Opening Shots: The courts' contempt for fundamental rights is reflected in a teacher's free-speech case.

By: Terry O'Neill

Most Canadians point proudly to the fact they live in a country where human rights and civil liberties are held in high esteem and are vigorously defended. They cite the country's democratic traditions, its human-rights laws and especially the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They have good reason to take note of the Charter because, high up in Section 2, it proclaims "everyone" has the fundamental freedoms "of conscience and religion...of thought, belief, opinion and expression."

They are sturdy words. But they also apparently count for very little in the case of Christopher Kempling. The Quesnel, B.C., school counsellor learned in mid-April the B.C. College of Teachers had ruled he should be suspended, without pay, for one month. The College had earlier found him guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession.

If you are unfamiliar with the case, you might guess Mr. Kempling had committed some grievous offence, such as abusing a student or stealing from the cafeteria cash drawer. But you would be wrong. Rather, his offence was that he wrote letters to the editor of his local newspaper, in which he expressed his opposition to the advancement of homosexual rights and opined that homosexual activity was immoral and harmful.

Granted, such opinions are out of step with the times, especially so given the extent to which human-rights commissions and real courts have been rushing to extend rights, up to and including the right to be legally married, to homosexuals. But does that mean Mr. Kempling's opinions should be both censured and censored? Surely not.

Consider the following facts: There was absolutely no evidence Mr. Kempling allowed his personal views to affect the way he conducted himself in school. On the contrary, he has a stellar reputation that is free of any complaint. There was also no evidence Mr. Kempling's letters caused anyone any harm. Finally, no attempt was made to determine whether his opinions were factual.

Instead, the College simply ...