In December 1986, the Provincial Parliament of Ontario approved the controversial Bill 7 that amended seventy Ontario laws to conform with the Federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One particular amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation,” providing homosexuals with full protection for employment, housing and access to services. The Province of Quebec has already legislated similar protection of homosexuals, while other provinces, as well as the Federal Government, have such legislation under discussion. Thus, the day is not far off when legal protection for the vice of homosexuality will be proposed and extended throughout Canada, unless a strong reaction is launched soon.

The Canadian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP), aware of the catastrophic consequences of this legal recognition of homosexuality, raises a protest with all the strength of its Christian conscience.

The TFP hereby addresses religious and civil authorities, public opinion and especially, the youth of the country, in the hope that this appeal will help to consolidate the reaction against such anti-Christian legislation.

Who are we?

The Canadian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) is a civic association formed by young Catholic men to fight in the temporal sphere, by legal and peaceful means, against the increasing penetration of communism and socialism into our contemporary society.

Communism incessantly promotes a more or less veiled ideological infiltration in many religious, cultural, political and economic ambiences of the west, under the less radical mask of socialism. This infiltration leads to the proposal and application of various reforms that bring the western bourgeois society closer and closer to the communist – type societies already in place behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains.

Consequently, the TFP defends the values of Christian Civilization that communism particularly aims to undermine and eliminate, i.e., tradition, family and private property.

The TFP bases its defense of these perennial values of Christian Civilization on the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, whose Faith the members of the association are honored to profess. Neither the TFP nor its members pretend to speak in the name of the whole Catholic population, nor in the name of the church, whose official voice is that of the Hierarchy. Nevertheless, the TFP speaks in the name of large sectors of Canadian population who wish a radically different direction for their nation than the one Canada has taken in many of its policies.

Bill 7: A gridgehead to abolish the family

Bill 7 represents a new milestone in the long process of gradual transformation of Canadian society. During the heated debate that preceded its approval, Parliamentarians who favoured Bill 7 justified their attitude with the contention that it was only a measure to protect an unjustly persecuted minority. In reality, as became subsequently evident from the commentaries of the media and the statements by homosexual activists, this recently approved legislation is one more bridgehead towards a complete legal and social abolition of the institution of the family.

Some analysts have remarked, that because of the amendment introduced in 1984, the Ontario Human Rights Code supersedes all provincial legislation (except criminal). Thus, the laws that regulate matrimony, childcare and adoption, as well as those that grant health and pension benefits to spouses, may henceforth be contested as discriminatory to homosexuals. A number of activists, together with sympathetic lawyers, have already announced they will invoke Bill 7 to support their alleged rights.

Even before Bill 7 was considered by the plenary of the Provincial Legislature, the City of Toronto had already discussed the extension of health benefits to the “partners” of its homosexual employees. Due to opposition by some aldermen, the City decided to leave the question in the hands of the Legislature. Now that Bill 7 is passed, everything leads us to suspect that the municipal authorities of Toronto, at least regarding health benefits, will give legal recognition to a would-be homosexual marriage.

Consequently, that which was approved by the majority of the Ontario MPP’s, under the sympathetic guise of mere protection to a minority, was in reality the burial of the last vestige of the legal support of marriage and family. Moreover, Bill 7 elevates a homosexual minority to the status of a privileged class and opens the door to a religious persecution without Canadian precedent.

The family: vital cell of society…

Since its formation, Canadian society has been based on the principle of Natural Law that the primary end of human sexuality can by morally exercised only in a monogamous and indissoluble marriage with the view of constituting a family. Any sexual activity contrary to this natural finality, for the mere purpose of pursuing the associated pleasure (especially in an anti-natural and fruitless relationship such as homosexuality) is thus abusive and condemnable. Analogously, one might compare the abuse of sexuality to the anti-natural and repulsive gluttony of the decadent Romans. They would avoid the natural end of alimentation by forcing themselves to vomit, so they could further pursue the pleasures of the palate.

