Below is some history regarding militant homosexual Canadian MP Svend Robinson's agenda for Canada. Robinson, who fancies himself as the only law in Canada when it comes to demanding that sodomy be accepted by all, no questions asked or allowed, has an agenda whose sole aim is to promote vice as virtue with the filthiest of human acts being a cause for pride.
Moreover, The self-styled “Fuhrer Robinson,” who specializes in the intimidation and demonization of any who dare oppose his legislative insanity, demands that Canada confirm his promotion of the entirety of a “culture of death” running the gamut from abortion to euthanasia as praiseworthy, and to be taught to Canada’s children under force of law, regardless of the opposition of their parents, and the vast number of Canadians who adamantly oppose his lunacy.
This opposition means nothing to Robinson as it is to be summarily subjected to a political blitzkrieg by hook or by crook for no reason other than to make him comfortable with his vices.
Canadian Society is not obliged to follow Robinson’s lead, which is contrary to any concept of promoting societal common good – the primary goal of the state, and, more importantly, also contrary to both reason and the faith traditions of millennia.
Those who are speaking out against the insanity of Robinson’s promotion of unnatural, self-destructive, proven changeable aberrant behavior as a civil right are to be congratulated and encouraged. Giving a blessing to violations of the Natural Law has both natural and especially eternal supernatural consequences.
Robinson might be able to get away with changing positive law, the sorry attempt being contrary to right reason, but he cannot touch the Natural Law of God, which is invariant and immutable, and the foundation of any man-made laws if they are worth anything. Because “if anything goes,” which is Robinson’s creed in worshipping the “god in his mirror,” anarchy is the inevitable result. Who or what can Robinson appeal to when his universe of autonomous unencumbered rights conflicts with his neighbor’s in the absence of universal moral absolutes for arbitration purposes? Will he find refuge in the nothingness of the nihilistic atheistic philosophers when his survival is at stake?
Robinson and those like him will find that out either in this life or the next. - Gary L. Morella
There ought to be a public outcry in Canada against the antics of sodomite Svend Robinson regarding what he's been allowed to get away with for no reason other than to make him comfortable with his vices. Robinson's disgraceful, selfish in the extreme, intimidating behavior should cry for his impeachment by the Canadian Parliament. His irrational demands that aberrant self-destructive behavior should be the law of the land speaks to his insanity pertaining to reinventing Canada into his warped image of life where unnatural acts and baby killing are looked upon as praiseworthy.
Robinson's politics is clearly defined by a hell-bent "hedonism-at-all-costs" mentality whose only purpose is to push the envelope in regard to his "freedom as license" agenda as opposed to an authentic freedom in doing what you ought instead of what you want. The world according to Svend Robinson leads only to anarchy. What other result can there be by following his policies where any behavior, no matter how aberrant it is, is deemed OK? We're talking about the complete breakdown of civil law that ignores completely the higher law of God, which it needs to have any meaning, in particular the ignorance of the Natural Law. If all that we're left with is man-made laws that are not rooted in the absolute eternal law of God, then we're slaves to a moral relativism at the whim of whatever tyrant is in power. And clearly, the "tyrant" definition in Canada applies to Svend Robinson. Killing our children, as Robinson advocates, will inevitably lead to killing everyone who is deemed to have a "duty to die."
I wonder if Robinson would be so ready to fulfill that "duty" when the knock on his door tells him that it's time to meet the "great nothing" in an atheistic sense. Somehow, I don't believe that his kind will. They are good at making laws for the rest of us that only apply to them when it suits their convenience.
Is Svend Robinson the "dictator" of Canada in leading that country into a moral abyss from which it will never recover? What is incredible about this situation is that Robinson's arguments are so easily refutable from both reason and faith standpoints. And yet he is allowed carte blanche to spew his filthy lying agenda into public policy, no questions asked. What has happened to Canada to allow a "political thug" like Robinson to get away with moral murder to the detriment of the country's survival?
Does Canada no longer care about its future, its children, to allow the likes of a Svend Robinson to skew the laws of the land in order that he can sleep better as a sodomite? If the answer is yes, then Canada proves that it could care less about the "common good", which should be the only goal of the state, to the detriment of its citizens to especially include Robinson whose actions prove that he's incapable of rational thought in reference to that goal.
Svend Robinson's politics of selfishness instead of selflessness show a hatred for his constituents and Canada. Accordingly, he needs to be told, in no uncertain terms, that Canadian society is not obliged to cower to his lunatic demands in traveling his one way road to self destruction under force of law.
