Last week I received an email from a concerned US citizen via my website. This individual (who I will keep anonymous until otherwise advised) and her husband are both accomplished Christian authors. They have been invited to facilitate at a Sex Education Retreat which is being hosted by an Edmonton church.
The couple was very concerned about their freedoms here in Canada because they're offering a teaching on Biblical sexuality that is based in the Song of Solomon (Song of Songs) and a small part of their teaching does address homosexuality as sin. They were thinking about cancelling due to risk of prosecution but I encouraged them to keep it in the church and they should be ok. Still apprehensive, the couple decided to contact the Alberta Human Rights Commission to enquire about the legalities surrounding their presentation. You can read the phone log of the conversation with Ralph Roman an officer of the AHRC below.
An interesting point here is that this couple was advised by Ralph Roman to get a lawyer to draft a consent form and to also have the person declare that they will keep it private and not make the information public." ...PLUS..., she was advised to have the curriculum reviewed by the Police. Ralph Roman went on to inform her that even with a consent form there was still no guarantee that a complaint could not be filed IF someone was offended....like a teacher for instance.
Christian parents are not allowed to "opt" their kids out of biased pro-homosexual propaganda in our public schools but the HRC advises that we need to obtain consent to teach our religious beliefs in our own religous institutions.
Following is the log of the phone conversation with the AHRC.
Canada does not have freedom of speech, and I have already spoken, putting me in a special class and at risk.
Phone call log June 26, 2008 to Confidential Inquiry Line at Edmonton, AL 780.427.7661 at 3:40 p.m. (30 minute conversation).
Spoke to Ralph Roman, Human Rights officer who said he could explain the laws.
I started by saying, "I'm an American citizen, an author and public speaker, with an upcoming seminar on sex education for young people from the Bible in a church in Alberta."
He said, "Could I ask your name in case I've read some of your books?" I laughed and said, "If I give you my name, will you be waiting for me at the border?" He laughed and said okay.
I stated: "While I'm not a gay basher, in publications, both books and CDs, I have stated my conscientious and Biblical objection to homosexual behavior. It's a minor part of my material, but it's there."
Ralph said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and there is always going to be disputes, for example creationists vs. Darwinists. The problem was speech that could be considered hate or that might cause someone to be looked down upon.
He then numbered the following points of what he recommended:
The couple was very concerned about their freedoms here in Canada because they're offering a teaching on Biblical sexuality that is based in the Song of Solomon (Song of Songs) and a small part of their teaching does address homosexuality as sin. They were thinking about cancelling due to risk of prosecution but I encouraged them to keep it in the church and they should be ok. Still apprehensive, the couple decided to contact the Alberta Human Rights Commission to enquire about the legalities surrounding their presentation. You can read the phone log of the conversation with Ralph Roman an officer of the AHRC below.
An interesting point here is that this couple was advised by Ralph Roman to get a lawyer to draft a consent form and to also have the person declare that they will keep it private and not make the information public." ...PLUS..., she was advised to have the curriculum reviewed by the Police. Ralph Roman went on to inform her that even with a consent form there was still no guarantee that a complaint could not be filed IF someone was offended....like a teacher for instance.
Christian parents are not allowed to "opt" their kids out of biased pro-homosexual propaganda in our public schools but the HRC advises that we need to obtain consent to teach our religious beliefs in our own religous institutions.
Following is the log of the phone conversation with the AHRC.
Canada does not have freedom of speech, and I have already spoken, putting me in a special class and at risk.
Phone call log June 26, 2008 to Confidential Inquiry Line at Edmonton, AL 780.427.7661 at 3:40 p.m. (30 minute conversation).
Spoke to Ralph Roman, Human Rights officer who said he could explain the laws.
I started by saying, "I'm an American citizen, an author and public speaker, with an upcoming seminar on sex education for young people from the Bible in a church in Alberta."
