Americans for Truth

Excerpted from Homosexual Activists Consider Targeting Private Christian Schools for “Homophobia”, by Gudrun Schultz published Feb 27, 2007, by LifeSite News:

Want provincial ministry of education to exert “more control” over curriculum and staff hiring

Ontario private schools are coming increasingly under the lens of homosexual activist groups for “homophobic” teaching stemming from the schools’ primarily religious foundations, a report in Ottawa’s homosexual news media indicated earlier this week.

[WARNING: The following link to the original story in a pro-homosexuality
publication is accompanied by extremely offensive advertising.]

In an article warning about the increasing trend toward private and religious schools in the province, Ottawa’s Capital Xtra objected to religious schools that teach children “only their own values.”

The article quotes Tony Lovink, a homosexual Christian teacher in the Ottawa public school system, as saying,

“All private schools tend to be at least implicitly homophobic. And I would say all religiously formed independent schools are definitely homophobic.”

[Note from AFTAH: Based on Scripture, we contend that it is not possible
to simultaneously engage in homosexual behavior and be a faithful Christian…
but change is possible in Jesus Christ.]

The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario said they were concerned the provincial ministry of education wasn’t “exerting more control” over the curriculum used by private religious schools. Unless a school wants to grant students government-recognized Secondary School Diplomas, Ontario private schools are free to use their preferred curriculum. Even schools that do grant the government diplomas may teach any additional material they choose, so long as the required curriculum is covered.

As well, the CLGRO objected to provincial standards that permit private schools to hire teachers based on the school administration’s own qualification requirements.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from the Jan 23, 2007, press release from REAL Women of Canada:

On July 17, 2006, REAL Women of Canada laid a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council about the conduct of Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry in the same-sex marriage case, which was handed down in June 2003. We stated in our complaint that his actions in that case gave rise to an apprehension of bias for a number of reasons, including the fact that Chief Justice McMurtry’s daughter was a lesbian living in a homosexual union at the time the case was argued…

Further, two weeks subsequent to the court’s decision, the Chief Justice partied with two of the litigants and a photograph of the Chief Justice and the litigants together is widely available on the internet.

In the Judicial Council’s letter to REAL Women dated December 19, 2006, the Council claimed:

… the sexual orientation of a judge’s children, and indeed the fact that a judge’s children are married or living in a common law relationship are not, in Chief Justice Scott’s view, indicative of any bias on the part of a judge.

The Council, however, was well aware that the issue before the Court was whether same-sex unions should be legally recognized, i.e., whether they should be recognized and acquire legal rights. That is, the case dealt specifically with the legal rights of same-sex unions - a matter which directly related to Judge McMurtry’s daughter’s own personal relationship…

The Council, however, concluded that there is no basis to support the view that Chief Justice McMurtry should have recused himself on the basis of the personal relationship of members of his family.

This conclusion, however, flies directly in the face of the guidelines of the Canadian Judicial Council set out in its document, “Ethical Principles for Judges,” (1998), Chapter 6:

Conflicts of Interest

• Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in which they believe they will be unable to judge impartially.
• Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in which they believe that a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would have a reasoned suspicion of conflict of interest between a judge’s personal interest (or that of a judge’s immediate family or close friends or associates) and a judge’s duty.
• The potential for conflict of interest arises when the personal interest of the judge (or of those close to him or her) conflicts with the judge’s duty to adjudicate impartially. Judicial impartiality is concerned both with impartiality in fact and impartiality in the perception of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person.
• … a judge … should disqualify him or herself if aware of any interest or relationship which, to a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would give rise to reasoned suspicion of lack of impartiality.
• …a judge should disclose on the record anything which might support a plausible argument in favour of disqualification ….

It seems clear that the Judicial Council chose to ignore its own guidelines in order to protect Chief Justice McMurtry.

Continue reading at REAL Women of Canada…

What Would YOU Do if America Started Censoring Moral Speech like Canada?

In America, we bristle at the idea of speech –– even unpopular speech –– being censored or officially condemned by the government. But in Canada, it’s happening, and the shocking thing is that speech defending age-old, Judeo-Christian morality is the target. Unlike Canada, the United States has a First Amendment, so it will be much more difficult for the Gay Thought Police to prosecute moral and pro-normalcy speech here than there. But they will try. (Click HERE to read the ex-“gay” group Exodus International’s press release opposing new attempts to pass a “Hate Crimes” law that includes “sexual orientation.”)