There are many "Svend Robinsons" in America today. You see them constantly in the both the print and electronic media, trumpeting loudly that affirming sodomy is a cause for pride, and that there is something "gay" about being inclined to some of the most filthy acts known to man. And if they are allowed to have carte blanche in promoting the insane lie that aberrant unnatural behavior is a civil right in an affirmative action sense, the violation of which is punishable by law, the Canadian experience will soon be repeated in our neighborhood. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves for not witnessing to the truth, which from a faith perspective, is spelled with a capital "T".
Svend Robinson and his counterparts at the Human Rights Campaign in America need to be summarily told that society is not obliged to confirm them in their vices by legitimizing the aforementioned lie. If they choose to ignore good advice to the contrary in living homosexual lifestyles, then they have the free will to do so. But when they come into the public square, and demand that the rest of us, especially our children, be forced to buy into their tripe, that's another matter, indeed. We don't have to do that.
Moreover, as rational people, we are called to expose their lies for the sake of the common good of society, which is the primary goal of the state. Laws, whether they are enforceable or not, serve as teachers, which is what the laws against sodomy are. To overturn such laws sends the message that aberrant behavior is on the fast track with no end in sight except anarchy. Who's to put a bound on what's aberrant when the unnatural become the natural? This is the ultimate in Pandora's Boxes.
Believers, in true charity, realize that genuine compassion is to alleviate an individual's distress, not contribute to it. Non-believers still capable of rational thought also see that truth. Believers, however, see the marriage between faith and reason, as they go beyond rational concerns to those of the supernatural, the most important concern of all because of the eternal consequences involved. Aquinas referred to such Divine truths knowable from reason as "preambles to the faith" in that they reinforced a faith that enables reason. The God who gave us Divine Revelation also gave us reason. Because He is God, He cannot contradict Himself, so faith and reason can never contradict each other. The "Angelic Doctor" did us a service by showing that, if certain of Divine Revelation is knowable through reason alone, why should there be doubts about the rest?
The point of all this is that pro-sodomite intimidators like Svend Robinson and the HRC are not just dismissing faith out-of-hand, but also reason. They have no logical arguments, PERIOD! That's whythey must resort to the demonization of their opponents carried now to the ultimate extreme of the threat of imprisonment, which has been their goal all along. Those who can't see that need to be asked the question, "What planet have you been living on?" Remember, this all started, with "Just leave us alone," which has evolved to "You better approve of our lifestyles, or else."
The question that I have is, "How much longer are good men going to remain silent while this destruction of civilization as we know it goes on around them?" And is their silence really evidence of their being "good men?" Won't have long to find out. The Canadian experience is a lot closer than we think. Check what's going on at your local schools and day care centers if you don't believe me.
- Gary L. Morella
An example of the "tolerance" shown by militant homosexual Canadian MP Svend Robinson for those who won't be intimidated by his insane demand that Canada make him comfortable with his vices.
Debate Over Bill adding 'Sexual Orientation' To Canadian Hate Crimes Law
Militant homosexual Canadian MP Robinson who specializes in intimidation of his opponents showed to be a hypocrite in regard to sexual orientation claims.
'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' HATE
CRIME BILL UPDATE AND QUESTIONS FOR BILL'S SPONSOR
Bombshell: Homosexual Activist
MP Revealed to Have Switched Sexual Orientation
FOCUS ON THE FAMILY ADDRESSES COMMITTEE ON HATE CRIMES
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
On behalf of Focus on the Family Canada and our many supporters across Canada, I thank you for the opportunity to express our views on Bill C-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda). I hope that our input will be helpful.
Focus on the Family
Focus on the Family Canada is a charitable organization based on Christian principles. We seek to support, encourage and strengthen Canadian families.
Although many of the Committee members are likely most familiar with our involvement in advocacy, such activities are really a very small part of what we do. Thousands of families are more familiar with our efforts to simply help families. We offer programs such as "How to Drug Proof Your Kids," a parenting course designed to help parents guide their children through the temptations of drug use, and Single Parent Camps where children and single parents both have an opportunity to relax, have fun and be encouraged.
Our Constituent Care telephone operators offer resources and provide a listening ear to thousands of Canadians each month that are facing a wide variety of family issues. In conjunction with our 20 international affiliate offices around the world we provide crisis counseling and referrals for local follow up.
