"Tories Plan To Protect Same-Sex Opponents"

[cybercoma]

I think that to criticise someone's sexual orientation is simply an enourmously stupid thing to do. Just like to criticise someone for being short or ugly. Or to criticise someone else for being Muslim (or Catholic) or etc. Yet as long as it's done with "love" (sarcasm intended) and no incitation of violence, it shouldn't be criminal. Just stupid.

Now, we'll have to see if the govt really indends to bring up legislation to explicitly protect non criminal but stupid behaviour from criminal prosection. To me it wouldn't look like a very smart act but who knows.

There is no FREEDOM or RIGHT to not be offended nor should there be. You could find groups of people that are offended by every different thing that comes to mind. The government needs to stop passing legislation to prevent minorities from having their feelings hurt. In my opinion THAT is stupidity.

[BubberMiley]

You mean those people who are always getting their feelings hurt by those they call "politically correct?"

[scribblet]

While I think there should be some kind of protection, apparantly the G & mail has it wrong. According to the Pime Minister Stephen Harper he has affirmed that his government has no plans to draw up legislation that would protect officials and churches that refuse to deal with homosexuals. He said he has "not seen such a law."

Obviously the liberals are engaging in unfounded smears and speculation.

[Higgly]

Are you saying that the Globe and Mail is a Liberal paper?

[M.Dancer]

Right Beside the Freedom of Religion should be freedom from religion.........

Intarestingly, down the street from me on St Clair and Avenue is a church that perform same sex marriages........I hear the receptions are simply divine

[betsy]

Or smug, self-righteous, people who can't just mind their own business>?

Like the Liberal thinkers?

[Drea]

The Knights of Columbus are far from a business operating *under the guise* of a religious organization. They have always been a Catholic men's farternal benefit society.

made my mornin'

[Hicksey]

"Tories plan to protect same-sex opponents

If government loses bid to reopen debate, Defence of Religions Act is next option

By JOHN IBBITSON and BILL CURRY AND BRIAN LAGHI

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

The measures are also intended to protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders and others who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Since when is gay bashing a freedom of speech issue? I don't want any hate mongers and homophobia legitimized especially by our national government.

Im not very happy about the 'others who critisize homosexual behaviour' idea, who exactly are the others and what are legitimate grounds for refusing to do business with gays? Isn't there a court case going on now in Montreal because a bar refused to serve a black guy because he was black? I guess were back to 'separate but equal'

Tread lightly Mr. Harper... I do support legislation regarding people not having to marry gay couples if they think its against their religion... sure fine... but discriminatory business practices based on sexual preference... just sounds... well... wrong.

Of course we have yet to see the actual legislation so, we will know soon enough i suppose... sigh... 1 step forward 3 steps back

The hatespeech law is in essence a bunch of liberals telling us that if we agree with them and think as they do, then they can be as biased as we please. But if our biases go against the fiber of their values we must be censored.

Why is it that someone can defacate on a statue of Jesus and that is considered art, but a picture of the prophet Muhammed is hatespeech?

If we are going to protect people from hate speech should not such a law protect every man equally before the law?

Until that law does that it is unconstitutional and IMO should be repealed.

Today, being a racist is looked down upon by just about anyone with a brain. In operating a free society you have to be willing to tolerate hearing things you do not like. And in the words of the ever-knowing Bubber Miley below (I put it there because I knew it would be useful one day ... that day is today) "If someone doesn't mind being known as a crack whore, let them do crack and be a whore." So if someone doesn't mind being thought of as an intolerant bigot let him spew his lunacy. It hurts his credibility more than anything. Anyone with half a brain that is proud of who and what they are should hardly care that others may not approve. There will always be people that don't. You won't be able to change a closed mind so why bother worrying about it? You can pass a million such laws and it won't change a single mind. You cannot legislate what goes on in peoples' heads.