He said, "Could I ask your name in case I've read some of your books?" I laughed and said, "If I give you my name, will you be waiting for me at the border?" He laughed and said okay.
I stated: "While I'm not a gay basher, in publications, both books and CDs, I have stated my conscientious and Biblical objection to homosexual behavior. It's a minor part of my material, but it's there."
Ralph said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and there is always going to be disputes, for example creationists vs. Darwinists. The problem was speech that could be considered hate or that might cause someone to be looked down upon.
He then numbered the following points of what he recommended:
1. You have the invitation, congratulations.
He said the problem is any kind of public teaching vs. private teaching such as a newspaper, public statements, employer, or by a teen in a classroom and a teacher being offended. He said that is when the law is being broken.
He said the following recommendations were the responsibility of the people who invited me, not my responsibility.
2. Ask the church to get a signed consent form from everyone, parents and children, everyone, stating that they are not forced to attend and are there of their own free will. Later he added that this consent should be drawn up by a lawyer who is familiar with the Human Rights Laws.
3. The weekend retreat is considered one-occasion situation and that a license was probably not required.
4. The church needs to contact the education people and take a curriculum of the program and demonstrate that it is an educational program that is not unwelcome by the group there and everyone is there by consent. Also, the church needs to ask the education people if a license is required. At this point Ralph was uncertain and seemed to think a license would be helpful if problems occurred.
5. The church needs to contact the police to make sure they do not view the program as bordering on criminal activity—need to show them the curriculum so they know what is going on and do not arrive on the scene.
I told Ralph I would be dealing with the "hookup mentality" of this generation and teaching abstinence. He said that is a religious belief that lots of people have, but it cannot be forced on anyone and not taught to anyone who is not a part of the group.
I then told Ralph that the church had already distributed a CD of mine to each of their families to prepare for the retreat that had some statements on it about homosexuals. He said that they needed a consent form from each family that this was not unwelcome material and that their kids would not be talking about any of it in the schools.
He said, "You may have a problem with the CD if it is seen as gay bashing and if anyone who has it displays it before the public, i.e., talking about it in a classroom. It needs to be used by a select group who consented to receiving the material. Religious material must not be forced on anyone who is not a part of the group who consented. If a student did this, and the person complained, you would be liable and it would not matter that all the safeguards were in place."
He said, "Here's the bad news: Even if you do the right thing and someone comes to us. We can't stop people from making complaints. Teachers can make a complaint if a student makes comments on his/her own. This kind of material is only for you and not for public consumption and students must be advised to keep it private."
Ralph ended with, "You need to get a lawyer to draft the consent form and to also have the person declare that they will keep it private and not make the information public."
My last question was, "I have a male partner who will be teaching the boys, is he liable because of my CD?" He said. "As your associate, he could be."
Ralph closed the conversation by wishing me well in my teaching. I noticed that he was very careful not to disagree with me about any of my views, but simply stated "many people believe that" or "that is a religious opinion."
I personally would not trust my safety to any lawyer who was not fully informed and involved with Human Rights issues to draw up the consent and will not distribute form.
I did not ask the question about the church's liability, but understand from reading about recent cases that they would also be held liable for distributing the CD without a properly worded consent form.
He said the problem is any kind of public teaching vs. private teaching such as a newspaper, public statements, employer, or by a teen in a classroom and a teacher being offended. He said that is when the law is being broken.
He said the following recommendations were the responsibility of the people who invited me, not my responsibility.
2. Ask the church to get a signed consent form from everyone, parents and children, everyone, stating that they are not forced to attend and are there of their own free will. Later he added that this consent should be drawn up by a lawyer who is familiar with the Human Rights Laws.
3. The weekend retreat is considered one-occasion situation and that a license was probably not required.
4. The church needs to contact the education people and take a curriculum of the program and demonstrate that it is an educational program that is not unwelcome by the group there and everyone is there by consent. Also, the church needs to ask the education people if a license is required. At this point Ralph was uncertain and seemed to think a license would be helpful if problems occurred.
