Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

The Thought Police are alive and well, and living in Canada!

Feb 6, 2004 4:53PM PST
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/05/teacher_court040205

Chris Kempling, a teacher and guidance counsellor in a Quesnel high school said the ruling by the B.C. Supreme Court is "a significant blow to freedom of speech and freedom of religion," denying Christian teachers the right to speak out on controversial issues. Kempling says he intends to appeal the ruling.

In 2002, the British Columbia College of Teachers suspended Kempling for one month for "professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a BCCT member."

It had been investigating a complaint received after Kempling wrote a series of letters to his local newspaper between 1997 and 2000 saying homosexuality was wrong.

One letter said in part: "I refuse to be a false teacher saying that promiscuity is acceptable, perversion is normal, and immorality is simply 'cultural diversity' of which we should be proud."


IMO, the important words quoted above are "Christian teachers". It seems that in Canada at least, that having a voice in the public policy debate is only possible if you check your moral code at the door.

This one's truly Orwellian in nature, and what's scary is that there are those here in the U.S. who'd do the same thing; they're called Democrats...

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
And in the forums.
Feb 6, 2004 6:44PM PST

There are those who think errant psychological studies (soul study? new religion? false prophets?) should outrank religious principles. They would rather place their faith in teachings of man rather than from God. I'm reminded of Elijah, who said those of his day who stood for immorality were purging the land of the religious who opposed them, persecuting them at every turn, and even seeking his life. Those prophets of Baal got what they had coming and all their immoral teachings leading that nation astray were quickly destroyed in favor of what was right in God's eyes.

- Collapse -
Re: Paul & James
Feb 6, 2004 9:21PM PST

These are very profound posts and have awakened my comsciousness. I certainly will be giving your statements much thought. And thanks for jogging my interest in this subject, that I keep saying does not affect me. Of course it does. It has everything to do with me and how or if we maintain our christian judea principles.

- Collapse -
Re: And in the forums -- Why not just burn the sinners at the stake and be done with it?
Feb 7, 2004 7:26AM PST

James (and Paul), the Canadian ruling is exactly right. As a state-paid teacher, you are NOT allowed to impose your own beliefs on others, ESPECIALLY when they're religiously based. Anything else makes a mockery of the principle of separation of Church and State. As for "your principles," surely a good Christian like yourself remembers the story of the women taken in adultery, whom the Law said should be stoned? The Christian response is not oppression, be it stoning, burning, or merely laws and customs restricting one's right to employment and control of one's own property. Finally, those psychological studies are "errant" only when veiwed through a black/white "my way is dogma" lens. Find and read a copy of the recent Time Magazine issue on sexuality with an open mind and you may get a different view on what is "natural" (meaning "of nature").

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!


-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Dave, you misread the scriptures. Jesus did not say that the law is oppression. He did say
Feb 7, 2004 10:04AM PST

that it should not be manipulated for political purposes (where was the man, and why was the woman brought to Jesus). He said He would fulfill the demands of the law (for us). As the one who could judge the woman, He said 'Neither do I condemn you, go and SIN NO MORE'.

- Collapse -
So, an employee, speaking on his own time is not allowed to express his opinion?
Feb 7, 2004 10:16AM PST

He didn't do this in the classroom Dave. Since when does the 'separation of church and state' (which, BTW, is not in the constitution) extend to what someone says OUTSIDE the classroom? Thomas Jefferson must be spinning in his grave.

- Collapse -
Re:Thomas Jefferson must be spinning in his grave
Feb 7, 2004 2:23PM PST

Tom's been spinning for years. I know of American employment contracts which forbid workers doing certain things in their own homes or off work time, such as smoking, attending political meetings, etc.

Even in the UK such things exist. When I worked for the govt. we had one guy who got charged with common assault (a minor offence), and upon conviction he was dismissed from employment. Such sackings for conduct in one's personal life don't exist only in govt. either.

Problem is, most companies today have the attitude that when they pay for your labour, they own you personally as their property. They need a reality check, slavery died centuries ago in the civilised world.

- Collapse -
That's quite true, but especially when it is a matter of conscience and an educational institution.
Feb 7, 2004 3:05PM PST

I know my own employer, a large trust company, takes a dim view of some activities. For example, an employee standing at the bank's door defending the National Rifle Association to reporters. They're afraid of offending large customers who may think the employee is speaking for the bank. However, I've never known them to try to interfere in comments made where the company is not mentioned.

I would be completely shocked if a school tried to censor a teacher's private speech. I think in the US, the school would be sued.

- Collapse -
Re: speaking on his own time?
Feb 8, 2004 12:36PM PST

Hi, KP.

The judge said it better than I did: "By publicly linking his private, discriminatory views of homosexuality with his status and professional judgment as a teacher and secondary school counsellor, the appellant called into question his own preparedness to be impartial in the fulfilment of his professional and legal obligations to all students, as well as the impartiality of the school system..." Let me ask you this -- what if he were a Wiccan, and the comments criticized a bias towards Christianity? How would you feel then?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
A Wiccan with a bias towards Christianity?
Feb 8, 2004 1:13PM PST

I think I could deal with that quite easily.

I'd be more worried about a homosexual teacher who expresses private views against religion and morality. Oh wait, they get a free pass in PCLand!

- Collapse -
Re:A Wiccan with a bias towards Christianity?
Feb 9, 2004 2:18AM PST

OK, let's go with that. Let's say he'd written letters denouncing Christianity and also in favor of gay marriage (just to add some fuel to the fire). How would you feel about the ruling in that case?