If their bigotry turns to physical violence, then lock the idiot up for as long as the law allows. But this should apply to every racially motivated crime regardless of who is the aggressor and who is the victim. A white guy who assaults a black guy over race should be considered no less guilty than a black guy who assaults a white guy over race.

Any protections conferred should be applied equally to everyone.

[Renegade]

OTTAWA — The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

The measures are also intended to protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders and others who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations, The Globe and Mail has learned.

If such legislation were brought forward it would be flawed in many many ways:

1. It is likely to be unconstitutional.

2. It strays into areas of provincial juristiction.

3. It promotes a double-standard. If discrimmination against homosexuals should be tolerated under freedom of religious beliefs, why should not other forms of discrimmination. If my religious beliefs tell me that women belong in the home and rasing a family, should I then be allowed to discrimminate against women in employment decisions?

4. It is redundant. Freedom of speech is already protected. If the intent is to protect hate-speech against homosexuals, then why only protect speech aginst homosexuals, let the Klan have the same right to hate speech against Jews, blacks, Catholics and homosexuals as well.

5. It sends the wrong message. Public officials make a choice when then take office. Their choice is to accept a job which doesn't make value judgements but administers according to the law. It doesn't matter if the agree or believe in the law. If a judge doesn't think it is moral that a 60 year-old man shoudl marry an 18 year-old girl, should he have the same freedom to refuse? How about if he doesn't believe inter-racial marriages are moral?

Personally I don't know what Harper is doing by reopening this issue. It is a divisive issue. I can only guess that he is doing it in the face of pressure from the religious-right.

[Hicksey]

5. It sends the wrong message. Public officials make a choice when then take office. Their choice is to accept a job which doesn't make value judgements but administers according to the law. It doesn't matter if the agree or believe in the law. If a judge doesn't think it is moral that a 60 year-old man shoudl marry an 18 year-old girl, should he have the same freedom to refuse? How about if he doesn't believe inter-racial marriages are moral?

Isn't this almost exactly what the current hate-crime legislation does? Instead of conferring protections upon everyone it specifically names those who are to be protected.

They are both unnecessary.

There should be no abridgment of free speech. If you want to express those beliefs in the open today you'll be the idiot if there is to be one. See my quotes below. Bubber Miley says it all. Right after our First female Prime Minster explains what is involved in freedom. IMO a person's ability to refuse to do things against their core beliefs falls under both freedom or religion and freedom of speech rights. All it means is that the places that will do it will receive more traffic. If we can be forced to travel hundreds of kilometers for health care why not to get married?

I think the only thing that ever should have been done was to double sentences for violent hate crimes.

The legislation should not single anyone out. If they cannot confer the protections to everyone equally then they ought not be conferred. Everyone should be equal before the law, neither the Liberal Hate Crimes bill or the one that the CPC seems to be pondering if the reports on it are to be believed.

[Figleaf]

This legislation demonstrates the Alliance-Conservatives' propensity to use government power to promote the interests of religion. This law would create special rights for some people (immunity from hate-speech laws and exemption from certain work) based on their religion!

Obviously the government has no business giving out special rights. If hateful religious bigots are protected , why not hateful atheist bigots too?

[Argus]

Are you saying that the Globe and Mail is a Liberal paper?

The Globe and Mail is fiscally on the right. But when it comes to social policy they are easily as far to the left as the NDP.

[Argus]

If such legislation were brought forward it would be flawed in many many ways:

1. It is likely to be unconstitutional.

Why? In what way?

2. It strays into areas of provincial juristiction.

Which areas are those?

3. It promotes a double-standard.

Employment equity promotes double standards too. For that matter, hate crime laws promote double standards. It's illegal to beat up a White man because you don't like his face, but REALLY illegal to beat up a Black man because you don't like his face.

4. It is redundant. Freedom of speech is already protected.

Ya know, people said that about hate crime laws. It's already illegal to beat people up. Why do you need an extra law for beating up queers?

5. It sends the wrong message. Public officials make a choice when then take office.

Are you suggesting the guy who rents halls for the Knights of Columbus is a public official?

