Tag Archives: Free Speech

Student who was fired for opposing homosexuality loses court case

From the Christian Post.

Excerpt:

A Christian student at a Georgia university who was expelled from her school’s counseling program for expressing her disagreement with homosexuality has lost a court case against the school.

“(Jennifer) Keeton’s speech and conduct were evidently impelled by the absolutist philosophical character of her beliefs, but that character does not entitle her to university accommodation and it is irrelevant to the court’s analysis,” wrote Judge J. Randall Hall, of the Southern District of Georgia, siding with the university. “Neutrality as a legal standard is immutable, it does not bend to the strength or tenor of personal conviction.”

Keeton refused to change the way she engages with homosexual students because of her religious beliefs, and was expelled from the counseling program at Augusta State University in 2010, which stressed that the program should not discriminate against students regardless of their sexual orientation.

[…]Keeton was initially placed on probation, and school officials required her to follow a “remediation plan.” This included attending sensitivity training, going to gay pride events and writing papers on her experiences and the lessons she had learned in tolerance. When Keeton refused to comply, she was removed from her position.

“The remediation plan imposed on Keeton pursuant to those policies placed limits on her speech and burdened her religious beliefs, but, as the allegations show, the plan was motivated by a legitimate pedagogical interest in cultivating a professional demeanor and concern that she might prove unreceptive to certain issues and openly judge her clients,” the judge said. “The allegations show, in sum, that while Keeton was motivated by her religious beliefs, Defendants were not.”

Hall added that the American School Counselor Association’s Ethical Standards for School Counselors clearly states that counselors cannot impose their own values on clients, and must take on each case from a neutral viewpoint. The judge also defended Augusta State’s remediation plan, stating that it did not infringe on Keeton’s first amendment rights, but was an attempt to get her to comply with the school’s policies.

In a similar case, Julea Ward from Eastern Michigan University was also expelled from her counseling job because of her views on homosexuality. She had requested that a gay client be transferred to another counselor, which the school argued went against its policies, despite the fact that it allows client transfers based on non-religious reasons. A lower-court initially ruled in favor of Eastern Michigan University, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision, arguing that Ward’s constitutional rights were violated.

Remember, these schools very often get public funding, which means that Christians are paying to have this done to them. That’s what you get when you vote for more goverment and more grants for universities. These places are generally not our friends – across the board. Also, think of how she gave them thousands of dollars in tuition.

What’s the lesson here? I think that the lesson is that the safest way to avoid losing thousands of dollars is to study STEM-related fields in a secular university or any field in a Christian university. The best schools for Christians are listed here. I agree that Wheaton College should be left off the list and I think that Grove City, Biola, Houston Baptist and Hillsdale are the best, especially Grove City. Christians have to be careful where we go to school and what we study now.

One last point. It is a good idea for Christians to learn how to talk about their convictions on moral issues using evidence, and not talking about their faith or the Bible to people who don’t like us very much. The Bible informs your faith, but that is not something you share with non-Christians who are hostile to you.

Free speech hero Mark Steyn reflects on the demise of Section 13 fascism

Canada 2011 Federal Election Seats
Canada 2011 Federal Election Seats

Kathy Shaidle at Five Feet of Fury linked to this editorial which explains how the battle for free speech was won up in the frozen North.

Excerpt:

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson had voiced support for the legislation. So had the Prime Minister. The result, then, was never in doubt: at 9:35 p.m. on June 6, by a vote of 153-136,  Parliament got Canada’s human rights bureaucrats out of the business of policing speech on the Internet. There was a scattering of applause, and handshakes for Storseth (the bill requires the rubber stamp of Senate approval). “To be honest, it’s all a blur,” says the three-term MP, laughing. But if the passage of Bill C-304 represents a fundamental shift in Canadian culture, you’d never have known it that night. Members dealt with a few housekeeping matters, then waded through a supply bill. Finally, one by one, they trickled out into the cool Ottawa night.

The effect of killing Section 13 will be debated for years among anti-racist groups and civil libertarians. But it is undoubtedly a turning point. Since 1999, Canadians who felt aggrieved by material transmitted online have been encouraged to seek redress under federal human rights law, which targeted material “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” based on grounds of discrimination like race, religion or sexual orientation. Storseth’s bill repeals the provision outright, leaving the Criminal Code as the primary bulwark against the dissemination of hate propaganda by electronic means.

With it will go one of the most divisive disputes to grip the country since the introduction of the Charter of Rights itself—a contest of values that over the past five years has pitted Canadians’ desire to protect minorities from discrimination against the bedrock principle of free speech. Mainstream media outlets, most notably Maclean’s, have been hauled before commissions to answer for their published content. The commissions themselves have come under fire for allowing their processes to be used as a bludgeon against legitimate expression, tailored as they are to encourage complainants to come forward. Meantime, a Saskatchewan law similar to Section 13 has become the subject of a Supreme Court challenge that could invalidate hate-speech provisions in most provincial human rights codes. By year’s end, it is conceivable that no human rights commission in the country will be in the business of adjudicating published material.

