By Hilary White
OTTAWA, November 8, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Information forwarded to LifeSiteNews.com, shows that union local president David MacDonald had tried for months to bring the problem of the Public Service Alliance of Canada’s (PSAC) anti-Catholic biases into the normal grievance procedure but received no cooperation from union officials. This inaction left him with no choice but to pursue the matter at the Human Rights Commission of Canada.
In May 2006, MacDonald wrote to PSAC spokesman Ed Cashman asking for clarification on comments Cashman had made to the Ottawa Sun newspaper on April 14, 2006. Cashman indicated that, given the union’s policy of “zero tolerance” for what it calls “heterosexism”, a Catholic union member could be “slapped for harassment if she offended co-workers with a rant or diatribe” if she were “respectfully stating her views” on homosexuality.
The member in question was Susan Comstock, a Catholic who is suing the union for the right to divert her union dues to charity because of the union’s pro-homosexual policies, particularly on marriage. PSAC has a standing policy of support for homosexual “marriage” and maintains a policy of “zero tolerance” for “heterosexism”, defined by the union as “the presumption that everyone is heterosexual and that heterosexuality is superior to other forms of loving”.
MacDonald, a lawyer, wrote to Cashman saying, “As a Catholic, and union member, I was offended to hear you make these remarks about Ms. Comstock.”
MacDonald wrote that the comments had “created a hostile environment” in the union and “created a chilling affect and seems to make Catholics unwelcome in the union”…“Presumably, zero tolerance of heterosexism would suggest that any statement by a union member that may be consistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, such as opposition to same-sex marriage would be unacceptable, no matter how ‘respectfully’ they were presented.”
Cashman responded on May 25 by going on the offensive expressing doubts that other Catholics had taken offense at the comments. Without denying that he had made the comments, Cashman wrote to MacDonald, “Are they upset with what I actually said or what was reportedly said? Later in your same message, you then ask for clarification. It begs the questions: did you form your opinion on the basis of fact or emotion? Are you open to actual dialogue and discussion or would I be wasting my time?”
“Do you actually believe everything that you read in the newspapers?” Cashman wrote.
MacDonald wrote next to PSAC president John Gordon but his complaint made no progress through the usual grievance channels of the union. He wrote to Gordon on July 26, 2006 saying that he and the union were ignoring his complaint. “I have to believe that your inaction and the lack of respect you have shown to a local president, will only reinforce the belief that many have that the PSAC is anti-Catholic.”
On January 30, MacDonald wrote again to Gordon: “It has been months since I first raised my concerns about anti-Catholicism within the PSAC executive, as expressed by Ed Cashman. Although you said you would look into the issues I raised, I have heard nothing from you. Regrettably, I must now pursue this matter at a higher level.”
MacDonald wrote in his submission to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that the union has created a “stressful and at times hostile” work environment for him as a believing Catholic. Since the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm of heterosexuality, the policy means that in the eyes of the union, those who adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church are ipso facto “heterosexist”.
In a revealing exchange Gordon asked MacDonald a “hypothetical question” regarding union policy on heterosexism. He asked what MacDonald thought a union should do if it represented justices of the peace who refused to perform same sex “marriages”.
MacDonald replied that a union has a legal obligation to represent the employee, regardless of any personal opinion, and demand that the employer accommodate their religious beliefs.
Gordon responded that if the justices had been members of PSAC, the union would refuse to support them because “they are wrong”.
This exchange illustrating PSAC’s dedication to the homosexual political cause has made MacDonald question if it is a union or a political party. He told LifeSiteNews.com, “I believe that the PSAC is a political party because its agenda supersedes the three most important objectives of a labour union: wages, job security and health and safety in the workplace.”
“The real objective of the PSAC,” MacDonald says, “is to promote same sex marriage and other political pursuits.”
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Canadian Federal Employee takes Union to Human Rights Commission over Anti-Catholic Discrimination
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07110603.html