Anti-gay letter prompts human rights complaint against Newfoundland Herald


Western Pride NL member Kyle Curlew, who initiated filing the complaint, said his “jaw dropped” when he first saw the two-page letter.​

“I couldn’t even believe that it was published in the Herald. It was a rallying call for people to stand against LGBT rights. Essentially, hate propaganda,” Curlew told CBC.

Curlew said after reading the letter, he decided to take the matter to police.

and here is the letter to the editor in question:

I wonder when Gays will demand that every faithful Catholic Priest to uphold the teaching on the sanctity of marriage will be incarcerated?


Really? A letter to the editor published in a newspaper prompts a police complaint?

At least he seems to have got this part right: “In the ongoing culture war, it seems there are no rules of engagement. The secular left will accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. That is to say, the pagans demand that we Christians abandon the biblical worldview altogether, and adopt their own.”


So glad I live in the US where freedom of speech really is freedom of speech and not just freedom to speak whatever is allowed by government.


Give it time.


I’d love them to specifically quote one part that is “anti-gay.” Maybe it was this part: Christians, true Christians – regenerate, Bible-believing Christians who strive their level best to maintain fidelity to the word of God and honor His commands – will not, indeed cannot, participate in, approve of, facilitate or encourage certain behaviors deemed by the Holy Scriptures to be immoral or sinful.

This is both our constitutionally affirmed human right and our Christian duty.

It is not done from hate. It is not done from bigotry. It is done neither from a position of superiority nor a desire to “impose our beliefs” upon others.

It is done from both obedience to Christ and compassion for our fellow fallen who yet wallow in folly. I mean, you can’t get much more hateful than refusing to approve of homosexual acts, huh? Especially when you specifically say you are not doing it from hate but from obedience to Christ.


Good luck getting American’s to shut up. :stuck_out_tongue:


We are living in Sodom and Gomorrah.

"Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God. " - John 16:2


I’m not quite sure how a letter laced with spiteful condescension and that likens gay people to serial killers is not considered hateful. I’m so glad he took time out of his insults to say “I’m not a hater!” so that he could then continue his venomous diatribe.

Christians should distance themselves as far as they possibly can from worthless stuff like this.


He did not liken gay people to serial killers, get real. Quote me where he likens gay people to serial killers or retract your statement please.


From behind a smoking sniper rifle high atop his ivory tower peers the secular-”progressive.” He surveys his many victims, strewn across the American landscape below and mockingly sneers, “War on Christianity? What war on Christianity?”

He then resumes shooting,

Does this make you feel comfortable reading it? Are you that calloused to hatred that has a conservative tint to it that you can’t see the literal bile pouring through the page when you read it?


Ok so just so we’re clear, what he wrote does not apply to gay people, it applies to secularist progressives. Yes?

I’m not expert on Canadian law and it’s anti-free speech mandates, but I would guess that what some un-elected judge declares there to be “hate speech” only applies to minorities like gay people or black people, and not to political groups. This claim from that person in newfoundland in “hate-speech” against gay people is baloney IMO.

I really only see bile in that opening metaphor of progressives shooting their victims. I personally don’t really see anything inappropriate in it though. The rest of it is a factual write-up of the state of things. I can understand where such fiery language comes from though, and it is called righteous anger when considering the ongoing genocide of the unborn and a government intent on undoing the first amendment like they have already done in Canada.

I can see how this kind of rhetoric would not translate well in Canada, who simply do not experience how heated discourse is.


Rofl. Probably this letter was wrong, but please, someone tell me what “rights” you have to not read some writing you don’t like that threatens your lifestyle. I don’t recognize this “right.”

So while this letter might/should not have been published (I don’t know, I didn’t read it and don’t want to) probably these people are arguing from the wrong perspective against it.


Or Laodicea.



That’s a little hyperbolic, don’t you think? Yes, the author used violent imagery, but that battlefield imagery was designed to complement the the idea of a culture war.

