Regulating ‘Hurtful Speech’ with All the Efficiency of the Post Office

How do you feel about the creation of a federal “anti-hate” bureaucracy “regulating group defamation” and operating with all the efficiency of the U.S. Post Office? This bureaucracy would regulate which speech is acceptable and which is criminal because it might stimulate “harassment” and “intimidation” against specified groups, including homosexuals? Passage of a federal “hate crimes” law (HR 1592) would take America one giant step closer to that leftist goal.

Folks, the time to act is NOW to stop “Thought Crimes” (“Hate Crimes”) legislation in Congress. Please take this threat to our liberties very seriously: with homosexual activists and lawyers already putting their aberrant-sex-based “rights” above our freedoms of religion, conscience and association, why would anyone believe them when they say they don’t want to censor  “hurtful speech”? (And don’t forget: most define mere opposition to their agenda as “hate.”)

TAKE ACTION: Call your member of the House and Senate immediately to oppose H.R. 1592 and all “hate (thought) crimes” legislation! Call toll-free 1-877-851-6437 or toll 1-202-225-3121. There is much more information at http://www.truthtellers.org/ and these other pro-family websites: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/; http://www.frc.org/, http://www.cwfa.org/, and http://www.stopthoughtcrimeslaws.com/   (Check out Janet Folger’s “Hate Crimes Discount Coupon” HERE.)
 
ALSO:  Did you know that according to pro-family leaders in Washington, President Bush has NOT yet committed publicly to vetoing “Thought Crimes” and ENDA (the pro-homosexual, pro-“transgender” Employment Nondiscrimination Act) bills in Congress — even as Bush has promised to veto Embryonic Stem Cell research? Call the White House today and urge President Bush to use his Bully Pulpit NOW against “Hate Crimes” laws and ENDA: Call 202-456-1414 and ask for the comment line.  To e-mail the White House, click HERE. 

Ted Pike of the National Prayer Network has done yeoman’s work warning religious people about the implications of “thought crimes” legislation pushed by, among other leftist groups, the Anti-Defamation League, a pro-homosexuality group whose agenda has strayed far beyond the noble calling of fighting anti-Semitism.–Peter LaBarbera 

Here’s Pike’s latest Alert:
 
EMERGENCY ALERT!!!
HATE BILL FAST FORWARDING TO VOTE IN HOUSE

By Rev. Ted Pike

The House version of the federal “anti-hate” bill, H.R. 1592, is scheduled for a last hearing in the Subcommittee on Crime on Tuesday, April 24. The next day the entire House Judiciary Committee will consider the marked-up version, making its own changes. If approved, the bill will be sent forward to the House to be voted on, perhaps immediately.

Those who love free speech must respond NOW with unprecedented calling, not only to the member of the House from your district but to as many members of the House of Representatives as possible.  All House members are listed at http://www.truthtellers.org/. The toll-free number is 1-877-541-6437, or call toll 1-202-224-3121.

Tell them: “Please don’t vote for any hate crimes legislation. Hate laws have taken away free speech in Canada and many European Countries.”

Hate Bill: Worse Than We Imagined

Most persons who are concerned about imminent passage of the federal “anti-hate” bill don’t realize that S. 1105 in the Senate and H.R. 1592 in the House are actually amendments to a federal hate law passed in 1968. During the height of the civil rights movement, “Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 245” stipulated that no one could verbally “…attempt to…intimidate” another person (chiefly black) away from enjoyment of their federally protected right to equal employment, public services, housing, voting rights, jury privileges, etc. If the government finds such verbal “intimidation” in a state and state officials are not enforcing these guarantees, the federal government can invade states’ rights in local law enforcement, upholding Title 18.

Title 18 is considered a “hate crimes” law because it criminalizes bias-motivated, verbal attempts to “intimidate” blacks by persuading them that they are intellectually, hygienically, or morally inferior — unfit to eat at the same lunch counter, attend the same church, work in the same business, get the same education, live in the same apartment complex, or serve on the same jury with whites.

By Peter LaBarbera

The following is the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) online definition of “homophobia.” The ADL is the leading advocate for federal and state “hate crimes” laws that are inclusive of homosexuality and gender confusion (“sexual orientation” and “gender identity”). Note the bolded portions below and how the ADL seemingly gives no ground for acceptable religious and moral opposition to homosexual behavior. This is important because currently many governmental agencies and “hate crime” law advocates rely on the ADL for definitions of “hate,” “prejudice,” etc. To read an online ADL report on Hate Crime Laws, click HERE. To see the ADL’s recommendation of the pro-homosexual “Heather Has Two Mommies” as an “anti-bias book for children,” click HERE.

