The Problems with Bill C-250

1. Sexual Orientation is not defined. For instance, is pedophilia a “sexual orientation”? Can a citizen be imprisoned for advocating prison sentences for sexual predators? (See Appendix 1)

2a) Hatred is not is not statutorily defined. But the Supreme Court of Canada has defined it as connoting an emotion of intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 397. Is vilification and detestation of homosexual acts considered “hate”? Where does this leave the bible in relation to hate legislation in light of texts like Romans 1:24-27? Will the bible be banned in Canada as hate literature?

2b) Hatred is a highly speculative judgment. What is understood as hatred to some people is considered criticism to others. Many of our opponents have labeled opposition to Bill C-250 or rational criticism of homosexuality “hatred”. (See Appendix 2)

3. There is no language regarding the intent to cause harm. Without the requirement to prove a defendant’s intent to cause harm, anyone who might genuinely care for a person with homosexual inclinations can be convicted for their criticisms of the lifestyle or even their recommendations of therapy.

4. There is no provision for a non-religious defense. Subsection 319(2) provides an exemption from conviction by referring to a religious text. But what if a citizen appeals to Anthropology, Science, Anatomy, Natural Law or mere personal conviction without reference to a religious text? There is no provision for a defense on these bases.

5. There is no protection for health professionals who counsel and speak out against the destructive homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual activity has been long acknowledged to be very unhealthy. Yet, this legislation will stifle legitimate debate and discovery in the medical community. Not only will it lead to possible criminal convictions against doctors, but their professional associations might threaten them with sanctions and dismissal if they do not abide by the law (See Appendix 3).

6. Citing a religious text does not exempt a citizen from prosecution under the legislation. Although there is an exemption from conviction under Section 2 which deals with “promotion of hatred” (no defense can be used unless a religious text is cited), there is no such defense at all under Section 1 which deals with “incitement of hatred”. Technically, therefore, there is no real protection for those who appeal to a religious text. The prosecutor will simply by-pass Section 2 and indict the offender under Section 1.

7. The definition of “incitement of hatred” in Section 1 is purposely designed to intimidate and suppress freedom of speech. The legislation says that if the incitement “is likely to lead to a breach of the peace”, a citizen would be convicted. “Breach of the peace” can simply mean upsetting a group of homosexual activists whose peace has been breached!

8. The Bill is a political ploy to silence dissent from the Gay Agenda. The Bill is being proposed at a time where judicial activism is out of control. Because the judiciary in Canada is determined to re-engineer the social structure of society (as evidenced, for instance, by its destruction of the traditional definition of marriage), this legislation will be used as an intimidation ploy to silence people of faith, particularly Christians. Sympathetic judges and a zealous prosecutors could easily result in widespread religious persecution which has already started in earnest (See Appendix 4).

Appendix 1 – Bill C-250 Criminal Code Amendment

Adds “sexual orientation” to the phrase “identifiable group” in Subsection 318(4). This will mean that anyone who incites hatred against those with a sexual orientation would be indictable under Section 319 which reads as follows:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Appendix 2 – Hate for Thee But not for Me

  • In November, 2001, Senator Mobina Jaffer accused her fellow Senators of “giving comfort to those who hate” and attempting to use “faith to mask hatred” when they arose in the Senate to speak in favour of an act re-affirming the definition of marriage.
  • In September 2002, MP John Bryden was publicly accused of issuing a venomous and hateful tirade when he released a statement outlining his reasons for not supporting same-sex marriage.
  • Elizabeth Birch, director of Human Rights Campaign, has said that endorsing reparative therapy for gays and lesbians or even saying that gays and lesbians have a choice about their sexual orientation is “hateful”. Yet there are many former gays and lesbians in Canada who say that they did have a choice and they changed.
  • One of the leading websites advocating same-sex marriage,, has a section with comments such as “Rome is where the hate is” with reference to the Vatican.
  • In August 2003, the Irish Council of Civil Liberties warned priests in Ireland that distributing the Vatican issued statement on same-sex marriage issued in July 2003 could be a violation of the Irish Incitement to Hatred Act. Clearly the document constitutes religious expression on the subject of sexual morality

    Source: Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

Appendix 3 – Specific Medical Consequences of Homosexual Behaviour

A) Mental Health

Two extensive studies in the Jan. 2001 issue of the American Medical Association’s Archives of General Psychiatry : confirm a STRONG link between homosexual sex and suicide, and emotional and mental problems (Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders, ” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001))

An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The DUTCH have been MORE ACCEPTING of same-sex relationships than any other Western country and same-sex marriage is legal. The HIGH rate of psychiatric disorders associated with homosexual behaviour in the Netherlands CANNOT be attributed to social rejection and homophobia (Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders, ” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001))

Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the study, males who had ANY homosexual contact within that time period were more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. (Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders, ” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001))

B) Physical Health

Medical and social evidence indicates that men having sex with men leads to GREATER health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. Anal sex, as a sexual behaviour, is associated with significant and life-threatening health problems. The fragility of the anus and rectum make anal sex a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among homosexuals as a result of anal sex is alarming (Anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Herpes simplez virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Gonorrhea, viral hepatitus types B & C, Syphilis) (Anne Rompalo, “Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men,” Medical Clinics of North America, 74 (6) Nov. 1990)

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexuals and homosexuals, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity.

