🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gall-0204981606260001@usrts2m2.uwinnipeg.ca>, gall@uwinnipeg.ca 
(Norman Gall) wrote:

>In article
><Pine.A41.3.95.980402125511.30972D-100000@fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>,
>Socred <socred@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> THE ALBERTA SOCIAL CREDIT PARTY - OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE
>> April 2, 1998
>
>Oh great.
>
>> "It's time for moral leadership, not political correctness, invoke
>> the notwithstanding clause"
>
>Trans: "It's time to forget about the individual rights of our citizens."
>

Nope. The correct translations is: let people decide for themselves, with 
their own stuff.

>> Randy Thorsteinson, Leader of the Alberta Social Credit Party extended
>> a challenge to Premier Ralph Klein.
>> 
>> "With today's decision in the Delwin Vriend case by the Supreme Court
>> a major test of moral leadership has been placed before Premier Ralph
>> Klein. It is time for Mr. Klein to display moral leadership by rejecting
>> the decision of the Supreme Court and invoke the notwithstanding clause
>> of the Constitution. The Court's decision is a fundamental attack on
>> the moral fabric of our society and will certainly lead to a radical shift
>> in our rights."
>
>Oh, god. 'Fundamental attack on the moral fabric' This presumes that we
>want to use the law to promote bigotry and ignorance.
>

Nope. I just figure it means the state wishes to impose its view of moral 
righteousness--and that _is_ a fundamental attack on the moral fabric because 
it prevents people from acting in accordance with their deeply held 
convictions. As long as a person is not aggressive, I _support_ the right of 
people to discriminate against gays and bisexuals. And don't go jumping to 
conclusions...I _am_ bisexual, and I figure people have a perfect right not to 
rent to me (for instance) if they find my sexual preference unsupportable.


>> "There are basically five major areas of concern that will come about
>> as a result of this decision."
>> 
>> 1.) Redefinition of the Family
>
>Good.

Bad. definition of the family is not the proper role of government.

>
>> I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God
>> and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal
>> destiny of His children. 
>
>Well, interestingly enough, your wrong. And even if you are right, so
>what?  This decision doesn't prevent the faithful from getting married,
>holding a central position in God's plan, or their destiny. It does
>prevent the faithful from interfering in other people's lives.
>

Nope. It merely prevents people from not supporting decisions they find 
abhorrent.

>> This ruling will lead to a new definition
>> of the family by ultimately recognizing homosexual marriage and adoption.
>
>Hooray!

See above.

>
>> 2.) Eventual recognition of Paedophilia
>
>Scaremongering idiocy.
>
>> Nothing is more repulsive than the sexual exploitation and desecration
>> of children. This decision will eventually legitimize paedophiles. 
>
>Nope.
>
>> Their
>> argument will rest on this decision, they will argue that they cannot be 
>> discriminated against because of their "sexual orientation". Eventually 
>> they will be successful in this challenge.
>
>The desire to have sex with children isn't a 'sexual orientation'. 

Common ground. Pedophiles are of both genders and both genders are equally 
wrong when acting on their fantasies.

>
>> 3.) Erosion of Parental Rights
>> 
>> This decision will remove a Parent's right to choose who works with
>> their children. 
>
>Based on irrelevant and incosequential ground, yes.  Do you think a parent
>ahs the right to have a black or male or female or asian or native or
>white teacher on the grounds that they they don't want one of 'them'
>teaching their children?
>

Yep. I think many of these decisions are stupid but I don't think every 
_should_ needs a law attached to it.

>> Parents will not be allowed to refuse a homosexual
>> hockey coach or scout leader. Parents will not be allowed to
>> "discriminate" against homosexual predators such as the infamous Graham
>> James, coach of the Calgary Hitmen.
>
>The keyword here is 'predator'. They'll always have the right to
>'discrimiante' on that basis - just not on the basis of orientation. 

But they _should_ have the right to discriminate on that basis.

>There are more heterosexual predators and by parity of reasoning we could
>then discharge people on the grounds that they are hetero.  The bisexuals
>rule the world!
>

No we don't--and we are no more or less privy to honour or lack of character 
than anyone else.

>> 4.) Erosion of Religious Freedom
>
>Trans: Erosion of Religious Bigotry
>

That will happen anyway--without oppressive laws like this one. I do know 
this--if someone is walking down a street in the direction I want them to 
go...if I walk up behind them and PUSH, they'll stop and turn around--and they 
are not wrong for doing so.

>> The decision should send shivers down the backs of people of all faiths.
>
>Interestingly, it doesn't.
>

It should--but not for the reason lots of people think.

>> Churches will no longer be allowed to "discriminate" against people for
>> their sexual orientation. 
>
>Good.

Bad.

>
>> Churches will eventually be forced to accept
>> homosexual clergy and homosexual marriage.
>
>Maybe.
>

I hope not.

>> The government will be
>> redefining what is politically correct and acceptable. 
>
>Perhaps.

Which is a shame.

>
>> We will eventually
>> shift from religious freedom to state mandated religious beliefs and
>> practices.
>
>This is slippery-slope scaremongering.
>

Naw..they got a point.

>> 5.) Unselected judges should not make law
>> 
>> The laws of the land should be made by the people of Alberta through
>> their elected representatives, not through an unelected body in Ottawa.
>
>The judges didn't make law - they pointed out that the 'law' that the
>people of Alberta made was not valid under Canadian law.  Would you be so
>quick to dismiss the ruling of the SCC if it ruled that a law requiring
>all Christians to live in certain areas of town was unconstitutional? 
>Would you be screaming that 'Judges should not make law'?  Would you be
>perfectly content if Pariament invloked the Notwithstanding clause to do
>it anyway?  I doubt it.
>

As I said in another post--the _real_ issue is the proper role of government 
and the erosion of property rights..

Ron