Realwomen of BC - Archives - August2003

THE REAL NEWS
The R.E.A.L WOMEN of BC Newsletter August 2003, BOX 39068, Point Grey RPO, Vancouver, BC V6R 4P1, Tel/Fax: 604- 463-1611, website: http://www.realwomen.bc.ca, e-mail: lgeschke@almatree.net Back to contents
Kempling’s Future Still in Limbo On July 28th, 29th, and 30th, Chris Kempling had his opportunity to seek justice in the Supreme Court of BC regarding his treatment by the BC College of Teachers (BCCT). He has appealed the original BCCT decision that he was guilty of "conduct unbecoming a member of the BCCT" for expressing a reasoned and researched personal opinion in the public domain, an opinion which went against the prevailing ideology of his union and the BCCT. An update from Kempling reads as follows: On July 28th, I finally got my day in BC Supreme Court, and it lasted for two and a half days. There were two changes in judges, the last one being handwritten in at the last minute (Justice Holmes). My lawyer, William Clark of Harper Grey Easton produced a 65 page defense with 191 points. This did not include the various legal citations which filled several three inch thick volumes. Mr Clark argued that the standard for disciplining a member for off the job conduct is the Ross case. This was an anti_Semitic teacher in New Brunswick who published numerous anti_Jewish pamphlets and books. The court found that there was a "poisoned environment" in the school that could be attributed to Mr. Ross'' off the job conduct. The College admitted they had found no evidence of a poisoned environment in my case. Therefore, Mr. Clark argued, my freedom of speech should not be infringed if no harm could be demonstrated. He read extensively from my letters of reference from supervisors and community leaders, and pointed out that the Supreme Court in the Trinity case had stated that the College is not really qualified to determine competing Charter human rights issues outside of the school system. He also pointed out that holding a religious belief and expressing it, is not really "conduct" and that there was no evidence that I conducted myself in a discriminatory way towards any homosexual individual. He did an excellent job and I was quite pleased. Mr. Elliot Meyers, lawyer for the BC Civil Liberties Association went next, and presented arguments in support of the College''s position. To be fair, they were critical of the college for citing me for conduct unbecoming for private letters to my superiors and city officials, and for my unpublished research essays. They noted that I had sent these documents in after the fact, obviously in an attempt to defend myself, and it was "Kafkaesque" that the College added these to my list of offensive writings. Nevertheless, the BCCLA has taken the position that two sentences were offensive and for that reason they support the College''s position. One was my statement that I would refuse to be a false teacher, teaching information that violated my religious convictions, and the other, that students who were confused about their orientation should see me because I could offer them therapeutic assistance that could steer them towards heterosexuality (I had implied that homosexual behaviours were risky and life threatening according to published research). They stated that by saying these two sentences I had "announced my intention to discriminate in schools if given the chance." They added, "All he may not do, in the BCCLA''s submission, is continue to work as a teacher and counsellor in the school system while his public position is maintained." [BCCLA argument, page 19] In other words, the BCCLA apparently believes that teachers who publicly express a religious belief about homosexuality, or who believe orientation can be changed through therapy, should be prevented from working in the public school system, or suspended indefinitely until they recant. I''ll let you draw your own conclusions about what that means for civil liberties for Christian teachers in the public school system. Mr. Laughton, lawyer for the College, argued that my writings were entirely derogatory and discriminatory, and the College had the right to discipline me. He implied that the five supervisors who wrote letters of reference for me did not know what they were talking about, that he was unsure which religion I belonged to, and that I had never asked the College to explain what specifically was problematic about my writings (I did, six times, but they never did tell me). Ironically, he also cited the Ross and Trinity cases in his presentation. In rebuttal, my lawyer pointed out that he was very selective in his quotes and omitted significant paragraphs which actually supported my position. Justice Holmes was very inscrutable and gave no indication whatsoever which way he was leaning. He reserved his decision, and my lawyer told me to expect a 4_ 5 month wait. Obviously, either side has the right of appeal, so this matter may not be resolved for a long, long time. I very much appreciated the support of those BCPTL members who sat with me in court for the trial, as well as those who couldn''t attend but were generous with their prayers. Please pray for wisdom for Justice Holmes as he deliberates. Thank you again for all your support through this long ordeal. Chris Kempling Quesnel, BC
Back to contents

Kempling’s Future Still in Limbo