Anyone sense a trend here?

Is banning the Bible next?

Is banning the Bible next?

Mark Steyn

If you live pretty much anywhere in the Western world these days,
you'll notice a certain kind of news item cropping up with quiet
regularity. The Irish Times had one last week.

As Liam Reid reported, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties has warned
Catholic bishops that distributing the Vatican's latest statement on
homosexuality could lead to prosecution under the 1989 Incitement to
Hatred Act, and a six-month jail term.

"The document itself may not violate the Act, but if you were to use
the document to say that gays are evil, it is likely to give rise to
hatred, which is against the Act," says Aisling Reidy, director of the
ICCL. "The wording is very strong and certainly goes against the spirit
of the legislation."

No Irish bishop has actually called gays evil yet. But best to be on
the safe side and shut down all debate.

Is banning the Bible next?

Is banning the Bible next?

Is banning the Bible next?


Mark Steyn





If you live pretty much anywhere in the Western world these days,
you'll notice a certain kind of news item cropping up with quiet
regularity. The Irish Times had one last week.

As Liam Reid reported, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties has

Catholic bishops that distributing the Vatican's latest statement on
homosexuality could lead to prosecution under the 1989 Incitement to
Hatred Act, and a six-month jail term.

"The document itself may not violate the Act, but if you were to use
the document to say that gays are evil, it is likely to give rise to
hatred, which is against the Act," says Aisling Reidy, director of

ICCL. "The wording is very strong and certainly goes against the

of the legislation."

No Irish bishop has actually called gays evil yet. But best to be on
the safe side and shut down all debate.

From Dublin, let us zip 6,000 miles to Quesnel, a small paper-mill

in British Columbia. Chris Kempling is a high-school teacher and a
Christian conservative and he likes writing letters to his local
newspaper. In one of them he said that "homosexuality is not

to be applauded."

The regulatory body for his profession, the British Columbia College

Teachers, suspended him for a month without pay for "conduct

a member of the college."

No student, parent or fellow teacher at Correlieu Secondary School

ever complained about Mr. Kempling: he was punished by the BCCT for
expressing an opinion in the paper. The British Columbia Civil
Liberties Association supported the suspension, not because of

he's done but because of what he might do in the future. He might
discriminate against gay and lesbian students in the future. He

done so yet, but, if we don't preemptively punish him now, he might
well commit a hate crime somewhere down the road.

He didn't say gays are evil. But he did say homosexuality wasn't
something to be applauded. And, if we start letting people decide who
they are and aren't going to applaud, there's no telling where it

end. As in Dublin, best to be on the safe side and shut down all
debate.

In Sweden, meanwhile, they've passed a constitutional amendment

criticism of homosexuality a crime, punishable by up to four years in
jail. Expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even

religious grounds, even in church. Those preachers may not be talking
about how gays are evil this Sunday. But they might do next week, or
next month. As in Ireland and British Columbia, best to be on the

side and shut down all debate.

Anyone sense a trend here? Even in America, where the First Amendment
(on freedom of expression) still just about trumps "hate crimes" law,
you can see where things are headed.

A FEW weeks back, the Senate Judiciary Committee interrogated William
Pryor, attorney-general of Alabama and President George W. Bush's
nominee to the Circuit Court of Appeals. As part of an exhaustive
effort to establish Pryor's unfitness for office, the Democrats

into his history of homophobic vacationing.

Was it true, demanded Senator Russ Feingold, that "you even went so

as to reschedule a family vacation at Disney World in order to avoid
Gay Day?" Gay Day is an annual event at Disney, and Pryor is a
practicing Catholic.

Yes, he even went so far! "My wife and I had two daughters, who at

time of that vacation were six and four," replied Pryor.

"But are you saying," gasped Senator Feingold in mock astonishment,
"that you actually made that decision on purpose to be away at the

of that?" He actually did! "We made a value judgment and changed our
plan and went another weekend."

"Well, I appreciate your candor on that," said Feingold, like Perry
Mason on cross-examination, after artfully trapping the witness into

irreparably damaging admission.

Gay Day has its sweet side - Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck walk around
holding hands, and so do Minnie and Daisy. I always figured Mickey

gay anyway. But the photographic souvenirs of the day unearthed by
National Review also included a man quaffing on a beer bottle rising
out from the unzipped pants of another chap. I wouldn't advise any
young lady visitor to Disney to try that with her boyfriend: The park
is very rigorously policed the other 364 days of the year.

But the disinclination of a devout Catholic to expose his

to the delights of Gay Day now renders one unfit for public office.
Which exactly is the love that dare not speak its name here?

Pryor hasn't made any anti-gay rulings, but he might do one day, if

allow him to go around avoiding gay carousing on his vacations. Best

be on the safe side and vote him down now. And any other Catholics

still take that jazz seriously.

THIRTY YEARS ago, in the early days of gay liberation, most of us
assumed we were being asked to live and let live. But throughout the
Western world, tolerance has become remarkably intolerant, and
diversity demands ruthless conformity. In New Zealand, an appeals

upheld a nationwide ban on importing a Christian video Gay
Rights/Special Rights: Inside The Homosexual Agenda.

In Saskatchewan, The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix was fined by the Human
Rights Commission for publishing an advertisement quoting biblical
passages on homosexuality. Fining publishers of the Bible surely

be far off. The coerciveness of the most "liberal" cultures in the
Western world is not a pretty sight.

Whatever happened to "live and let live?" If I can live with the
occasional rustle from the undergrowth as I'm strolling through a
condom-strewn park or a come-hither look from George Michael in the
men's room, why can't gays live with the occasional expression of
disapproval?

Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage, they don't
oppose the right of gays to advocate it. But increasingly gays oppose
the right of Christians to advocate their beliefs. Gay activists have
figured that instead of trying to persuade people to change their
opinions, it's easier just to get them banned.

As Rodney King, celebrated black victim of the LAPD, once plaintively
said, "Why can't we all just get along?"

But, if that's not possible, why can't we all just not get along?
What's so bad about disagreement that it needs to be turned into a
crime?

Is banning the Bible next?

Is banning the Bible next?

Mark Steyn

Is banning the Bible next?

Whatever happened to "live and let live?" If I can live with the
occasional rustle from the undergrowth as I'm strolling through a
condom-strewn park or a come-hither look from George Michael in the
men's room, why can't gays live with the occasional expression of
disapproval?

Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage, they don't
oppose the right of gays to advocate it. But increasingly gays oppose
the right of Christians to advocate their beliefs. Gay activists have
figured that instead of trying to persuade people to change their
opinions, it's easier just to get them banned.

As Rodney King, celebrated black victim of the LAPD, once plaintively
said, "Why can't we all just get along?"

But, if that's not possible, why can't we all just not get along?
What's so bad about disagreement that it needs to be turned into a
crime?