What does this Orwellian statement mean: “Many researchers claim that homosexuals still find themselves the target of bias within institutions like churches and professional organizations.” Yes, many Bible-believing churches — and orthodox Jewish synogogues, and Islamic mosques — believe homosexual behavior is sinful and harmful to body and soul, but they also believe that people practicing this lifestyle can change (as proven by the existence of many ex-“gays”). Redefining Biblical doctrine as “discrimination” — ie., classifying people practicing homosexuality as “targets of bias” in churches — is precisely the sort of bureaucratic thought-control-speak that must not be made “the law” in our free nation. To tell President Bush to oppose the “Hate Crimes” law moving through the Democrat-led Congress, call 202-456-1414; or go HERE to contact the White House via email.

The Anti-Defamation League on “Homophobia”

 

Homophobia 
 
Homophobia is the hatred or fear of homosexuals – that is, lesbians and gay men – sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility. Homophobia is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life. Organized hate groups have viciously attacked homosexuals and have used especially violent language in attempting to persecute and intimidate them.
 
Discrimination against homosexuals comes in many forms. At times homophobic beliefs lead people toward prejudiced actions at work, at schools, at clubs and in many other areas as well. Prejudiced views directed at homosexuals often stem from the perception that homosexual activity is immoral. Homophobia makes some people think that they are superior to homosexuals. In fact, studies show that anti-gay bias is far more accepted among large numbers of Americans than is bias against other minorities.

 

Many researchers claim that homosexuals still find themselves the target of bias within institutions like churches and professional organizations. Many church and religious groups maintain that homosexual behavior is a sin and runs counter to the will of God as expressed in certain Biblical passages. Up until 1980, many psychiatrists still looked upon homosexuality as a mental disorder. Today, medical professionals believe that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem.

 

Homophobia is most dangerous when it serves as the justification for violent action against homosexuals. In recent years attacks on homosexuals have risen. While the violent crime rate in many areas continues to drop, anti-gay crime is moving in the other direction. What is most disturbing is the cruelty and viciousness of many of these attacks.

 

The severity of many of these crimes helps to show the strong hatred that homophobia can create.

 

Many conservative religious leaders have, at some point, spoken out against the gay community and warned of the danger they supposedly pose to America. 700 Club television host Pat Robertson said that, “Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals – the two things seem to go together.” Former Congressman William Dannemeyer also compared homosexuals to Nazis when he wrote that “the homosexual blitzkrieg has been better planned than Hitler’s…” Clearly, it is ridiculous to compare homosexuals in America to Germany’s Nazi government which believed in warfare and mass murder as a means for taking over the world.

 

Apart from these views, many violent extremist groups also hold homophobic beliefs. The neo-Nazi National Alliance has allegedly been involved in anti-gay violence, while racist skinheads around the country have attacked and beaten homosexuals.

How can students in the United States of America be allowed to promote the acceptance of homosexuality (e.g., the national Day of Silence) but not criticize it? Remember: many people of faith (and others) do not agree with the modern, trendy notion of “gayness” as personhood — i.e., that it is a part of a person’s intrinsic identity. Instead, they view homosexuality as changeable, unnatural and/or sinful behavior, as evidenced by the many men and women who once considered themselves “gay” but have since left their homosexual lifestyle behind.

Judge Hart’s decision creates classic viewpoint discrimination in a public, taxpayer-funded forum (schools) and we hope ultimately that it will be struck down in appeal. I trust that even some of our “gay” critics will see how this ruling is incompatible with the First Amendment.– Peter LaBarbera

Associate Press reports: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C266716%2C00.html

Judge Upholds Illinois School’s Ban on ‘Be Happy, Not Gay’ Shirt

Wednesday, April 18, 2007
CHICAGO — Two Neuqua Valley High School [in Naperville, Illinois] students won’t be able to wear T-shirts saying “Be Happy, Not Gay,” to school on Thursday following a judge’s ruling.

U.S. District Judge William T. Hart ruled in favor of the high school Tuesday in a preliminary injunction that would have allowed the students to wear the shirts the day after Wednesday’s National Day of Silence.

