Michael Coren: Homosexuality Not Natural, Not Normal

[August1991]

I know we have had a long, long thread on this topic elsewhere but now the slant is different.

I believe that homosexuality is not normal and not natural.

I also believe that homosexuals should be treated with respect and protected against discrimination in areas such as employment and housing. I believe they should be allowed to inherit money and property from their partners.

I believe that, just like anybody else, they can be loving and kind and wonderful.

I believe that they should enjoy complete freedom to live their lives as homosexuals without any interference from the state or other people and I would, and have, defended homosexual friends from bigots and thugs.

But I believe that homosexuality is not normal and not natural.

I use the words carefully and precisely because this is what John DiCicco, a city councillor in Kamloops, B.C., said and why he has been forced to pay $1,000 by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

The settlement allows DiCicco to avoid a full Human Rights hearing after it accepted the complaint from a homosexual couple who were offended by the councillor's remark.

Apparently the City of Kamloops will pay the fine. It is not known who will pay the cost of repairing DiCicco's barbershop after it was vandalized and "Homophobia Die" painted on the door. This occurred after he had opposed the proclamation of a homosexual pride event.

Michael Coren

I'll ignore the fact that Kamloops taxpayers will pick up the tab for this (why?) and get to the main point. How far does freedom of speech extend?

I believe there is a professor at the University of Western Ontario who teaches about racial superiority. There are web sites advocating that women and men are different and should be treated differently. There are many instances where one sex or another is ridiculed.

Should anyone have the right to say that "it is not normal to be a man" or "lawyers are not normal people"?

[jefferiah]

Yes. He should have the right to say that. He has a mouth, Sir, and you dont get to decide what comes out of it. He is not inciting violence against homosexuals because he says they should be treated like anyone else, but that he views it as something which is not moral. A lot of people see things as not being moral. It does not mean they will raise up a militant movement to combat that which they see as immoral. Now while you may not agree with his morality, I dont see why he should not have the right to profess what he believes.

[jdobbin]

Coren didn't explain why the Human Rights Tribunal made the decision it did. Without that explanation, this article is meaningless to me.

[jefferiah]

I agree with Coren's article.

[geoffrey]

People need to grow up. I think free speech should be an absolute.

[August1991]

Coren didn't explain why the Human Rights Tribunal made the decision it did. Without that explanation, this article is meaningless to me.

Meaning?

[jdobbin]

Coren didn't explain why the Human Rights Tribunal made the decision it did. Without that explanation, this article is meaningless to me.

Meaning?

Meaning is: I don't know what the Councillor said or what capacity he said it in. I don't know what complaint the Human Rights Tribunal responded to nor why they fined the Councillor.

Coren didn't cover any of that. They are not unimportant details.

[jefferiah]

Good point J. It would be nice to see more of the details of the case. Nonetheless the gist of Michael Coren's message that believing something is immoral should not be a hate crime is one I completely agree with. There is a distinction between believing something is wrong and wanting to inflict harm on those who do it.

[jefferiah]

Ill point to the abortion argument in this case. I am not in favour of abortion, but I also realize that there are cases where women's lives are in danger. I would not disown someone who had an abortion, but if someone was going to ask me whether I condone it or not, I would say no. I dont think it is right. You can distinguish between this and bombing a clinic or some sniper shooting a doctor. Believing that something is wrong does not mean you hate that person. You dont have to condone everything everyone does or says to be friends with them. Do any anti-smokers have friends who smoke?

[kimmy]

I read about a similar case some time ago (also while doing research regarding a hate-speech thread on MLW. MLW: It's educational! There's even homework!)

That instance involved a long-running dispute between a teacher and the BC Teachers Fed. The teacher had written a letter to the editor of some paper regarding the perils of homosexuality (I believe he spoke of the disease and drugs perils, rather than the fire and brimstone perils, but I will have to search that up again to me sure.) The BCTF levied some sort of penalty against the teacher, as the letter expressed views opposing BCTF policy. Rather than accept the BCTF penalties, the teacher challenged that ruling. His view was that he wrote the letter outside of his capacity as a teacher and that the BCTF has no business limiting his right to express his views outside of his responsibilities as a teacher. The BCTF position was that his position as a teacher may make him influential to students whether inside or outside of the classroom.

I'll attempt to dig that one up again, as I believe it's a more interesting and complicated situation than this one.

This one, to me, seems rather straightforward. DiCicco is a city councillor? His view was expressed during debate on a city proclamation? What is a politician's duty, if not to express opinions? In Ottawa, our federal representatives have Parliamentary Privilege so that they might express their views without intimidation or restraint during such debates. To me, the notion of fining an elected representative for expressing an opinion during a debate on an issue is completely contrary to our democratic beliefs.

In my opinion, while DiCicco is on the job, he is accountable to the voters in his district, not to a human rights commission.

-k

[jefferiah]

Wow Kimmy!!

