Post by Parsifal Post by âlant.org
Posts made by atheist are considered by a vast majority of Americans
to be nothing more than dribbles of shit from a despised and detested
March 24, 2006
The Atheist is the most hated group in America according to a study
Another clear sign that the USA are turning -slowly but surely- into
what they're fighting against: a country led by religious fanatics.
Great, just what we needed: another lunatic country with nuclear
Homosexuality Trumps Free Speech And Religion In Canada
A Vanderbilt University Law Journal surveys the growing trend in
Canada of judges suppressing free speech and religion in order to
August 9, 2005 - Hans C. Clausen, Editor-in-Chief of the Vanderbilt
Journal of Transnational Law, has written a lengthy article on the
suppression of free speech and religious belief in Canada over
conflicts with homosexual activists in that nation.
The 66-page article, "The 'privilege of speech' in a 'pleasantly
authoritarian country': how Canada's judiciary allowed laws
proscribing discourse critical of homosexuality to trump free speech
and religious liberty," was published in the March, 2005 edition of
the law journal. The article is currently only available through
fee-based database services.
Clausen's main premise is this: "The goal of these laws [proscribing
criticism of homosexuality] is much grander than preventing
discrimination against homosexuals; rather, the objective is seemingly
to promote the social acceptance of gay and lesbian lifestyles ...
achieving the social equality of homosexuals-conceived in sweeping
terms-has, in many Western countries, outstripped legal protections
for speech and religious freedoms."
Clausen introduces the case of Dr. Chris Kempling, a Christian high
school counselor who has been persecuted for publishing his views on
homosexuality in local newspapers. Kempling, a NARTH member, has
chronicled his legal problems in "Against the Current: The Cost Of
Speaking Out For Orientation Change In Canada" on NARTH's web site.
After describing Kempling's suspension from his teaching position for
publicly expressing his views on homosexuality, Clausen then mentions
several other countries that have criminalized critical remarks
against homosexuality: New Zealand, South Africa, Netherlands,
Denmark, and others.
However, according to Clausen, Canada has taken the strongest stand
against public comments against homosexuality. Activists have used
"hate speech" laws to ban negative comments about homosexual behavior
from the television and radio as well as from mail delivery.
In 2004, the Canadian Parliament passed C-250, sponsored by gay
legislator Svend Robinson. The legislation added "sexual orientation"
to the list of protected minority categories in Canadian law.
Because of this new law, religious leaders are fearful of speaking out
against homosexuality and, notes Clausen, "Academicians also seem to
be feeling the effect: some university professors are scared that the
law will threaten free inquiry in the classroom and in their own
According to Clausen, moral criticisms of homosexuality will not be
protected under C-250, which means that pastors can be prosecuted for
speaking out against homosexuality or quoting from the Bible.
In one legal case, a Canadian court justified its suppression of free
speech because it claimed that criticism of gays impacted an
individual's sense of "self-worth and acceptance." The court also
listed "self-fulfillment," "self-autonomy," and "self-development," as
reasons to suppress free speech in favor of gays.
Clausen points out that this argument is seriously flawed because it
favors the speech rights of one group over another group. The court
also claimed that criticism of homosexuality damaged the "dignity" of
Clausen counters: "... the argument that homosexuals are entitled to
such a sweeping claim of 'dignity' is questionable. That argument
relies on the notion that sexual orientation is 'an innate or
unchangeable characteristic,' and inherent to one's identity. This
claim has never been conclusively demonstrated, and studies that have
attempted to prove the connection have consistently failed."
The author cites two researchers from Harvard and Stanford who have
commented that "recent studies seeking a genetic basis for
homosexuality suggest that ... we may be in for a new molecular
phrenology, rather than true scientific progress and insight into
behavior. ... [T]he data in fact provide strong evidence for the
influence of the environment."
Clausen notes that not only is there growing evidence against a
genetic basis for homosexuality, but there is also increased
acceptance of the success of reparative or conversion therapy.
He ends his discussion by observing that hate speech laws that
suppress criticism of homosexuality, if taken to their logical
conclusion, would "require the abolition of democracy itself" and "It
reflects a deep lack of faith in citizens' ability to distinguish
truth from error, faults the 'marketplace of ideas' as inadequate and
even dangerous, and claims that the coercive force of government-in
the form of hate speech laws-is the solution."