Personally I don't know what Harper is doing by reopening this issue. It is a divisive issue. I can only guess that he is doing it in the face of pressure from the religious-right.

Personally, I don't know what Chretien and Martin were doing in reopening this issue. It was a divisive issue. I can only guess that they did it in the face of pressure from the homosexual lobby and all the homosexuals in the Liberal cabinet

[Argus]

This legislation demonstrates the Alliance-Conservatives' propensity to use government power to promote the interests of religion.

You mean to defend religion? Since when did that become a bad thing?

This law would create special rights for some people (immunity from hate-speech laws and exemption from certain work) based on their religion!

We already have exemptions based on religions and we already have special rights for homosexuals and visible minorities in that it's more illegal to attack them than to attack anyone else.

Obviously the government has no business giving out special rights.

Unless they're giving them to homosexuals and visible minorities and other of your cherished special interest groups.

If hateful religious bigots are protected , why not hateful atheist bigots too?

Well, hateful liberal bigots seem to be able to shoot off their fat, ignorant mouths all they want. Why shouldn't others?

[Renegade]

Why? In what way?

The Charter does not allow public institutions or officials the freedom to discrimminate. The SC has interpreted this to include discrimmination against homosexuals.

Which areas are those?

from the G&M:

Prof. Cossman called the idea of allowing public officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriage a violation of provincial jurisdiction "in the most blatant and obvious way," and said any such bill would be struck down soon after it was passed.

It has long been established that while the federal government defines who can and cannot marry, the provinces deal with the machinery of marriage, from licences to officiants, she said.

Sujit Choudhry, a constitutional law professor at the University of Toronto, said Ottawa does not have the authority to grant provincial officials a religious exemption. "At first blush, that would seem to me to be a constitutional problem."

Employment equity promotes double standards too. For that matter, hate crime laws promote double standards. It's illegal to beat up a White man because you don't like his face, but REALLY illegal to beat up a Black man because you don't like his face.

Yes I agree. Those laws are flawed for promoting a double-standard. We shouldn't continue those errors by having yet another law that promotes a double-standard. I thought you were against laws which had a blatant double standard.

Ya know, people said that about hate crime laws. It's already illegal to beat people up. Why do you need an extra law for beating up queers?

I think you are misinformed on the hate crime law. The hate crime law is not to make it illegal to "beat up queers". It made it illegal to advocate or incite hate or genocide. link That is quite different than assault. Show me another law which makes it illegal to advocate or incite hate, and I'll agree with you that the hate law is redundant.

Are you suggesting the guy who rents halls for the Knights of Columbus is a public official?

No. The proposed legislation would extend the ability to discrimminate to provinical judges and other employees of the government, and those ARE public officials.

Personally, I don't know what Chretien and Martin were doing in reopening this issue. It was a divisive issue. I can only guess that they did it in the face of pressure from the homosexual lobby and all the homosexuals in the Liberal cabinet

Possibly. Who knows? Once the SC ruled, they should have left it alone as well.

[Figleaf]

vonheyking

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[geoffrey]

The incident with Knights of Columbus was given as an example.

The Knights of Columbus rents its facilities to the public. If it rents it facilities to the public it should be expected to obey all anti-discrimination laws - gays are no exception. We do not want to go back to the bad old days when stores could put signs up saying 'no blacks allowed'.

If the KOC is so bothered by same sex marriages then it should stop offering its facilities for use by the public. If it wants to be protected like a church then it should act like a church and restrict its facilities to Catholics only.

And why don't we want to go back to those days? I can't stand Canadians who have no faith in the power of the market. If someone opens up a shop and puts a big sign in the window that says NO NIGGERS, NO JEWS AND NO FAGS....how many people do you think are going to shop there? It would be suicide because you'd get next to no business.