- Collapse -
Re:Re:A Wiccan with a bias towards Christianity?
Feb 9, 2004 5:36AM PST

I believe in good and evil. That is where my concept of equality rests. Everyone has the ability to be good or evil. That doesn't mean we have to tolerate the evil. Even if to some extent we do tolerate the evil, that shouldn't be allowed to become a reason to persecute the good. The two cannot co-exist peacefully.

- Collapse -
So in other words....
Feb 9, 2004 5:53AM PST

....how you feel about the ruling depends on the opinions being expressed.

Thanks.

- Collapse -
Read it again.
Feb 10, 2004 12:32AM PST

When the evil reaches the point it wants to exercise power to silence the good, then it is time to remove the evil and reinstate the good. This is what happens when you give too much credence to issues like homosexuality, eventually if they think they have the influence they want to shut off all debate over it. The proper reaction is to punish them instead.

- Collapse -
I did.
Feb 10, 2004 12:37AM PST

Same interpretation. If someone expresses pro-Christian private views, you think they should be able to do it without punishment because such views are "good." If someone expresses views you perceive as being anti-Christian, you think they should be punished for it because such views are "evil."

Right?

- Collapse -
Re: A Wiccan with a bias towards Christianity? (Obviously meant 'against')
Feb 9, 2004 2:38AM PST

And I posted this earlier this morning -- somehow it's not here!

- Collapse -
Spooky ain't it?! (nt)
Feb 9, 2004 5:37AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Let me answer it this way.
Feb 9, 2004 1:54AM PST

Professor Peter Singer, of Princeton, advocates killing disabled infants, but Princeton continues to employ and support him. How is it that such extreme views must be tolerated at Princeton, but a view opposing homosexuality cannot be tolerated?

If the teacher had expressed his views in the classroom, then I think discipline would be appropriate. However, as I read the article, he did not do that. Instead, on his own time, he joined the public debate by writing letters to the newspaper. If you oppose this, then clearly you oppose free speech.

Quoting the judge who issued the ruling means that you cannot defend the ruling. You're saying 'The judge is right because he said he was right.'. That arguement speaks for itself.

- Collapse -
Actually in the US, I don't know about Canada,
Feb 9, 2004 9:06AM PST

If he was promoting Wiccan and denouncing Christanity he'd be likely to be protected under right to free speech and the separation of church and state.

Under recent court rulings, normally non-Christian views receive more legal protection than Christian ones. I'll grant that may be somewhat balenced by support, at least verbally if not real, by other government officials for Christian groups.

Did anyone read any of the link within the article?

"Chris Kempling says he's received a letter from a Quesnel School District official, directing him not to write or speak publicly about homosexuality.

"I've been directed not to write on the topic at all ? the topic of homosexuality," he says. "And also not to express my opinion on the topic."

Kempling says that means no private conversations in the staff room, no sermons at church and no speeches to the religious groups who have been giving him money. "

The staff room might be properly off limits, but the rest, if true, is BS. It's saying an individual can't identify himself as Christian and a teacher. It's almost saying that if you're a Christian and admit it, you can't be trusted to be a teacher.

And "Earlier this year, the B.C. College of Teachers suspended Kempling's teaching licence for a month for writing derogatory and discriminatory letters to newspapers and politicians about homosexuality. "

If this is accurate, he was suspended for expressing his views, not teaching them.

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_kempling20030617

- Collapse -
HMmm ok, my post has an inaccuracy, please read this before responding to either
Feb 9, 2004 9:33AM PST

The suspension was apparently specifically based on his opposition to homosexual not specifically on proclaiming himself as a Christian.

So the story is a bit different.

Still, even opposition to homosexuality doesn't give the school authorities the right to try to silence him on the subject off school property away from school sponsored activites.

How much he can say against homosexuality in school is a proper debatable subject. Forcing him to present support for homosexual would IMO be just as wrong as him to condemn in the classroom any that favored homosexuality. Forcing him to support it would be the same as forcing those in favor to advocate heterosexuality only.

Chris Kempling is apparently being discplined and probably pernamently fired for expressing he feels homosexuality isn't right.

Most education contracts around here use to and I think still do have vague moral clauses that allowed schools in the past to dismiss teachers for what they did in their private life, normally only used when it became a public controversy locally. I remember one that was fired because he started dating and ended up living with a student about 3 years after she graduated. No one ever accuse him of ever having a relationship with the student when in school.

So the question becomes can teachers be fired because their actions and beliefs away from school don't fit the local community or the local courts view of what a teacher should do or say.

roger

- Collapse -
It looks like, again, there are no takers Roger.
Feb 9, 2004 10:55PM PST

Interesting how the discussion gets left hanging in mid air at a certain point. BTW, I also think the teacher should be free to express his views in the public square. I wonder if he would be sanctioned for arguing against the war in Iraq or for higher pay for teachers? I bet only particular views on selected subjects are sanctioned.

- Collapse -
As A Canadian...
Feb 7, 2004 2:39PM PST

I'll (unfortuneately) have to agree with Dave K. Doesn't mean it's right in my mind....I thought Archie Bunker was right back in the 70's (still do)!

- Collapse -
Re:not just Canada Paul
Feb 7, 2004 2:46AM PST
- Collapse -
I'll agree that the story makes it appear...
Feb 7, 2004 7:22AM PST

that the subpoenaed individuals were subpoenaed simply based on their antiwar activities. If that's the case, and if in fact they're not under any suspicion of criminal activities which could justify a subpoena, then this action is in fact completely out of line. If other factors are involved, then that may not be the case. Let me do some further research and see what I can discover.

- Collapse -
Can we at least lay claim to 'home of the brave' still? ? -nt
Feb 9, 2004 3:24AM PST

.