RE: Website Inquiry - A fearless bishop will soon face a political kangaroo court

You are right, the details of a complaint to the HRC are confidential unless and until it goes before a tribunal. Something Henry ignored. With your reference in your story on how my complaint demonstrates I am advocating for freedom of religious speech to be hindered, tells me you have seen some of it, or are relying on third party reports, which really brings to question whether you are still a journalist. In fact there is no where in it that states I am asking for Henry's, or yours, freedom of religious speech to be hindered.

Putting labels on people prior to writing a story without checking the facts is bad journalism, so is extracting on quote from one source, to prove a sweeping generalization. I am a human rights activist. You did quote the letter from Henry only selectively though. You did not go further and ask him what he means by the terms, 'coercive powers,' and what limits he puts on them.

I assume since you have not seen the complaint details, that referring to how my complaint demonstrates there is no where in it that states I am asking for Henry's, or yours, freedom of religious speech to be hindered. He can teach and preach all he wants to his flock, whether they are in the church or outside like the majority are in Calgary, about how the Catholic doctrine finds homosexuality a sin, and same sex against their teachings. When he asks our government to do his bidding, because he finds he is losing the fight, then I take offence to that.

You can be sure of not making wrong assumptions about me, by not labelling me. Labelling me as one way or not, is just a smoke screen to benefit the fact you are not interested in seeing both sides of the story, nor the facts.

Having been married twice, have one daughter, I think I can safely say you are wrong in your assumptions about me. As can my current girl friend. I fail to see what this has to do with the reporting of a story or even a commentary. If I am wrong and you are right, why not write about that and the why or where? Why label me?

And yes one can complain if they find an event that is materially and personally discriminated against an identifiable group. It is based on the principle that if I walk by you, while you are being assaulted. I am bound to step in and help all I can do to prevent you from being hurt. It is also much like the Final Judgement Christ spoke of.

So my interpretation of scripture is irrelevant to this discussion, but that of yours and Henry's is?

Thanx
Norm Greenfield

' The only people that could think the economies of the world could grow exponentially for ever, based on an earth with finite resources, are dreamers or economists. '

-----Original Message-----From: Link Byfield: June 1, 2005 9:34 AMTo:Norm Greenfield: RE: Website Inquiry - A fearless bishop will soon face a political kangaroo court
Norman:

Thanks for your letter. I am travelling and can't answer more than your main points.

Unless they've fundamentally changed the system, the details of a complaint to the HRC are confidential unless and until it goes before a tribunal. However, one is not allowed to complain unless one is materially and personally discriminated against. It seemed reasonable to suppose (and still does) that you yourself happen to be gay, or you would be abusing the process. Are you?

If you are not homosexually inclined, I trust you will tell me, so that anything I might write in future avoids this presumption. In that case I would describe you as a "homosexual rights activist."

Your interpretation of scripture is irrelevant to this discussion, and ignores the most obvious teaching of all in which Jesus explicitly states that marriage is the making of a man and woman into "one flesh."

As for the rest, it amounts to you asserting things without evidence, gross distortions of phrases and legal histories you plainly do not understand, and accusations against me of factual errors which are not identified. I did not say you complained about three things. I said that you complained against Henry's pastoral letter, and I said what Bishop Henry put in that letter.

As for "traditional marriage," why are you bringing it up? I was writing about free speech. But since you mention it, we have it from U of Manitoba anthropologist Hymie Rubenstein that nowhere in the records of human societies can one find "same-sex" marriage. The closest you get is a variety of primitive tribes in which homosexually inclined males were ceremonially turned into women and then married to a male. Thereafter they were expected to dress as women and do women's work. If you tried telling them they were "marrying" two males, I suspect their reaction would have been violent.

My own view is that while polygamy is common enough in social history, same-sex marriage is far more radical. If legal (moreover constitutional) recognition of it compromises freedom of religious speech, as it plainly does (and as your own complaint demonstrates), then it amounts to a fundamental legislative change and should be subject to democratic consent.

Sincerely,
Link Byfield

-----Original Message-----From: Citizens Centre Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:54 AMTo: Link ByfieldSubject: FW: Website Inquiry - A fearless bishop will soon face a political kangaroo court

-----Original Message-----From: Norman Greenfield: Citizens Centre for Freedom and DemocracySubject: Website Inquiry - A fearless bishop will soon face a political kangaroo court
In the commentary with the title 'A fearless bishop will soon face a political kangaroo court,' you have made some authoritative comments and attempted to put me in a slot or category that is totally wrong. It would have been a better idea, and more in keeping with good journalistic research principles for you to have checked your facts before publishing the commentary.

First. How do you know I am a homosexual? Is labelling me a homosexual done for some purpose that is germane to the story? How is it so?

As you will not through out this matter, I have not been derogatory against the Bishop's religious beliefs, nor those of the conservative Christians that have talked to me to express their disagreements with my opinions, nor will I of yours.

I will refer to your poor track record in recent times to adhere to the simple journalistic ethics and practices that use to be a part of your profession.