This is just a small sample of the activities Focus on the Family Canada offers to all Canadians. I tell you this so you might better understand just whom Bill C-250, if passed, may impact; whose voice and activities might be restricted.
As a former Research Analyst at the Alberta Legislature I have drafted various private members' bills myself. I know they are often written with very little help and even less expectation of ever being proclaimed into law. However, they should still be written so that if they are enacted they will prove to be good legislation. That being said I have some very real concerns with this particular bill given that it has reached this stage of consideration.
Although there is no one formula for developing legislation, there are some basic questions that should be asked and addressed to ensure that any bill will make for good legislation.
1. Is the legislation needed? Does it address a significant and important concern of Canadians?
As Mr. Donald Piragoff (Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice) told this committee on February 25, 2003:
Justifying a limitation on freedom of expression imposes an evidentiary burden on government. The legal tests for justifying a limitation on a charter right requires that the government demonstrate that the objective of the legislation is pressing and substantial; that the limit on freedom of expression is rationally connected to the objective; that the provision minimally impairs freedom of expression; and that the negative effects on expression do not outweigh the positive effects achieved by the provision.
In my opinion this legislation does not meet this evidentiary burden.
Even the sponsor of the bill concedes that
statistics on hate crimes directed at gays and lesbians are scarce. The
Hate and Bias Roundtable convened by the then Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism and Status of Women, Dr. Hedy Fry, stated the same thing.
When one of my colleagues contacted a number of major police departments
across Canada asking for current statistics on hate
crimes committed against homosexuals she was told that current and accurate
statistics were unavailable.
Given that current laws prohibit actual acts of violence against homosexuals, and given the lack of substantial evidence that hate propaganda targeting homosexuals exists in Canada, it would be improper to enact legislation that has the potential to seriously restrict freedom of speech.
2. Are the terms of the legislation clear and well defined?
This bill proposes to add to the Criminal Code the term "sexual orientation," yet this phrase is not defined. Some may think the definition is obvious, but I am sure that the definition of "marriage" once was obvious to our lawmakers who believed it needed no definition. Sexual orientation seems to be a very fluid term that is constantly adding new categories such as bisexuals and transsexuals. The explanatory note accompanying the legislation does little to reduce the ambiguity of the term. It states:
This enactment expands the definition of "identifiable group" relating to the area of hate propaganda in the Criminal Code to include any section of the public distinguished by sexual orientation.
The word "any" should provide committee members some cause for concern as to what might in the future be considered by the courts as being a "section of the public distinguished by sexual orientation."
'Hate' is another term that is not clearly defined in this bill, even though the word already exists in the Criminal Code. There seems to be no consistent interpretation of 'hate', and even the Supreme Court of Canada's attempt to define the term for the purposes of the Criminal Code provides little certainty to the average Canadian on the issue. If the lines are not very clear, then Canadians face the real risk of never being sure where their freedom of expression ends.
Yet another term that is unclear is "religious subject." Most faiths, and Christianity in particular, teach that a person's faith should impact all aspects of his or her life. Therefore, if an individual expresses strong concerns about homosexual behaviour that is motivated by his or her faith, but is expressed in medical or sociological terms, is the "religious freedom" defence still available? The answer to that question is at best unclear.
When it comes to restricting a fundamental human right such as freedom of expression it is imperative that parliament ensure that the limits are clearly defined. Unfortunately Bill C-250 leaves too many terms within the bill and the sections of the Criminal Code it impacts undefined and ambiguous.
3. What are the potential unintended consequences of the legislation? Who might be negatively impacted by the legislation and how? Are there ways to limit these negative consequences?
Opponents to Bill C-250, such as ourselves, are deeply concerned with what Bill C-250 might do to religious freedom and freedom of expression of those who disapprove of homosexual behaviour. The recent track record of the courts and government agencies gives rise to that concern. The courts have simply failed to protect religious freedom against claims based on sexual orientation.
A prime example is an Ontario court ruling that simply dismissed centuries of Catholic Church doctrine regarding acceptable sexual behaviour. The injunction granted in this case forced a Catholic School board to abandon its sacred teachings and permit a student to bring his same-sex partner to the high school prom.
Another example is the case involving Scott Brockie, a Toronto area printer, who chose, for faith reasons, not to do a print job for an organization that actively promotes homosexual behaviour. Although the court did rule that Mr. Brockie could deny providing a business service if doing so offended his moral beliefs, it ruled that in this case that he should not have denied the printing services. The $5,000 fine he received from the Ontario Human Rights Commission was upheld, as the court was so bold as to determine for Mr. Brockie what was and was not offensive to his faith.
