![\"Barry](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/IMG_2492.jpg?resize=300%2C200&ssl=1\")
Barry speaking at Christian Legal Institute<\/p><\/div>\n
While the 1947 Saskatchewan Bill of Rights Act<\/em> outlined a number of human rights it lacked any enforcement provision. It was the 1962 Ontario Human Rights Code<\/em>[i]<\/a> that got Canada\u2019s \u201chuman rights train\u201d to leave the station. For the first time human rights legislation had the means to enforce human rights standards. Suddenly, it was unlawful to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin in areas such as employment, housing, goods & services, contracts, and membership in vocational associations.<\/p>\n Though some fifty plus years have passed since Ontario enforced human rights we continue to see human rights abuses in Canada. For example, in its 2014 Annual Report the Canadian Human Rights Commission states that while women are excelling in education they continue to earn less than men.[ii]<\/a> We must remain ever vigilant. It is fair to say that Canadians have developed, over time, a hypersensitivity to human rights. We have established our own Canadian Human Rights Museum,[iii]<\/a> and human rights agencies exist in all provinces and territories.<\/p>\n The Role of Christian Charities in Protecting Human Rights<\/p>\n \u201cThe historic relationship between Christianity and human rights,\u201d as noted by Professor Charles Villa-Vicencio, \u201cis an ambiguous one. For hundreds of years the Christian Church actively promoted religious intolerance and persecuted those who failed to accept its moral values and customs.\u201d[iv]<\/a> Indeed, Canada is only now coming to grips with what happened to Aboriginal Canadians in the Christian residential schools.[v]<\/a> Yet, such violations were and remain an anomaly and violation of the very clear admonitions of the Sermon on the Mount. While \u201chuman rights ideals are rooted nowhere else than in the biblical tradition,\u201d they \u201cremained a minority tradition (within the Church) for centuries.\u201d[vi]<\/a> Notwithstanding, the missteps, Christians continue to do much to alleviate the sufferings of humanity.<\/p>\n Barry speaking at Christian Legal Institute<\/p><\/div>\n On any given day in Canada Christian charities continue to provide works of charity that alleviate human rights abuses: thousands of meals are served in city soup kitchens; thousands of articles of clothing are given or sold at nominal prices to the poor and the working poor; thousands of students attend Christian elementary and secondary schools, along with thousands of students attending Christian universities; thousands of students receive after school tutoring; hundreds if not thousands attend Alcoholic Anonymous meetings in churches; new immigrants are assisted with getting settled in their new communities and attend English as a 2nd Language Courses; thousands of people are resident in Christian nursing homes; thousands of religious meetings are held throughout Canada including funerals, and marriage ceremonies; Christian chaplains make thousands of visits to comfort the sick and the grieving families who suffered the loss of loved ones; hundreds of blind people receive special assistance with books and listening materials; many millions of dollars are sent overseas by Christian agencies for development and relief work at villages in the Developing World for projects such as schools, fresh water wells, hospitals, universities, emergency aid such as food, medicine and shelter; young girls are freed from brothels around the world; widows whose property was unjustly confiscated after the death of their husbands have their rights restored.<\/p>\n Thus, it can be said that Christian charities applying the principles of The Sermon on the Mount have done, and continue to do, much to alleviate human rights abuses.<\/p>\n Christian Community and Human Rights Bureaucracy \u2013 A rising tension Over Sexuality<\/p>\n There is an uneasiness in the Christian community about the expansion of human rights. This tension has arisen over the very different understandings of legal and moral norms with respect to human sexuality. The right of a person not to be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation is, perhaps, the most sensitive flashpoint between human rights bureaucracy and Christian charities for the last several decades and reached a high point in the case of Bill Whatcott.[vii]<\/a><\/p>\n Whatcott and Religious Speech<\/p>\n Bill Whatcott distributed four flyers in Regina and Saskatoon on behalf of his ministry Christian Truth Activists. Two of the flyers were entitled \u201cKeep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon\u2019s Public Schools!\u201d and \u201cSodomites in our Public Schools.\u201d The other two flyers were a reprint of a page of classified advertisements to which handwritten comments were added. Four people who received the flyers filed a complaint with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. Eventually the Supreme Court of Canada decided the matter.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court outlined a three step analysis to determine whether a person has violated the \u201chatred\u201d provision in human rights legislation. First, courts must objectively ask whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to hatred. Second, \u201chatred\u201d or \u201chatred or contempt\u201d must be interpreted as being restricted to those extreme manifestations of the emotion. While the language may be repugnant and offensive, it does not come to the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that would cause discrimination. Third, is it likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others?