In the Final Judgement Christ states when you see hungry and fed them, you fed Christ, and when you cared for the sick or imprisoned, you cared for Christ. It states no where that before I help the homeless, sick, poor, naked or imprisoned, I need to have been poor, sick, hungry, or imprisoned myself. In fact Christ has little to say as well on the fact of how a marriage should be arranged, nor set down any of the rules we use now for a 'traditional marriage.' He has little to say on homosexuality, and nothing about refusing them at the door of his church. In fact most if not all of the people that are referred to in the New Testament having been ministered to by Christ, were in fact the outcasts.

Can you tell me what your version of a traditional marriage is, and from what period it comes from? Marriage for a better part of the last two eons, has been all about politics, geopolitics, and expanding the blood line, and less about love and religion. The Old Testament talks more about the major male figures who were married to many wives.

By and large the version of our current 'tradition marriage,' comes from a much more recent time period than that of when the Bible was written.

I have no ill will towards you or any church that wants to maintain its right to marry who and how they want, nor what version of a traditional marriage they want. In fact I think the government should get out of the business of marriage and keep to making sure at it's dissolution all are treated with respect, the children are loved by both parents and no one is left destitute by an unequal division of the marital property.

As has been demonstrated by way of the Supreme Court over the last 150 years here in Canada, the US Supreme Court in the past 300 years, and the Highest Court of Great Britain, there has never been a church's right to determine who and how they want to marry, nor what version of a traditional marriage they want. We even have the courts establishing the fact the women in a marriage are actually people, more in keeping with the idea that Jesus preached.

The example of the Knights of Columbus in Surrey BC is a lost leader. That facility is competing with the commercial market of renting out its facilities to non-church groups and must live by the general commercial laws that all others must.

If the Knights of Columbus had dealt with only church members for their facility rentals, then they would not have been subject to the common and general commercial laws.

Second. If you read my complaint, and not just the poorly written and presented brief prepared by the Bishop's lawyer you would find that there was more to my complaint than, '(1) homosexual activity undermines the family, (2) that the state should employ its "coercive power" to curtail such activity, and (3) that homosexual acts are "evil," whether performed in private or public.' In fact my complaint had nothing to do with that.

My complaint was based on the fact that the Bishop is demanding our government use their coercive powers to achieve his ends, against an identifiable group.

He does not qualify his definitions of the term, coercive powers, nor how far he would like them to go. I have attached a copy of an op-ed on my position if you care to find out exactly what my complaint was.

My question to the Bishop is this, if he wants the government to use its coercive powers on this issue, how far does he want them to go? To close down all other churches who practice Christianity that do not follow the Catholic doctrine? We have seen in the past what can happen when the Canadian government or even a church uses its coercive powers against a group they do not agree with. The Catholic Church has 150 years of experience in this, as they have a right to their own separate school systems maintained by the Constitution. This has been challenged in the past, to no end.

All we have to do to find a prime example of how far government coercive powers can go, is to look at the Crucifixion of Jesus.

Frankly I could care less of what you write, as I agree with little of it. The least you could do is get your facts right, and follow some of the basics of the journalism profession's ethics. Or, simply state at the end of all of your public comments that you have a policy of not letting the facts nor reality get in the way of a good story.

More facts you have missed:

Carol Johnson and I have absolutely no connection in any way.

When I show up, I will be there on my own. No lawyers funded by anyone else, but me. The Bishop will have his lawyer funded by his parishioners.

Your statement, ' Once that's on the record, it's all over but setting the compensation,' is also wrong. I am not asking for any compensation. As I know it will come out of the offering plate, and not go to more worthy projects.

I will also not stop working alongside the Bishop on the various inner city projects our two respective church's work on.

I do not consider the Bible akin to hate literature, but might not take it quite as literate as you do.

I will not counter the anti-gay Bible citations, as I am not interested in changing your mind or that of the Bishop.

Trust me, with my work to get joint custody laws implemented in Edmonton, and Ottawa, the feminist Legal Education Action Fund (LEAF) will not come close to me, and might not even sit in the same room as me.

Some questions I have for you:

If the Bishop and the groups who want the Provincial Government to pass a law, or refuse same sex marriages, succeeds and Ralph goes against all of the legal advise he has gotten, and the case goes to the Supreme Court, who pays the costs?

If the provincial government does help the Bishop (and yours) enforce his religious teachings, will there be any strings attached to it? We both know that form history when you ask the government in your home to help, they come with strings attached. If you succeed in this area, how do you maintain the division of church and state? After all will this not establish a precedence for the future?


Thank you
Norm Greenfield
Calgary, Alberta
http://provocostatusquo.blogspot.com
Corporate, Marketing and Political Communications
Myth Confectioner
Published Writer
Media and Government Relations
Media Monitoring - New and Old
Registered Federal Government Lobbyist
Registered B.C. and N.B Government Lobbyist
E-Learning Business Development

"We now live in a society and political culture in which people no longer want to hear what they do not agree with. "