Pope Leo XIII, in one of his masterpieces, described the grandeurs that come forth from the Christian concept of family: “If, then, we consider the end of the divine institution of marriage, we shall see very clearly that God intended it to be a most fruitful source of individual benefit and of public welfare. Not only, in strict truth, was marriage instituted for the propagation of the human race, but also that the lives of husbands and wives might be better and happier. This comes about in many ways:  by their lightening each other’s burdens through mutual help; by constant and faithful love; by having all their possessions in common; and by the sacrament. Marriage also can do much for the good of families, for, so long as it is conformable to nature and in accordance with the counsels of God, it has power to strengthen union of heart in the parents; to secure the holy education of children; to temper the authority of the father by the example of the divine authority; to render children obedient to their parents and servants obedient to their masters.”

…Or Main Cause of the Alienation of the Individual?

Communism’s atheistic and egalitarian view considers this harmonious hierarchy of rights and duties in the Christian family as a source of alienation and exploitation for its members and the main factor for the solidification of supposedly unjust class inequalities.

Michel Raptis, a radical socialist and former secretary of the IV International, foresees a future society devoid of family influence:  “The society organized in classes finds in the family unit the best element for the preservation of its structure… In the new worldwide socialist society…there will be social eugenics and education of children…should (the children) be kept away from their parents all the time?  I am unable to answer this question, which depends on future pedagogical developments.”

The Russian Revolution attempted precisely this. Liadov, one of its leaders, pondered:  “Is it possible to educate the collective man in an individual family?  We peremptorily respond no, it is not. A child who thinks collective can only be raised in a collectivist ambience…The sooner the child is taken from his mother and confided to the care of a nursery, the stronger our certainty that this child is sound.”

This concurs with the philosophy of Z.I.Linina, the wife of Zinoviev leseievitch (1883-1936), a high-ranking Lenin aide and president of the Communist International. She said:  “We must save the children from the disastrous influence of the family. We must nationalize them. They will learn the ABS’s of communism, and they will become true communists. Our task is to oblige al mothers to give their children to us, the State.”

Some might think that this objective is proposed solely by the communists and not by the so-called social democrats. Nothing could be further from the truth. “Democratic” socialists differ from communists only with regard to method:  their goals are identical.

For example, the Swedish Social Democratic Women’s League stated that “a methodical collective education for children to supervise their social development beginning at the age of three is a commandment of equality and should be one of the major objectives of society.”

In Israel, the socialist views of some pioneers created the Kibbutzim (collective farms), where the supposed social rights tyrannically take precedence over the rights of both family and individual. Writer Erico Verissimo described what he saw in Kibbutz:  “I asked Prof. Avigdot to tell me something about the Kibbutzim’s system of child education, greatly praised by some and equally criticized by others. He said: ‘At fist glance, it might seem cruel and unnatural to take the children away from their mothers right at the moment of birth. In my opinion, this is the more rational process…We educate their children to prepare them to live in a collectivist society like that of (the kibbutz) Gam Chmuel.’”

If the family is deprived of its natural functions, it loses the very purpose of its existence. In the absence of the family, there is no reason to elevate marriage to a privileged status. Individual enjoyment becomes the primary or exclusive finality of human sexuality. This is precisely what the Spanish Socialist Party of Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez proclaims:  “Sexuality must be understood as a pleasure-giving dimension, a human communication independent from reproduction. Therefore, an authentic abandonment to the sexual pleasure is not possible as long as the fear of an unwanted pregnancy still exists.”

Consequently, Mr. Gonzalez’s government has already passed laws to introduce divorce on demand, abortion, strong limitation of parental power, equality between legitimate children and those born from common-law relationships and the promotion of artificial contraception.

Consistent with its principles, the Spanish Socialist Party states with regard to homosexuality that “the Party’s attitude must be based on the following conclusions:  a) militants must awake to the fact that the social marginalization of homosexuals (men and women) is one more aspect of sexual repression and must assume the vindicatory fight; b)  the Party as such must take a clear attitude in defense of marginalized minorities and of homosexuality as a free personal option; c)  (to promote) the revocation of legislative and administrative regulations which are discriminatory against sexuality:  rules to keep public order, penalties against crimes of public scandal etc… f)  to delve deeper into the debate about a new morality…leading towards a society free from any sexual oppression.”