C) Life Span

An epidemiological study from Vancouver of data tabulated between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveal that homosexuals lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. The study concluded that the probability of a 20-year-old gay man living to 65 was only 32%, compared to 78% for men in general (cigarette smokers lose on average about 13 years of life expectancy and look at the campaigns we have against smoking) (R.S. Hogg, S.A. Strathdee, et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661 (1997))

D) Levels of Promiscuity

A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75% of white gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime. (Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualties: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978)

By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men curtailed promiscuity but not by much – instead of more than 6 partners/month in 1982, they had about 4 partners/month in 1984 (Leon Mckusick, et al., Reported Changes in the Sexual Behaviour of Men at Risk for AIDS, San Francisco, 1982-84, Public Health Reports, 100(6): 622-629 December 1985)

In more recent years, the U.S. Centres for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994-97 the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 24 to 33 percent. (Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among men who have sex with men – San Francisco, California, 1994-1997, Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48 (03): 45-48, p. 45 January 1999)

Appendix 4 – Persecution Against Christians in Canada

  • Scott Brockie, a conscientious born-again Christian and owner of a Toronto print shop, refused a request from gay rights activist Ray Brilliger to print material for the Canadian Lesbians and Gay Archives. Mr. Brockie found himself hauled before the Ontario Human Rights Board who ordered Mr. Brockie to pay $5,000 in damages to Ray Brilliger. While Heather McNaughton, the adjudicator assigned to this case, acknowledged the sincerity of Mr. Brockie’s religious convictions in her ruling dated February 24th, 2000, she nevertheless stated: “In fact nothing in my order will prevent Brockie from continuing to hold and practice his religious beliefs. Brockie remains free to hold his religious beliefs and to practice them in his Christian community.” Mr. Brockie has recently been denied court costs amounting to $40,000. He is now liable for these and other costs.
  • On June 15th, 2001, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Board of Inquiry fined Hugh Owens, an evangelical Protestant, and the Saskatoon Star Phoenix $1,500 for violating the equality rights of three gay men. Mr. Owen’s crime? He expressed his opinion on gay and lesbians sex through an advertisement in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix. This advertisement consisted of a pictograph of two men holding hands superimposed with a circle and slash- the symbol of something forbidden-and a list of Bible verses condemning the practice of homosexuality. While Mr. Owens is currently appealing this ruling, if he loses and still refuses to comply with the Board of Inquiry, he will potentially find himself charged with contempt of court. If convicted, he will likely find himself consigned to jail as the first prisoner of conscience in the war between sexual and religious pluralism.
  • In May 2002, in an Oshawa area high school, Mr. Marc Hall invited his boyfriend to his Catholic High School prom. In keeping with the traditional principles of Catholic moral theology, the Catholic school board prohibited Hall from bringing the boyfriend to the graduation dance. Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion came to naught as the civil courts ruled that the Catholic school had discriminated against the rights of Marc Hall. His defense attorney has since been promoted to the Ontario Superior Court.
  • In May 2002, Chris Kempling, a 13-year teacher and counselor in the public school system in BC, was declared guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the BC College of Teachers by the College (BCCT). Kempling was reprimanded and suspended for writing letters to the editor, objecting to the promotion of the homosexual agenda in the public school system as well as for writing unpublished research essays, and private letters to his supervisors and elected officials. The College declared that “everything that you have written in its entirety is derogatory and discriminatory,” even though some information was merely quoting previously published research data. Kempling, who holds two masters degrees and an almost complete doctorate in psychology, objected to the use of Xtra West, a BC homosexual activist newspaper, which has obscene and vulgar classified ads, as a recommended classroom resource. (, Jun 7.02)
  • 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 (, Nov.22.02)

Around the World…(from CCRL)

  • Last fall, the Rt. Reverend Dr. Peter Forster, Anglican Bishop of Chester, England was investigated under hate crimes legislation and reprimanded by the local Chief Constable for observing that some people can overcome homosexual inclinations and “reorientate” themselves. (The Telegraph, 10/11/03)
  • In January of this year a Swedish Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green was prosecuted for “hate speech against homosexuals” for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality. (Kyrkans Tidning, 01/11/04)
  • Belgian Cardianal Gustaaf Joos faces a lawsuit under that country’s discrimination laws for his remarks about the nature of homosexuality and the Church’s teaching published in a Belgium magazine. (, 01/26/04)
  • Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela of Madrid is facing a suit in Spain for preaching against homosexuality in a homily he gave in the Madrid Cathederal on the feast of the Holy Family. (Washington Post, 01/03/04)
  • In Ireland, clergy and bishops were warned that the distribution of the Vatican’s publication on public recognition of same-sex relationships could face prosecution under Irish incitement to hatred legislation. (The Irish Times, 07/02/03)

Leave a Reply

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

Solve : *
23 ⁄ 23 =