The Right To Criticize

A Roman Catholic magazine has had accusations of dissemination of hate dismissed against it by the Canadian Human rights Commission. A charge brought against Catholic Insight by an Edmonton-based gay rights activist. One that has cost the publication and its editor, Father Alphonse de Valk, $20,00o in legal fees, attempting to counter the charge.

This, for a publication that boasts a circulation of under four thousand subscribers. All of whom subscribe to the tenor and thrust of the publication, as practising Catholics. Who, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are guaranteed the right and the freedom to practise their religion as they have done traditionally.

Their right to free speech, and free thought and expression, along with that of the editor and the magazine has been challenged. And found wanting. Since when has it become illegal to have an opinion that runs contrary to newly-accepted social convention? Since when has it become unlawful to express reservations about a gender balance that religious scriptures have been interpreted to deny?

It's disturbing, and no doubt hurtful to the psyches of gays to face the reality that their accepted way of life is not tolerable to others. But why should they care? What they do is private and should remain that way. They're also guaranteed protection under the law through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Their sexual orientation is now universally recognized as accepted - at least in Canada.

They need not expect that all of Canadian society - most particularly orthodox religious - will complacently view their demands with disinterest. The gay community is now assured of all the privileges accorded any other groups in society. They have achieved equality status with respect to being recognized in law as comprising a family when two members of the same sex live together, as far as societal benefits and entitlements are concerned.

They are not, however, entitled to accuse others of homophobia, of deliberately inciting to violence or anger or hatred against them because they don't embrace their cause. In fact, there have been incidents of very offensive behaviours on the part of gays who have insisted that religious-oriented owners of private establishments host their affairs though it goes against their personal beliefs.

And there have been instances when angry gays have remonstrated belligerantly against the deferrals of religious individuals who are contracted to officiate at civil ceremonies and whose religious convictions would be offended if forced to perform those ceremonies. A result of which has been that the offended gays have taken to the law to force compliance. And that's offensive.

Government has recognized their right to a formal union, a marriage between same sexes. Despite which, although Canadians are, by and large, a fairly obliging and accepting society, some segments of society remain unhappy that the traditional view of marriage as a sacrament between a man and a woman with a view to producing a traditional family has been rent asunder. They have this right.

The Canadian Human Rights commission ruled for a dismissal of the complaint. They did not agree that the magazine promoted hatred against homosexuals "because the material is not likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on sexual orientation". The citations of disparate portions of 16 articles taken from the magazine did not stand up to scrutiny. Fr. de Valk, in his denial of the allegations, claimed his accuser selectively quoted out of context.

"He plucked quotes from several different articles to give the impression that we were spreading hatred ... it's just not true." Fr. de Valk explained that his magazine adheres to Church teaching that homosexuality represents a sin. And he and the magazine object to gay-rights activists' agenda, but has no intent of spreading hatred. "We weren't attacking any individuals or groups of individuals."

It isn't everyone who appreciates overt and very public displays of homosexual activity. No more than the public cherishes overt and public displays of heterosexual activity. Sexual activity of any kind is best practised in private. For it's really no one's business but that of the people directly involved. Sex is an intensely private and personal activity. It's offensive to flaunt public displays of intimacy that the public has no interest in.

And there still remains a large segment of the population that feels civil unions could accomplish the very same certainties of rights for homosexuals that registered marriages do. Who feel that the co-opting of the marriage ceremony, certification and traditions to unite same-sex couples is a silly travesty of reality.

If they feel that way, they've a right to, if it's their honest opinion.