james t kirk

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.

Antikarma

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."

Charlatan

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

fresnelly

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

Ace_O_Spades

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.

james t kirk

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.

hobo

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.

Mauser

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.

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

Charlatan

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

splck

Sounds like they are fulfilling an election promise no?
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?

Mauser

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.