On the Day of Silence, students can refrain from speaking as an effort to protest discrimination against homosexuals.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund is representing Heidi Zamecnik of Naperville and Alexander Nuxoll of Bolingbrook in a lawsuit that claims Zamecnik’s rights were violated last year when she wasn’t allowed to wear the shirt in school.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian litigation group, will appeal the judge’s decision on the preliminary injunction to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, attorney Jonathan Scruggs said. The lawsuit is still pending.

Scruggs said the school is violating the students’ rights to free speech by banning the shirt.

“The school cannot silence speech merely because some people find it offensive,” Scruggs said. “We believe that’s the core of what the First Amendment protects.”

Jack Canna, an attorney for Indian Prairie Unit School District 204, said banning the shirt is part of a policy “to preserve the notion that kids shouldn’t make negative or derogatory comments about other students.”

Messages left by The Associated Press with the Indian Prairie Unit School District 204 and Neuqua Valley High School were not immediately returned Wednesday morning.

I am shocked — shocked — at the claims of Brian Camenker and our friends at Mass Resistance: are they saying that self-styled “queer” activists would actually use lies and deception, and manipulate the legal system, to bring down a conservative foe? Of course that’s what they’re saying — and Camenker knows the “gay” lobby like few others, since he — as the leading defender of pro-family values on the homosexual issue in Massachusetts — has been a target of its wrath. Remember, it’s all about ends justifying the means for so many homosexual activists, and it appears Cirignano is their latest victim.– Peter LaBarbera

MassResistance reports: 

Catholic activist Larry Cirignano arraigned in court on assault & battery, civil rights violation — completely phony charges against him by homosexual activists. Hearing on May 1. The justice system turned upside down.  ===

On Tuesday, April 11, Catholic activist Larry Cirignano was arraigned in a Worcester [Mass.] courthouse on charges of assault and battery, and civil rights violations. He will have his pre-trial hearing on May 1. Not only could Larry be convicted of these, but they are also exploring whether to also charge him with a hate crime.  This is being driven — with great energy — by local homosexual activists and the ACLU.

Words cannot express what an incredible, unbelievable fraud and injustice this is.  On Saturday morning, Dec. 16, 2006, Larry was helping run a pro-traditional marriage rally for VoteOnMarriage on the steps of Worcester City Hall. They had speakers, signs, and several dozen people who came to hear and see it. They had a permit to be there and made sure that police officers were present.

Homosexual activists also brought a sizeable group of people there. They gathered right in the same area. Their purpose was to scream and mingle and to disrupt the event in any way they could (see the video link HERE). At one point, one of them came right up and stood, with a sign, in front of the podium and started chanting, in order to disrupt it further. The police (who had already told them to back off) did nothing. So Larry walked up and walked her back into the crowd, away from the podium. When Larry was coming back, he heard screams. The woman (who it turns out is an ACLU Board Member) had dived to the ground and was claiming that Larry had pushed her!  But six eyewitnesses we talked to said that it was an act, an happened well after Larry had started walking the other way. Nevertheless, homosexual activists insisted that Larry had assaulted her and pushed her to the ground!

In the days following that incident, we talked to the Worcester police official responsible for deciding what to do. It became clear to us that the police were, shall we say, unbelievably sympathetic to the homosexual activists (“she had a right to free speech there”) and contempt for the pro-family community.

Now Larry’s being charged with a crime, a civil rights violation, and possible an additional hate crime!  The Orwellian absurdity of this is mind-numbing. The homosexual “community” has been celebrating and are determined to punish Larry as much as they can.

Here’s this week’s Worcester Telegram article on Wednesday’s arraignment. It’s completely slanted. It doesn’t mention that there are a MINIMUM of six close eye-witnesses (whom we’ve talked to) that say the alleged “attack” simply did not happen.
http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/NEWS/704120752/1008/NEWS02

Video of disgusting behavior by homosexual activists at the December 16 event
Here’s our current web page on this incident.   It includes a disgusting video of what the homosexual activists were doing during that event to disrupt it — besides the outrageous and phony stunt they pulled on Larry Cirignano. Unfortunately, this video does not have the actual incident, but it shows you what else was going on. We’ll be updating this page over the next week.
COMING UP SOON:  We have a copy of the only video taken during the actual incident. We will be posting that on the MassResistance website for you to see for yourself.

WE WILL KEEP YOU UP TO DATE ON THIS!