And here’s a must-read cri-de-coeur from free speech hero Mark Steyn in Maclean’s magazine. (H/T Binks the Web Elf)

Excerpt:

Operationally, Section 13 was stinkingly corrupt. There are some 34 million Canadians, yet just one individual citizen had his name on almost every Section 13 prosecution of the last decade. Just as Matthew Hopkins appointed himself England’s Witchfinder General in 1645 and went around the country turning in raven-tressed crones for the bounty of a pound per witch, so Richard Warman appointed himself Canada’s Hatefinder General and went around turning in shaven-headed tattooed losers in their mums’ basements for far more lucrative bounties of tens of thousands of dollars. He filed his complaints as a supposedly “offended” and “damaged” private citizen while an employee of Her Majesty’s Government. And, in fairness to Matthew Hopkins, he didn’t personally put on a pointy black hat and ride around on a broomstick. Whereas Mr. Warman joined Stormfront and other “white supremacist” websites and posted copious amounts of hate speech of his own, describing, for example, Jewish members of cabinet as “scum” and gays as a “cancer.” That’s how “hateful” Canada is: there’s so little “hate” out there that the country’s most famous Internet Nazi is a taxpayer-funded civil servant.

For Warman, there was little risk: you paid his costs, and the dice were loaded. After Hosni Mubarak was “re-elected” with 97.1 per cent of the vote, he was said to be furious with his officials for stealing too much of the election and making him look like one of those crude ham-fisted dictator-for-life types like Saddam and Kim Il-Sung. So next time round his officials arranged for him to “win” with a mere 96.3 per cent of the vote. Canada’s “human rights” commissars had no such squeamishness: until the tenacious Marc Lemire won his landmark victory in 2009, Section 13 prosecutions had a three-decade 100 per cent conviction rate even the Soviets might envy.

That wasn’t even the most basic affront. Until Maclean’s intervened in 2008, Lemire’s Section 13 trial was scheduled to be held in secret. I couldn’t quite believe this when I chanced to happen upon the “judge’s” rationale, and I suggested en passant that we should get Maclean’s estimable QC Julian Porter to file a whatchamacallit, a brief or motion or whatever, referencing precedents and other jurisprudential-type stuff, and put a rocket up these totalitarian buggers by treating their dank outhouse of pseudo-justice as a real courtroom subject to real law. Secret trials are for Beijing and Tehran, yet in the name of “human rights” they were introduced to Ottawa.

The line that sums up my objection to the racket was formulated by the Toronto blogger Kathy Shaidle: “You’re too stupid to tell me what to think.” In recent days, the last lonely defenders of the Canadian thought police have all volunteered to demonstrate Miss Shaidle’s proposition. The Opposition [NDP] critic for “public safety,” Randall Garrison, bemoaned the demise of the commissars’ “power to educate Canadians.” “We do have a serious problem,” said Garrison. “If you take away the power to take [websites] down, it’s not clear they have any mandate to even talk to people about it and educate them about it.”

The Conservatives held up their end of the deal once they got their majority, didn’t they? Everyone who said they were not going to do anything with their majority should hang their heads in shame, now. They can’t do everything, but they can certainly do some things.

This is a lesson for us down here. If you love your country, then get out and vote in November! And make sure your friends vote, too – you should be convincing them to vote by giving them the facts about Obama’s catastrophic failures even now.

Related posts

Pro-abortionists angry over Australia’s first pro-life student group

From Life Site News.

Excerpt:

The board of the student union at the oldest university in Australia has voted 6-5 to approve the only pro-life student society in Australia.

The decision has been met with outrage by stunned pro-abortion students (one of whom described the pro-life society as “f***ed” and “bulls***”), who have begun organising events, petitions and constitutional amendments which would ban pro-life groups from ever again gaining approval at the university.

Yesterday, Friday June 1, the board of the University of Sydney Union (USU) approved the registration of LifeChoice Sydney, a nonpartisan, nonsectarian pro-life advocacy group which aims to “promote the dignity of human life from conception to natural death” at Sydney University.

[…]Outraged students have begun composing a motion calling for the USU board to rescind the registration of LifeChoice, censure the board members who voted in favour of their registration, and amend the USU constitution to read:

“The Board shall be forbidden from registering or providing any funding, resources, publicity or use of Union premises to a group discriminatory on the basis of sex, sexuality, gender diversity, class, race and ethnicity or disability, including any group which opposes a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.”

Meanwhile, an online petition has been created on the website of activist group GetUp!, demanding that the USU overturn its decision to approve the group. “This isn’t about freedom of speech or equal opportunity,” the petition reads. “This is about funding and giving legitimacy to a group whose sole target is women. This ‘LifeChoice’ Society is an attack on women’s rights and by allowing its formation the Union is failing its students and undermining the inclusiveness it seeks to promote.”

[…]In August 2006, roughly 15 police and security guards were needed to protect a small crowd of students at Sydney University attending a guest lecture by Mississippi pro-lifer Terri Herring, when a coalition of roughly 80 protestors attempted to disrupt the event.

What’s wrong with a different point of view? Who’s being intolerant now?