Canadian fascism clarified

We previously discussed (here and here) the case of Chris Kempling, the school teacher whose job is under attack simply because of the political and religious-anthopological opinions he holds in the writing and political work he does outside of school.

Now, Mr. Kempling has a piece in the National Post where he clarifies the facts of his case. It seems that if you hold to the received wisdom of 3000 years of Judeo-Christian thinking on (male) homosexuality, the self-righteous Utopians of the "progressive" New World Order are confident they can get you fired from public school teaching.

If Canadians who respect freedom of thought, speech, and conscience don't fight back against the fascist forces now entrenched in many of our public institutions, it only remains to ask, how long will the self-righteous Christophobes presently running the pubic schools and teaching professions stand up to Muslims demanding an end to pro-homosexual teachings? If the recent experience of Bristol, England is any indication, about 30 seconds (ht: Catfur). Is that a fair sign of the staying power and moral courage of those who pretend to hold as unquestionable the "truths" about homosexuality that have become politically correct for only a couple of decades now? ...the staying power of those who are so confident in the rightness of their view that they refuse to have it tested and strengthened by free debate?

Those who would protect homosexual freedoms had better make their first priority to protect a free society. Funny thing is, protecting both is exactly what Kempling says he has been doing. But then he's one of those Christians, don't you know...

An example of Canadian freedom

Here's a story about a British Columbia school teacher, Chris Kempling, who risks losing his job because he has published, in various journals, critical comments on homosexual behaviour, and because he is a member of the Christian Heritage Party, a registered and legal political party in this country. The College of Teachers would rather protect us from hearing words critical of homosexuality than protect a professional's right to engage in public debate on basic questions of human nature and ethics. Because, you see, they already know what is right and wrong - they have seen the light hidden from Western culture for much of its history - and are freaked out by someone who thinks differently, someone with some small audience in marginal publications. Who do you want teaching your kids?

The teachers' College has, in effect, asked the courts "how can we continue to live among people who hold views critical of others, those others who today freely and openly do things for which people have been victimized in the past?" And the courts have been sympathetic to their cry. Because, it seems, we Canadians cannot be trusted to speak our minds, on our free time, without this freedom creating more victims, somewhere somehow. My ears hurt. Free speech must be sacrificed to the fear of (or is it a positive desire for?) more victims.

Not surprisingly, those who want to speak in public find it increasingly necessary to claim victimary status to justify their speaking position. Where can this mimetic cycle, fueled by a need for victims and victim status, end?