By Peter LaBarbera

At right is a facsimile of the “Day of Silence Card,” which Waubonsie Valley High School in Naperville, IL is urging students to pass out in school tomorrow (Wed., April 18th); to view a clear version in PDF, click HERE.

The following is excerpted from a letter I sent to school authorities at Waubonsie Valley High School (WVHS) in Naperville, Illinois, concerning their promotion and endorsement of the “Day of Silence,” an in-school pro-homosexual protest in which students go silent all day [to protest alleged anti-homosexual oppression]. My children attend public schools in Naperville.

To read Waubonsie’s online announcement about the Day of Silence (DOS), click HERE. To view a PDF of the “Day of Silence Card” that WVHS is promoting to students (to present to their teachers and fellow students), click HERE.  For more information on the parental/student boycott of schools promoting the Day of Silence, go to the NotOurKids.com website. And for information on Alliance Defense Fund’s “Day of Truth” designed to counter the DOS, click HERE.

___________________________

April 7, 2007

Re: Waubonsie Valley HS web announcement: “Second Annual Day of Silence”: http://www.ipsd.org/newsevents/news_item_detail.asp?id=14568

Dear District 204 Faculty & Waubonsie School Administrators and Teachers,

I was deeply distressed to read the web posting concerning Waubonsie High School’s outright promotion of GLSEN’s national Day of Silence (tomorrow). Because you have chosen to embrace and officially endorse this event — which clearly advances one side of the controversial moral issue of homosexuality and will disrupt the learning environment at WVHS — my wife and I will be pulling our son … from school tomorrow (Wed, April 18th), and will encourage other parents to do the same.

We will also work to advance a policy of strict neutrality [at WVHS] on the issue of homosexuality and other moral conscience issues at Waubonsie and District 204 in the months and years ahead….

We respectfully ask: how does it promote an environment that is conducive to learning to encourage students to present a card to their teachers informing them that they will “remain silent for the entire day, including class….” (emphasis added) on the Day of Silence, Wed., April 18th? What about the students who do not agree with homosexual behavior, for religious, moral or other reasons? Or what about students who come to school to learn, and are not interested in crusading for social causes during school hours? Doesn’t it concern you that these students will be unfairly subjected to this propaganda exercise — and that their right to be educated in a non-politicized atmosphere will be violated?

We are concerned because the “gay” student club at WVHS, Identity — alone among all the extra-curricular student clubs — deals with a highly controversial moral and social issue that has severe implications for students’ health and spiritual well-being. Nobody doubts the merit of the other student clubs. It is as dubious to portray Day of Silence as an innocuous event about tolerance as it is to say that Identity is like any other student club.

We do not view homosexuality as an issue of innate identity but changeable behavior which is immoral in the eyes of the Creator. Some common “gay” sexual behaviors are also very high risk (unsafe), as evidenced by this quotation — not by Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson — but by homosexual writer Jack Hart (pardon the graphic content):

Many sexual transmitted diseases (STDs) occur more often among gay men than in the general population. Several factors contribute to this difference: Gay men have the opportunity to engage in sex with more people than do most heterosexual men, and some practices common among gays — especially rimming [anal-oral intercourse] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient at transmitting disease. (Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men, Allyson Books, 1998, pp. 212-213)

There are countless other credible resources I could cite documenting the health risks of homosexual behaviors. (See Dr. John Diggs’ paper, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex.”)  Are the GLBT and “questioning” students at WVHS made aware of these risks? Do parents know about them? (I was told by [a Waubonsie Valley HS official] that a student can attend Identity meetings without his or her parents’ knowledge or approval.) Moreover, because I have personally met or interviewed dozens of former homosexuals, I do not view this as an issue of “civil rights.” (There are no ex-African Americans or ex-Latinos.) In fact, I am concerned that homosexual activist groups like GLSEN — the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, an acronym which you failed to define in your web posting about the Day of Silence — are strongly prejudiced against tradition-minded students and their parents.

