Harper and Gay Rights

[I Miss Trudeau]

Yeah I know. I'm not quite sure why that happened to be honest. I used the quote button at the top. Maybe I'll try to fix it in edit.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The point I think I made is that the SCC did not "add" sexual orientation to the charter, they merely confirmed that it was already there.

That's being disingenuous. Do you mean they were there but we didn't see them?

How many rights are there now that we just can't see?

You seem determined to be obtuse on this point.

Once more: the charter s. 15 says "everyone". The courts confirmed that includes homosexual persons.

I'm not sure how one could go about arguing that restricting non-harmful, consensual relationships could be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

That's not really the issue here. No one is saying that gays can't shack up if they want to.

Come on. Shacking up is decidedly "not really the issue". Some people are clearly saying gays can't get married.

[August1991]

Once more: the charter s. 15 says "everyone". The courts confirmed that includes homosexual persons.

You seem just as obtuse on this issue, TS.

"Everyone" always meant everyone and thi is not the crux of the issue. The critical question rather is in what way the government can discriminate among people.

The Charter explicitly forbids discrimination based on race. It now apparently forbids discrimination based on "sexual orientation".

This was added by the Supreme Court based on lower court rulings.

BTW, the use of "everyone" is relevant because it does not say "Canadian citizens" or "Canadian permanent residents". IOW, the Charter covers anyone (including foreign citizens) in Canada.

Are you suggesting that different "types" of humans should have varying degrees of rights, in the same manner in which different "types" of animals have varying degrees of rights?

I'm saying that different human beings are treated differently.

When Paul Desmarais goes to the Ritz-Carlton, he gets treated differently from you or me. But then the taxman treats him differently too.

If you do not want to have your hair cut by a woman, you are free to discriminate and choose a man. The government, in theory, cannot discriminate that way.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I'll post again later when I have the time (just running out the door), but I'd like you to answer my question August. If the chrter did not specifically include anything, would it then be seen to exclude everything?

[The Terrible Sweal]

It may have recently become apparent to the public, but it has been the fact since the Charter was enacted. It was not "added" by ay court.

[RB]

I'll post again later when I have the time (just running out the door), but I'd like you to answer my question August. If the chrter did not specifically include anything, would it then be seen to exclude everything?

I have not read the thread but I will answer this question.

Our Charter is the law of the land.

If a court finds that any law violates one of the rights or freedoms it may strike down part or all the law and direct the goverment to make changes. You use s15(1), in (2) subsection (1) does not preclude any law .... that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals.

The test is for determining whether a person equality rights under the Charter has been infringed. IF these tests are met, the offending portion of the law will be struck down (ruled invalid and unenforceable).

Here are the usual 3 test:

1) does the law result in differential treatment

2) if so is it on one or more grounds listed

3) here is the kicker - a more difficult pass - the differential treatment reflects stereotypical assumptions suggesting that the person is less worthy of recognition, or offends the dignity or value as a human being

Same sex partnerships status was added as a prohibited ground of discrimation under OHRC was an important decision based on the Charter's equality provision.

The Charter is subject to reasonable limits meaning that your freedoms are not unlimited. The courts uphold violations if they fall within the provisions.

If you are interested in reasonable limits and its application here is a court case R v. Oakes or McKinney v. University of Guelph, where the age based discrimation kicked in, and contravene the Charter's equality provision but was unsuccessful in its challenge of "reasonable limits".

Look, here are those 3 test again on the limitation of rights

1) it enforces Gov't objective

2)limits of individual freedom is minimal - ie. no greater than necessary to accomplish objective

3) there is precise standard and is clear about what is prohibited.

You pass the 3 test the portion of the law that violates the Charter is found to be unconstitutional

So to your question there are limits set and is specific as in s. 15

[B. Max]

The spectrum of rights assigned to different animals is an entirely different conversation.