The unsuccessful French Socialist Party of President Francois Mitterand shares the same anti-family and pro-homosexuality views of its Spanish comrades:  “While considering that the family plays a very important role in the possibilities of expanding personal live, the Socialist Party certainly recognizes the existence of other forms of private life (celibacy, free unions, unwed fatherhood or motherhood, and communities). Finally it takes its stand against repression or discriminations with respect to homosexuals. Their rights and dignity must be respected. It is not for it (the Socialist Party) to legislate on how each one wants to run his own life.”

In contrast to such socialist hostility against the family, the Catholic Church has always demonstrated Her maternal care to protect it. As Pope Pius XII solemnly stated, “the dignity, rights and duties of the family home, established by God Himself as the vital cell of society and thus as old as the world itself, are independent from the power of the State, which should protect and defend them if they are threatened…Precisely because it (the family) is an organic element of society, every attack on it is an attack on humanity.”

The gradual disintegration in the midst of apathy

The foregoing analysis of socialist views on sexuality and family was necessary to illustrate that Canada has already drifted far from the Christian ideal and dangerously close to the goal clearly desired by Marxist and “democratic” European socialists.

The radical process of disintegration of the family necessarily passed through various intermediate steps, among which must be mentioned:  the continuous secularization of the State; the dissolution of social and legal acceptance of common-law unions, placed on a par with legitimate marriages; the proliferation of artificial birth control; and the legalization of the crime of abortion.

On the supposition that great ideological debates might introduce a climate of social dissension, which would damage the country’s economic development and high standard of living, the average industrious Canadian refrains from public polemics. Thus, the “grass roots” public opinion has appeared apathetic ad disinterested in even the minimal debate around each one of the above-cited issues. As long  as these transformations were introduced gradually and did not disturb people’s daily lives, they were passively absorbed.

Unfortunately, we must admit that in most cases Canada’s high-profile leaders, in both religious and civic spheres, approved these changes, kept a “prudent” silence about them, or reacted with a reduced and inauthentic argument. This behavior, on the part of those who should have formulated a broad and strong critique of this ubiquitous decadence, will be severely judged by History. Without doubt, it will record that their opposition should have been much greater, at least in proportion to the power of the adversary and the gravity of the danger.

Homosexuals: a new privileged class

Let us briefly analyze the meaning of this recent amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code:

  1. Bill 7 denies the legitimacy of a reasonable and prudent discrimination with regard to homosexuality, which is justified for the sake of protecting the family. Thus, it implicitly proclaims the legitimacy of homosexual relationships and of the homosexual way of life, and opens the door to full legal acceptability of his disorder, placing it on a par with legitimate marriage.

The texts transcribed above show the idealized and practical goals of radical socialists regarding the family and homosexuality. Thus, we respectfully ask the Ontario MPPs who voted in favour of Bill 7:  What is the difference between the immediate and prospective result of Bill 7 and the proposals of those radical socialists?  Does there exist any doctrine other than materialistic socialism to justify their position?  If they answer “yes”, then, can they explain to us the difference between that as yet unknown ideology and materialistic socialism?

Virtually the sole argument given was the supposed protection of the defenseless homosexual minority against an unjust discrimination. The Premier of Ontario even declared that “…we are extending the most important part of our religious traditions in respecting and loving everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.”

An ironic contradiction with this “liberal” stance occurred in the same week that Bill 7 was passed by the Ontario Legislature. Its Regulations and Private Bill Committee approved a request from the City of Toronto to pass a bylaw with severe discrimination against smokers in the work place.

  1. Bill 7 elevates homosexuals, who claim to be a persecuted minority, to the state of a privileged class in Ontario:

a)      In its present form, bill 7 does not protect employers and landlords against the unjust moral pressure that may be exercised upon them by homosexual candidates. In fact, it will be enough fro a candidate to show, in any way, that he or she is a homosexual to make employer or landlord feel inclined to grant the job or accommodation, for fear of being charged with discrimination, incurring an annoying and expensive legal process with uncertain results.

b) Favoritism to homosexuals becomes more evident when one considers a lesser known feature of the amendment introduced in the Ontario Human Rights Code. As a matter of fact, “sexual orientation” was not included in the harassment sections of the Code. Evelyn Gigantes, the New Democrat who introduced the homosexual provision on Bill 7, said it was a “deliberate omission…mainly because we felt it might backfire on gays. They wouldn’t benefit if they could be charged with harassment.”

c) The State grants fiscal benefits and other incentives to the spouses in consideration of the contribution families give to society by the procreation and education of new citizens. This social function of the marriage is absolutely unattainable by the homosexual unions, which are necessarily sterile. Therefore, the granting of fiscal and health benefits to homosexual “couples” provides them with an unfair advantage, because their benefit is not counterbalanced by the burden or raising a family.