Consider this highly “intolerant” and bigoted quote disparaging religious conservatives from GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings made in a church in 2000:

“Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we’ll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] … over to our side. That’s really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — … I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ‘[F–k] ’em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!” (Source: audiotape from event, cited in a paper I wrote for Concerned Women for America, “When Silence Would Have Been Golden”)

When schools delve into the promotion of one side of a controversial moral issue like homosexuality, or join with controversial groups like GLSEN, it naturally discriminates against students on the other side.  Several weeks ago, I attended a District 204 Diversity meeting dealing with gay issues. I voiced concern about the biased nature of the presentation — which was reliant on information provided by GLSEN — hardly an objective source and in fact one that has a record of radical activism. Here are just two more black marks on GLSEN’s record (please forgive the graphic content, but this is what pre-teen children were exposed to):

1) GLSEN-backed 2000 “Fistgate” scandal in Massachusetts: (see http://massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/massnews.html) At a GLSEN-sponsored conference at Tufts U., on March 25, 2000, three homosexual activists employed by the Massachusetts Departments of Health and Education led a youth workshop titled “What They Didn’t Tell You about Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class” — part of the annual Boston-GLSEN “Teach Out” conference held at Tufts University. The “Queer Sex” session, advertised to “youth only ages 14 to 21,” was attended by Massachusetts family advocate Scott Whitemen, who taped it while standing in the back of the room.

In the workshop, instructor Michael Gaucher, prompted by a teen’s question, verbally guided the students on the mechanics of “fisting” — a homosexual slang term for a sadistic sex act in which a man inserts his hand and arm into another person’s anal cavity. Another instructor, Margot Abels, said fisting “often gets a really bad rap,” and described it innocuously as “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with.” Abels and Gaucher also guided the students on techniques of oral sodomy and lesbian sex.

[NOTE: I think I am correct that GLSEN never issued an apology to the public for sponsoring this heinous event that corrupted innocent children.]

2) At GLSEN’s conference in Arlington Heights, IL [a suburb of Chicago], in 2000, all participants, including dozens of high school-aged kids, could pick up a homosexual “Visitor’s Companion” — which advertised Chicago’s gay “leather” bars, a gay sex club and a homosexual bathhouse (where men go for anonymous sexual liaisons with other men) called “Steamworks,” which was advertised as a “24-hour men’s gym/sauna.”

If GLSEN were a conservative or Christian group and committed such reckless acts endangering youth, do you think they would still be promoted as a credible source by public schools? Were you aware of GLSEN’s scandals? Do you think Naperville and Aurora parents would countenance any WVHS involvement with GLSEN if they know of this organization’s reckless and radical track record? (For more information on GLSEN’s 2000 conference, click on this link: http://www.geocities.com/sirokai/shininglight/gradeschoolkids.htm.)

Frankly, I am stunned that after another concerned 204 parent and I voiced our objections to District 204’s bias on homosexual issues at the 204 Diversity meeting, you have chosen to so blatantly promote an activist pro-homosexual event like the DOS that has angered parents across the nation.

We regard your promotion of GLSEN’s Day of Silence event as educational malpractice and the misuse of your authority granted to you by tax-paying and voting parents (most of whom probably have no idea that Waubonsie VHS is being used for this pro-gay social protest tomorrow). By promoting this massive, in-school distraction, despite claims that this is merely about “tolerance,” you are harming the educational process and directly undermining parents’ rights to guide their own children’s understanding on this important moral question.

Please also consider this document by the Citizens for Community Values on the “Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools.”

I would like to request a meeting to discuss this matter … Also, I would request any data you have on GLBT students being harassed at WVHS in this and the past few years. If there is truly a problem of WVHS administrators and teachers being unable to protect gay-identified kids, the public deserves to know about it.  For the record, our position is that no child should be abused or harassed, but that schools can safeguard all kids without reference to any special criteria such as “sexual orientation.”

Thank you for your urgent consideration of this matter. Needless to say, it is no small thing for us to intentionally pull our child from school, but we feel that you have given us no choice by endorsing this activist, pro-gay protest.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera

Naperville, Illinois parent

By Peter LaBarbera 

Bob Schwartz of the leftist Chicago homosexual group Gay Liberation Network responded to my e-note asking if he favored laws censoring pro-family group’s speech critical of homosexuality. The following is Schwartz’s response (we’ve put his response at the top rather than following my note, as it was in the original).

I certainly doubt the accuracy of Schwartz’s claim about the Nigerian bishop, as he and his group typically lop all Christians who stand for traditional morality in with those who committed indefensible acts (e.g., violence or death threats) against homosexuals. Schwartz also engages in hyperbole typical of many leftists when he claims that Christian groups are a threat to democracy. Schwartz’s flagrant name-calling of committed Christians as “fascists” is a callous and hurtful shibboleth that has no basis in reality and is deeply offensive to all people and groups, like Americans For Truth, that abhor the Nazis’ genocidal record.