Already in America, Christian speech against homosexuality has been censored and restricted by the government. (Click HERE to read about the “Philly 11” losing their civil rights case against the City of Philadelphia.) With respect to the story below about a Canadian city councilman who was fined $1,000 for saying, in accordance with his Catholic beliefs, that homosexuality is not normal or natural, I pose these questions to our readers:

I. To the conservative American legislator or Bible-believing pastor — If we ever reached the point where laws were passed banning and fining “anti-gay” speech (it would be termed “homophobic”), would you: A) comply and stop discussing the issue or B) go on voicing and defending your beliefs in public? If you lived in Canada and faced Mr. DeCicco’s predicament, would you pay the fine? Would you apologize to homosexuals to avoid facing a “human rights” tribunal, even if you knew you said nothing wrong?

II. To what extent in American are we buying into the Left’s definition of “hate speech” in the face of relentless pro-homosexual organizing and political correctness? That is, do many of us who oppose homosexual practice as destructive or sinful opt for silence rather than defend our beliefs, because we fear being called a name? Why do we so easily allow defenders of falsehood and historically wrong behavior to dominate the debate? Are we ashamed of or confused about our moral heritage on this issue? Why?

Pro-lifers are bolder in defending life than pro-family advocates are in defending the principled position that homosexual conduct is always wrong, yet changeable. Why? What can each of us who agree with God do to change public discourse so that we who defend natural (biblical) sexuality (in marriage) are as bold as the defenders of perversion?

P.S. To the homosexual activists who read this email – Would you renounce all pro-“gay” “hate speech” prosecutions (like that against DeCicco)?

To all: be honest in your answers and we’ll publish some of them. Write us using our web contact form. God bless freedom. -– Peter LaBarbera

——————————

Excerpted from Canadian City Councillor Fined $1000 for Saying Homosexuality “not Normal or Natural”, by John-Henry Westen and Gudrun Schultz, published Jan 19, 2007, by LifeSite News:

A Catholic city councillor [John DeCicco, pictured left] in Kamloops, British Columbia, who was himself the victim of the crime of vandalism due to his faith, has been forced to apologize and pay a homosexual activist couple $1000…

Strangely, it was councillor who was shown true discrimination worthy of a human rights complaint. In June, the councillor opposed a homosexual pride proclamation, after which his barber shop was vandalized with “Homophobia Die” scrawled on the door of his business…

In August, homosexual activist couple John Olynick and Greg Koll filed a complaint against DeCicco with the human rights commission over remarks he made at the council meeting and repeated in media interviews. In line with Catholic teaching on the matter, he described homosexual acts as “not normal and not natural.”

In the June interview with LifeSiteNews.com he explained, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.” He also said that people can do what they like in the privacy of their own homes, but, he said in reference to gay pride parades, they shouldn’t “go out and flaunt it, in front of people who don’t necessarily agree.”

While DeCicco already apologized for the incident once back in October, that apology was not considered part of the settlement. In addition to paying $1,000 to Olynick and Koll, DeCicco will provide a statement saying his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” The settlement will allow the councillor to avoid a Human Rights Tribunal hearing…

DeCicco has said the settlement will not change his opposition to gay pride week. “I’m not going to change my view of my stand,” he said. “My public comments have to be a little more refined.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from Age of Consent at 14 Makes Canada Favoured Sex Tourism Destination, by Hilary White, published Dec 19, 2006, by LifeSite News:

A newly released report says that the age of consent for vaginal sex in Canada – currently set at 14 – has made this country a favorite destination for child-sex “tourism”…

The report was issued by the Bangkok-based organization, End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, or ECPAT International. It gives Canada 17 recommendations, including raising the age of consent from 14 to 16…

A bill to raise the age of consent, one of the first to be put forward by Canada’s Conservative government, passed second reading in the House of Commons in October…

The federal government’s proposal to raise the age of consent in Canada from 14 to 16 was vocally opposed by homosexual advocacy groups who accused the government of attacking the sexual freedoms of young people…

The sides are clearly lined up in the war over child-protection and the age of consent. After the Conservatives tabled the bill, the Coalition For Lesbian And Gay Rights In Ontario and the Sex Laws Committee said raising the age would discriminate against the sexual choices of gay youth.

Planned Parenthood Ottawa and the Canadian AIDS Society also criticized the bill saying it would interfere with efforts to educate youth about pregnancy, disease prevention and sexual rights.

This February, the homosexual activist group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere), asked the government to lower the age of consent for anal sex to 16 from its current 18, saying that the difference only served to “stigmatize gay men.”

Following this, in November, a Liberal Party policy resolution, attributed to the British Columbia branch of the Party, called for the lowering of the age of consent for anal sex.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from Gay Activists Ask Canada to Lower Age of Consent for Anal Sex, National Post Agrees, by John-Henry Westen, published Feb 14, 2006, by LifeSite News:

…Canada’s most prominent homosexual activist group has now demanded the lowering the age of consent for anal sex to 16 from 18. Surprisingly, Canada’s National Post, regarded by some as a ‘conservative’ paper has come out in favour of the proposal.