  1. The legal protection of homosexuality favors the launching of religious persecution in Canada.

According to Catholic morals, it is not licit for the faithful (and a fortiori for a religious authority) to give homosexuals positions of influence in the parishes, in schools, or in homes, because of the public scandal that comes forth. Assuring homosexuals full right of access to these positions, as Bill 7 does, represents a denial of the right of religious authorities, principals, parents, and others to freely practice their religion.

It is not yet clear whether the various religious denominations may avail themselves of the right of exception recognized by the Ontario Human Rights Code regarding employment. By this right religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social organizations, which serve the interests of an identifiable group of persons may give bona fide reasons not to hire somebody outside their own group.

Nevertheless, the simple faithful in their family life (hiring a babysitter, for instance) will not be able to take advantage of this exception.

Unfortunately, latent religious persecution has already started. This was evidenced by the unbelievable ferocity with which religious denominations who opposed Bill 7 were attacked in speeches and news items. The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops were especially attacked, being accused of promoting a “terrible campaign of hatred.” If religious groups were so maligned during the discussion of the legislation, what can be expected when the law is enforced?

  1. In Plato’s Republic there is a passage, which denounces the radicals of liberalism as the fathers of dictatorship inside the democracy.

This was exactly what happened in the process of approval of the infamous Bill 7.

The Liberal and NDP members of the Provincial Parliament obstinately refused

to call for public hearing to reach a consensus on the content of Bill 7. They contradicted                   their own principles of radical liberalism, which per se, turn them into mere spokesmen of popular sovereignty.

This refusal of a public debate was particularly shocking in the light of the fact that some parliamentarians admitted that the majority of the population opposed Bill 7. for instance, Mr. Larry Grossman, Leader of the Provincial Conservative Party and, surprisingly, one of the four Tories who supported the Bill, stated:  “If ever there was an issue where one does not total up the calls or letters one got, this is it, because it is precisely a minority circumstance. Minority vs. majority.”

It would not be consistent with the present democratic system to deny the Members of the Provincial Parliament their right to cast their votes for what they think best. Nevertheless, the TFP believes tat in matters of such great consequence to the province the citizens should be given an opportunity to express their opinion.

Why was there such a rush to pass a law full of far-reaching consequences like Bill 7?  Why were they so avid in preventing the participation of the province’s most dynamic and responsible sectors in a serious and thoughtful debate?

The Liberal and NDP MPPs, these new “enlightened despots” refused to listen to the voices of those they supposedly represent. Instead they imposed their own views, which were hastily formed in the close ambience of their own political associations.

Christian civilization vs. communism

With holy indignation, the TFP deplores the enshrinement of legislation so opposed to Canada’s Christian tradition. May this protest encourage public opinion to seriously consider how far our country has advanced towards genuine atheistic socialism.

Notwithstanding, the TFP is glad to verify that large sectors of Canadian people, having opened their eyes to the gravity of the situation, are rising up to defend what is left of Christian Civilization.

This awakening of the country’s public conscience is a hopeful sign of moral regeneration. We expect this will open the way to an insightful analysis of the long process of concessions by which our society was dragged to the edge of the abyss. Such a reckoning will help Canadians to vigorously reject the direction presently taken by the country, within the perspective of the XXth Century’s great alternative: Christian Civilization vs. communism.

It is only in this perspective that Canada will be able to courageously undertake the right path to the full accomplishment of its great historical destiny as a nation under God.

We pray that the blood shed by the Canadian Martyrs on the soil of Ontario will reach heaven and obtain from Almighty God, by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the full realization, in this land blessed by their apostolate, of the magnificent Christian ideals for which they offered their lives.