More recently a Saskatchewan court found that Hugh Owens was guilty of exposing homosexuals to hatred for simply displaying Christian Scripture references condemning homosexual behaviour along with an equal sign and the universal no symbol over two stickmen holding hands.
Government agencies have also failed to recognize religious freedom. The Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission forced the owners of a bed and breakfast to choose between allowing non-married couples to share one room and closing the business. Rather than offend their moral standards they ceased operation.
Last month the British Columbia College of Teachers found public school teacher Chris Kempling, guilty of conduct unbecoming a teacher and ordered his teaching certificate be suspended for one month. His offence? He wrote letters to the editor published in his local paper opposing the promotion of "gay friendly" curriculum materials in the school system.
Focus on the Family Canada itself was subject to this kind of treatment by the Canadian Broadcasts Standards Commission, a private broadcasters watch dog endorsed by the CRTC. In 1997 the CBSC found that an Alberta radio station broke broadcast standards when it aired one of our programs discussing the homosexual agenda in schools.
The result of these decisions, and others like them has left many Canadians wondering what they can and cannot say about the issue of homosexuality. Whether intended or not, there can be no denying the real risk Bill C-250 poses to freedom of expression and religious freedom in Canada.
In response to these concerns supporters of Bill C-250 point to the supposed defences and safeguards within the legislation. However, these provide very limited protection for the religious freedom and freedom of expression in Canada.
Bill C-250 supporters point to the protection of religious freedom found in clause 319(3)(b), where it states that, "No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." There are three weaknesses with this religious freedom defence.
First, religious freedom is already protected in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and yet the courts and government agencies have systematically rejected that freedom in favour of rights based on sexual orientation. This clause provides no assurance that this trend will not continue.
Secondly, the clause 319(3)(b) only applies to the offence described in subsection 319(2). The defence does not apply at all to the two other offences (section 318 and subsection 319(1)).
Finally, as mentioned before, the clause appears to have a narrow view of what constitutes opinion based on religious or moral beliefs.
Supporters of Bill C-250 also point the safeguard against frivolous prosecution found in subsections 318(3) and 319(6), which requires that, "no proceeding for an offence … shall be instituted without consent of the Attorney General." It is important to note that this safeguard is not available for an offence under subsection 319(1). More significantly, the safeguard may be misleading. Individuals reading these subsections may have the impression that the actual elected Attorney General of their province will need to consent to any prosecution.
The reality is that section 2 of the Criminal Code defines the Attorney General "as the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes his or her lawful deputy." The decision to prosecute does not necessarily have to be made by the actual elected Attorney general as is suggested - a designate of the Attorney General can make that decision.
In conclusion, it is Focus on the Family Canada's position that the committee recommends that Parliament should not enact Bill C-250 because:
1. There is little or no empirical evidence at this time to suggest the need for Bill C-250.
2. Bill C-250 and the sections of the Criminal Code it amends contain terms that are ambiguous and unclear. Thus putting Canadians in a position where they will not know with certainty what restrictions if any are being placed on their freedom of expression and religious freedom.
3. Bill C-250 poses a real risk to the religious freedom and freedom of expression that Canadians enjoy. The defences against prosecution and/or conviction are rather limited.
All Canadians deserve clear protection from real and serious threats of harm and acts of violence. Bill C-250 unfortunately fails to offer this protection and yet poses the very real risk of endangering the freedom of expression of many Canadians who are a credit to our society.
Once again, thank you for this opportunity.
Pro-sodomite Canadian MP Svend Robinson who tolerates no opposition succeeds again in getting Canada to make him comfortable with his perversions under force of law.
Bill To Add 'Sexual Orientation' To Canadian Hate Crimes Legislation Passes Committee
Liberals, Tory on Justice Committee vote to pass C-250
OTTAWA, May 27, 2003
(LifeSiteNews.com) - In what is seen as a shocking development, the House of
Commons Justice Committee voted today to send homosexual activist MP Svend
Robinson's private members Bill C-250 back to the House of Commons for Third
Reading without amendment. Liberal members of the Committee, along with
Progressive Conservative Peter MacKay, voted to send the bill to the House of
Commons without voting on a Canadian Alliance motion that sought to address
concerns over its affect on freedom of expression and religion.