来自加拿大和英国的警告 - 我们跟本不用推测同婚立法的后果 - Video: We don’t have to speculate about what’s next - Warnings from Canada and England

来自加拿大的警告:我们采访了几位杰出的加拿大人

Warnings from Canada: We talked to 7 prominent Canadians

1、             伊恩 本森 教授  Professor Iain Benson

“本次立法将会对信仰自由带来怎样的威胁?”

 “信仰自由将要面对的威胁是显而易见的。我们只需看看一些已经将同性婚姻合法化的国家的记录。还有一些正在发生的触目惊心的变化。”加拿大最高法院将要庭审一桩诉讼,是关于福音派法学院的办学资格。这是一场严肃的辩论,涉及现有相关法律是否允许人们对于婚姻这个话题存有不同的观点。

澳大利亚的民众千万要儆醒,确保国家法律必须明确地保护信仰自由和多元化。”

“是否能从这方面对澳大利亚的现状进行分析?”

“据我所知,澳大利亚现在的法律对信仰自由的保护,比加拿大的相关法律更加微弱。”

What are some of the possible risks this legislation may have on religious freedom?

 “Well I don’t think we have to speculate. I think all we need to do is to look at the record in the various countries where same sex marriage has been brought in. The most startling example is currently ongoing. The Supreme Court of Canada is about to hear a case involving a challenge to the accreditation of an evangelical law school. So what’s going on is a very serious debate, right at the heart of law about whether diversity will allow different views on marriage.

 “And in Australia you’re going to have to be absolutely aware, that your laws have to be crystal clear to protect freedom of religion and diversity.”

So how would that relate to the situation in Australia?

 “Well, the Australian provisions that I’ve seen put forward, are even weaker than the Canadian ones.

原文 Source:https://vimeo.com/freedomforfaith

“澳大利亚的现状,是在盲目地前进,仿佛同性婚姻立法对因信仰或良心上反对同性婚姻的人士毫无攻击与挑战。”

“根据英国、南非和加拿大的先例,这样的看法极其天真。”

“这个立法辩论的核心远不止谁与谁结婚,或谁替谁举行婚礼的事情。比如说:慈善机构会不会因为自己支持传统婚姻而受到威胁?学校是否会因为将婚姻描述为异性关系而受到威胁?似乎没有人注意到,澳大利亚只保护信仰机构职员的信仰自由,可悲的是,法律并未提及将会保护澳大利亚广大民众的信仰自由和良心自由。”

“若同性婚姻立法通过,在允许多种婚姻存在的情况下,也应该立法保护传统婚姻。”

“在一个自由开放的社会,类似同性婚姻这样的热门话题,必须要立法保障辩论双方的观点都能得到法律保护。”

So what’s happening here is Australia’s proceeding as if there aren’t going to be these attacks and challenges on religious people or those who have a conscientious objection to same sex marriage.

“And that’s a tremendously naïve approach, given what we’ve seen in England, South Africa or Canada.

 “There’s a lot more issues than who marries and who you decide to marry. For example is your charitable status going to be threatened because you advocate tradiational marriage? Or is your school going to be threatened because its curriculum wishes to portray marriage as heterosexual. No one seems to understand that this limiting to clergy exemptions is woefully inadequate to protect religious liberty and conscience liberty in an open society such as Australia.

“It’s not unjust to have different concepts of marriage co-existing at the same time and to protect the traditional one.

 “In any free and open society, it’s extremely important on matters particularly as heated as same sex marriage to ensure that both sides have their viewpoints protected.”

 

2、        安德鲁 姆罗泽克,渥太华“卡杜斯家庭组织”项目主管Andrea Mrozek, Program director at Cardus Family, Ottawa

“安大略最近通过了一条法律,叫做“家庭平等法”。这条法案以非常特意地将“父亲、母亲”这些词汇从法律中剔除。”

“同时这条法律给予州政府特权,使政府拥有权力来决定谁才是孩子的家长,同时,安大略省出现每个孩子可以同时拥有四个法定家长的情形 —— 可以有多至四名互不相关的成人来签署孕前协议,成为这个孩子的法定家长。”

 “这是同性婚姻带来的必然后果,因为性别要求已经从婚姻中被移走。”

“将同性关系纳入婚姻法的实质便是将母亲和父亲从婚姻法中移走,正如安大略省所发生的。当初加拿大将同性婚姻合法化时,我预料不到今天要发生的事情。但是回想起来,其实应该问为什么到现在才出现这些法律,因为同性婚姻合法化很自然地就会带来安省最近通过的相关法律。”

 “We recently had a law passed in Ontario it was called the “All Families are Equal Act.” What that did was strike out, quite deliberately the terms mother and father from law.