<\/p>\n Whatcott\u2019s flyers, according to the Court, combined expression exposing homosexuals to hatred with expression promoting discriminatory treatment of homosexuals. The examples of the hate-inspiring representations were: \u201cNow the homosexuals want to share their filth and propaganda with Saskatchewan\u2019s children\u201d; \u201cdegenerated into a filthy session where gay and lesbian teachers used dirty language to describe lesbian sex and sodomy to their teenage audience\u201d; \u201cproselytize vulnerable young people\u201d; \u201cex-Sodomites and other types of sex addicts\u201d; and \u201c[h]omosexual sex is about risky & addictive behaviour!\u201d<\/p>\n The repeated references to \u201cfilth\u201d, \u201cdirty\u201d, \u201cdegenerated\u201d and \u201csex addicts\u201d or \u201caddictive behaviour,\u201d said the Court, emphasizes the notion that those of same-sex orientation are unclean and possessed with uncontrollable sexual appetites or behaviour. This would lead a reasonable person to conclude from the flyers that homosexuals, by virtue of their sexual orientation, are inferior, untrustworthy and seek to proselytize and convert our children.[viii]<\/a> \u201c[B]y equating homosexuals with carriers of disease, sex addicts, pedophiles and predators who would proselytize vulnerable children and cause their premature death, Flyers D and E would objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to detestation and vilification.\u201d[ix]<\/a> Arguing that there should be a law against homosexuality as a result of these problems was advocating discriminatory treatment.<\/p>\n The Court held that framing the speech in a moral context will not \u201ccleanse\u201d it. In other words, you cannot use your religious belief and context to legitimize hate speech. Further, intention is irrelevant. Nor can you claim sincerity and\/or truth as a defense:<\/p>\n However, I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. Truthful statements can be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech. \u2026 To the extent that truthful statements are used in a manner or context that exposes a vulnerable group to hatred, their use risks the same potential harmful effects on the vulnerable groups that false statements can provoke. The vulnerable group is no less worthy of protection because the publisher has succeeded in turning true statements into a hateful message.[x]<\/a><\/p>\n Nor can you use the concept that you love the sinner but hate the sin as the behaviour is crucial to the identity of the group. Nor can you use religious texts to give “credible authority” to hateful opinions \u2013 in fact use of such texts may indicate hate speech in “unusual circumstances and context.” This is problematic as it remains unclear how the courts will determine whether those passages would be hateful in various contexts \u2013 what if used in a sermon against homosexuality for example?<\/p>\n The Court in Whatcott<\/em> focused not only on the actual negative effects but on the likelihood of negative effects of the discrimination. This approach is at the expense of a long-held principle in law that a person is not to be held as responsible for something she did not intend. \u201cStrict liability\u201d \u2013 that is to say you are responsible for the effects of your actions whether you intended the effect or not \u2013 is rare. However, in the human rights context it is having a \u201cchilling effect\u201d on Christian ministries across Canada. Though a conviction under human rights legislation is not at all in the same category as being found guilty of a crime; nor is the requirement to pay damages to compensate the person or persons who were discriminated the same as having to pay damages as punishment; the fact remains that being found in violation of a human rights statute carries a significant social punishment of derision and though damages are meant to be \u201ccompensatory\u201d they will, in all likelihood, be considered as \u201cpunitive\u201d by those who committed unintentional discrimination.<\/p>\n Knights of Columbus and Rental Agreements<\/p>\n Consider the 2005 case of The Knights of Columbus (K of C), in Port Coquitlam, BC.[xi]<\/a> Deborah Chymyshyn approached the K of C for the use of their facilities for her wedding. However, the K of C were not aware, at the signing of the rental contract, that Ms. Chymyshyn was marrying another woman, Tracey Smith. Being a Roman Catholic lay organization the K of C supports the traditional definition of marriage and once they realized their facility was rented for a same-sex wedding reception they broke the contract. The couple went to the BC Human Rights Tribunal. The tribunal held that the K of C had a right to refuse to rent based on their religious convictions but fined it for “injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect” of the women.<\/p>\n Christian Horizons and Employment<\/p>\n The Heintz v. Christian Horizons[xii]<\/strong><\/a><\/em> case has captured the attention of Canada\u2019s Christian charities like no other. Christian Horizons ministers to those with developmental disabilities. It had a Lifestyle and Morality Statement in its employment contracts which stated that certain conduct, including “homosexual relationships”, was incompatible with the charity\u2019s standards. Ms. Heintz, a Christian, was employed as a support worker in a community living residence operated by Christian Horizons. She alleged that she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation. When she revealed her same sex relationship to her coworkers the work environment became untenable. Christian Horizons argued that it was exempt from the Human Rights Code because it is a religious organization and could give hiring preference to those who identified with its religious beliefs. It also argued that the requirement was a bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment.<\/p>\n The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal said no on both accounts. First, Christian Horizons was not primarily engaged in serving the interests of Evangelical Christians but serving people with developmental disabilities in the broader public sector and therefore was not exempt from the Code. Second, the Tribunal did not agree that the requirement was a bona fide occupational requirement.<\/p>\n The Divisional Court disagreed with the Tribunal\u2019s approach of determining exemption from the Code based on the private\/public nature of Christian Horizons\u2019 work. The Court held that Christian Horizons provided its services as part of its religious beliefs and was therefore, \u201cprimarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified by their creed.\u201d[xiii]<\/a> However, the Court, did agree with the Tribunal on the bona fide occupational requirement. It held that \u201c[t]here is nothing about the performance of the tasks (cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, helping residents to eat, wash and use the bathroom, and taking them on outings and to appointments) that requires an adherence by the support workers to a lifestyle that precludes same sex relationships.\u201d[xiv]<\/a> Therefore, Christian Horizons could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. However, the Court allowed the rest of Lifestyle and Morality Statement to remain.<\/p>\n Conclusion: Fundamental Differences<\/p>\n What we can observe is the following. We know from the historic abuses that the protection of human rights is fundamental to the health of our society. As Christians engaged in humanitarian work, Christian charities have a very important role to play in alleviating the sufferings of our fellow man. We are on the front lines making a positive difference.<\/p>\n The current struggle between human rights agencies and Christian charities has to do primarily with the issue of human sexuality. Indeed, one of the hardest concepts for many Christian charities to comprehend is that current thinking on human rights has very little patience for the idea of \u201cloving the sinner but hating the sin.\u201d That saying has a long historical significance to Christians as being short hand for recognizing the fact that, as humans we are made in the image of God of inestimable value despite whatever we might do.[xv]<\/a> It is a distinction that separates acts from the person. Yet, what appears inoffensive to the non-LGBT Christian community is very offensive to the LGBT community.<\/p>\n The LGBT community sees their sexuality as a fundamental, innate, part of their human existence. When they are told that their sexuality is sinful it is as if they are under personal attack. They reason that there is no other innate characteristic that is permitted to be disapproved in such a manner. For them, their sexuality is not a choice – it is who they are. Why, then, they would argue, must they renounce such a \u201cGod-given\u201d characteristic? This is the deep-seated controversy of our age. It is a giant chasm. It is one we have to live with.<\/p>\n It is necessary to develop the awareness and skill in navigating the reality of human rights protection. Our future, as Christian ministries, demands no less than the ability to not only honour and respect the human rights of others but also honour our mission to share the Good News of the Gospel. It requires tact, respect, empathy, patience and love for our fellowman.<\/p>\n Christian Legal Institute 2016<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n [i]<\/a> See, \u201cThe Birth of Human Rights Codes,\u201d online at: http:\/\/www.chrc-ccdp.ca\/en\/timePortals\/milestones\/89mile.asp<\/p>\n [ii]<\/a> http:\/\/www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca\/eng\/report\/2014\/issues\/not-an-equal-playing-field<\/p>\n [iii]<\/a> https:\/\/www.civilandhumanrights.org\/<\/p>\n [iv]<\/a> Charles Villa-Vicencio, \u201cChristianity and Human Rights,\u201d Journal of Law and Religion<\/em>, Vol. 14, No. 2 (1999 – 2000), pp. 579-600, at page 579.<\/p>\n [v]<\/a> http:\/\/www.trc.ca\/websites\/trcinstitution\/index.php?p=3<\/p>\n [vi]<\/a> Charles Villa-Vicencio, \u201cChristianity and Human Rights,\u201d at page 579 quoting Max Stackhouse, \u201cReligion and Human Rights: A Theologic Apologetic,\u201d in John Witte, Jr. and Johan van der Vyver, eds, Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Religious Perspectives<\/em> (Martinus Nijhoff, 1996), p. 492.<\/p>\n [vii]<\/a> Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 467<\/p>\n [viii]<\/a> At paragraph 188.<\/p>\n [ix]<\/a> At paragraph 190.<\/p>\n [x]<\/a> At paragraphs 140-141.<\/p>\n [xi]<\/a> http:\/\/www.bchrt.bc.ca\/decisions\/2005\/pdf\/Smith_and_Chymyshyn_v_Knights_of_Columbus_and_others_2005_BCHRT_544.pdf<\/p>\n [xii]<\/a> Heintz v. Christian Horizons, [2008] O.H.R.T.D. No. 21; Ontario Human Rights Commission et al. v. Christian Horizons 102 O.R. (3d) 267, 2010 ONSC 2105<\/p>\n [xiii]<\/a> Ontario Human Rights Commission et al. v. Christian Horizons, at para. 77.<\/p>\n [xiv]<\/a> Ontario Human Rights Commission et al. v. Christian Horizons, at para. 104.<\/p>\n![\"Barry](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/IMG_2488.jpg?resize=300%2C200&ssl=1\")
![\"Christian](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/IMG_2495.jpg?resize=300%2C200&ssl=1\")