If you have never heard the name
Jessica Beaumont, you are in good company. She is not a
politician, a lawyer, or a judge, but she is at the centre of a legal
proceeding that could well affect your right to quote the
Bible.
On October 27, the Canadian Human
Rights Tribunal issued a precedent-setting cease and desist order which
forbids Jessica Beaumont from posting certain Bible verses on the
Internet. If this 21-year old woman posts the wrong Bible
quotation online – even if it is on an American website – she could
face up to 5 years in prison.
Five years in prison for quoting
Scripture.
As the column notes Jessica
Beaumont does not have a website and was commenting on other sites
mostly in the United States. You can probably guess the Bible
references were to homosexuality. While she might have not made the
most charitable comments in connection with the Bible verses it seems
quite crazy that the so-called Human Rights Tribunal would pull two
scripture versus as evidence and so far every case involving Internet
content that has been brought to them has resulted in a conviction.
Hat tip a
class=”blog”
href=”http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2007-11-21-0005/”
target=”_blank”>Kathy Shaidle
11 comments
The term “to Hell in a handbasket” springs to mind.
I don’t know anything about Canadian law, but is there a court of appeals?
Who’s got the key to the catacombs? Looks like we’d better head down there with a broom and start getting things ready.
Here’s a clear bold amd charitable article on the Church’s teaching on homosexuality by Archbishop John Nienstedt of Minneapolis.
http://thecatholicspirit.com/print.asp?ArticleID=1079&SectionID=14&SubSectionID=14
It was written, in part, to clarify to the people of the diocese as to why Carol Curoe and her father could not speak at a Parish. In reply, “many critics” said the bishop was guilty of “spiritual violence.”
Commentary:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07111905.html
Recently, we went through the trajedy of persecution over points much much less important than this. Basically my husband and I were following the directions of a very good priest to do good and simple work in the parish and in the end we were personally attact (verbally), ignored, gossiped about, told we were abusive and in need of medication. The topics were things like when to lock up the parish hall, where to put the chairs, who had the key…. imagine? The “real” issue, however, was power. Some didn’t like being told what to do. We walked away from that situation realizing how hostile the environment has become toward anyone trying to follow, or asking others to follow, Christ and his shepherds. It doesn’t matter if the topic at hand is small or significant the battle is the same.
Pray!
Amazing. Are you sure this isn’t satire?
You are right, MaryH; I’ve seen this happen in parishes too. Power corrupts.
Do not be sure that this will not happen here as well; the ‘handwriting is on the wall’.
There are new definitions of ‘hate’ which is basicly if someone disagrees with someone else’s perversion and ideas–those in a certain protected class that is.
We know to love the sinner and hate the sin but even hating the sin is likely to bring cost.
Great article by the Bishop. The Archdiocese of Detroit would be greatly improved if he were to ever return!!
Frightening. But is it enforceable? I mean the entire canon of Literature is nothing but one big Bible reference. To be consistent the Canadian school systems would have to replace all known literature with refrigerator repair manuals.
It is a shame that the homosexual movement is so intellectually inept that it cannot mount a reasoned defense and must rely on government-sponsored tyranny to prop it up.
The silver lining in this is that it proves the admonition that “homosexual rights” leads directly to religious persecution.
If we compare our printed dictionaries with those on-line and take recent “hate-speech” penalties into account, it is easy to believe that we’ll be forced to burn many books someday. ‘Marriage’ as defined in our “outdated” dictionaries will be deemed hate-speech.
Do I recall correctly that Canada does not have “Freedom of Speech” explicitly spelled out in whatever it is they use instead of the Constitution?
Steinlage:
I don’t know anything about Canadian law, but is there a court of appeals?
No, oddly enough there isn’t. The legal loophole here is that the Human Rights Commission/Tribunal in various provinces is not part of the courts, so therefore it doesn’t have to follow all the procedures of a real court.
And yet it can apply penalties that are quite as real as the courts!
So, if you wanted to challenge this situation, you wouldn’t appeal the decision. You would launch a challenge in the *real* courts against the Human Rights Tribunal having the authority to pass court-like sentences outside the court system without following court procedure.
Such challenges have been made, but I don’t think that the Court has ever chosen to rule on the central issue here. It might take a special case for that. It’s a bit of a mess, trying to figure out how much power the Commissions actually have.
Comments are closed.