🚀 go-pugleaf

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."

> 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.

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

Good.

> 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.

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

Hooray!

> 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'.

> 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?

> 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!

> 4.) Erosion of Religious Freedom

Trans: Erosion of Religious Bigotry

> The decision should send shivers down the backs of people of all faiths.

Interestingly, it doesn't.

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

Good.

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

Maybe.

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

Perhaps.

> We will eventually
> shift from religious freedom to state mandated religious beliefs and
> practices.

This is slippery-slope scaremongering.

> 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.

> "It is time for Mr. Klein to demonstrate some courage and moral
> leadership. The notwithstanding clause should be used in only rare,
> extremely critical circumstances. This is such a situation, as the
> very moral foundation of our society is at stake."

Yes it is.  Stop trying to tear it down.

> "Those of us who oppose this decision will be branded as homophobic.
> The reality is that we are not homophobic but rather our critics are
> moralphobic."

Afraid of morals?  You bet you are.


Norm Gall

-- 
"Never ask a man what sort of computer he drives. If it's a Mac, 
 he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?"        - Tom Clancy