, medical and spiritual dangers of homosexuality are on the rise. LifeSite has learned of two more cases of such harassment by human rights tribunals. MP Vic Toews, the Justice critic for the Canadian Alliance has called on the Manitoba Government to “immediately move to clarify the law to ensure that religious organizations are not singled out because of their moral position on homosexuality.” The Provencher MP points out that Camp Arnes, a camp on Lake Winnipeg run by the Mennonite Brethren Church of Manitoba, is facing a challenge under the Manitoba Human Rights Act for denying access to the camp to the Winnipeg Gay and Lesbian Choir. The Act says that groups or individuals cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. In a related case in Alberta, Rev. Stephen Boissoin is facing a human rights complaint brought by homosexual activist and University of Calgary professor Dr. Darren Lund. Rev. Boissoin, an outstanding citizen who for nine years ran an outreach to troubled youth that had 100-150 teens who would frequent it weekly, raised the ire of homosexual activists with a letter to the editor of a local paper which served as a wakeup call to parents regarding homosexual activism in schools. Lund accused Rev. Boissoin of hatemongering in comments to the press and when a local teen was beaten by hooligans supposedly because of his homosexual inclinations, Rev. Boissoin’s letter was blamed. Boissoin’s damaged reputation caused the loss of funding to his youth outreach which was forced to close due to lack of funds. Now Boissoin is faced with retaining a lawyer to defend himself against the human rights complaint. At least 6 mayors across the country have been reprimanded and some fined – one as much as $10,000 – for refusing to proclaim ‘gay pride day’. Ontario printer Scott Brockie was fined for refusing to print homosexual activist material, and a man (Hugh Owens) has been fined for a newspaper ad quoting the Bible on homosexuality. These and many other incidents have become part of a growing harassment of Christians in Canada over this issue. A dangerous denial of traditional democratic rights of religious belief and free speech has become pervasive.
  • STRATFORD, PEI, May 23, 2001 ( – A Christian couple from Prince Edward Island who run a bed-and-breakfast out of their family home has been forced to close down their operation and pay a fee to two male homosexuals for refusing to comply with a Human Rights Commission (HRC) order. The Charlottetown Guardian reports that Dagmar and Arnost Cepica, owners of Beach View Bed and Breakfast, must shut down their two-room bed and breakfast and pay $1,000 in damages or else submit to a pro-homosexuality seminar by the Human Rights Commission and allow practicing homosexuals to take rooms in their home. Last August, Jean Bedard and Simon Corneau, two homosexual men from Montreal filed a complaint with the Prince Edward Island HRC claiming discrimination against their sexual orientation. At the time the Cepicas explained to reporters, “That’s the custom that we are used to, and the bed is shared by people, by married people of opposite sex.” The Guardian reported that the settlement came before a final ruling from the HRC. The settlement says in part that the Christian couple “agreed to cease operating a bed and breakfast or any other tourist accommodation and pay the complainants a sum of general damages. Furthermore, if the respondent commenced to operate a tourist facility in the future, they would provide to the commission assurance of compliance with the Human Rights Act.” Greg Howard, executive director of the Human Rights Commission, expressed satisfaction with the settlement. “It was an interesting case because it was a real clash of cultures,” said Howard. “The people who operated the bed and breakfast had very strong opinions about the matters that were covered in the complaint but misguided. They honestly didn’t believe that they were in non-compliance with the human rights legislation in the province by enforcing the policy that they did.” (The Guardian May 23, 2001) See link today only:

One thought on “Attacks on Freedom of Conscience

  1. Pingback: SoCon Or Bust » Blog Archive » Totalitarianism in Canada well established by Leftists

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
30 ⁄ 15 =