As to Schwartz’s claim about “hate speech,” many on our side of the debate regard GLN’s standard rhetoric — e.g., calling the historic Moody Bible Church in Chicago a “house of hate” — as hateful in the extreme.

Finally, regarding his note about socieities in decline, we commend the work of  the (anti-Christian) Edward Gibbons (The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire), historian Will Durant, Pitirim Sorokin, and others who have documented the role of sexual immorality in the demise of great civilizations.

All this said, we are pleasantly surprised that the GLN leader is not an outright advocate of censorship. Here is Schwartz’s reply to my question:

Is The Big House Peter LaBarbera’s future home?
 

_______________________________________________
 
Sure, its tempting to want to enact laws like those in Canada and across parts of Europe that restrict the very kind of hate speech you and others dole out to gays, all under cover of “religious freedom.” But, I do not favor governmental restrictions on hate speech.
 
I reach this conclusion, not because I care one iota about speech rights for people who would like to push me back into the closet, restrict my rights or see me dead, but because governmental regulation of speech–particularly in the United States–would likely be turned against people of the left, not of the right.  I’m not about to cut my own throat.
 
What I will do is keep portraying right-wing outfits like IFI and Americans for Truth, along with more effective hate groups like Focus on the Family, the John Hagee “ministries,” and the Coral Ridge fascist James Kennedy as dangerous to democracy. Dangerous because they include extremists who want to substitute the bible for the US Constitution. Dangerous because they are hate mongers who go after vulnerable gays today, but have an agenda that includes rolling back gains won thru struggle by workers, immigrants, women, and African Americans, as well as support to American/Israeli wars for empire.*
 
This summer, Gay Liberation Network will host a Nigerian gay man who has had to flee his native land following death threats from thugs spurred on by Christian leaders such as the Anglican archbishop, Peter Akinola, a man held to be a hero by some American gay haters.
 
Finally, as you will recall, we are prepared to take our ideas into the street.
 
You and others of your ilk deserve to be isolated, and ousted from respectable society.  The fate of Don Imus hopefully awaits antigay bigots as well.
 
BOB SCHWARTZ
Gay Liberation Network
 
[* See the book by Kevin Phillips entitled “American Theocracy.” Phillips points out that elites of societies in decline often appropriate religious fervor as they attempt to stabilize the sinking ship, branding policy opponents as enemies, demonizing religious and sexual minorities, scapegoating “foreigners,” calling upon the deity to bless military adventures, etc.]

….
 
I got the following response from Peter LaBarbera after I copied him on the message I posted regarding the IFI campaign to defeat federal hate crime legislation.  My response to LaBarbera follows his message. 
LaBarbera posted my original message and his response on his website: http://americansfortruth.org/
He can be reached at americansfortruth@comcast.net
 
 
…. You’d love to censor groups like IFI and Americans for Truth, wouldn’t you? If you had the power, you’d want to shut us down or ban certain aspects of our speech and conduct? For example, would you favor a federal “anti-hate” law that would have made our last email (“Satan’s Talking Points”) illegal? Or am I wrong and you actually support freedom of speech in the USA on the homosexual issue (which does not include direct harassing threats or advocating violence)? Would you favor using anti-discrimination hate speech laws to curb anti-gay speech? Which speech if any would you censor? Do you support anti-“hate speech” laws in Canada and England that are rapidly criminalizing (“discriminatory”) speech critical of homosexuality and are resulting in Christians being sued for discrimination or being jailed because they publicly oppose homosexual behavior? Did you support the jailing of the pastor in Sweden, Ake Green (www.akegreen.org), or do you think he should not have been prosecuted and what the government did to him was an injustice?  Since you’re charging us with being fascists, don’t we have a right to know? Would you use state power to restrict anti-gay speech, or not, and if so, under what circumstances?
 
Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth

This is great, but the real “apology to the world” should come from Canada’s homosexual activists, who put their own misguided sexial affirmation goals above protecting traditional marriage and the welfare of children. Add to that their role in the destruction of freedom in Canada, which of course is sublimated to their selfish goal of forcing the acceptance of all things homosexual. — Peter LaBarbera

LETTER OF APOLOGY TO THE WORLD

April 11, 2007

 

To the world’s leaders and people,

 

We, the people of Canada who support marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, apologize to the people of the world for harm done through Canada’s legalization of homosexual marriage.

