Realwomen of BC - Archives - Jan2003

Back to Contents
The Battle Lines are Drawn Some years ago someone said that the final show down would be between religious freedom and homosexual rights. We have arrived. Over the past year the news seem to be full with issues on homosexuality. From Bill C-250 (formerly 415), trying to include sexual orientation into the Canadian Criminal Code which would make any dissenting expression on the homosexual lifestyle a hate crime, Chris Kempling’s “unbecoming conduct” for expressing his concerns about the homosexual lifestyle, to discussions on same-sex marriage and the law suit over the request for inclusion into Kindergarten and Grade 1 as additional resource material the three, by now infamous books, portraying same-sex parents. As probably all British Columbians are aware by now, James Chamberlain, a public school teacher, together with some other individuals sued the Surrey School Board for not approving three books, portraying same-sex parents, as supplementary educational resource material in Kindergarten and Grade one class rooms. The Minister of Education approves the basic educational resource materials for class room teaching but allows local School Boards the freedom to approve supplementary material. The basic resource list which is approved by the Ministry of Education does not include any books and same-sex parents. The Surrey School board declined to include the three books on same-sex parents as supplementary resource material considering them inappropriate for such young children. The community in Surrey overwhelmingly supported the Surrey School Board. This support was confirmed when the School Board was re-elected during the last civic elections. The Supreme Court of British Columbia, however, sided with Mr. Chamberlain and his party claiming that excluding these books was discriminatory. The Surrey School Board appealed to the BC Court of Appeal which sided with the Surrey School Board. Mr. Chamberlain and his friends then went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Seven (dissenting voices Justices Gonthier and Bastarache) out of nine judges of the highest court in the land decided that in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance” the Surrey School Board’s decision was “unreasonable” and cannot stand. The people in Canada have now been told in no uncertain terms that our democratic process is dead in the water. First of all, nine individuals in the highest court of the land tell the rest of the people in Canada on how to live their lives. Remember, the Supreme Court judges are appointed by the Prime Minister and not elected. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada completely ignored the wishes of the people in Surrey who, in no uncertain terms, let their elected officials on the Surrey School Board know what their wishes were and showed their support for their local school board by re-electing them with an overwhelming majority. Gwen Landolt, Vice-President of REAL Women of Canada, wrote and excellent analysis of this case. Ms. Landolt entitles her analysis “Supreme Court Orders Homosexual Propaganda in BC Schools.” In this analysis, Ms. Landolt states that Madam Justice McLachlin “found that the decision of the Surrey School Board was unreasonable and that it failed to promote respect and tolerance for all the diverse groups that it represents and serves, and, therefore, the Board acted outside its mandate under the BC School Act. Madam Justice McLachlin concluded that the message of the controversial books was a message of tolerance. She finally concluded tolerance is always age appropriate. In effect, she stated that no child was too young to be provided with pro-homosexual material. (emphasis added) The BC School Act does not include the words “tolerance” or “diversity” but it only states that “all schools and provincial schools must be conducted on strictly secular and non-sectarian principles” and “the highest morality must be inculcated, but no religious dogma or creed is to be taught in a school or provincial school.” It is now obvious that according to Madam Justice McLachlin the Supreme Court of Canada has the right to mould and interpret laws according to the ideas of the judges rather than according to what was intended by the legislators. According to Ms. Landolt, Mr. Justice Gonthier, in his strong dissent says “there is no Canadian law or constitutional provision that prevents Canadian citizens from morally disapproving of homosexual behaviour or relationship and it is a feeble motion of pluralism that transforms tolerance into mandated approval or acceptance. He further says that “tolerance” does not require the mandatory approval of the books under consideration, and that tolerance ought not be employed as a cloak for the means of obliterating disagreement.”
Back to Contents

The Battle Lines are Drawn