Friday, January 07, 2005

Canada a Totalitarian State?

In a December 27th editorial in the Western Catholic Reporter, Glen Argan warns that Canada is only a single step away from the totalitarian imposition of state control over religious teaching. Although most people don’t see it, this has already been accomplished. I think we’ve crossed the line already. Despite the fact that neither the courts nor the parliament have any authority over religion, both the courts and parliament have claimed it. <>

With the rewriting of Canada’s constitution in 1982 by then Prime Minister Saint Pierre Trudeau, (ptoooie) the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed that all people (not just citizens, but terrorists, mass-murderers, serial-killers, illegal aliens, child molesters, and deposed foreign despots) were equal. In practice, however, the state clearly treats some as more equal than others.

· In the 1993 the Liberal Government passed Hate-Crime legislation making acts that were already criminal more criminal if they were perpetrated against more-than-equal people visibly identifiable groups, (this was later amended to include sexual orientations.)

· Hate crimes were also defined to include the publication of material considered hateful to the more-than-equal people, uhh, some identifiable groups. Government officials were quick to reassure concerned Canadians that this didn’t include the Bible, which condemns homosexuality as a sin and abomination. It was an amendment that had sexual-orientation added to this bill, it will only take an amendment to make the Bible ILLEGAL. WAKE UP!!!!!!!

· When the courts in Alberta gave us the Vriend decision in the mid 1990’s, a Private Christian college was forced to pay damages to a gay teacher who had been dismissed for what amounted for insubordination. The college felt that it was wrong for an authority figure in the Christian school to openly flaunt a lifestyle that was against mainstream scriptural teaching.

· Then the courts ruled in the Rosenberg case that the Federal Government had to provide spousal benefits for same-sex couples in the civil service. The Liberal government made promises the ruling wouldn’t be used to undermine traditional marriage. (Interestingly, Gay MP and self-confessed but unprosecuted jewel thief Svend Robinson promised the Homosexual press that it would.)

· In 1999 the Liberal Government loudly and with great fanfare led a free vote in the House of Commons reaffirming the traditional definition of Marriage. Yet after the aforementioned court ruling, the SAME LIBERAL GOVERNMENT legislated Homosexual Marriage under the bait-and-switch name “civil union” as a part of Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s retirement legacy. The homosexual press was quick to claim this ruling as one more step in their battle to redefine society. Cabinet officials however, were quick to assure concerned Canadians this was not intended to undermine Traditional Marriage.

· In their December 9th decision on homosexual marriage, the Supreme Court ruled that Churches and the clergy had the right to refuse to participate in this bit of social engineering. Relief was the primary response from social conservatives. It should have been outrage that both the courts and our politicians were in fact claiming to allow the churches to act in accordance to their beliefs.

Freedom of religion is one of those basic, inalienable human rights referred to in the American Declaration of Independence. No totalitarian state can survive true freedom of religion, (eg, communist Poland) where it’s citizens are free to choose for themselves which religious beliefs to follow, and how they’ll live out their faith. With every step and ruling on the same sex marriage issue, our lords and masters assured us that Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience would be preserved. They assured us that our churches wouldn’t be coerced into performing homosexual marriage ceremonies against their creeds. They’ve acted as if the State had authority to make those demands.

What frightens me is that most Canadians have accepted it.


Michael said...

A gay marriage bill will not be a final settlement in the conflict of religion versus same-sex rights. The gay and lesbian community does not want a two state solution with religious intolerance, they want to drive religion into the sea.


Joseph said...


I tried unsuccessfully to find your e-mail address on your site, so I have to contact you in this manner.

Could you please zap me at

The issue I would like to discuss with you is the upcoming blogburst of 27 January 2005. To get an idea what it's about, see:


Joseph Alexander Norland