Despite what columnists and commentators are saying recently

Despite what columnists and commentators are saying recently, my complaint is not about freedom of speech. I could really careless about hearing the Catholic or 'Byfield,' doctrine on what sin is.

They can talk about it all they want.

It is in fact a use of a provincial government 'coercive power,' to have Mr Henry, Bishop of Calgary define his words, in public just as he used the term, ' coercive power.'

It is not a witch hunt by a special interest group, or the dreaded, 'Ottawa Liberals.'

It is one person asking Mr. Henry to define his terms, before we ask the government to do his bidding.

If Mr Henry, wants some sort of protection from 'Mickey Mouse' human rights complaints he then must explain what he wants from the government in the form of, 'coercive powers.'

On Sunday's Global Sunday, safe in the protective custody of the host, Mr. Henry equated his use of the term, 'coercive powers,' with that of a speed zone on a road.

He could have very well compared the term to the coercive powers used by the federal government when it moved Canadian Japanese from the West Coast. Is this the kind of, ' coercive power,' meant?

He could have very well compared the term to the coercive powers used by the federal government's the wide-sweeping powers of the Indian agent, it becomes clear how Indian reserves were vulnerable targets for a government able to use its coercive powers to "persuade" Indians to give up their ceremonial practices and surrender ceremonial objects often for a few dollars to offset hunger. Is this the kind of, ' coercive power,' meant?

Is it Mr. Henry's position that wherever persuasion failed, coercion could be brought to bear? And only the issues determined by the Catholic Church? Or even Mr. Henry himself?

In a democratic country like Canada, laws are the legal embodiment of the opinions of the consensus as to what is right and proper behaviour. And the coercive powers of the police are the physical embodiment of the "or else".

Mr. Henry can teach or preach that homosexual activity is a sin.

Mr. Henry can teach or preach that in the Catholic church, if you are homosexual you are not wanted all he wants.

Don't tell my government that by Mr. Henry's standards we should also put them in jail.

The criminal law power is the state's authority for intervention. It is, however, one of the state's most coercive powers. It allows for behaviour to be defined as criminal and for the establishment of procedures and mechanisms that can deprive an individual of liberties in response to wrongdoing. Is this the kind of, ' coercive power,' meant?

A traditional cost example is the criminal law system, which applies the coercive powers of the State to stop activities that, at any point in time, are viewed as harmful to society, e.g. Prohibition. Is this the kind of, ' coercive power,' meant?

What is the 'or else,' that Mr. Henry wants the federal government to use with their coercive powers?

If it is to keep the meaning of marriage to be that between one man and one woman, then he has reached his goal. Both Prime Minister Paul Martin and Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan have done this, and he should in fact be imploring them to live up to their word.

Mr. Henry says he wants the Federal government to build a fence around his definition of marriage. Is it not logical for Canadians to demand he build a fence around his definition of, ' coercive power?'

If the government turns its coercive powers against the homosexuals for the purposes of appeasing Mr. Henry, what sin is next?
Will it be speeding in a school zone?