Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > Tilted Fun Zone


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-04-2006, 03:16 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
The Conservatives table Anti-Gay bill - true colours revealed?

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

John Ibbitson: E-mail | Read Bio | Latest Columns
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.

Any legislation would be brought forward only if the government loses the motion this fall to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage. All indications are that the motion, which would authorize the government to introduce legislation to repeal the same-sex marriage law passed by Parliament last year, will be defeated by a combination of Opposition MPs supported by a few Conservatives.

Introducing a Defence of Religions Act would breathe new life into an issue that otherwise might have expired, and could become pivotal in an election expected as early as next spring. A solid core of Conservative MPs and socially conservative supporters are determined not to let the issue die without introducing some protections for those who are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage.

While refusing to discuss specifics, Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed the government's intentions yesterday in an interview. “The nature of the concerns that are being raised with me are relating to freedom of religion and freedom to practice religion [and] freedom of expression,” he said. “The Prime Minister has indicated that he is bringing the matter forward — the issue of same-sex marriage — on a free vote. And there may be certain options open to the government as to what the response should be in either event, whether that opening is successful or not successful.”

Sources say the government is considering measures to protect individuals who oppose homosexual marriages or even relationships from human rights' complaints. The measures would seek to ensure, for example, that churches cannot be forced to rent their halls for same-sex marriage receptions, or that a justice of the peace cannot be compelled to marry a same-sex couple in violation of his or her religious beliefs.

Justice officials have also been told to search for ways to protect the rights of individuals to criticize homosexual activity because it contravenes religious teachings, or to refuse to do business with organizations whose purposes he or she disagrees with, without being brought before a human-rights tribunal.

The working title for the vehicle that could enshrine these measures is the Defence of Religions Act. The former Liberal government said that existing laws and court rulings already protect the rights of religious groups not to be compelled to perform same-sex marriage. However, there is acknowledged uncertainty about the rights of individuals to publicly criticize homosexual behaviour, to take out advertisements that quote scripture demanding that homosexuals be put to death, or to refuse to do business with groups whose views an individual or group finds objectionable.

For that reason, a Defence of Religions law could face challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Rulings by human-rights commissions and courts across the country have sent mixed signals about the limits of freedom of expression and religious freedom when they conflict with equality rights and existing hate laws.

One source said the complexity of the subject has delayed the bill, which could also delay the timing of the motion on same-sex marriage. However, the source maintained that, while work on the new federal measure is not nearly finished, “the point is there. People have to have the right to say what they want.”

Without preventive legislation, some government members fear that church groups and individuals would be taken to court for uttering negative remarks about gays that other members of society view as discriminatory. That is why the measures are being considered in two parts: to protect individuals from having to perform same-sex marriage, and to protect free speech. Protecting the rights to freedom of religion and speech will be a key theme of the Conservative government, as it attempts to navigate the same-sex marriage issue without alienating either its social conservative base or more socially liberal supporters.

In response to allegations in the House of Commons yesterday of homophobic remarks by a member of the Conservatives' political staff, Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeated his government's determination to protect the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. “At the same time,” he added, “we also defend the right of people of religious faith to practise their religion and to express their religious views.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../BNStory/Front

Up till now, I had been thinking that the new conservative gov't under Harper was Ok.

Till now.

I read this in the Globe and Mail and immediately thought, "uh huh, so, here we have the "hidden agenda" that Paul Martin and the Liberals were speaking about.

It's crap like this that makes me think that Harper and his cronies are indeed a bunch of right wing nut bars right up there with their neocon buddies south of the border.

In reading the above, I was thinking to myself, "substitute the word "black" in for everytime they write "Gay", then re-read the article.

It's just descrimination pure and simple.

I don't know how much this crap will affect Harper with the voters, however, it makes me rethink ever voting for the Conservatives.

Last edited by james t kirk; 10-04-2006 at 03:26 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
james t kirk is offline  
Old 10-04-2006, 06:33 PM   #2 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Antikarma's Avatar
 
Location: Yellowknife, NWT
I'm going to refrain from comment on this until I see it tabled. I'm sorry, but I can't see the Tories being crazy enough to try and push this through. Agree with it or not, this government is still young enough to be in the credibility building stages. The libs will have new leadership soon enough, and their opportunity to take advantage of the disarray is pretty much gone.

I hope it isn't true. I was one of those slowly being weaned away from the Red Side.
__________________
"Whoever you are, go out into the evening,
leaving your room, of which you know each bit;
your house is the last before the infinite,
whoever you are."
Antikarma is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 04:42 AM   #3 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
I agree with Antikarma.

