🚀 go-pugleaf

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:

>> 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. 
>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!

The difference, of course, is that if there are any legal limitations
to schools and such firing *who* they want *when* they want with the
person dismissed *having no legal recourse whatever*, we might have to
wait until a sexual predator is _convicted_ if the courts choose to
grant him bail!

At the very least, he might still get paid a salary, even when the
school can no longer safely have him doing work. _Things like that
have already happened, both for teachers and for police officers!_ TAX
DOLLARS - money taken *by the threat of force* from the people who
EARNED it - required to be _wasted_!!! Not one penny of tax money
should ever have to go out for anything but value recieved!

And by having only male teachers work with male students, and only
female teachers work with female students, in high-risk activities
like athletics, we can totally prevent sexual abuse,

provided that homosexual urges are entirely absent among the teachers
used for such activities.

If we can't detect pedophiles in advance with 100% certainty, then we
have to resort to broader preventive measures. Any interference in
people's rights is absolutely trivial compared to the horrendous
violation of a child's rights when that child is molested in a way we
might possibly have been able to prevent.

In any case, the threat of child molesting is a minor factor. The case
of King's College had to do with the right of parents to have their
children educated in a climate that reflected their own cultural and
religious values. According to an _Alberta Report_ article, Delwin
Vriend wasn't fired because of his sexuality being accidentally
discovered or turned up by some sort of snooping, but because he
brought the issue into the classroom - trying to promote a viewpoint
contrary to the Biblical beliefs integral to the curriculum of the
school.

Just as there should have been no need for a hate literature law to
deal with Jim Keegstra - he used classroom time to present a view of
history contrary to that in the curriculum, and thus he defrauded his
employer - I cannot see his firing as other than completely
appropriate.

But that homosexuals should be protected by law against discrimination
where their orientation is irrelevant - and that does cover a lot of
ground - is something I agree with. It's still unclear to me exactly
what issue was before the Supreme Court, and therfore its specific
ruling may have little wrong with it. Currently, though, it doesn't
seem like our society is capable of sustaining legislation reflecting
such delicate balances. Instead, our current spate of excesses in the
name of fairness looks likely to end in a swing of the pendulum back
to the bad old days of open discrimination of every kind.

John Savard