Stripping away his use of battlefield imagery, what are the core ideas that the author expresses? As far as I can tell…

*]Individuals in favour of same-sex marriage have attempted to force those who disagree with same-sex marriage into compliance
*]Christianity identifies same-sex relationships as sinful
*]Christians are obliged to obey moral laws and to disobey immoral laws
*]Since Christians view same-sex marriage as immoral, and since there are many proposed laws which seek to force individuals to support same-sex relationships, and since Christians must disobey laws which enforce immorality, then Christians will inevitably be targeted by these laws

I actually think that almost everyone on both sides of this issue would agree with points 1,2 & 3 and I believe that 4 logically follows from the following point. I can’t imagine how the substance of this letter constitutes a crime unless it has become a crime to tell the truth.

Now, perhaps you believe that it isn’t the substance of the message that’s the problem but the form. Perhaps you feel that the language is needlessly vitriolic. Even then, I wonder if you’re holding a double standard. I’ve read enough of the Huffington post to see that there is plenty of spite and vitrile flowing from from the left to the right. The difference is that while the targets of those articles may get upset, they don’t seem to feel the need to get the police to shut-up their opposition.


There are errors here – why did he call it homosexual “acting out”? :confused:

And there are mistakes in judgment, such as unnecessarily mentioning bestiality and incest.

But in general, I think the article is making a good point about bullies – and the far left is definitely being a bunch of bullies right now. Often times, when you respond to bullies in a soft way, they keep being bullies. Sometimes a backbone is needed.

It is FIERCELY ironic that a far-left bully wants to accuse the author of hate speech. This confirms the author’s point far better than any positive review or recommendation could have. It’s like the kid on the playground who says, “Johnny is bullying me”, and then Johnny starts giving him noogies until he stops complaining. :rolleyes:


I (and I believe most people) would heavily disagree with Point 1, which makes his conclusion completely wrong in my mind. But that’s neither here nor there, as the argument of his speech is not the topic of this thread, although it is a very suspect argument indeed.

The important thing here to discuss is whether we, as Christians, are willing to denigrate ourselves to the point of endorsing hate speech full of vitriol and condescension merely because it’s aimed at gay people. I, for one, am not. Also that was not battlefield imagery, it was serial killer imagery. He clearly stated that he felt progressives were like a serial killer, killing innocent Christians while “sneering” that they weren’t doing anything. This is heavily immoral speech.


"Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God. " - John 16:2

Oh My Goodness! That does make my hair stand on end.:eek:


Repeating the same erroneous observations over and over again won’t make it true. The imagery was certainly more battlefield than any serial killer as snipers (who the secular progressive is) are more often seen in battlefields than what any serial killer would do.

Furthermore considering that one can lose their job for supporting the true definition of marriage (see Mozilla) and I say that we are too easy on gays.

Its not hate speech and it certainly shouldn’t be investigated by the police. Do you support the 1st amendment?


Don’t blame “gays”. Most gay people I know think the Eich firing was pure nonsense.

Gay people are not collectively responsible for all the actions of activist liberals.


As pointed out by PS, gays were not responsible for the Mozilla firing. You are suggesting that we treat a group of people harshly for something they had no role in, and it sounds like you’re suggesting that it is okay to use vitriol to discuss a group of people, which is explicitly barred in Catholicism.

It is most certainly hate speech, but the 1st Amendment is irrelevant here. It’s not an American article. Our Constitutional protections don’t exist in most countries. There are goods and bads to that. The bads are that they are more at risk of government censorship, but the goods are that people can’t spew vitriol and hatred at gays (or other hated groups, like blacks or Muslims) to attempt to incite a backlash against them, whether physical or societal. Unfortunately, in the US, so-called “pro-family” organizations routinely lie and denigrate gay people, such as the Family Research Council (a hate group), Abiding Truth Ministries (a hate group), the Westboro Baptist Church (a hate group), etc. in an attempt to make gay people scary to the average US citizen. This speech is protected by the First Amendment, but it also directly contributes to the high suicide rate among gays and lesbians, along with schoolyard bullying passed down by bigoted or homophobic parents.

It is not a Christian act to write, support, or otherwise provide material or immaterial cooperation with literature of hatred and/or falsities.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit