On August 6,1992, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that “sexual orientation” must be inserted into the Canadian Human Rights Act ( see The Interim, September 1992,p.20) Shortly there-after, homosexuals received yet another boost in support of their cherished agenda.
On September 1, an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the Ontario government must pay survivor pensions to long-term partners of gay and lesbian public servants. He tribunal states that the “gayness” of a relationship should not work in any way as a disadvantage.
A copy of the ruling obtained by The Interim states that the federal Income Tax Act must be amended to favour homosexual “marriages” within three years of the date of ruling. Failing that, the Province of Ontario must establish such an arrangement.
Following the increasing examples to courts bypassing elected legislatures, the tribunal ordered that the words “of the opposite sex” be removed from the Human Rights Code when referring to conjugal relationships. It further ordered that $3,000 be given to the homosexual who was the subject of the original complaint.
Leshner and his “spouse”
The case the prompted the decision was first brought to the Commission in 1988 by Michael Leshner had been told that his “spouse” of seven years could not be covered under the government’s dental and health insurance plans. Mr. Leshner had also been told that his “spouse” (Commission’s own repeated description) would not be eligible to receive survivor pension benefits.
Contacted by The Interim, Allan Shefman, Director of Communications for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, stated that the tribunal is an independent board of inquiry appointed not by the Human Rights Commission itself, but by Elaine Ziemba, Ontario’s NDP Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, the Disabled, Seniors and Race relations. Ziemba is outspokenly pro-abortion.
The three members of the tribunal were Peter A. Cumming, T. Brettel Dawson, and W. Gunther Plaut. Cumming is a pro-homosexual lawyer. Plaut is an ultra-liberal Rabbi Emeritus of Toronto’s Holy Blossom Temple and a former vice chairman of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. His articles, written in favour of various left-wing causes such as the establishment of abortion on demand, have appeared periodically in Toronto newspapers. He is one of the founders of planned parent-hood Toronto. T. Brettel Dawson is unknown to me.
Unelected officials pass legislation
When questioned by The Interim as to the validity of allowing unelected persons to make decisions which will not only cost the taxpayers money, but which also by-pass elected legislatures, Mr. Shefman cited the growing tendency of judges not only to interpret the law, but also to change it as they see fit. When he was told that most Canadians would never support homosexual “marriages” if put to a vote, he offered no answer.(In May a Gallup poll was conducted which indicated that 61 per cent of Canadians oppose homosexual marriages and 24 per cent favour them.)
The absurdity of an unelected tribunal being allowed to wield such immense power and influence to fundamentally change society was highlighted by the highly emotional and irrational tone of statements made after the ruling by Chief Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Catherine Frazee.
She expressed admiration for the “reasoned” decision. (In reality it was a series of baseless assertions and arrogant demands aimed at governments and ultimately, the taxpayer) She portrayed homosexual relationships as having the same worth as traditional marriages despite the fact example, that gay “unions” cannot lead to children.
“The Board’s decision represents a strong recognition and affirmation of gay and lesbian spousal rights,” she said. “We urge the government of Ontario to move quickly to amend provincial legislation to recognize that gay and lesbian spousal relationships are of equal status and worth to heterosexual ones.”
Media praises decision
With few exceptions, the media praised the tribunal’s decision. The Ottawa Citizen editorialists wondered why such a decision would be considered front page news considering that “few Canadians question the idea that our laws should be applied equally to all.” (This flawed comparison of homosexuality to race or sex was specifically rejected [ again ] in a recent Vatican letter. See The Interim’s August edition, p.1.)
Both the Globe and Mail I and the Citizen registered disappointment that tribunals and courts were forced to champion homosexual rights while elected officials promised much and did nothing.
The Ottawa Citizen also allowed homosexual activist Graham Haig to attack the religious beliefs of those who oppose expansion of homosexual rights. He described “conservatives” who oppose a redefinition of the family as “the God Squad.”
That includes Conservative Mississauga MP Don Blenkarn, for instance, who has stated that all federal legislation “should define a family as male and female, living together to raise children.” Mr. Haig described this definition as “homophobic bombast.”
Edmonton Journal
The Edmonton Journal editorial bemoaned the fact that Alberta is not as liberal as Ontario on the issue of homosexual rights, although there is a case pending in the courts that may change that.
Older people and the religious minority still tend to oppose any recognition of homosexuality as normal behaviour,” the paper said, “but a larger segment of the population has moved beyond active bigotry of the past to a tolerance that is somewhere short of full acceptance.”
A Toronto Star editorial described homosexual unions as “natural partnerships.” Perhaps leaving many of its readers to wonder what definition would be appropriate to describe heterosexual relationships.
From the Charlottetown Guardian, of PEI on the Atlantic to the BC dailies on the Pacific, the sentiment was the same: Don’t worry, don’t fret, homosexual partners can form loving relationships so why deny them these little benefits? As the Kitchener Waterloo Record put it, “Same-sex partnerships now join common-law relationships and single-parent families in the mosaic of family units.”
Toronto Sun
The Toronto Sun, which describes itself on its masthead as “Toronto’s other voice,” proved that it does indeed stand out in a unique sense from the pro-homosexual journalistic pack.
Its editorial entitled “queer Notions” called for an immediate appeal of the ruling, slamming it as “driven by ideologues who preach a decadent liberal democracy.”
Describing the “social engineers” who are trying “to control the people and the land,” the editorial referred to the “racist” label for those opposed to expansion of homosexual rights as “a bald lie when applied to one of the freest countries on the planet.”
Federal government resisting pressure
Quoted in the Ottawa Sun, Revenue Minister Otto Jelinek (MP for Oakville) said homosexuals shouldn’t “hold their breath” waiting for changes to the Income Tax Act to allow them to collect partner’s benefits. Jelinek explained that the Ontario Human Rights Commission ruling isn’t binding on the federal government.
Unless the federal Income Tax Act is changed, therefore, Ontario may have to spend millions to establish a parallel pension plan as the tribunal decreed it must As expected, Ontario NDP Attorney General Howard Hampton said he agreed with the ruling and would take steps to establish such a plan if the federal government can’t be persuaded to change the Income Tax Act.
Impact
One of the most ominous questions, if “gay marriages” receive full recognition, namely the adoption of children, was largely ignored. So was the question of the stability of gay alliances. How long is “long term?” Most homosexual “relationships” don’t go beyond one encounter. Homosexual groups state that the ruling means that “79 Ontario Laws governing such issues as child custody, adoption and wills” must be changed.
The issue once again highlights the manner in which highly unpopular and morally disastrous social changes are established in law in Canada. It was juries, courts and sympathetic newspapers that gave abortionist Henry Morgentaler his original victories, not hose elected to public office.