 “What it also did was give the state additional powers in deciding who are parents and create also conditions in the province of Ontario where you can have up to four legal parents – four unrelated adults can choose to sign a preconception agreement and then become parents of a child.

 “This is a natural outcome of same sex marriage when you consider that you’ve removed gender from marriage.

 “If you introduce same sex marriage that you are in effect removing mothers and fathers and that is precisely what happened in the province of Ontario. But I can tell you that when same sex marriage was legalised I did think that that sounded far fetched and now looking at the the new law I actually wonder why it didn’t happen earlier, because it’s a natural outcome of the legalisation of same sex marriage.”

3、珍妮 艾普 巴肯汗教授,劳伦森领导中心主管Professor Janet Epp Buckingham, Director of Laurentian Leadership Centre

在加拿大“婚姻”定义被修改之后的12年间,国家出现了许多大家始料未及的变化。

一旦婚姻法被修改,其他领域的法律必然受到影响。比如说:在结婚证上,不能再出现“丈夫”、“妻子”这样的词语。

任何政客的承诺都不可靠,因为变化是必然会出现的。可能头两年还没有什么改变,但接下来会有选举,政府换届,新政府可能对相关法律做越来越多的改变。

所以,你根本无法预料最后的结局。当新的联邦政府、州政府执政时,当初那些允诺“同性婚姻合法化不会对社会造成任何影响”的政府早已不在,作出承诺的人和制定新法律的人根本就不是同一批人。下一届总理不会恪守现任总理的承诺。

I can tell you, 12 years on, after the definition of marriage was changed in Canada, there have been many consequential changes that no one foresaw at the time.

Once the definition of marriage is changed it does necessarily have an impact on other areas of the law. Changes are things like on a marriage certificate you can’t have husband and wife anymore.

It’s not possible for a politician to promise that because there are going to be changes. There may not be changes in the first two years, and then you have an election and the government changes and you have a new government, who may make further changes and further changes down the road.

So you can’t see what the end consequence is going to be. We have had changes in government at the Federal level and the provincial government level and so the people who may have made promises at the time the definition of marriage was changed are no longer there. They’re no longer the ones making the laws. A future prime minister is not bound by the promises of the current prime minister.

4、        道古拉斯 法拉博士,蒙特利  麦吉尔大学教授Dr Douglas Farrow, Professor, McGill University Montreal

“通过同性婚姻立法很简单,只需将“婚姻”的定义由“一男一女组成”改为“由两个人组成”。但这个简单的修改却带来一系列深刻影响。接下来就是继续修改的相关法律。

 “其中包括:用来形容家长的词语、用来形容家长与孩子的关系的词语、用来形容亲属关系的词语都被剔除,被“法定家长”、“法定家长与孩子的关系”来代替。现在你可以看到,当同性婚姻立法之后,州政府权力大增。”

“所以我们的首席大法官问道:“孩子究竟属于谁?””

“答案愈发明显:州政府已经获得了孩子归属权和分配权。当然,通常政府都会把孩子分配给他们的自然家长,这是最便捷的方法,否则还有谁会那么愿意为孩子全心付出呢?谁愿意为孩子支付账单呢?”

“但是,如果州政府不喜欢你在家对孩子所进行的教导,如果州政府认为你对孩子的教导不符合新的“道德标准”和“新的教育项目”,那你就会有麻烦。”

“你的孩子来到我们的州立学校,我们要说服他或她去质疑自己的性取向甚至性别。我们会帮孩子进行转性,你无权阻止,你甚至都不会被告知这些事情的发生,除非孩子选择告诉你。这种事情在加拿大已经开始发生了。”

“When we passed our same sex marriage legislation it was a very short piece of work: The definition will change from a union of a man and a woman, to the union of two persons. But in front of that simple little change in the law was a long list of whereas clauses, a dozen of them in fact. And following is the usual thing you have in law, you have consequential amendments to existing law.

 “Among those consequential amendments was: Language of natural parents and of natural parent / child relationships and blood relations, all that was struck from Canadian law and replaced with “legal parents”, “legal parent/ child relationships.” Now you can see when that happens, that the power of the state is hugely enhanced.