[frogs]

Violence is necessary to get rid of diseases. Everyone has the right to use and TALK about violence, or else diseases will overtake the whole planet. Violence is like food.... good for self defense, only at the right time, and only the individual can determine what is self defense. If I don't want to live with garbage, and decide to throw out the garbage that doesn't mean that I HATE the garbage ... just means I don't care to live with it. The hate thing is a scam. If I want to talk about getting rid of the garbage, that's my right. It is also my right to determine what is "garbage" and what is "not".

[August1991]

Here is some more information. It appears that Coren used the same words as were used by the Kamloops councillor.

The Catholic Civil Rights League today commented on the recent BC Human Rights Tribunal announcement of a settlement directing a city councilor in that province to pay $1,000 to a homosexual couple for comments he made about homosexual conduct.

The couple, John Olynick and Greg Koll, filed a complaint with the Tribunal which was accepted and was to go to the hearing stage. The settlement allows the Kamloops, BC councilor, John DiCicco, to avoid a Human Rights Tribunal hearing. The city will pay his legal fees, according to a report by Kamloops Daily News.

"In essence, in order to avoid further costs of a hearing, Mr. DiCicco has agreed to pay fees for making statements in a public forum that are reflective of the Church's teaching, which states that homosexual activities are 'intrinsically disordered'," said League President Phil Horgan. "This type of process exposes the serious challenges to freedom of expression and freedom of religion that Canadians in all walks of life may face in response to comments based on deeply held religious belief. We can expect to see more challenges of this kind as the impact of same sex "marriage" continues to play out in daily life, in areas such as governments, schools and the workplace."

...

Ironically, Mr. DiCicco himself experienced discrimination last June, when he opposed a homosexual pride proclamation. His barber shop was later vandalized with "Homophobia Die" scrawled on the door of his business. In August, the homosexual pair filed their complaint over remarks he made at a council meeting and repeated in media interviews. In line with Catholic teaching on the matter, it is reported that he described homosexual acts as "not normal and not natural." He also stated that he has no problem with gay or lesbian people, only that he should not have to endorse the behaviour. He later apologized, but the apology was not considered part of the settlement.

CCRL

There is an arbitrariness to this. If someone finds a comment offensive, and can manage to get a human rights tribunal to accept the complaint, then the fear/cost of litigation can lead to paying money for "damages".

[jefferiah]

And when someone decides you are garbage, Frogs?

[frogs]

And how did the hockey puck get in the fishbowl in the first place? Ice hockey that melted?

[sharkman]

August, that's what makes the world go around these days. Fear of litigation. Of course, it's not new, but was perfected over years of tinkering by one Jesse Jackson.

[frogs]

And when someone decides you are garbage, Frogs?

YeSSS! THEY have that right! Yes, yes, yes!

[frogs]

It's not about me, or you, it's about community. What is good for the goose ....

[kimmy]

Apparently I should have read more before deciding to open my yap on this one. My comments likening this to Parliamentary Privilege appear to have been off-the-mark.

Arjun Singh, also a Kamloops city councillor, addresses the issue in his blog:

... I also thought that John did not make his comments as a representative of the City, but as an individual Councillor.

If I commented that all religious people had some sort of disease, I would not expect John De Cicco or any other Councillor to support paying any legal expenses I would incur as a result.

...

I think a respected public official saying in a public interview that homosexuality is a disease might encourage hateful acts by others less respected by society.

Singh asserts that the comments were made in a public interview, not a city council debate.

He also mentions DiCicco comparing homosexuality to a disease... an aspect of the tribunal that neither Michael Coren nor the Catholic Civil Rights League thought merited any mention. That of this is verified by Kamloops This Week:

Kamloops city council has agreed to foot the $10,000 legal bill Coun. John De Cicco incurred during a human-rights tribunal after likening homosexuality to a disease.

So, as Dobbins had suspected right from the first, this is not so simple as it first appeared.

-k

[Catchme]

.. DiCicco is a city councillor? His view was expressed during debate on a city proclamation? What is a politician's duty, if not to express opinions? In Ottawa, our federal representatives have Parliamentary Privilege so that they might express their views without intimidation or restraint during such debates. To me, the notion of fining an elected representative for expressing an opinion during a debate on an issue is completely contrary to our democratic beliefs.

In my opinion, while DiCicco is on the job, he is accountable to the voters in his district, not to a human rights commission. -k

Politicians are not paid to spout their own beliefs, and have them stand for anything, they are there too respresent the voters who are from ALL walks of life. Their comments should be within the contextual laws of the land and not as a platform from their own bigoted belief system. Don't imagine he campaigned upon "I hate homosexuals" now did he?

Parliamentary priviledge does NOT extend to bigotry, nor the breaking of any of the Laws of the Land such as making bigoted, sexist or racist comments, actually kimmi.

He is accountable to the Human Rights Commission, they up hold the laws of the land in breaches of HUMAN RIGHTS kimmi. Even if his whole voting district were bigots, that does not give him the right to breach the laws of the land by expressing bigoted personal opinion. The voters would be in the wrong as well if they wanted him to.

