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 European Transgender Groups Unite, published Jan 16, 2007, by the pro-homosexuality 247Gay:

A new coalition of European Transgender and Transsexual Groups, TransGender Europe, has received recognition by the Austrian authorities this week.

This was just too entertaining to pass over (pardon the pun)…

Excerpted from Bleating Hearts, by Mark Steyn, by Jan 8, 2007, at Washington Times:

As part of this column’s ongoing commitment to in-depth coverage of the issues that matter, we’re pleased to present the first of a new series: Sheep In The News. Here are two headlines from the last week.

From The Wall Street Journal: “Ritual sacrifice? Not on my street, some Belgians say.” And from The Sunday Times of London: “Science told: Hands off gay sheep.”

The first story is about the 25,000 sheep in Brussels who a few days ago found themselves pointed toward Mecca and then slit through the throat and bled to death.

Muslims do this to celebrate Eid al-Adha, which commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son to God and God’s willingness to settle for a ram in lieu. The Belgian Muslim population has grown so fast that there aren’t enough places in the city to perform the ritual sacrifice, and come Eid it’s like sheep drivetime at every Brussels slaughterhouse, with rams backed up ram-to-ram as far as the eye can see.

As reported by the Journal, Mohamed Mimoun grabbed his sheep, took a number and realized he was in for a two-hour wait. Even worse, en route to the slaughterhouse, he was stopped by a cop and fined for having the sheep in the trunk of his Toyota. By law, the sheep is supposed to ride in the rear passenger seats. Baa, baa, back seat.

On which note, let us turn to the gay sheep. Apparently, researchers at Oregon Health and Science University and Oregon State University have been experimenting with ovine hormonal balances to persuade homosexual rams of the error of their ways. It seems they’ve had “considerable success” with injecting hormones into the rams’ brains. Suddenly the lads are playing the field and crooning a couple of choruses of “Embrace me, my sweet embraceable ewe.”

Gay groups (human gay groups, that is: Even America does not yet have a 24/7 gay sheep lobby group with offices on K Street) are not happy about this. Martina Navratilova, the nine-times Wimbledon champ, has called for the project to be abandoned and for scientists to respect, as the Sunday Times put it, “the right of sheep to be gay”…

Continue reading at Washington Times…

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…

Note: Lambda Report, the precursor to and the now defunct publication of Americans For Truth, broke the original story revealing ILGA’s (the International Lesbian and Gay Association) connection to NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man/Boy Love Association. ILGA has long sought official United Nations-affiliated consultative status, to give itself a more influential platform to advance its distorted conception of “human rights” (one that is deeply offensive to majority Muslim countries, by the way). The Lambda Report story led to Congressional passage of a law banning any pedophile-inclusive group from receiving U.S. taxpayer dollars.

We are of course deeply troubled that the Bush Administration has voted to give ILGA and two other international homosexual groups the coveted U.N.-affiliated status. It seems that in recent months, through various pro-homosexual actions, the White House has lost touch with the conservative, pro-family values that helped put George Bush in the Oval Office. We hope this trend doesn’t continue as Mr. Bush could soon be presented with pro-homosexual legislation (ENDA, “Hate Crimes,” repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”) coming out of the Democratic-controlled Congress. —Peter LaBarbera

———————————-

The following is from Radical Homosexual Groups Approved by UN with Bush Support, by Bradford Short, published Dec 28, 2006, by Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute:

The U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) recently granted official [consultative] status to three gay-rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs):

• the Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians,

• the Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany (LSVD) and

• the International Lesbian and Gay Federation (ILGA).

ECOSOC granted the consultative status to the gay-rights NGOs despite the fact that the UN Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations recommended against it, and the fact that one of the groups had clear links to pro-pedophilia organizations in the past.

ILGA is probably the most infamous of the groups granted ECOSOC consultative status last week. A “global federation of organizations and individuals seeking to” advance gay rights, ILGA, was repeatedly rejected for official UN status many times in the past several years for its connection to a child-sex group called the the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). NAMBLA is probably the leading pro-pedophilia group in the United States. ILGA is said to have expelled NAMBLA but, according to UN delegations, refused to condemn adult-child sex. ILGA said “these groups had joined ILGA at an earlier stage of ILGA’s development, at a time when ILGA did not have in place administrative procedures to scrutinize the constitutions and policies of groups seeking membership.” This claim, at least until last week, gave UN delegations pause since the name “North American Man Boy Love Association makes it fairly clear the group promotes homosexual sex between men and children.

Another approved group, the Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians considers itself to be an organization that takes a “conservative” approach to gay-rights advocacy in Denmark. That is, its support for gay “marriage,” for gay adoption, and for laws that would force churches to bless gay unions, all are “conservative” endeavors because in doing these things Danish homosexuals do not “want to change the world,” they “just want to be in it on equal terms.” The Association does understand, however, the concerns of “subversive” Danish homosexuals, who want to prevent the “extensive heterofication of [Danish] society” that they say is happening because gays are pursuing “conservative” ends, such as marriage. In this way does the Association understand itself as a moderate gay-rights group.

LSVD includes member divisions such as “LSVD fresh,” which is supposed to be a support group “for youngsters” who are gay.

Twenty-three nations on the Council voted for the groups’ accreditation, while sixteen voted against it, and ten abstained. Among those voting in favor of the gay-rights groups was the United States, which has recently been voting in favor of groups that advance the homosexual agenda at the UN. One UN permanent representative told the Friday Fax that, “while the Bush Administration has been solid on life issues, it seems irrational to me that they insist on favoring gay groups that clearly seek to undermine marriage and the family.”

Excerpted from Furor in Italy Over “Gay Nativity” in Parliament, by Philip Pullella, published Dec 20, 2006, by Reuters:

Two leftists in Italy’s ruling coalition on Wednesday outraged fellow lawmakers by placing four dolls representing homosexual couples near the baby Jesus in the official nativity scene in parliament.

The two parliamentarians from the small “Rose in the Fist” party said their gesture was to promote the legalization of gay marriage and granting legal recognition to unmarried couples.

Bruno Mellano and Donatella Poretti placed the Barbie and Ken-type dolls in the parliamentary nativity scene, each couple lying down embraced among the shepherds witnessing the birth of Jesus.

Each of the two doll couples, which parliamentary ushers removed after a few minutes, wore miniature placards with slogans in favor of gay rights.

“This is a vulgar and unacceptable double attack against both a (national) institution as well as a religious symbol,” a group of women parliamentarians of the opposition conservative Forza Italia party said in a statement.

Luca Volonte, a member of the small centrist opposition Union of Christian Democrats, called the gesture a “pure attack against the religion practiced by the majority of Italians”.

Continue reading at Reuters…

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…