Reacting to the Conservative Government’s plan to raise the age of consent for normal sex from 14 to 16, EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) has commenced a campaign to have the age of consent for anal sex lowered to 16 from 18. Laurie Arron, the director of advocacy for EGALE remarked to the Ottawa Citizen, “There’s no reason to treat anal sex differently than other sexual acts except to stigmatize gay and bisexual men.”

However, that statement is categorically false, speaking strictly from a medical standpoint. Even those who support homosexual sex acts warn nonetheless that anal sex is a dangerous activity, regardless of genders involved. The sex info site of the University of California at Santa Barbara, which can in no way be described as opposed to homosexual activity, nonetheless points out that anal sex is a dangerous practice.

• …Anal sex is the most dangerous behaviour for transmission of HIV/AIDS and all other STDs since the anus is not designed for sexual activity…
• …The practice also leads to fecal incontinence - loss of normal control of the sphincter muscles which leads to stool leaking from the rectum at unexpected times… See the website http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=faq&refid=125. WARNING: graphic sketches used to illustrate.

Nevertheless, the National Post backed the EGALE request in an unsigned editorial Saturday February 11. The editorial titled, “Equalize the age of consent” said

“Section 159 of the Criminal Code specifically bans anal intercourse between unmarried people under 18. This is plainly discriminatory, a prohibition intended to stigmatize homosexual or bisexual teenagers, suggesting that the nature of their sexual relationship requires special added protection. This is nonsense.” (Click HERE to read the editorial; paid subscription required.)

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from Montreal Homosexual OutGames Bankrupt, by Hilary White, published Dec 11, 2006, by LifeSite News:

The First World Outgames, not to be confused with the Gay Games, is likely to be the last. The homosexual sporting event, held in Montreal this past summer and paid for with generous donations of funds from taxpayers, is bankrupt.

…Altogether, the games lost over $5 million.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

US Federal Law does not recognize homosexual “marriage” — so why did a US customs agent allow two male U.S. citizens to enter the country using one customs form, as though they were a legally married couple?

Excerpted from Conklin: Gay legislator’s marriage is about being a couple, by Melanie Conklin, published Dec 13, 2006, by Wisconsin State Journal:

Rep. Mark Pocan [78th Assembly District, WI - Democrat] just got back from Indonesia - but this two-week trip was more than just a vacation for the Madison legislator. It was his honeymoon.

On Nov. 24 in Toronto, Pocan and his partner of four-plus years, Philip Frank, got [”married”].

Of course, the couple couldn’t legally tie the knot in Wisconsin…

Frank and Pocan flew to Toronto on Thanksgiving and were married the next day at the wedding chamber in Toronto’s City Hall. Kyle Rae, an openly gay member of the Toronto City Council who got to know Pocan when Pocan was on the Dane County Board, helped with the arrangements.

Rae told Pocan they are glad to have ceremonies for gay couples at City Hall - no shotguns involved. “Often couples who get married at City Hall have to be there, so he said when gay couples come in they’re all happy they are getting married and it’s a nice change,” Pocan says…

It hit home for Pocan that he is a married man when he returned to the U.S. and the custom’s agent in Los Angeles asked if they needed one form or two. “We told her we only needed one, we came together as family, and that we’d gotten married in Toronto,” Pocan says. “She told us she thought it was nice that they allowed that in Canada.”

…Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk …[said] “It’s all about commitment and why it matters and the underlying truth that we all long for relationships and commitment.”

She was thrilled to hear his news. “It’s just such a joy.”

Continue reading on Wisconsin State Journal…

Dec 7, 2006, press release from Real Women for Canada:

The Canadian political system does not serve the voters well, it only serves the interests of the politicians.

The vote today on same-sex marriage, with two of the political parties, the Bloc and the NDP requiring their members to vote along party lines on one of the most significant issues of this generation, is a disgrace and a blemish on democracy.

The Liberal leader Stéphane Dion was not much better.  Begrudgingly, he allowed a free vote for his MPs , but he gravely misled his MPs and the public on the issue by claiming same-sex marriage was a “fundamental” right under the Charter.  Either Mr. Dion was deliberately misrepresenting the situation or he is ignorant about the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has never at any time ruled that traditional marriage was unconstitutional and that same-sex marriage was a “fundamental” right.  Canadians and the Liberal party members deserve better leadership than that.

The debate is not over.

The egregious behaviour of politicians on the same-sex marriage issue necessitates that the public have a say on the issue, having been effectively ignored by the self-important politicians. There is no longer any doubt that a referendum on the issue must be called by the Conservative government.