maldon_road

Given the way MPs have been behaving lately it is hard to see where much Christian charity is being manifested. This is religion and, especially when you add politics in, you can expect controversy. Should it be expanded beyond what is in essence a one-religion (Christianity) gathering? And of course there are those who see religionists using this to pursue their own political agenda.

It cannot be used to argue that the fetus is a life form and abortions are therefore illegal. The bill does not protect the fetus in any way. It only provides for stiffer penalties if someone injures or kills a pregnant woman. If a pregnant woman decides to abort, that too is recognized in the bill.

And that of course is what gays have been fighting for for the past 30 years. To give legal status to their unions - which they have now obtained thanks to a compliant judiciary. I am one of those who believes that if it had not been for about seven favorable court decisions there is no way Bill C-68 would ever have been passed.

Anti-abortionists I have talked to tell me that they won't support C-338 because it has a late threshold (20 weeks) and has too many loopholes. They seem to put more faith in C-484 (if it passes) as a lever to get abortion restrictions. I don't agree with that. By putting a provision in the bill recognizing a woman's right to a lawful abortion they have acknowledged the right of Parliament to legalize abortion.

Here is the CHRC's spin on Section 13. Section 13 One quote:

It's pretty hard not to be cynical about "human rights" when you see ads for Public Service jobs with the tag, "This competition is only open to aboriginal peoples and people of color".

I guess the extension of that is that businesses can choose their customers. If I go into a store for a pint of milk and the owner doesn't like the color of my eyes he can refuse to serve me. I think people accept the need for laws prohibiting discrimination. The current debate is whether human rights commissions have pushed the law to the absurd, finding "discrimination" where in fact none exists.

A compromise? There is one, Bill C-338. BillC-338 Most Canadians would accept that. But I gather it is not acceptable to anti-abortion activists.

This is a private member's bill. Its passage or defeat in no way affects the status of the government. It cannot fall on it. And the Liberal Party will have no position on it. It only passed second reading because sufficient Liberals voted for it. Whether they will vote for it at third reading (assuming it gets out of Committee) is another matter.

Popularity can be transitory. Who knows where Charest will be in the polls in six months? As for Harper - he's facing a leader (Dion) who's a joke, another (Duceppe) who's in free fall and Layton who's Mr Mediocrity. Sure he can't get to the magic 40% for a majority government but nobody in the Opposition wants to bring him down either.

I heard Ken Epp interviewed on the bill. He made it clear that the bill only covers situations where the woman wants to keep the baby. In other words, the choice is up to the woman. Odd comment about a bill that is supposed to be anti-abortion in tone.

One thing they should do away with are those disciplines that use "judges" - like gymnastics and figure skating. The Olympic motto is higher and faster, not the number of judges you can bribe.

That is so obvious you wonder why it needs stating. He (or she) should be judged by the actions in this forum, not somewhere else.

If you recall, in December, 2006 he introduced a resolution to reopen the question of gay marriage (SSM). It was a sham. Preordained to fail. The last thing Harper wants is support from a bunch of religious nutters. SOW- Office of the Status of Women. SFA is a well-known acronym - Sweet F*** All. Your point about tax-payer funded moves is well taken.

More generally conservative than socon or religious. Cutting back SOW funding, ending the charter challenge program, resolution to re-visit SSM, and no funding of "objectionable" films. Now, that being said, it all amounts to two-fifths of SFA. It's a sop to the right. In actual fact he governs as a middle of the roader.

Most of that is because we have had foolhardy amendments to human rights law ( eg, Section 13 of the CHRA), appointees who are advocates rather than impartial administrators and governments not prepared to correct the excesses. The La Forest Report of 2000 would have corrected some of the problems in the CHRA but the government of the day did not act on its recommendations. As somebody who has worked with the CHRC for a long time I want to see reform, not useful law scrapped.

Steve is somewhat bulletproof - it was the Libs who got us in Afghanistan and it was Steph who screwed by Kyoto. The sponsorship scandal was another doing of the grits. The public won't blame Harper for an economic downturn and wouldn't trust Dion to handle it.

At the federal level as Section 13 decays and is used for political purposes there has been an improvement in vetting non-Section 13 complaints by the CHRC. It's still not good but some real crap is getting weeded out. That "designer vagina" case is bizarre. I suspect the doctor was set-up.

And we sure as hell don't need both of them. Dump the provisions such as Section 13 and let the Criminal Code deal the realy bad hate speech situations. But even that isn't needed. Take David Ahenakew. With his anti-Semitic rant he did far more damage to himself than the puny fine that the courts would penalize him with.

There can never be a justification for censoring debate on historical events. They should always be open to scrutiny. We turned Ernst Zundel into a martyr of the right by going after his Holocaust-denial teachings. I like the US approach better. He was on 60 Minutes (can you imagine him being interviewed by Peter Mansbridge? ) where I watched Mike Wallace turn him into dog-turd. Better that than giving him a forum like a human rights tribunal where he can rant on for weeks at an end.

Nothing to prevent them from having a civil marriage but it seems to be the concept of marriage itself, not just the religious variety, that seems to be turning people off.

It's an issue Canadians can relate to. Should government MPs be required to vote in favor of a Bill some of whom reject on religious and moral grounds? In the case of our Bill C-68 (gay marriage) the Cabinet was required to vote in favor, but not backbenchers. Gordon Brown has a couple of very conservative Catholics in his cabinet (most notably Ruth Kelly) who would likely resign rather than vote in favor of the bill.

Half the couples in Quebec now don't bother to get married. No idea why. Maybe they don't plan to stay together or perhaps marriage has bad connotations. The answer is not Dumont's idiotic attempt to bribe people into having kids. What woman is going to have three kids just to get 5000 bucks?

Given the subjectivity of what a "hate message" is and given the dubious use to which Section 13 has been put, maybe it's time to give it the heave. With the advent on the Internet I can find all sorts of stuff here that is in likely violation of Section 13 but outside the control of the CHRC.

There are some pretty crappy ones there too. But I would suggest that unlike Section 13 the discrimination and harassment complaints are not as prone to being used for overt political purposes like Section 13 has been.