The KoC is a religious institution that should be allowed to deny support to homosexuals. You don't see pigfarmers of Ontario holding conventions in Islamic mosques. Ok, that example is silly...but if someone wanted to hold their wedding reception at a muslim convention centre and wanted to serve pork, there'd be outrage....probably beheadings. There are plenty of other places homosexuals can have their wedding/reception at...the catholic church shouldn't be forced by law to change its traditions for a small minority of people.

Great point Cyber. Let's rent out a Mosque for a massive pork feast, and when we get attacked, we'll go to the SCC to be told that only minorities are protected in this country, and the rest of us should just deal with it.

In fact, I think I'm going to call up the Islamic centre tonight and rent out their conference and dining facilities for "Geoff's Maple Leaf Web Pork Festival". Your all invited, bring the gays too, hold a gay marriage in the Mosque area, see what the Muslims do about that.

I think that to criticise someone's sexual orientation is simply an enourmously stupid thing to do. Just like to criticise someone for being short or ugly. Or to criticise someone else for being Muslim (or Catholic) or etc. Yet as long as it's done with "love" (sarcasm intended) and no incitation of violence, it shouldn't be criminal. Just stupid.

Now, we'll have to see if the govt really indends to bring up legislation to explicitly protect non criminal but stupid behaviour from criminal prosection. To me it wouldn't look like a very smart act but who knows.

There is no FREEDOM or RIGHT to not be offended nor should there be. You could find groups of people that are offended by every different thing that comes to mind. The government needs to stop passing legislation to prevent minorities from having their feelings hurt. In my opinion THAT is stupidity.

Sure, no one is asking the gays to stop having sex with each other. That'd be pushing my religion on someone else. Anything else is fair game. If they want to parade around and draw attention to themselves, they should be prepared to get the attention they are asking for.

[watching&waiting]

I am a person who I have to say tolerates homosexuality. I do not think it is of any consquence what these people do behind closed doors and I believe they should obey laws of common decency while in public. I am not for them marrying in the same way as the others, but they could and should seek other means to formalize their relationship. Now that being said, I also do not think that this should take up so much time in our government. Maybe have 1-2 days debate and then vote. It should not be given any more then that.

If gay people want more then letb them seek it through the court system and see if it will fly. I am all for not making people perform ceremonies by force. If they do not feel comfoirtabel then that should be it. Iam tolerant of gays and Imust say that I do not like the gay lifestyle and I still think that Gay men and women should never be allowed to adpopt children other then from their own families. The fact that gay mand and women do not reproduce normally, this then should be a once per generation problem.

Now does that mean I am going to push to have these gay marriages enulled? No. I just simply want this to stop and a totally free vote on it and then that is the end. If you do not want the vote to be by the government, then set a date for a referendum vote, and be dun with it once and for all. The gay issue has wasted too much of our time as it is.

[BubberMiley]

And in the words of the ever-knowing Bubber Miley below (I put it there because I knew it would be useful one day ... that day is today) "If someone doesn't mind being known as a crack whore, let them do crack and be a whore." So if someone doesn't mind being thought of as an intolerant bigot let him spew his lunacy.

But the victims of crackwhorism come only as a result of criminalization. Neighbourhoods are destroyed, diseases are spread, and organized crime flourishes, but that's just because their activity is unregulated, not because they choose to get high and have sex for money.

I'm all for free speech and freedom of movement until it hurts another person, and encouraging hatred of a particular group hurts other people.

That's the difference.

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[betsy]

Now does that mean I am going to push to have these gay marriages enulled? No. I just simply want this to stop and a totally free vote on it and then that is the end. If you do not want the vote to be by the government, then set a date for a referendum vote, and be dun with it once and for all. The gay issue has wasted too much of our time as it is.

Me too...all I want is a referendum. With the way Paul Martin rushed this past behind everyone's back, and then claiming this is what Canadians want, I somehow feel cheated. MPs didn't even get to have their say, much more vote on it.

I know that some gays are supporting the traditional definition of marriage. A group of gays took out a whole page ad advertising that we should leave the traditional definition of marriage the way it is.

So prove that this is truly what Canadians want. REFERENDUM!