 

We are grieved and troubled as we consider the impact this is having in weakening the fundamental institution of marriage in countries and cultures around the world.  We understand that because Canada does not impose citizenship or residency requirements in order for same-sex individuals to be “married” here, couples are coming to Canada to seek legal sanction for their homosexual relationships with the intent of returning to their own countries to challenge those countries’ legal definition of marriage.

 

We understand that Canada is seen by people around the world as a country in which public policy is developed carefully and judiciously.  It would, therefore, be a natural assumption that in legalizing homosexual marriage our government and courts thoroughly considered the implications of this action through proper and extensive study of social sciences and facts.   But it is essential that the people of the world understand that this was not the case.  Our government and courts only considered adult “rights.” Among other things, the impact on children’s rights, children’s education, parental rights, religious rights, adoption, the economy and family law were never fully considered.  Changes were thrust upon us by court actions followed by a vote that did not allow for a free vote of every member of our federal parliament.

 

Our warning to you, the people of the world, is to learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating them in your own countries.

  

Forewarned should be forearmed.

 

Signed,

 

Canada Family Action Coalition

REAL Women of Canada

United Families Canada

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life

Alberta REAL Women

Christian Heritage Party of Canada

Third Watch Ministries

United Mothers, Fathers & Friends

Sault Ste. Marie – CFAC

Dawn Stefanowicz – Author   

MY Canada Association

Father’s Resting Place

______________________________

Media Release:  REAL Women of Canada

REAL Women of Canada
“Women’s Rights Not at the Expense of Human Rights” 

NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations

 Media Release

For immediate release, April 11, 2007

Apology for Canada’s Same-sex Marriage Legislation

It is necessary to apologize to the people of the world for the difficulties caused in other countries by the legislation in Canada which permits same-sex marriages. 

It is unfortunate that some foreign same-sex partners have come to Canada to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and subsequently applied to the courts in their own country to recognize this so-called Canadian marriage.  Canadian marriage law does not demand residency requirements and this is being used by activists to attempt to change the marriage laws in their own country. 

There are many Canadians who do not, and will not, accept the marriage of same-sex partners.  Such Canadians will continue to work to restore the traditional definition of marriage defined as being between a man and a woman only.  To do so is not to discriminate against same-sex partners, since their relationships are markedly different from those of opposite-sex relationships, regardless of what the law in Canada states.   

Linton: HB 1826 would “empty the institution of marriage of all substance” 

Memorandum

Date:  March 19, 2007

To:  Illinois pro-family groups, including Illinois Citizens for Life, Americans For Truth, Illinois Family Institute, CWA of Illinois, and Real Civil Rights Illinois

From: Paul Linton, Esq.

Re:  Analysis of Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1826

Introduction

Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1826, if enacted by the General Assembly, would create civil unions in Illinois for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.  The Amendment would “deconstruct” the meaning of marriage in two vital respects:

First, it would allow same-sex couples to enjoy “all the same protections, benefits, and responsibilities under law . . . as are granted to spouses in a marriage.” § 105(a).  This is contrary to the longstanding public policy of Illinois (and, until very recently, every other State in the Union and every other country in the world) to confer such “protections, benefits, and responsibilities” only upon married couples who, by definition and the very nature of marriage, are opposite-sex. 

Second, it would allow opposite-sex couples to enjoy “all the same protections, benefits, and responsibilities under law . . . as are granted to spouses in a marriage,” § 105(a),  see also §§ 105(c), 106, 201, without actually being married, a legislative novelty that has not been adopted in any other State, including those States that have enacted civil unions statutes (Connecticut, New Jersey and Vermont) or their equivalent (California’s Domestic Partner Act).  Opposite-sex couples (who, of course, may marry under current law) are included for the twin purposes of diluting the meaning of marriage and blurring the distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex relationships (by calling them by the same name).

Amendment No. 1 would empty the institution of marriage of all substance, leaving only an empty form (i.e., the name, “marriage”) as a “consolation prize” for those who oppose same-sex “marriage.”  Marriage, however, is more than a name–it is an institution that is fundamental to the existence and continuity of societies throughout history, in all times and places.
 
Legal Land Mines

Apart from the public policy reasons for opposing Amendment No. 1, which are discussed below, there are legal reasons for opposing the Amendment, as well.