It's What Other Say About You That Brings on the Trouble

Here's a short primer for activists on how to get the last word.

Use free-speech rights to make your case. Once you've won, shut down the other side.

Learn from David Suzuki, who Licia Corbella talks about. He thinks global-warming scientists have won their debate, and now politicians who don't agree with them should go to jail. He sounds deranged. But university audiences applaud.

Then there're gay activists. For decades, they used free-speech rights to their case. But now, with their aims largely met, it's off to a human rights tribunal for people who disagree. It works. You can shut anybody up, if you go at it long enough, and smart enough.

This week's free-speech martyr is Chris Kempling. I feel a soft spot for him because the Herald is involved.

In 2003, when gay marriage was a hot-button issue, the Quesnel, B.C., teacher sent us a thinker about the divisions between the two sides of the issue, what they thought, and where they got their ideas.

But Lifesite.net says that earlier this week, his professional association, the B.C. College of Teachers, cited him for sending it to us. Also, by the way, for speaking with Canada's national broadcaster, the CBC, and identifying himself in a paper as the local Christian Heritage Party candidate.

He faces suspension, perhaps loss of his teaching licence, for "conduct unbecoming a teacher." After all this time: That article must have been a screamer, you'd think.

Well, no. It was about as near the bone as a country pastor ruminating on the equator.

The gist was that social liberals think anything goes as long as one isn't hurting anybody else, while social conservatives, concerned about the decay of family life and the understandings that hold society together, have a broader view of what behaviours cause harm. That is, what your neighbour does may not hurt you, but can still affect you.

Anyway, we buried it in a weekend section, two days after Christmas. It sparked one letter — from a Toronto man who sounded like the duty hate-literature responder for the Christmas break.

Except, there was nothing remotely hateful in it. This was how Kempling ended up: "Certain fundamental values can be affirmed by all camps: the inherent worth of every individual, non-violence, eradication of harassment and name-calling, and promoting understanding of each other's profoundly held beliefs." Sounds more like the charter than a rant.

Well, there was one more thing. He put in a word for organizations that help people deal with their "unwanted same-sex attractions and who are motivated to re-orient towards heterosexuality."

Those were probably the fighting words. Activists rest their case on gays being born that way, so by definition reorientation must be an act of self-denial in response to societal oppression. By endorsing it, Kempling becomes an oppressor and unworthy to teach children, some of whom might believe they're gay. (Not that any complained about him.)

As his article also relates, that's the logic of the activists' next project, adding gay curriculum in schools: "Mandatory public affirmation of non-traditional sexual behaviour is required, as individuals must be free to act in accordance with their own wishes, not those of a larger norm or higher authority." Get it now?

Kempling's fight with the college goes back years. It's inside baseball, way beyond these paragraphs. Briefly, though, he's a Christian guy who doesn't buy the new morality his professional body is touting and he won't give in.

And the college? In its view, the obligation on educators imposed by B.C. law, to inculcate the highest morality, is discharged not by teaching everybody to keep it zippered, regardless of orientation, but by non-discrimination about sexual preference. So, as one of their judgments against him has it, Kempling's writings show he is "not prepared to take into account the core values of the educational system, which recognize that homosexuals have a right to equality, personal dignity and respect."

Of course, he would say he absolutely accords them respect, even as he disagrees with them. (See his article.)

But here's the thing. It's not always what you say that gets you into trouble; it's what other people say about you.

A homophobe isn't necessarily somebody who doesn't like gays. It can just be somebody gay activists don't like. And a climate-change denier may not deny climate change, just disagree with Suzuki. Either way, they end up down range.

The issues change. Once, you couldn't be a teacher and a Communist. That's probably OK now — you can certainly be NDP — but if you're a teacher and a Christian conservative, best not to say so. Today, it's climate-change deniers who somebody wants to jail, but who is it going to be next? Columnist Mark Steyn?

John Ralston Saul was right when he wrote, "Free speech is afflicted by two widely held, contradictory opinions. The first is that we have it; the second, that it is a luxury."

Everybody wants to be a censor. Everybody should watch out.