Homosexuality, Newspeak, and Censorship: Bishop Henry Hit with Human Rights Complaint

March 30, 2005 · By

Calgary Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry has had a human rights complaint waged against him by EGALE for writing these words in a pastoral letter:

Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good.

He repeated much of the contents of this pastoral letter in his January 30th Calgary Sun column, which omitted this sentence.

EGALE stated that while Henry is free to state the views of this church:

Henry crossed the line when he talked about governments using their power to curtail homosexuality.

One may dispute Henry’s position and consider it a poor and dangerous use of government power. One might also consider government coercion an infringement of human rights. But is uttering this opinion an infringement of human rights? I don’t think so. Nor do I think it whips up anti-gay sentiment. The only sentiment it does whip up is the desire of legal activists to make names for themselves.

Henry unfortunately failed to specify what forms of coercion should be taken. Worst case scenario: police busting down the doors of the elderly gay couple in the condo down the street. But what about closing down the bathhouse that’s a breeding ground for drugs and prostitution (not to mention people failing to disclose one has HIV – an indictable offense (warning: content)? Henry is also heir to an older tradition of viewing coercion as a form of teaching, which might include wanting the state to persuade the public that homosexuality is a vice.

One can reasonably disagree with any of these propositions. However, does uttering them constitute a human rights violation? EGALE draws a dubious distinction between Henry’s legitimate (in their eyes) representation of his church’s viewpoint, and “crossing the line” to promote coercion. What if his church’s position is identical with that of the Canadian state 35 years ago – that homosexuality is a crime? Does advocating a belief once held by the Canadian government a crime?

I’m afraid this is a much anticipated consequence of the radical left’s constitutionalizing of same-sex marriage. “It’s the Charter, Stupid” means that those who dissent get pounded by a legion of human rights lawyers.

The Alberta Human Rights Commission says only 5% of complaints get heard by the Commission. Let’s hope that Henry’s isn’t one of them.

Update: Bishop Henry responds and here.

Comments

7 Responses to “Homosexuality, Newspeak, and Censorship: Bishop Henry Hit with Human Rights Complaint”

  1. ThePolitic - » It’s Not Just About Acceptance on April 3rd, 2005 9:49 am [#]

    [...] pecially close relationship with one of his disciples. You can listen to his talk here. We’ve noted how here in Canada how same-sex marriage is no [...]

  2. ThePolitic - » Bishop Henry’s New Statement on Homosexuality: Clarification or Capitulation? on May 2nd, 2005 8:28 am [#]

    [...] /thepolitic” rel=”tag”>
    Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary recently had a human rights complaint filed against him for comments he made on [...]

  3. CIVITATENSIS » Bishop Henry of Calgary on May 2nd, 2005 8:45 pm [#]

    [...] 8221; The remarks have been controversial and have landed the Bishop a human rights suit (here). Also, recently, Bishop Henry repeated and defended hi [...]

  4. Sylvie MacDonald on July 13th, 2005 12:22 pm [#]

    Why is it not considered hate propaganda towards a group of persons for a union sponsored publication to blanket label Stephen Harper’s supporters who subscribe to faith based values as “religious quacks” but if a leader of a religious group states that group’s position on a certain issue he has a complaint loged against him? People of faith are being freely discriminated against in Canada. To have a simple faith in the Holy Bible is fast becoming a crime in a society where “it’s in the Charter studid” applies more clearly to regious freedom than to the reference to sex. The originator of the Charter intended to protect people from being denied employment or access to education and other benefits simply on the basis of sex (male or female) not sexual orientation! If the interpretation is to be enlarged to include sexual orientation … than why are we discriminating against bi-sexual people? Shouldn’t they be allowed to marry one of each kind, male and female? Let’s go all the way people!!

  5. Peter MacDonald on July 22nd, 2005 4:20 am [#]

    ‘The originator of the Charter intended to protect people from being denied employment or access to education and other benefits simply on the basis of sex (male or female) not sexual orientation!’

    Trudeau created the charter. He also legalized homosexuality, and has the famous quote atributed to him ‘The state has no bussiness in the bedrooms of the nation’.

    Yeah… i’m pretty sure ‘the originator’ would have including ‘sexual orientation’ if such language was avialable at the time.

  6. ThePolitic.com » Gay Rights Trump Religious Rights in Saskatchewan: Consequence of Same Sex Marriage on January 31st, 2007 5:12 pm [#]

    [...] don’t mind saying, but I TOLD YOU SO. This entry was written by Tom Cerber and posted on Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 5:12 pm and filed under [...]

  7. Political Forums > Liberal family values for our children on June 5th, 2007 1:00 pm [#]

    [...] in Calgary??? eureka Nov 29 2005, 03:11 PM Why was he? newbie Nov 29 2005, 03:18 PM http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2005/03…and-censorship/ eureka Nov 29 2005, 03:33 PM The point, I think, is that it was merely a complaint: whether it [...]

Got something to say? (Read the rules first)