Intolerant tolerance in Canada

I thought you might find this case illuminating as to the continued use of ‘tolerance’ to be intolerant, of using ‘anti-discrimination’ laws to discriminate, of using ‘diversity’ to marginalise public out-workings of Christianity in Canada.

Much as we saw with the enforced withdrawing of Catholic adoption agencies in the UK, ideological purity and anti-Christian sentiment is far more important than the genuine good that these agencies are / were doing within society.

From here.

In what is being described as “another blow to religious liberty” in Canada, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ordered a Christian organization to cease using an employment contract which has staff promise they will not engage in “homosexual relationships.” Moreover, the ruling demands that the organization pay $23,000, plus two years wages and benefits to a woman who signed onto the contract and then entered a homosexual relationship and was subsequently dismissed.

In an April 15 ruling, released today, the Tribunal ruled against Christian Horizons, an Evangelical Christian Ministry that provides care and residential services to 1,400 developmentally disabled individuals with over 180 residential homes across Ontario, and 2,500 employees.

The ruling which was decided by a single adjudicator – Michael Gottheil – ruled further that all managers and employees receive a pro-homosexuality “human rights training program”. Christian Horizons was also ordered to “develop and adopt an anti-discrimination and an anti-harassment policy” and “review of its employment policies, in consultation with the Commission” and report to the Commission on its progress, to ensure that such policies comply with the Code.

The ruling also stated, “No later than six months from the date of this decision, the respondent, Christian Horizons shall submit a report to the Tribunal outlining the steps it proposes to take to ensure that its employment policies are in compliance with the Code”.

Connie Heintz, an employee who signed onto the “morality statement” as a condition of employment, promised not to engage in “homosexual relationships”, among other anti-Christian activities such as “extra-marital sexual relationships (adultery)”, “pre-marital sexual relationships (fornication)”, “viewing or reading pornographic material” and “lying”.

When Heintz entered into a homosexual relationship and her employers came to know of it, she claims she was subject to a poisoned work environment and threatened with loss of her job. She quit her job in 2000.

Christian Horizons is the largest provider of community living services in the province, funded approximately $75 million annually by the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Commenting on the decision, Barbara Hall, the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission opined, “This decision is important because it sets out that when faith-based and other organizations move beyond serving the interests of their particular community to serving the general public, the rights of others, including employees, must be respected.”

An interesting commentary on this, from which I have excerpted, can be found here.

Canada’s human rights commissions have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for some time now in their head-over-heels eagerness to produce unfavorable verdicts against all things Christian and conservative. In all of the barrel scraping, however, they’ve generally stuck to their trusty tactic of applying the legal fig-leaf of “intolerance” – pointing out just how intolerably intolerant, prejudiced, hateful, discriminatory, close-minded and bigoted Christians and conservatives are, and why, therefore, they are a menace, must be punished and, ultimately, silenced.

The most recent decision to come out of the Ontario Human Rights Commission is unique, however, in that the tribunal ditches precedent and instead gushes about just how wonderfully non-discriminatory and loving Christian Horizons (the defendant in the case) is. And then, after pages of that, the tribunal goes ahead and slaps the Christian charity with a guilty verdict anyway.


Throughout the 57-page decision Adjudicator Gottheil goes way out of his way to prove that CH does not and never has discriminated in any way, shape, or form when it comes to providing care for those in need. Christian Horizons, he argues, citing page after page of anecdotal and statistical evidence, seeks only to care for the “vulnerable, the marginalized and the needy” without any thought for their race, age, religious beliefs, or anything else, including, presumably, sexual orientation.

He writes, “Christian Horizons accepts all persons into its programs regardless of cultural background or religious belief.” And again: “In order to receive service from Christian Horizons, residents and their families are not required to be members of the organization or to adopt or sign the Doctrinal Statement or the Lifestyle Morality Statement.” And once again: “Christian Horizons’ witnesses were clear that it does not attempt to proselytize or engage in the religious indoctrination of residents.”

Time and again, paragraph after paragraph, page after page, we are assured by Gottheil that CH dispenses its services freely, liberally, to everyone and anyone who is in need, without exception. What is more, Gottheil cites the testimonies of both Christian and non-Christian families who have placed a family member in the care of Christian Horizons. “All,” writes Gottheil in a moving testimony to the success of CH in providing care without ideological consideration, “said that Christian Horizons provided excellent care for their children and siblings.”


But then, in a twist of logic that leaves one dizzy and not a little flustered, Gottheil stands the whole thing on its head and goes on to prove that CH’s very tolerance is the reason why it must be punished and cannot be permitted to continue existing as a Christian organization. Because CH has been so successful as a Christian charity, it can no longer continue to be a Christian charity, he says. Because CH has not discriminated, it must be found guilty of discrimination. Because CH’s Christian employees have been so thoroughly Christian in the selflessness of their charity, CH must cease hiring only Christian employees.

All of this comes about because of Gottheil’s interpretation of section 24(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code, “which permits certain organizations to restrict hiring or give preference in employment to persons identified by one of the proscribed grounds of discrimination.” According to Gottheil’s interpretation of the Code, section 24(1)(a) only permits those organizations that exist to offer services to the exact same class of people that they employ to be exempt from non-discrimination employment legislation. That is, if the charity hires only Christians, it can only offer its services to Christians.

Which just goes to show that neither the letter nor the spirit of a law is enough to prevent it being turned on its head and used for an ideological purpose, to wit chilling the public expression of Christianity in Canada. Some more from here.