5. The church needs to contact the police to make sure they do not view the program as bordering on criminal activity—need to show them the curriculum so they know what is going on and do not arrive on the scene.
I told Ralph I would be dealing with the "hookup mentality" of this generation and teaching abstinence. He said that is a religious belief that lots of people have, but it cannot be forced on anyone and not taught to anyone who is not a part of the group.
I then told Ralph that the church had already distributed a CD of mine to each of their families to prepare for the retreat that had some statements on it about homosexuals. He said that they needed a consent form from each family that this was not unwelcome material and that their kids would not be talking about any of it in the schools.
He said, "You may have a problem with the CD if it is seen as gay bashing and if anyone who has it displays it before the public, i.e., talking about it in a classroom. It needs to be used by a select group who consented to receiving the material. Religious material must not be forced on anyone who is not a part of the group who consented. If a student did this, and the person complained, you would be liable and it would not matter that all the safeguards were in place."
He said, "Here's the bad news: Even if you do the right thing and someone comes to us. We can't stop people from making complaints. Teachers can make a complaint if a student makes comments on his/her own. This kind of material is only for you and not for public consumption and students must be advised to keep it private."
Ralph ended with, "You need to get a lawyer to draft the consent form and to also have the person declare that they will keep it private and not make the information public."
My last question was, "I have a male partner who will be teaching the boys, is he liable because of my CD?" He said. "As your associate, he could be."
Ralph closed the conversation by wishing me well in my teaching. I noticed that he was very careful not to disagree with me about any of my views, but simply stated "many people believe that" or "that is a religious opinion."
I personally would not trust my safety to any lawyer who was not fully informed and involved with Human Rights issues to draw up the consent and will not distribute form.
I did not ask the question about the church's liability, but understand from reading about recent cases that they would also be held liable for distributing the CD without a properly worded consent form.
2 comments:
Wow man. That's ridiculous!
I am an American MDIV student that's going to be doing pastoral ministry and it seems like the most fundamental of freedom of speech and freedom of religion issues are at stake here.
Keep up the good fight.
Frankly, I don't believe in special cases. I know they occur from time to time, but generally, nobody is that special.
So, I don't believe you're that special either. Your case is the tip of an iceberg.
After all the derision and insult that Canada has heaped upon the United States, and there has been plenty, I don't know how it is that anyone could think that Canada could embrace something as American as the right to speak.
From the time the British created your nation, and especially because they created you, Canadians have been - at their root - subjects, not citizens.
How could you have thought you were free? Was is because somebody else granted it and told you that you were? Freedom isn't given, it isn't permitted. It is claimed and it is defended.
Do you even own a gun? I bet you don't.
Americans are mean, ugly, stupid, vicious, self-righteous, and self absorbed. That's the world's, and Canada's, consensus. Well, we started out that way. I'm kind of proud of it. I smile in the evenings reading about the world hates me. I'm free and this is what it is about.
Canadians are nothing like Americans.
Therefore, you confuse me.
Either you're one of the slowest Canucks I've ever heard of, or you're like an American born in the wrong country.
Recently, I said that to Ezra Levant, and invited him to come to the US. I now know why that was a terrible mistake, why I owe him an apology, and why I'm not going to make the same invitation to you.
It's insulting to invite a free man to surrender like that.
What I am going to do is, just in case you're a man who wants to be free, tell you to embrace this conflict like a teddy bear. Hold it as the warmest comfort you can have that you are - in fact - free. Know in you deepest heart that the most honest thing you will hear from those who oppose your freedom is that they hate you.
Jesus had something to say on that, you know.
Get ready for a fight, too. The one Canada didn't have 200 years ago. "We pledge our fortunes, our lives, and our sacred honor ...", does that sound familiar? Does it make something in your heart jump? Yeah, me too. Get ready for a fight.
As long as you are fighting, you are free.
Post a Comment