 “Hence the question asked by our own chief justice – “who owns the children?”

 “Increasingly the answer is: the state owns the children and allots them. Now it’s still very convenient to allot them to their natural parents, who else is going to be so devoted to them, right? Who’s going to pay the bill?

 “But, if the state doesn’t like what you’re teaching your children, if it doesn’t think you’re forming your children in a way that suits the new morality and the new program, well then that’s another matter.

 “Your child comes to our state school and we persuade him or her to be in doubt about his or her own sexual orientation or even his or her own sex. Well, we will help this child make their transition and you will have no right to interfere or even to know that this is happening unless the child chooses to tell you. And that kind of stuff is happening in Canada.”

 

来自英国的警告

Warnings from UK

1、             保罗 戴尔蒙德 —— 律师 常务委员会Paul Diamond – Barrister / Standing Council

你将失去工作,你将在教育方面会受到损害,你将会受到诽谤!就算只是读一些表达传统观点的《圣经》经文也会被这样。在我的经历中,这是一种虐待,也是一种新的野蛮行径。”

我不相信腾博先生如此无知。除非他确信澳大利亚是一个最独特的西方国家 ——已经建立好了一个独特的体系。也许澳大利亚是西方世界中能将两样近乎没可能平衡的权利:信仰自由和同性伴侣关系的私人权益作出协调的第一个国家。也许你会证明我们都错了,你会成为这么一个独特的国家。然而,对此我相当质疑。

“You do lose your job, you will suffer educational detriment, you will be vilified for doing no more than reading a Bible verse expressing traditional views. And it’s so abusive in my experience, it’s a new barbarism.”

I don’t believe Mr Turnbull is that naïve. Unless he’s convinced Australia’s the most unique western country – there is a pattern already established. It may be that Australia is the first country in the western world to walk that impossible, difficult line between freedom of religion and privacy rights for same sex couples. Maybe you’ll prove us all wrong and you’ll be the first country to do that. I doubt it.

2、        沙恩  埃斯布来吉, 英国教师Sharn Asbridge, UK Teacher

Sharn_Asbridge.png

今年2月16日,我的中介公司叫我去一个我常去工作的学校上班。我要上一节宗教教育课。我进入教室,发现要教一节关于基督教的课。我想,作为一个基督徒,我对这门课还是略知一二的。我们说到了十字架,为什么耶稣死在十字架,进而讲到了罪。

一个女孩起来问道:“老师,你对于同性婚姻有何见解?”我说:“我个人并不赞同同性婚姻。我相信婚姻属于一男一女相守一生。这纯属于我个人意见。”

学生们走出了教室。五分钟后,走进来一位老师,她坐下之后说道:“我们收到学生们关于你上课情况的一些恼人的报告。他们告诉我你说了一些贬损同性恋和同性恋者的话。”

“于是我说,是的,我已经说了那只是我的个人看法。我说我们都应该有自己的观点,我们应该能够表达自己对于这些话题的意见。如果每个人对每件事的看法都相同,这个世界将会非常单调无趣。”

“她说,副校长要求我立即将你请出学校,将来我们也不会再聘用你。所以我不得不离开。”

我们跟本不用推测同婚立法的后果, 我们只需看看一些已经将同性婚姻合法化的国家的记录。

On Feb 16 of this year, my agency called me to work at a school that I had gone to quite regularly. I have one RE lesson. Went into the classroom and I found I was teaching a lesson on Christianity, and so I thought, well as I’m a Christian, I know a little bit about this. We talked about the cross, why Jesus died on the cross, which got into talking about sin.

And one girl piped up: “What do you think about gay marriage, Miss?” So I said, “well this is my personal view, but I don’t agree with it. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman for life.”

And they went out of the class. Five minutes later, no longer, in comes a teacher who is in charge of supply and she sits down and says “Now I’ve got some quite disturbing reports from the pupils that have come from your lesson. They are telling me that you have said some disparaging things about homosexuals and gay people.

 “And I said, Yes I have said it is a personal view. And I said we should have our own opinions, we should be able to express arguments or discussions about these things. It would be very boring if we all felt the same thing about everything.

 “She said, well I’ve been asked by the Deputy Head to instantly dismiss you from our school, and we will not be employing you in the future. So I had to leave.”

We don’t have to speculate about what’s next. All we need to do is to look at the record in the various countries where same sex marriage has been legalised.