OTTAWA, Ontario, October 12, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A private members bill introduced into the Canadian House of Commons is seeking to delete the controversial “hate speech” provision in the Human Rights Act that has been used to silence Christians and conservatives who express politically incorrect opinions.

“I’ve been working with colleagues to try to make sure that we make some changes to a piece of legislation that is flawed and — quite frankly — has been abused over the last several of years,” said Conservative MP Brian Storseth (Westlock-St. Paul, AB) who introduced the bill, to Sun News.

Bill C-304 proposes to delete Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) to ensure that there is no “infringement on freedom of expression” as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It received its first reading on September 30th, 2011.

Critics of section 13 have long argued that the clause creates the precise equivalent to a ‘thought crime.’ The provision defines a discriminatory practice as “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” if the person or persons affected are “identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

In 2008, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) hired constitutional law expert Professor Richard Moon to examine Section 13 of the act. In his report, Moon’s principle recommendation was that section 13 be repealed.

Bill C-304’s successful passage would also strike out section 54 of the act, the penalty clause for those convicted of transgressing section 13.

“This is really about freedom of speech in our country and pushing back on the tyrannical bureaucracy need to censor speech in our country,” said Storseth calling “free speech” a “fundamental bedrock of our society.”

“If we don’t have freedom of speech, what good are the other freedoms that go along with it? What good is the freedom to assemble or religious freedoms if you don’t have the freedom of speech in the first place?”

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary is supporting Storseth’s bill. The bishop faced complaints in 2005, based upon a similar clause in the Alberta Human Rights Act, for defending traditional marriage in a pastoral letter.

“In Canada, we do not arrest people who are ‘likely’ to break the law. The law must actually be broken,” said Bishop Henry to the Catholic Register, referring to the ambiguous wording of section 13.

“I believe that the complaints that were lodged against me were an attempt to intimidate and silence me, and in point of fact, the lodging of these complaints constituted a violation of my right of freedom of expression and freedom of religion guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedom,” said Bishop Henry.

In the last 15 years, decisions by various Human Rights Commissions have penalized those who adhere to traditional Judaeo-Christian values.

Mayors have been fined for refusing to proclaim ‘gay pride’ days. A teacher was suspended for writing against homosexuality outside the classroom. A printer was fined for refusing to print materials for a homosexual activist group. A pastor was hauled before the courts for publishing a letter in a local paper calling pro-homosexual literature “psychologically and physiologically damaging” to young children. And even a political party was chastised for promoting Christian teaching on homosexuality.

“We really need to engage Canadians on this,” said Storseth.

“Canadians have an opportunity to have a voice. They need to make sure they are heard. They need to make sure that they e-mail or call their local member of parliament and let them know how important it is to them.”

Storseth hopes that the bill will be debated at the beginning of November and that the first vote will take place at the end of that month.

“I’m going to be working very hard on both sides of the aisle as freedom of speech is something that really should be a non partisan issue.”

Contact your member of parliament here.

April 6, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- Just two days prior to Pope Francis’ release of his Apostolic Exhortation on the family, a German cardinal who has been an outspoken defender of Catholic teaching on marriage and family has criticized as “impossible” the Synod’s suggestion that civilly divorced and remarried Catholic become “more integrated” into the Church. 

Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, president emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, stated in an article appearing today on the Austrian Catholic website Kath.net that integration that is not founded on the truths of the indissolubility of marriage and the sacredness of Holy Communion would lead to “conflicts,” “embarrassments,” and an “undermining of the Church’s sacred proclamation.” Reporter Maike Hickson has translated key sections of the cardinal's article at The Wanderer.

The cardinal said that a married Catholic who enters into a new civil union is “committing adultery,” and that as long as such a person is unwilling to put an end to the sinful situation, he “cannot receive either absolution in Confession nor the Eucharist.” Any path other than repentance and change of life is “bound to fail,” the cardinal said, due to “its inherent untruthfulness.” 

This “untruthfulness” directly applies “to the attempt to integrate into the Church those who live in an invalid ‘second marriage’ by admitting them to liturgical, catechetical and other functions,” he added.

The cardinal said that an integration without repentance and change of life cannot be reconciled with the doctrines of the faith. 

“What is fundamentally impossible for reasons of Faith, is also impossible in the individual case,” he said.

Referring directly to Pope Francis’ forthcoming exhortation, the cardinal said that no matter what the document contains, everything stated must be interpreted in light of the unchanging dogmas of the Church, especially as expressed in the Church’s Catechism.  

“The post-synodal document, Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love), is therefore to be interpreted in light of the above-presented principles, especially since a contradiction between a papal document and the Catechism of the Catholic Church would not be imaginable,” he said. 

The Exhortation is to be released April 8 at noon, Rome time. Two left-leaning cardinals — Lorenzo Baldisseri and Christoph Schönborn — will present the document, a move which Vatican experts say could suggest the document has a progressive bent. 

ANALYSIS

HOLLYWOOD, April 6, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – If J.J. Abrams, the director of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, has his way with future scripts, expect homosexual characters.

Abrams was hosting a pre-Academy Awards event at his production company Bad Robot when asked about prospects for homosexual characters. He responded, “Of course, of course. When I talk about inclusivity it’s not excluding gay characters. It’s about inclusivity. So of course.”

Abrams like everyone else in Hollywood was talking about inclusivity in response to all this year’s nominees for acting Oscars being white (though largely unnoticed was the prominence of gay or transgender storylines). On the larger issue of color—or lack thereof—Abrams had told the Daily Beast,  “It’s shameful. We all need to do better to represent this world. It’s something that is important to me, and is something that we’re focusing on at Bad Robot.”