Don Hutchinson, General Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, summarized the situation by way of analogy in a article in the National Post today. He wrote: “Imagine that Mother Theresa and her Missionaries of Charity had been told that their ministry in the streets of Calcutta was, in essence, not ministry but ‘social work.’ In order for the sisters to continue in their work, they would no longer be permitted to require that staff members share their beliefs and ministry commitment.”


Hutchinson’s comparison between Mother Teresa’s sisters in India and CH’s operations in Canada is particularly apt. In India Mother Teresa’s sisters were often persecuted by Hindu extremists because they wore their habits – wore, as it were, their Christianity ‘on their sleeves’.

Hutchinson told, “It is unreasonable for any tribunal to make a decision which assumes that faith and practice can be severed and in this case the capacity for practice in the type of ministry that Christian Horizons exhibits is dependent on a shared faith commitment amongst its staff.”

Perhaps the Ontario government might be concerned at the persecution of a charity that provides so much for society? Not so much if it means offending the great gods Discrimination and Tolerance.

Since CH is the largest provider of community living services in the province, providing care and residential services to 1,400 developmentally disabled individuals with over 180 residential homes across Ontario, (not to mention emplyoing 2,300 individuals) the ending of its ministry would present no small problem for the provincial government, which provides $75 million annually to CH for its services. That reality, however, seems not to have dawned on the provincial government.

Julia Sakas, Communications Assistant to Madeleine Meilleur, the provincial Minister of Community and Social Services, spoke with about the matter. Although the government wants “to see that those clients continue to receive services and that those services will not be disrupted,” she said, “anything that would be determined as discriminatory would not be tolerated.”

“We expect our provincial organizations that are funded by the province to uphold the province’s shared values and those are that we don’t discriminate and we respect the law and we respect the same from our agencies,” said Sakas. One requirement, she explained, would be that employment contracts would not “infringe on the right to live one’s lifestyle as one chooses.”

Just so long as that lifestyle is the Correct one, of course.

All these pleasant sounding words are simply smooth covering over the precise opposite. There are none so intolerant as the ‘tolerant’, none so discriminatory as those espousing ‘non-discrimination’. And so it goes on.

It’s time to choose the God, or gods, you will serve, for remaining neutral will soon no longer be an option.

This entry was posted in Christian. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Intolerant tolerance in Canada

  1. Dan says:

    Peter, do you think these ministries will simply shut down, go secular, or resist? What is the climate among the faith based charitable groups? Apparently, the gov. is not interested in compromise, or common sense for that matter. The same thing happened in Massachusetts several years ago; the Catholic church did most of the adoptions for the state, but they would not adopt kids to gay couples. The state said you have to, and would not give them an exemption. And so the church has shut down that ministry; the state was very upset with the church because of dramatically increased costs for the state.
    Do Canadian hate crime codes protect relisious expression or just deviant sexual activity? is there no recourse these ministries can turn to? Any remedial procedure? Do most Canadians agree with these actions? This is simply an astounding situation. But, I guess we can expect more of the same. I guess they would rather get rid of a faith based ministry, no matter how necessary, if they won’t bow the knee to baal.


  2. faithwalk says:

    Ah Peter, tis what we’ve come to expect as this Age winds down isn’t it ; unfortunately in some regards and yet it heralds the return of our King…

    Dan, ministries will do all of the above; some closing their doors, some giving in to the pull of this world, some will resist openly, and some will go underground.
    Canada will not be alone in this and soon the western world that has been a bastion of freedom will succumb to ever increasing government control and regulations restricting christians from being true believers.

    We must not lose heart for the church will be strengthened by persecution as it always has and those who love their life not unto death will be a bright light in the darkest of nights.

    As Jesus said when you see these things coming to pass lift up your heads for our redemption draws nigh.

    Jesus love, grace and blessings to you all,



  3. Pingback: national christian fellowship

  4. Pingback: More intolerant tolerance « The Age To Come

  5. nirmala says:

    P. O. BOX NO. 3. TENALI- 522 201. GUNTUR (DT) A. P. INDIA


    Dear Brother in Christ.
    Greetings to you in the most precious name of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.
    Let me Introduce myself that my Name is P. NIRMALA, Director of the NIRMALA MINISTRIES . We have Established A Christian Organization named “Society of the Prince of Peace” with the Help of some Faithful Christians. We Established this society only because that we can proclaim the spirit of God in our Area. Some of our Gospel Teams have been Distributing the Bible free Tracts and Booklets in the particular centers Hospitals, some Remote villages of our Area.

    By the Grace of God we are Running the a Christian Lending Library in my Area. It has Become a burden for us to continue these programmes. If I got Generous hand of yours. I will be able to succeed these programmes. So we request you please pray for my spiritual need and Send some more Literature (used or New) Holy Bibles and CDS of your program. You are sending any material,and also Brother.plese consider my request of we want some used clothes for my area poor peoples urgent need here we Distribute freely on your Name. My Area Kid’s are very much needed some Holy Bibles and Literature.

    So please pray for my Students Need in your Daily Prayers.

    We pray for you and you r Family and also your ministry in my Regular prayers.
    Note.-if you are sending any gifts please send by Register post. Here my Indian postal employees are opened the ordinary packs theft some items. So please send any gifts please kindly send by Register post to me.

    See our Web Site ;-

    Your”s Sister In Christ



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s