The point I think I made is that the SCC did not "add" sexual orientation to the charter, they merely confirmed that it was already there. And I think that this is obviously correct, given the wording of the charter. If this doesn't convince you, I'm really not sure what else I can say. Specified inclusion != exclusion.

No they didn't. The court did not read in sexual orientation or sexual choice. Nor did they say it was there. The alberta government would have used the notwithstanding clause if they had. They said they would look the other way if the government wanted to read it in. It is not there and it never was. Nor is anyone being discriminated against. Nor is anyone being denied a right.

This is about the government making a right out of a wrong under the guise of equality. Gays have every right to get married, as long as it's the opposite sex. Just like everyone else. The charter of wrongs and special rights in this case is living up to it's name, while exposing its self for what it really is, as trudeau intended it to be. That being a blueprint for social engineering for the ideology of cultural marxism.

[Black Dog]

No they didn't. The court did not read in sexual orientation or sexual choice. Nor did they say it was there. The alberta government would have used the notwithstanding clause if they had. They said they would look the other way if the government wanted to read it in. It is not there and it never was.

You're just wrong.

  In summary, this Court has no choice but to conclude that the IRPA, by reason of the omission of sexual orientation as a protected ground, clearly violates s. 15 of the Charter. The IRPA in its underinclusive state creates a distinction which results in the denial of the equal benefit and protection of the law on the basis of sexual orientation, a personal characteristic which has been found to be analogous to the grounds enumerated in s. 15. This, in itself, would be sufficient to conclude that discrimination is present and therefore there is a violation of s. 15. The serious discriminatory effects of the exclusion of sexual orientation from the Act reinforce this conclusion. As a result, it is clear that the IRPA, as it stands, violates the equality rights of the appellant Vriend and of other gays and lesbians. It is therefore necessary to determine whether this violation can be justified under s. 1.

-Mr. Justice Peter Cory

The reason the Alberta Government did not use the notwithstanding clause was because of political considerations. Premier Klein has been pretty liberal on the issue of gay rights and probably didn't want to reinfocre Alberta's image as a haven for intolerant rednecks.

In any case though, you never answered my earlier question: have you ever eaten shrimp or lobster? Because if you have, you are no better in the eyes of your god than homosexuals. See you in hell!

[knn]

Harper's attack on the Charter and minority rights is backfiring. His party is now slipping in support and is the only one of the big three to decline...

"OTTAWA—The federal Liberals are within striking distance of majority government, according to a new Toronto Star poll.

The poll, conducted by EKOS Research Associates, shows the Liberals at 40.2 per cent support nationally, up from the 36.7 per cent they obtained in last June's election.

The increase seems to be coming at the expense of the Conservatives, whose national support slipped back to 26.5 per cent..."

EKOS POLL RESULTS - Click Here

[B. Max]

Wrong, you are talking about the Vriend case in regards to employment. Klien has said all along no gay marriage in alberta. Not that i have any use for the klien liberals, but the couirt clearly threw it back to the government. Klien would have had no choice but to use the notwithstanding clause. If klien the liberal were any good at all he would force the matter back to the courts in order to use the notwithstanding clause. I don't expect that to happen until we clean out that nest of scoundrels and replace them. We have tolerated the forces of filth for long enough. The time is long over due to do some serious offending and begin to reverse the years of athiest social engineering thats been eating away at the country like a cancer. This looks like it will be a good place to start, and end with scrapping the phoney charter of wrongs and special rights along with tossing out the liberal activist judges and their of reign tyranny. They will be your company hell, not me.

So, notwithstanding the facts that:

a) the Commons subcommittee which drafted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms debated for two days whether to include sexual orientation in Section 15, and voted 26-2 to leave it out;

that the issue has not received formal public debate or referendum;

c) that Parliament as recently as 1999 affirmed by a vote of 216 to 55 that the definition of marriage was between a man and woman "to the exclusion of all others"; d ) and that roughly 50 percent of the population is opposed to redefining marriage, gay marriage has arrived, and appears to be unstoppable, simply because a bunch of social activist judges say so on the basis of their liberal ideology.

http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issue...s/done-deal.htm

[Black Dog]

Whatever, filthy shrimp eater. You've probably worn bleded fabrics and touched a woman during her menses, haven't you, you hellbound pervert?