Then I'll say no more.

[Riverwind]

So prove that this is truly what Canadians want. REFERENDUM!

I can think of many things I would rather spend money on. I can understand why somebody would be concerned about SSM. What I can't understand is why opponents spend so much time and energy trying to prevent people they don't know from doing something that will have _zero_ affect on their lives.

[BubberMiley]

It would be a bad precedent to start having referenda into other people's business.

[sharkman]

It would be a bad precedent to start having referenda into other people's business.

We've been doing it all along, it's called democracy. Remember Sunday shopping? That's other people's busniess. The Olympics in Vancouver? the same...

[August1991]

Yet another gay marriage-related thread. Let's all dive in...

Cybercoma comes closest to my feelings about this:

The KoC is a religious institution that should be allowed to deny support to homosexuals. You don't see pigfarmers of Ontario holding conventions in Islamic mosques. Ok, that example is silly...but if someone wanted to hold their wedding reception at a muslim convention centre and wanted to serve pork, there'd be outrage....probably beheadings. There are plenty of other places homosexuals can have their wedding/reception at...the catholic church shouldn't be forced by law to change its traditions for a small minority of people.

But I'll add points.

First, I don't think this legislation is necessary or even constitutional (and now it appears that the whole thing was either a trial balloon or a Liberal attack point).

Second, the solemnization of marriage is provincial jurisdiction. The feds aren't involved.

Third, if the local mosque refuses to let you hold your "All You Can Eat BLT Night" in its community hall, the Charter of Rights is not involved. Such discrimination falls under provincial human rights legislation. If you go to a human rights panel, you'll be waiting years before anything happens.

Fourth, if you threaten the Imam because he doesn't want BLTs made in his kitchen, you could be charged by the police under the Criminal Code for a hate crime.

Lastly, the issue gets really messy if a government employee (justice of the peace) refuses to marry two gays. The provincial government could conceivably fire such an employee and I think it has happened.

----

Frankly, I think that we have made an utter mess of these issues in Canada and I fear that we will face contradictions in the future.

Take the situation with gays. Those in favour of gay marriage want sexual orientation to be treated exactly like left-handedness or skin colour. These people believe the State should never discriminate ever on such grounds and they believe the State should actively work to change the attitudes of individuals.

Nevertheless, people discriminate in their private lives. People discriminate harshly in choosing a spouse - heteros certainly discriminate against gays. When hiring, people prefer beautiful people to ugly, the young to the old, the tall to the short. For friends, people prefer smart to stupid and funny to boring. Some people just don't like Jews, others don't like WASPs. Many separatists just don't like English people. There are posters on this forum who just don't like the French.

When the State tries to change people and stop them from discriminating, it just turns people into liars. Such is political correctness. It operates in exactly the same manner as Marxist ideology in the Soviet Union. Everyone nods their head and says they agree but the pragmatic ones know it's all nonsense.

IMHO, the State should avoid where possible having legislation concerning how people choose in their private life. OTOH, if we were truly serious about protecting gay rights, we would have a constitutional amendment to include explicitly the term "sexual orientation" in the Charter of Rights. This term should never have been added by Supreme Court fiat if only because a future Court could just as easily take it away.

Two people cannot occupy the same seat at the same time and to live in a civilized society, we must find peaceful ways to decide who gets the chair. Gays exist yet some don't like gays.

The State is a monopoly and we have decided that it will side with the gays. Fine. For the rest however, private individuals should be free to work it out their own way. If the local Imam has no problem with gays except if they make bacon sandwiches, I'd side with the Imam's right to refuse the BLT-making gays into his mosque.

----

If you've read this far, I'll throw one last wrench into the works. We can't change our physical nature but we can change our behaviour. White people can't become black but left-handed people can use their right hand. In a civilized society, the State should treat discrimination based on skin colour more seriously than discrimination based on conduct.

Hate legislation should also consider that no one knows if you are left-handed until you pick up a pen. Everyone knows you are black as soon as you walk in the room.