I don't see them as tabling this as it is. It would never get the majority it needs to pass. That said, if they remove some of the more odious bits (like permitting a Justice of the Peace to turn down the request) it might squeak through.

I see this more as a sop to toss to their socially conservative allies so they can hold their heads up and say, "we tried, it was the heathens in opposition that stopped us."
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 05:06 AM   #4 (permalink)
Functionally Appropriate
 
fresnelly's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
From what I can tell (hope) is that this is mostly posturing. Every article I've read has pointed out the unconstitutional scope of such legislation. Public Servants given the right to refuse service based on religious doctrine? Puh-leeze.

I imagine the tabled legislation will be limited to some bland affirmation of the Freedom of Religion. Fingers crossed.
__________________
Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life
fresnelly is offline  
Old 10-07-2006, 09:29 AM   #5 (permalink)
The Death Card
 
Ace_O_Spades's Avatar
 
Location: EH!?!?
I have faith that IF such legislation IS tabled, that:

a) The voters will show their distaste and anger at the polls;
b) The supreme court will recognize the unconstitutional nature of the bill and find it of no force and effect

Freedom of religion is not absolute. Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The freedom of religion is NOT absolute... it must be tempered along side the other rights guaranteed by the Charter, with no single right having dominance over the others.

This is the face of the Conservatives I was waiting for, and knew it would come about eventually.

I almost hope they table this so that it can bite them in the ass so hard the won't come to power for another 13 years.
__________________
Feh.
Ace_O_Spades is offline  
Old 10-07-2006, 11:36 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
They may be pandering to the right wing whacko element of their party, but yu have to wonder who those people would vote for if they didn't vote conservative anyway?

The NDP?

I don't think so.

The reality is that the Conservatives are alienating the small L liberals such as myself who might actually vote for them (Maybe).

The very fact that they even suggest this shit now alienates me from ever voting for them.

The discussion was had previously, the time for debate is past, the law has been enacted.

Live with it.
james t kirk is offline  
Old 10-09-2006, 08:20 PM   #7 (permalink)
Archangel of Change
 
Everyone knew the Conservatives would do this kinda thing, which is why when polls suggested they would win a majority, so many people switched their vote to Liberal to prevent their majority. This Conservative term is merely punishment for the Liberals, not actually people wanting a Conservative government.
hobo is offline  
Old 10-31-2006, 07:36 AM   #8 (permalink)
Upright
 
Would gay people really want to have themselves joined by an obviously anti-gay justice of the peace?

Also the freedome of speech part doesn't really bother me, since hey it's not the 1980's and Canada isn't Soviet Russia.

Besides churches are not government, they're private businesses, they don't have to perform a service if they don't want to.

All I see happening if this passes is that homosexuals who want to get married might have to shop around a bit and can't have opposition muzzles even if they are not being hatemongers.
Mauser is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 01:46 PM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Ah, the issue comes alive as our shifty eyed Prime Minister schedules debate for next week on the issue of Same Sex Marriage.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home
james t kirk is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 02:44 PM   #10 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauser
Would gay people really want to have themselves joined by an obviously anti-gay justice of the peace?
The real question is would you want to be an anti-gay Justice of the Peace that has to marry a same-sex couple?

If the answer is no, then you'd better be prepared to find a new line of work.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 05:28 PM   #11 (permalink)
it's jam
 
splck's Avatar
 
Location: Lowerainland BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by james t kirk
Ah, the issue comes alive as our shifty eyed Prime Minister schedules debate for next week on the issue of Same Sex Marriage.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home
Sounds like they are fulfilling an election promise no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by from the article
During the election campaign, Harper promised to hold a free vote in the Commons on whether Parliament should revisit the issue. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he is willing to abide by a decision by the Commons to let the current law stand.
I don't think anything is going to change after this "free vote"...They'll talk about it then drop it like they should.
__________________
nice line eh?
splck is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 09:28 AM   #12 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
I agree with Antikarma.
I see this more as a sop to toss to their socially conservative allies so they can hold their heads up and say, "we tried, it was the heathens in opposition that stopped us."
They got a lot of support and money from the bible thumpers, so they have to visit it even thought they know it won't be popular. A lot of people seem to think that the CPC wants to take society back 40 years, but I doubt that all those old catholic liberal higher-ups are big fans of gay marriage (union) either.
Mauser is offline  
 

Tags
antigay, bill, colours, conservatives, revealed, table, true

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:32 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360