[I miss Reagan]

I like what Jason Kenny has to say about it. The fact of the matter is that it is not an equal rights issue, as hard as the radical left tries to spin it. The often ignored truth is that a heterosexual is not allowed to marry someone of the same sex either.

"Marriage is open to everybody, as long as they're a man and a woman,'' said Kenney.

"It doesn't say you can't marry if you're a homosexual. The fact is that homosexuals have been married and do marry.''

Davies, the Vancouver MP who is openly lesbian, corrected the record Sunday to say she's never been married, but did live with her male partner for 24 years until he died of cancer in 1997.

And I find it quite interesting how the radical left chooses to spin the poll results on this issue.

Alberta and Ontario shared the highest opposition, at 50 and 48 per cent respectively. Only 35 per cent of Ontarians polled supported gay marriage.

Other polls have also indicated Liberal support has dropped up to 10 points in the federal party's Ontario heartland, with the Conservatives picking up about six points.

An SES poll last week suggested the Liberals were down to 44 per cent in Ontario, compared with 54 per cent in October. The Tories polled 32 per cent, up from 26.

CTV

[Black Dog]

I like what Jason Kenny has to say about it. The fact of the matter is that it is not an equal rights issue, as hard as the radical left tries to spin it. The often ignored truth is that a heterosexual is not allowed to marry someone of the same sex either.

That's a bullshit interpretation, as marriage is completely meaningless unless you're allowed to choose your spouse.

That's like supoporting anti-miscegination laws nby saying "colored people can marry whoever they want, provided they're the same color."

This argument further demonstrates that this is not about preserving marriage, but of denying homosexuals rights.

If it were about preserving marriage, conservatives wouldn't be advocating people enter into marriages under false pretenses, thus devaluing the institution.

[I miss Reagan]

That's a bullshit interpretation

Settle down and watch your mouth.

That's like supoporting anti-miscegination laws nby saying "colored people can marry whoever they want, provided they're the same color."

Same ol' strawman...

This argument further demonstrates that this is not about preserving marriage, but of denying homosexuals rights.

If it were about preserving marriage, conservatives wouldn't be advocating people enter into marriages under false pretenses, thus devaluing the institution.

...and even more strawman

[Black Dog]

Settle down and watch your mouth.

No.

Same ol' strawman...

Really? Then tell me how the arguments are different.

You obviously have no rebuttal or any logical argument, since the best you can manage is parrotting a troll like Jason Kinney, so why don't you just keep your trap shut, junior, and learn how to debate.

[I miss Reagan]

You obviously have no rebuttal or any logical argument, since the best you can manage is parrotting a troll like Jason Kinney, so why don't you just keep your trap shut, junior, and learn how to debate.

Lol, the irony, ad hominem.

[Black Dog]

Well, boy, the first step to proper debating is putting forward a position and defending it against arguments.

So, simply saying "strawman" doesn't cut it.

The argument that "gay people can marry whoever they want, provided tehy are of the opposite sex" is fundamentally the same as saying "colored people can marry whomever they want, provided they are the same color". For one, it's patronizing. For another it disregards the critical fact that choosing one's own mate is fundamental to civil marriage. In essence, you are asking gays to live a lie. I don't see that as being particularily supportive of the so-called "sanctity" of marriage.

So, unless you can tell me how that argument is not fundamentally anti-gay, I see little reason to treat you any different than an obvious bigot like B. Max.

[knn]

B. Max Posted: Feb 14 2005, 01:26 PM

...the Commons subcommittee which drafted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms debated for two days whether to include sexual orientation in Section 15, and voted 26-2 to leave it out;...

