RORY ON GAY PROM DATE

The London Free Press
April 16, 2002
By Rory Leishman

Anyone who thinks basic human rights are secure in Canada should ponder the plight of trustees for the Durham District Catholic School Board: They could end up in jail simply for upholding the teachings of the Catholic church.

This crisis stems from a decision by the principal of the Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic Secondary School in Oshawa to bar a 17-year-old student, Marc Hall, from attending a prom with his 21-year-old boyfriend. Many prominent public figures, including such nominal Catholics as Health Minister Allan Rock and Ontario Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty, are clamouring for a reversal of this decision.

The school board has not bowed to this pressure. Mary Ann Martin, board chairwoman, explains: "The catechism (of the Catholic Church) accepts homosexuals as persons who should be treated like any other person -- with respect, compassion and sensitivity. At the same time, however, the catechism notes that homosexual behaviour is unacceptable and cannot be approved."

Hall is free to join a trendy Protestant church and secular school where he would be welcome to dance with a gay partner. Instead, he is bent on forcing his views on the Catholic Church and schools. With backing from Liberal MPP George Smitherman, he is suing his school principal for $100,000 in damages and seeking an injunction from the Ontario Superior Court to countermand the board's ruling.

In a news conference at Queen's Park last week, Hall's lawyer, John Corbett, maintained the decision to ban Hall from attending the prom with his boyfriend is, "a breach of Marc's fundamental charter rights by a body that is bound by the charter." Yet there is no reference to gay rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The clear words of the law mean nothing in the Charter era. In a 1995 decision, Egan v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada defied the express wishes of Parliament, by reading equality rights for gays into section 15 of the Charter.

Martin and her fellow trustees contend they have an overriding right to uphold the traditional teachings of the Christian church by virtue of section 2 of the Charter, which purports to guarantee freedom of conscience and religion. However, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed this argument in a ruling last year on the right of Protestant students at Trinity Western University (TWU) to uphold the sinfulness of homosexual behaviour.

In this case, the court held that, while "the freedom of individuals to adhere to certain religious beliefs while at TWU should be respected," teachers trained at TWU should beware that within the public schools, "The freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them."

In conformity with this twisted view of the Charter, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled in 2000 that Scott Brockie, an evangelical Protestant and print-shop owner in Toronto, has a right to hold his religious beliefs on homosexual sin, but has no right to act on those beliefs, by refusing to print materials for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, whose explicit purpose is to promote pride in gay sexual behaviour. Brockie is appealing the ruling.

Suppose the Ontario Superior Court upholds the Brockie ruling and orders the Durham District Catholic School Board to allow Hall to attend the prom with his gay partner. If Brockie, Martin and her fellow trustees refuse to obey an order that violates their convictions about the sinfulness of gay sex, they could be charged with contempt of court and consigned to jail as prisoners of conscience.

The same fate threatens people who merely express public sympathy and support for Brockie and the Catholic trustees: Section 13(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code forbids anyone from inciting others to discriminate on the basis of any of 14 forbidden grounds, including sexual orientation.

Thanks to judicial misrepresentation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which came into effect 20 years ago this week, Christians and Jews who uphold the historic teaching of their faith are no longer secure to act upon their conscientious religious convictions. Who would have thought that secular fascism could come to Canada under a false banner of human rights?