The world's hatred...

"If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. Remember the word I spoke to you, 'No slave is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me also hates my Father. If I had not done works among them that no one else ever did, they would not have sin; but as it is, they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But in order that the word written in their law might be fulfilled, 'They hated me without cause.' "When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me. And you also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning." (John 15: 18-27).


By clicking on the link contained within the title to this post, you will be taken to a LifeSite News article detailing what is happening to freedom of religion and freedom of expression in Canada. As the article explains, the Canadian government is now attempting to silence any and all moral opposition to homosexuality:

"Most disturbingly, says [Alberta Pastor] Boissoin, is that the ruling calls for him to "cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals." Boissoin wondered to what extent the right to freedom of expression in Canada will be deteriorated, stating, "I am not allowed to hold on to my views."

My response to this crisis and specifically the persecution of Father Alphonse de Valk at the hands of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which I have submitted to The Pilot:

Has the Canadian Human Rights Commission forgotten the legacy of John Humphrey?

In its zeal to criminalize any and all moral opposition to homosexuality, it would appear that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which has the full power and prestige (such as it is) of the Canadian government behind it, has forgotten the legacy of a great Canadian: John Humphrey. Mr. Humphrey served as the Director of the Human Rights Division in the Secretariat’s Department of Social Affairs. And it was his 400-page draft outline which served as the blueprint for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. Without a single exception, representatives of the world’s nations, had passed Resolution 217A, thereby approving this Universal Declaration. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provided the basis for the model on which the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was built. This document, also known simply as the Charter, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada.

Ignoring Article 18 of the UDHR which states that, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and to "manifest his religion or belief (in public or private) in teaching, practice, worship and observance," the Canadian Human Rights Commission has decided to investigate Father Alphonse de Valk, a Basilian priest and pro-life activist who has had the audacity to defend the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and marriage while drawing upon such subversive literature as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Encyclical Letters of Pope John Paul II.

The Commission is using section 13-1 of Canada’s Human Rights Act to investigate Fr. de Valk. The section reads, "It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part, by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."

Is the Canadian Human Rights Commission prepared to suggest that the official teaching of the Catholic Church relative to the issues of homosexuality and marriage engenders an environment which is "likely to expose" homosexual persons to "hatred or contempt"? Granted that section one of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause because it provides for the government to legally limit an individual’s Charter rights, has been used to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech and obscenity. But it must be remembered that in the landmark freedom of expression decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, the Court was simply upholding the Criminal Code of Canada provision which prohibits the willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group.

The key phrase here is "the willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group." Anyone even remotely familiar with Catholic teaching (and this apparently does not include members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission) knows full well that the Catholic Church rejects any and all hatred which is directed toward the homosexual person: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided..." Hardly a hate manifesto.

Under Canadian law, in order for an individual’s right to be limited, in this case Fr. de Valk’s right to freedom of religion and/or freedom of expression, the onus is on the crown to show two things. First, that on the balance of probabilities, the limitation was prescribed by law. That is, the law is in compliance with the values of accessibility and intelligibility; and second, that the limit on the individual’s right is justified in a free and democratic society. This means that it must have a justifiable purpose and it must be proportional.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has no case against Fr. de Valk. Rather than striving to cater to radical homosexual activist groups and their anti-Christian agenda to silence any and all moral opposition to homosexuality, the Commission should reflect carefully on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

As we approach the sixtieth anniversary of the United Nation’s proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, what better way to honor the very idea of universal human rights and freedoms while simultaneously honoring the memory of a Canadian human rights champion?