While, it’s true that back in 1981 there was some opposition by the Charter’s drafters to include sexual orientation in Canada’s supreme law, it was never entirely ruled out.

At the time, then-Federal Justice Minister Jean Chretien testified before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada that s.15’s wording was sufficiently open-ended to allow future courts to include sexual orientation. (Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, November 1980, Minutes of Proceedings, Jean Chrétien, January 1981, 36: 14-15.)

And indeed, The Supreme Court of Canada eventually agreed, 14 years later in Egan v. Canada, ([1995] 2 S.C.R. 513.) that sexual orientation required constitutional protection. The Supreme Court ruled that equality rights protected sexual orientation.

The SCC had set the stage for Egan in its first decision regarding s.15, Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, by ruling, as Chrétien had suggested, that the enumerated grounds of s.15 were not exhaustive.

This was largely common sense—there is nothing in the wording of s.15 to suggest that only people belonging to the enumerated groups should be protected; rather, it reads “every individual is equal.”

But which individuals, and when? Laws treat people differently all the time: rich people pay a larger proportion of their income in income tax than poorer people; agricultural subsidies only go to farmers; we don’t let children drive cars, and so forth. In short, when is differential treatment “discrimination,” and prohibited by s.15?

The Court’s answer in Andrews was that s.15 protection can be extended when a legal distinction causes harm to (or evidences prejudice against) an “analogous ground”—a characteristic similar to an enumerated ground. This means that the group must be clearly defined—such as a “discrete and insular minority”—and be “historically disadvantaged.”

As Chrétien’s comments indicate, sexual orientation was recognized as a probable analogous ground even at the time of the Charter’s drafting in 1981.

[I miss Reagan]

I find it odd being lectured about proper debate by someone who consistantly posts fallacy ridden arguments.

Black Dog:

Well, boy, the first step to proper debating is putting forward a position and defending it against arguments.

Black Dog's response to a point:

You're just wrong.

Black Dog:

For one, it's patronizing.

Yet from Black Dog:

have you ever eaten shrimp or lobster? Because if you have, you are no better in the eyes of your god than homosexuals. See you in hell!

and:

Whatever, filthy shrimp eater. You've probably worn bleded fabrics and touched a woman during her menses, haven't you, you hellbound pervert?

and finally:

So, unless you can tell me how that argument is not fundamentally anti-gay, I see little reason to treat you any differnet than an obvious bigot like B. Max.

And that is just this page.

In sorting through the insults I saw one point worth responding to.

In essence, you are asking gays to live a lie.

No I believe it is your side who is asking them to live a lie. Proding them into thinking they are second class citizens and unequal simply because you want them to be exactly the same. Instead of "celebrating diversity" you're stiring people up into a frenzy by making them feel oppressed and downtrodden because they can't change the definition of a word. Why don't we just admit there are differences between people. I'm not protesting the fact that I can't wear a kirpan or a turban because I'm not Sihk. I recognize there are differences between us and appreciate them.

[Black Dog]

I find it odd being lectured about proper debate by someone who consistantly posts fallacy ridden arguments.

Interesting how none of the quotes you posted contained fallacies. Aside from showing your selective editing skills, what's your point?

I told a poster who made a factually innacurate statement that they were wrong, then provided the citation to prove it.

Then I took the same poster to task for using the Bible to denounce homosexuality by pointing out other, common practices that are also outlawed by the Bible. And I did so in a way that showed the utter contempt I have for such views.

In any case, I see no point in being civil with someone like B. Max, who is allowed to spout off hateful nonsense without reproach from people like you who share his views.

Proding them into thinking they are second class citizens and unequal simply because you want them to be exactly the same.

Uh...have you noticed who the biggest supporters of gay marriage are? Yes: they are gays! Gays who want to enjoy the same rights and privileges as anyone else and not be denied them because of who they are.

Instead of "celebrating diversity" you're stiring people up into a frenzy by making them feel oppressed and downtrodden because they can't change the definition of a word.