Speculation immediately began about the close relationship between two leading male characters, Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega), in Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens, which has already grossed 2 billion USD worldwide.

Everyone from the Daily Beast to the British Express wondered: Will the sequel, Rogue One, set for release by Christmas, see new and openly homosexual characters take the stage or will the already close friendship between Poe and Finn turn into something more?

Isaac clearly thinks he was in more than a buddy movie. He told the audience of the Ellen talk show, “You have to watch it a few times to catch all the little hints. But there was. At least I was playing romance. In the cockpit I was playing... there was a deep romance.”

Allmagnews.com noted, “After their crash landing on the desert planet, Finn seemed rather distressed that Poe may have been lost. All that was left of the pilot was his leather jacket, and Finn wore it as he made his way through the planet.” Cinema Blend commented about their happy reunion late in the movie: “Did you see that look Poe gave Finn when he told Finn that his jacket looked good on him?”

Moreover, Mark Hamill, who plays Luke Skywalker in the original Star Wars and appears for just a moment in the latest one, has emerged as a contender for the gay stakes because of a mysterious tweet to a fan asking about his character’s sexuality. “Luke is whatever the audience wants him to be. So you can decide for yourself.”  

Finally, the latest novel in the print series, has introduced three new LGBT characters to its parallel story line. Though its fictional reality is parallel but not identical to the movie series, its corporate universe is identically dominated by Disney and LucasFilm. At least in print they believe their fans are ready for a gay hero named Sinjir Rath Velus, an Imperial officer who has crossed over to the Rebels.

So far, parents of preteens and early teens have only had to worry about excessive violence (The Force Awakens is rated among the most violent episodes and the darkest). Now must they go the theatre in December 2017 with their “gaydar” units turned on? Does it matter?

“Of course it does,” Dan Gainor, vice president of the conservative Media Research Center, told LifeSiteNews. “Hollywood is mass marketing propaganda. If it isn’t environmental and anti-American propaganda in Avatar, it’s sexual propaganda. There are a lot of gays in Hollywood. But it doesn’t mean that the rest of America is like that.” The MRC has summarized its beliefs succinctly, in a 2012 report titled “Hollywood: Driving the Homosexual Agenda for 40 Years.”

Homosexuals are presented as healthy, normal, living in married relationships with children, a picture that differs significantly from the woeful health and relational patterns of most homosexuals, warns Gainor.  “They are presented as far more common than they are in reality.”

He cites a 2015 Gallup poll showing 53 percent of Americans believe that from 20-25 percent of the population is homosexual, up from 13 percent who believed this in 2002. “That’s Hollywood’s work,” said Gainor. “It means we are deciding policies thinking we are accommodating a sizeable group when it’s a miniscule minority.”

The direct influence of the entertainment media on popular attitudes is well documented. A 2012 survey of “likely voters” by THR showed, according to the Hollywood Reporter, that  “27 percent said gay TV made them more pro-gay marriage, and six percent [said it made them] more anti. Obama voters watched and 30 percent got more supportive, 2 percent less supportive. [As for] Romney [supporters]… 13 percent got more pro-gay-marriage, 12 percent got more anti.” Concluded the Reporter: “Social conservatives who fear the influence of gay-friendly TV are evidently right to fear it.”

But movie studios are far behind TV in pushing homosexuality, laments the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which noted only a slight increase in homosexual content between 2013 and 2014. “Of the 114 films GLAAD tracked this year [for 2014], only 20 (17.5%) included depictions of LGBT characters, and some of those would have been better left on the cutting room floor,” it reported.

But anecdotal evidence indicates a shift last year to movies with dominant homosexual or LGBT themes. While GLAAD could find no transgender characters in 2014, last year saw the release of The Danish Girl, a biopic about a Danish artist in the 1920s who died from complications of sex-change surgery; Carol about a 60s housewife having an affair with a shopgirl; and Freeheld, about a lesbian police officer dying of cancer and fighting for her partner to get her death benefits. All featured major stars such as Eddie Redmayne and Cate Blanchett.

Still, for Gainor, nothing tops the popular, well-made new TV series called Lucifer. “I’m unshockable. Why should I get upset about a gay character in Star Wars when there is now a TV series marketing Satan as the good guy?”

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 6, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- Hillary Clinton has doubled down on her contentious position that “the unborn person does not have constitutional rights,” now stating that even the child just hours away from delivery is deprived of rights because “that is the way we structure it.”

Paula Faris of ABC’s “The View” asked the Democratic frontrunner to clarify her position stated last Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Faros asked Clinton, “At what point does someone have constitutional rights, and are you saying that a child, on its due date, just hours before delivery still has no constitutional rights?”

“Under the law that is the case, Paula,” replied Clinton. 

Clinton then went on to declare her support for the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion, calling it “an important statement about the importance of a woman making this most difficult decision with consultation by whom she chooses, her doctor, her faith, her family. And under the law — and under certainly that decision — that is the way we structure it.”

Weeks prior to birth, a preborn baby is a completely formed human being with perfectly functioning brain, eyes, heart, and lungs. The baby is able to hear sounds from the outside world and recognizes its mother's voice. The baby is capable of surviving outside its mother's womb. 

Critics have called Clinton’s position on life out-of-touch with the American mainstream.

“Clinton revealed that she believes no unborn child is subject to constitutional rights,” the Republican National Committee said in a statement on Sunday when Clinton first made her position clear. 

“Voters now know Clinton’s extreme stance against the value of protecting life, and can no longer be misled by her deceptive pandering,” the Committee stated.