A politicians duty is to adhere to the Laws of the Land, in ALL areas, and represent ALL voter demographics NOT a select few and to act upon the mandate as expressed in their campaign.

[jefferiah]

.. DiCicco is a city councillor? His view was expressed during debate on a city proclamation? What is a politician's duty, if not to express opinions? In Ottawa, our federal representatives have Parliamentary Privilege so that they might express their views without intimidation or restraint during such debates. To me, the notion of fining an elected representative for expressing an opinion during a debate on an issue is completely contrary to our democratic beliefs.

In my opinion, while DiCicco is on the job, he is accountable to the voters in his district, not to a human rights commission. -k

Politicians are not paid to spout their own beliefs, and have them stand for anything, they are there too respresent the voters who are from ALL walks of life. Their comments should be within the contextual laws of the land and not as a platform from their own bigoted belief system. Don't imagine he campaigned upon "I hate homosexuals" now did he?

Parliamentary priviledge does NOT extend to bigotry, nor the breaking of any of the Laws of the Land such as making bigoted, sexist or racist comments, actually kimmi.

He is accountable to the Human Rights Commission, they up hold the laws of the land in breaches of HUMAN RIGHTS kimmi. Even if his whole voting district were bigots, that does not give him the right to breach the laws of the land by expressing bigoted personal opinion. The voters would be in the wrong as well if they wanted him to.

A politicians duty is to adhere to the Laws of the Land, in ALL areas, and represent ALL voter demographics NOT a select few and to act upon the mandate as expressed in their campaign.

Saying that he believes homosexuality is a disease does not mean he hates them. People think alcoholism is a disease, or gambling. Does that mean we hate them? He never breached a Human Right. He is not stopping people from being gay. The only right being breached was his right to express his opinion on the matter.

[jefferiah]

The Human Rights Commission are not always the most logical bunch. An Alberta Pastor was brought before a human rights tribunal a few years back for writing a letter to the editor of a Red Deer newspaper which called homosexuality "immoral and dangerous". He never said homosexuals should be whipped, and tarred and feathered. He just expressed his belief that it was wrong. A professor at the Uni of Calgary brought the complaint against him. He was faced with fines of a few thousand to the professor (for his pain I guess), and also some of his money was to go to a gay rights org. I am not exactly sure of what happened in that case as I have not heard of it for a long time, but even homosexuals came out in support of the Pastor. Those who met with him agreed that he was not vindictive towards homosexuals or hateful, but simply that he believed it was wrong and that he was concerned for them.

[Charles Anthony]

A politicians duty is to adhere to the Laws of the Land, in ALL areas, and represent ALL voter demographics NOT a select few and to act upon the mandate as expressed in their campaign.

You may choose to believe so but that is not how it played out.

We had speech, violence and the continued threat of violence. Who was right or wrong according to the Proud Law Of The Land was NOT determined. The matter was resolved through an out-of-state-court settlement -- an arbitration -- because it would be cheaper that way.

There is an arbitrariness to this.

This is approaching anarchy. The door is opening wider. The only injustice is that one side of the dispute has the backing of the state.

Should anyone have the right to say that "it is not normal to be a man" or "lawyers are not normal people"?

-- an unfortunate statist problem for which there is not a normal statist answer.

I know we have had a long, long thread on this topic elsewhere but now the slant is different.

Thank you for starting a new thread. That other one is a clutter of nonsense.

[jefferiah]

Also there was the case of the lesbian couple who were denied a Knights of Columbus Hall for their reception. The Knights of Columbus did not attack them. They did not prevent them from being able to get jobs. They said no, sorry we cant allow this here it is against our faith. We do not want to be party to this union. But they were charged.

Now to me, I think either these females were completely ignorant, or they have a complete lack of respect. I would not go to a synagogue and say Rabbi, either you allow me to hold a ham dinner here or else I will have you charged for discrimination against those of the pork-eating orientation.

Just because the Church does not condone things does not mean they are discriminating against people.

[August1991]

He is also mentions DiCicco comparing homosexuality to a disease... an aspect of the tribunal that neither Michael Coren nor the Catholic Civil Rights League thought merited any mention.

That somehow implies that it is acceptable to say that homosexuality is "not normal or natural" but it is unacceptable to say that it's a "disease".

I suppose there's a distinction but it's slight. Do we really want a tribunal making such distinctions where free speech is concerned?

There is an arbitrariness to this that could be dangerous in the wrong hands. To whit:

Parliamentary priviledge does NOT extend to bigotry, nor the breaking of any of the Laws of the Land such as making bigoted, sexist or racist comments, actually kimmi.

He is accountable to the Human Rights Commission, they up hold the laws of the land in breaches of HUMAN RIGHTS kimmi.

Does this mean we have now outlawed stupidity? (Has Greg been informed of this?) How does one define "bigotry"?