Yeah, you're onto me: the gay community are mere puppets and I pull the strings.

Why don't we just admit there are differences between people. I'm not protesting the fact that I can't wear a kirpan or a turban because I'm not Sihk. I recognize there are differences between us and appreciate them.

What a vapid, disengenous non-argument. This has absolutely nothing to do with diversity or recognizing differences. It's about equal treatment under the law. Indeed, under the law, our differences don't matter.

In any case, I notice you completely failed to answer the question I put to you, which was to tell me how the argument saying "gay people can marry whomever they want, provided they are of the opposite sex" is any different from saying "colored people can marry whomever they want, provided they are the same color".

[I miss Reagan]

In any case, I notice you completely failed to answer the question I put to you, which was to tell me how the argument saying "gay people can marry whomever they want, provided they are of the opposite sex" is any different from saying "colored people can marry whomever they want, provided they are the same color".

You are comparing a visible minority who suffered hundreds of years of oppression and discrimination for how they looked to people who prefer sex with people of their same gender and spining it into an equal rights issue. (Not surprising from one who calls the US a police state and quite often calls conservatives "fascists")

It's offensive that you use the injustices commited against woman and blacks as a political tool. Most blacks agree that this kind of argument diminishes their own triumphs over inequality.

From Gay Wired

Alvin Williams, president and CEO of the conservative, Washington D.C.-based Black America's Political Action Committee, said the gay marriage issue looks like an equal rights issue at first, but becomes a "special rights" issue after closer examination because it's about behavior, not ethnicity.

African Americans are among the most opposed to granting gay couples the right to marry. A recent Pew Research Poll showed that 60 percent of blacks opposed gay marriage. When asked if they favored legal agreements with many of the same rights as marriage, 51 percent of blacks were opposed.

[knn]

I miss Reagan Posted: Feb 14 2005, 05:35 PM

No I believe it is your side who is asking them to live a lie. Proding them into thinking they are second class citizens and unequal simply because you want them to be exactly the same.

Absolute rubbish. No reason, no logic. Telling people to be happy with what they have, and don't dare ask for equality!

How pathetic to accuse someone else of "prodding" a minority, when all they are doing is pointing out an unjust and discriminatory law! It amounts to telling Blacks to be happy they can even ride a bus, as long as they know their place and sit in the back! Shame.

The "lie" is denying a minority a human right by saying that they should be happy "celebrating their diversity" and be satisifed with discrimination and a "right" that the Supreme Court of Canada says must be allowed to them.

Personally, I don't blame Black Dog for being upset with somelike like you!

[knn]

I miss Reagan  Posted: Feb 14 2005, 07:04 PM 

You are comparing a visible minority who suffered hundreds of years of oppression and discrimination for how they looked to people who prefer sex with people of their same gender and spining it into an equal rights issue.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Read the Supreme Court Ruling and come up with something that makes sense!

[Black Dog]

You are comparing a visible minority who suffered hundreds of years of oppression and discrimination for how they looked to people who prefer sex with people of their same gender and spining it into an equal rights issue.

Changing tacks...again?!

Um....sexual orientation is analagous to race as both are immutable charateristics. If you don't believe me, why don't you try being gay for a while and tell me if it sticks.

As for equal rights, if one group is allowed certain rights that otehrs are not, that's inequality.

It's offensive that you use the injustices commited against woman and blacks as a political tool

Right, because homosexuals have never been oppressed, nosiree.

Most blacks agree that this kind of argument diminishes their own triumphs over inequality.

I could talk about certain other members of the black community who support gay rights, including equal marriage, but then, I'd be resorting to tokenism to prove a point, as you have attempted to do.

[I miss Reagan]

I could talk about certain other members of the black community who support gay rights, including equal marriage, but then, I'd be resorting to tokenism to prove a point, as you have attempted to do.

Ya...nice try. Read again. The majority of Blacks oppose gay marriage. Care to point out the tokenism?