So, this bishop sends a letter to his local parishes and a local tabloid newspaper – stop me if you’ve heard this one, okay – denouncing equal marriage, right, and calling for the "coercive power of the State to proscribe and curtail" homosexuals. So everybody gets upset and the bishop says the gay lobby groups are trying to curtail his freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Thing is, they aren’t – and this is the punch line – the national gay lobby group in Canada actually supports his right to say that. Funny, huh?
Of course, it’s not funny at all. Egale Canada, the national equality-seeking organization that advocates on behalf of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, trans-identified people and their families is, and always has been, a pro-Charter organization. Egale doesn’t advocate Charter protections only for those it agrees with, but also for those it disagrees with, including Catholic Bishops who say some pretty bad stuff about GLBT people. Things like we’re "evil", their comparison of homosexuality to adultery, prostitution and pornography, and how we, along with those other things, undermine the family and thus the very foundations of society.
When Bishop Henry issued his Pastoral Letter in January 2005, many within the GLBT community had issues with its content. Now, most of it is simply Henry, as Bishop, reiterating Catholic teachings. That’s his job; he’s supposed to do that. No problem there. One can disagree with Catholic teachings, and many do, but it’d be pretty peculiar if a Catholic bishop didn’t reinforce what his church teaches. It kinda goes with being a bishop, doesn’t it?
The problem arose when he called on the "coercive power of the State to proscribe and curtail" homosexuals "for the public good". What does that mean? To many of us it sounded like he was calling for The State to repress us, for a return to the days when police could enter a gay bar and round up all the homosexuals simply for being there and dancing together. Would the "coercive power of the State" mean that next year’s Pride Parade would have a battalion of police cars swoop down on us – lights flashing and sirens wailing – to arrest us? Did it mean a same-sex couple caught holding hands in public or (gasp) showing affection to each other would be issued a Summons to Appear in Court?
Bishop Henry now says that is not what he meant. I can accept that. We all say or write things that are misunderstood as things we really didn’t mean to say. I’ve done it. So when that happens, one tries to clarify or take responsibility for what was said or written. One way of doing that is to explain exactly what was meant. At the time of writing this article, the bishop hasn’t said what he actually meant; only that he didn’t mean homosexuals should be arrested en masse. That’s a relief.
The bishop has had two Alberta Human Rights complaints laid against him over the "coercive power" comment. Initially, everyone assumed the complaints came from within the GLBT community. After all, who but homosexuals would take offense? Turns out, it wasn’t some lesbian or disgruntled gay guy at all, but two heterosexuals; one of whom, at least, agrees with the bishop in regards to protecting traditional marriage, but had some major issues about the bishop "overstepping his role" and moving into the political realm.
At first blush it will probably seem odd that Egale Canada actually supports the bishop in this case. However, it’s important to understand that what is being supported is not the content of the Pastoral Letter, or any agreement whatsoever with Church doctrine in regards to homosexuals and homosexuality. What is being supported is the bishop’s right, anybody’s right, to freedom of speech and religious belief. That’s pretty basic. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is for everyone.
Voltaire once said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That quote keeps floating around in my head and no other quote is more applicable here.
There are some who have described the bishop’s comments as "hate" or "hateful". That the comments are hurtful, insulting, and degrading there is no doubt – but they are not hate. The Criminal Code of Canada (yes, I know this is not a Criminal Code of Canada case, it’s a human rights case, and the criteria are different) is very specific about what legally constitutes hate, hate speech, and hate propaganda. This isn’t it. What the bishop said simply does not meet the legal definition of hate under Canadian jurisprudence. What is actually in his heart and mind, only he and his God can answer. I won’t presume to even try and guess.
The problem with describing hurtful and insulting comments and views as "hate" is rather like the boy who cried wolf; if we cry "hate" too much, when hate actually does swoop down on us, nobody is going to listen. Hate is what one reads on a white supremacist website. Hate is what the supposedly Reverend Fred Phelps spews out. Hate is a carload of youths speeding by tossing beer bottles out the windows at the fags and dykes coming out of a club, or screeching to a halt and beating someone up while screaming "faggot!!" That’s hate. And sometimes it kills us.
A bishop saying the teachings of his church reflect biblical proscriptions against sodomy and therefore homosexuality is wrong, sinful, intrinsically disordered and an affront to the divine plan (at least as his church sees it to be) is perhaps misguided, even arguable. We are as free to disagree with the teachings of the church (or temple, or synagogue or mosque) as he is to espouse those teachings. That, my friends, is this messy thing we call democracy.
Related Articles
Contributor Stephen Lock |
Topic Marriage Equality | Politics |
