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…

Hear Americans For Truth president Peter LaBarbera on Janet Folger’s “Faith2Action” radio show over the WVCY network. After Faith2Action founder Folger, author of “Criminalizing Christianity,” asks LaBarbera what he would say to Christians who want to drop out of the Culture Wars, he answers that in reality, many Christians want to “cop out” of the fight against the radical “gay” agenda, often employing bogus theological excuses. He urged listeners to “grow up” and defend their American freedom — including the freedom to disagree with the intolerant homosexual agenda — even if “it’s hard.”

Click HERE to listen to the program online. LaBarbera’s segment is in the second half of the hour-long program.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the new Speaker of the House, is considered one of the strongest gay rights supporters in Congress and has signed on as a co-sponsor to all 10 gay- and AIDS-related bills dropped in the hopper in recent years.

“She has said ENDA [Employment Non-Discrimination Act] and the hate crimes bills have received widespread, bipartisan support,” said Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill. “She said they would be expected to come up quickly.”

It is urgent that pro-family citizens–Republicans, Democrats and independents alike–contact their U.S. Representative and Senators, as well as President Bush, to state their opposition to passage of all pro-homosexuality “sexual orientation” bills in the new Congress. At the top of the “gay” wish-list is ENDA, which we are calling the “ENDA-Our Freedom” Bill because it would use federal power to force businesses to support and subsidize homosexuality and gender confusion (“transgender”: think men in dresses, using female restrooms).

Also on the homosexual docket is a homosexuality/gender-inclusive “hate crimes” bill, which will be the precursor to the homosexual lobby’s ultimate goal of using the state to curtail anti-“gay”/”homophobic” (read: Christian and conservative) “hate speech.”

Beware the Democratic leadership’s bait-and-switch on Capitol Hill. The media reported how key Democrats in “swing” districts–like Christian pro-lifer and former NFL quarterback Heath Shuler (D-N.C.)–won by running away from liberalism and appealing to conservative values. Curtailing precious American freedoms in the service of a “gay” agenda that seeks to radically redefine the family and marriage–and punish people for living out their religious beliefs about sexuality and marriage–was not pominent in their campaign rhetoric. Please start making your voice heard to your elected legislators and President Bush today. — Peter LaBarbera

TAKE ACTION — Contact the White House and your U.S. Senators and Representative with your opposition to these bills.

——————————-

The following is excerpted from New Congress Expected to Consider Gay Bills in ’07, by Lou Chibbaro Jr, published Dec 15, 2006, by the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade:

Top 10 gay bills in Congress

Gay-supportive members of Congress have introduced these bills at the request of gay rights or AIDS advocacy groups in recent years. All of them have died in committee after Republican leaders in the House and Senate refused to bring them up for a vote. The new Democratic-controlled Congress is expected to be more sympathetic toward the 10 bills, but Democratic leaders chose not to place any of them on their agenda for their first 100 days in office.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Calls for banning private sector employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act: Calls for giving the federal government authority to prosecute hate crimes based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Military Readiness Enhancement Act: Calls for repealing the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy so that gay male, lesbian and bisexual troops would be allowed to serve openly.

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…

Friends, we have a relentless opponent. Are you as tenacious as they are?

Excerpted from Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Bill Re-Introduced in California Legislature, by Gudrun Schultz, published Dec 5, 2006, by LifeSite News:

Bill nearly identical to legislation Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed in 2005

The new California legislature reintroduced a measure to permit homosexual “marriage” after the swearing-in on Monday, the Associated Press reported.

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act was introduced by Assemblyman Mark Leno. The bill is nearly identical to legislation allowing homosexual marriage that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed in 2005, after the measure narrowly passed both the Assembly and the Senate.

The measure would change the wording of the Family Code to remove the current definition of marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman, replacing it with a definition of marriage as a civil contract between two persons.

The bill would also establish the right of religious institutions to refuse to solemnize homosexual unions if it would violate their fundamental beliefs.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

As the new Congress convenes in January, hate crimes legislation and ENDA (employment non-discrimination) are high on the priority list. Read on to see where similar legislation has taken our British friends…

Excerpted from Homophobia Spies in the Classroom, published Dec 28, 2006, by Evening Standard:

Schools that fail to show enthusiasm in rooting out prejudice against homosexuals should be reported to the police by pupils and parents, a Home Office report recommended yesterday.

It called for parents and children to identify schools that ignore “homophobic” language in the playground and teachers who produce “homophobic” lessons.

And it called for head teachers to bring lessons about “homophobia” on to school timetables and to involve their pupils in gay “awareness weeks”.

The advice from Home Secretary John Reid‘s officials comes at a time of deep concern among churches that new gay rights laws due next spring will bar traditional teaching on sexual morality in schools and force them instead to include gay rights dogma in lessons.

The paper on “homophobic hate crime” is aimed at guiding police forces, local authorities, social services and schools among other public bodies.

…Urging that school incidents be reported to a “hate crime co-ordinator”…It called for reporting systems to “allow pupils and parents to make referrals direct if they feel the school is not taking the issue seriously.”

The report added: “The seriousness of using homophobic language is not fully appreciated in schools…”

Home Office minister Tony McNulty [Minister for Police & Security, pictured right] said: “…People who commit homophobic crime need to know their prejudices and actions will be tackled…”

…Colin Hart (pictured left) of the Christian Institute think tank that backed the Roberts said yesterday: “There is an element of desperation about this advice. No-one wants to see any kind of bullying in schools. But this is not about bullying of pupils who others think are homosexual. It is about punishing schools unless they try to stop pupils using “gay” as a perjorative word.”

…The Home Office guidance also said that gay lobby groups could set up “third party reporting centres” to pass to police details of “homophobic” incidents which gay individuals themselves have been too scared to report to police.

Police should then record the names and details of individuals passed on by gay lobby groups, it said.

Continue reading in Evening Standard…

“It is also a chance
to wholly transform the definition of family
in American culture.

It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes,
get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools,
and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”

— Michelangelo Signorile in I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,
published May 1996 by OUT magazine (page 30)
(cited by Robert Knight at Talking Points on Marriage)

“I do not believe people in Wisconsin would have voted ‘no’ on civil unions,” Doyle said.

Governor Doyle may not want to believe it, but Wisconsin residents DID vote “no” to civil unions. State Rep. Mark Gundrum says it very well (see below).

———————————–

Excerpted from Doyle: Take New Look at Civil Unions, by David Callender and Judith Davidoff, published Dec 18, 2006, by Capital Times:

Gov. Jim Doyle (pictured right) said today that he believes the fight over legalizing same-sex civil unions in Wisconsin is not finished.

Despite the passage of a constitutional amendment last month banning same-sex marriages, Doyle said in an interview that he believes civil unions are “one of the things people should be looking at and discussing.”

Doyle said he believes it was unfair for opponents of gay marriage to include a provision in the amendment that would ban any relationships “substantially similar” to marriage.

The amendment, which passed with 59 percent of the vote, also defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

“I do not believe people in Wisconsin would have voted ‘no’ on civil unions,” Doyle said.

The governor said he believes a new constitutional amendment proposed by state Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, to ban discrimination could be a way to blunt the effects of the marriage ban.

…But Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin (pictured left), does not believe civil unions would be permitted under Wisconsin’s recently passed ban on same-sex marriage.