Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

,

Stop Catholic schools from distributing ‘homophobic’ literature: leader of UK’s largest union

Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Image

LONDON, February 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The government is allowing “homophobia” to be promoted in religious schools, in the form of a booklet distributed to students at some Catholic schools in Lancashire, says the UK’s largest trades union. In a letter to Education Secretary Michael Gove in December, Brendan Barber, head of the powerful Trades Union Congress, (TUC), wrote, “Schools now have a legal duty to challenge all forms of prejudice. Such literature undermines this completely.”

At issue is the booklet titled, “Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be,” by American chastity speaker Jason Evert. It says that “homosexual attractions” may “stem from an unhealthy relationship” with a man’s father, “an inability to relate to other guys, or even sexual abuse.”

Reiterating the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the booklet went on to say, “The homosexual act is disordered, much like contraceptive sex between heterosexuals. Both acts are directed against God’s natural purpose for sex – babies and bonding.”

Barber has demanded that Gove enforce the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits “discrimination” against people based on their “sexual orientation.”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

Minister Gove responded to the accusation, saying that the provisions of the notorious “Sexual Orientation Regulations” of the Equality Act 2007 do not apply to the curriculum taught in “faith schools.” Gove said the provisions “do not extend to the content of the curriculum. Any materials used in sex and relationship education lessons, therefore, will not be subject to the discrimination provisions of the act.”

“If a school conveyed its beliefs in a way that involved haranguing, harassing or berating a gay or lesbian pupil or group of pupils then this would be unacceptable in any circumstances and is likely to constitute unlawful discrimination.”

The response infuriated TUC which said it showed “lack of concern.” Barber said, “Having written to the education secretary to express our worry about the distribution of homophobic literature in faith schools, his lack of concern is very alarming.”

A spokesman from the Department of Education was quoted by the Guardian newspaper saying, “Any school engaging in the promotion of homophobic material would be acting unlawfully.”

Since its passage, the Equality Act, with its Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs), has had heavy repercussions on the ability of Christians to live according to the tenets of their beliefs in Britain. In countless cases, homosexualist activists have used the SORs to launch suits and complaints against Christians in a wide range of occupations and there are fears that the letter from TUC is a form of warning to Britain’s Christian schools.

A London parish priest and professor of theology, Fr. Timothy Finigan spoke with LifeSiteNews.com. He said that the SORs have created an atmosphere of anxiety in Catholic schools.

“The SORs have changed things in that everyone is now treading on eggshells,” Fr. Finigan said.

School officials and teachers are living in fear that “they might be accused of homophobia if they give voice to Christian teaching concerning the homosexual condition or homosexual acts.”

And the situation has not improved with the change of government. “It is not only a New Labour pet subject: there are plenty of Conservatives who have jumped on the bandwagon, including David Cameron who has now publicly committed his party to legalising gay marriage.”

Fr. Finigan said that Catholics have largely been undermined by their own bishops, leaving the hard work of defending Christianity in the public sphere to the Evangelical Protestants who have taken up the challenge.

“The Bishops have said that the Church is opposed to gay marriage, while recognising the reality of civil partnerships. Many Catholics consider that this sends out a mixed message,” he said.

Since the SORs came into effect in April 2007, there has been a steady stream of clashes between homosexualist activists and Christians in the courts. Falling afoul have been teachers, civil servants, nurses, psychological counselors and therapists, bed and breakfast owners and even property managers, who have all had their livelihoods threatened after speaking out against homosexuality or refusing to cooperate with the homosexualist movement’s agenda.

Immediately after the SORs came into effect, all of Britain’s Catholic adoption agencies in England and Wales were forced to either close or sever their ties with the Catholic Church over the requirement that they consider homosexual partners for adoption. Christian foster parents have been struck off for refusing to teach their charges that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. In 2009, Schools minister Vernon Coaker said that as of September 2010 all schools will be legally required to report all “hate incidents” no matter how small, and keep records on offending children.

In nearly every case, these clashes have resulted in court rulings against the Christian parties, and religious leaders and some politicians are starting to worry out loud about the future of the country’s ancient civil liberties. While the Catholic bishops have for the most part remained silent, Evangelical legal activists have warned that Christianity is being consciously shoved out of the public sphere by anti-religious zealots.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, head of the Christian Legal Centre, said, “Secularism, according to this scheme, is not neutral. It punishes dissenters.” Equalities laws, she said, promised a utopia of peaceful coexistence, but the reality is “in fact leads to the beginning of tyranny.”

TUC, the largest umbrella organisation of trades unions in Britain, has adopted promotion of both the abortion and homosexualist movements as part of its formal mandate. In 2008, TUC demanded that the government sack Joel Edwards, the director of the Evangelical Alliance, from the Equality and Human Rights Commission because he had defended the rights of Christians who disagreed with the homosexualist political agenda.

The same year, TUC declared that abortion is a “fundamental right” and demanded that the Labour government totally de-restrict abortion. The group wanted the government to remove the requirement for two doctors to sign permissions, to oppose any mandatory “cooling off” wait period for abortion and to force the 1967 Abortion Act to be adopted in Northern Ireland.

 


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook