🚀 go-pugleaf

One, Canadian Senator, I believe his name is Kinella, wanted the Bill
to be amended to include adding Gays to the federal Employment Equity
Law.  I wonder when people will wake up to the fact that Bill C-64
(Employment Equity Act) was passed last year?  

Sorry, I don't know much about gays issues, but if you have read
the Employment Equity Act, there is a lot fundamentally wrong with
it.  If you want more information about the federal Act or my
criticisms of it, let me know and I will post them.



Robert Speirs (ab304@ccn.cs.dal.ca) wrote:

:                               ALERT!  ALERT!  ALERT!

: There is no time for petitions. You must call your MP IMMEDIATELY! The government is
: trying to push Bill C-33 through as quickly as possible - most likely early next week.
: Chretien does not want any chance of organized resistance like he had with C-41.

: The government is "smoothing over" this amendment by saying that Bill C-33 is not
: about benefits, that it will not undermine the family, and will not change the definition
: of spouse. Of course not; these things have been left to the courts to interpret.

: The potential consequences of amendment to the Human Rights Act are:

: - Automatic extension of same-sex benefits.

: The Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Max Yalden, has
: already stated clearly ( 15 March 1994 ) that "We are strongly in favour of an
: amendment that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. That means
: that if benefits are paid to a heterosexual couple living common law, the same benefits
: should be paid to a couple living in the same situation, except that they are two men or
: two women. Our position on that matter is very clear. We are waiting for the
: government's reaction."

: In the Egan case ( 25 May 1995 ), a homosexual couple was seeking pension benefits to
: be paid to one of the partners. In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court of Canada
: decided against Egan/Nesbit saying that "the government must be accorded some
: flexibility in extending social benefits..." If the Human Rights Act is amended, cases
: such as these will succeed because it will be in violation of the Human Rights Act to
: discriminate based on sexual orientation.

: - Revision of the criminal code.

: EGALE has already briefed the Justice Committee ( on Bill C-41 ) that Section 318 of
: the criminal code be revised ( as per the revision in the Human Rights Act ) to make it a
: criminal offence to state that homosexuality is wrong or abnormal. EGALE's strategy
: calls for revising the criminal code once the Human Rights Act is amended.

: - Legalization of same-sex marriages.

: Even though the Justice Minister Allan Rock has proclaimed ( 25 October 1994 ) that the
: amendment of the Human Rights Act would have "no bearing on definitions of family or
: spouse", some judges have already previously stated that after amendment, they would
: interpret "family" and "marital status" as including homosexual couples ( for example:
: Chief Justice Lamer in the Mossop case, 1993 ).

: Same-sex marriage applications will have to be accepted because the Federal Marriage
: Act must comply with the Human Rights Act.

: - Redefinition of the word spouse.

: The current definition refers to people of the opposite sex and will be clearly
: discriminatory. There are fifty-one different federal statutes that contain the word
: spouse; all will have to be revised to be in line with the Human Rights Act.

: - Adoption by same-sex couples.

: This has already been tried unsuccessfully by a lesbian couple in Ontario in 1995. If
: the Human Rights Act is amended, these cases will succeed.

: - Changes in immigration policy.

: Homosexual spousal applications will be allowed for immigrants. This has already been
: tried; as an Immigration critic in an earlier Parliament, Tom Wappel ( MP, Scarborough
: West ) was petitioned by homosexual groups to allow sponsorship of homosexual
: spouses into Canada.

: Refugee claims based on sexual orientation will made. This, too, has already been tried
: to prevent extradition to a country where homosexual tolerance is not as "forgiving"
: as Canada.

: In addition, the Citizenship and Immigration Act must comply with the Canadian Human
: Rights Act.

: - Employment equity.

: This is interesting. Section 16(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, if modified, will
: read that a "special program, plan or arrangement" can be adopted to "eliminate or
: reduce disadvantages" due to "...sexual orientation..." by "improving opportunities
: respecting goods, services, facilities, accommodations or employment...".

: This, also, has also been lobbied for by the December 9 Coalition ( 12 March 1994 ): "The
: government should include lesbians and gay men in its employment equity programs."
: Clearly, this is not a case of seeking "equality" from discrimination, but "sexual
: orientation" offers a special privilege (i.e. positive discrimination).

: - Freedom of religion.

: Religion is already restricted today, even before amendment of the Human Rights Act.
: The rights accorded to homosexuals today, as interpreted by the courts, already grant
: them much protection.

: Consider the case The Catholic School Board of Montreal v/s The Homosexual
: Association of Quebec (1980). The School Board refused to rent its facilities to the
: Association because they were an educational institution and homosexuality was
: condemned by the Catholic Church. They were brought to court, but the courts did not
: agree and ruled against the Church.

: Consider also the recent Alberta case where a homosexual teacher was dismissed from
: his job at a religious school. He took the school to court and, even though the school
: did not feel the teacher provided the appropriate role model for religious teaching,
: the courts ruled in his favour.

: If the Human Rights Act is amended, freedom of religion will be further restricted
: because it cannot be preached that homosexuality is immoral.

: - Freedom of speech.

: Obvious conclusion. In this area, homosexuals are already well-protected - sometimes
: at the expense of others who hold a different moral opinion. Consider the recent case
: of the Hamilton mayor who refused to declare a "Gay Pride Day" in his city. A
: homosexual resident objected and the mayor was brought to court and fined in his
: personal capacity for this. Imagine what can happen if the Human Rights Act
: specifically prevents discrimination, this being a moral issue or not.

: It is clear that the homosexual's "rights" are already well-protected by the current
: Human Rights Act. However, as detailed above, it is benefits and privileges that the
: lobbyists are seeking.

: - "Sexual orientation" is undefined.

: Though "sexual orientation" is to be inserted into the Canadian Human Rights Act, there
: is no definition of this term. Criminal lawyers and medical professionals have included
: "heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, paedophilia, bestiality, scopophilia" as
: possible sexual orientations. Undefined legislation will leave it to the courts to
: define this term. This is a dangerous precedent, since court interpretations are in
: constant flux and are never immune from challenges and change.

: This was the major controversy for Bill C-41 last year. The fear was that if "sexual
: orientation" was not defined in Bill C-41, it will be proposed in the same manner for the
: Canadian Human Rights Act. This is exactly what is happening now.

: "It is because of the problem of definition of those words ( sexual orientation ) that
: we do not think that they should be in the constitution. Do not ask me today to tell you
: what it is, because those concepts are very difficult to interpret, to define and that
: is why we do not want them in the constitution." This was spoken in 1981 by the then-
: Justice Minister, Jean Chretien. Today, he is pushing through the House legislation to
: amend the Canadian Human Rights Act with just as much ambiguity in the term "sexual
: orientation" as was evident fifteen years ago.

: It must be made clear that the fight against Bill C-33 is not an attack against
: homosexuals. It is important to distinguish that the object of concern is the Bill C-33
: to amend the Human Rights Act; the object of concern is not the homosexual person.
: Homosexuals deserves the dignity of choice for their own sexual lifestyle. There is no
: argument that homesexuals, like all persons, should be treated with respect and that
: they should have the freedom to express their views.

: However, homosexual behaviour is a moral issue, and by including it via an undefined
: term ("sexual orientation") in the Human Rights Act is dangerous and upsets the moral
: basis for the traditional marriage and family and which society is built.

: Why is the government rushing this legislation?

: It is important that all concerned Canadians contact their MPs and express that they
: do NOT support an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to include "sexual
: orientation". The minimum that you should do is call your MP and tell them that you
: object to the amendment. All it takes is one telephone call.

: Tell your MP to INSIST that the government NOT rush this issue. This is a highly
: controversial issue that, contrary to the government's opinion, many people see as
: being a moral issue. The proper approach is to have appropriate, extensive and public
: study on the proposed amemdments so that Canadians can voice their opinions. There is
: no reason to rush this amendment.

: If you do not know who is your MP, call Elections Canada at 1-800-463-6868.

: THERE IS VERY LITTLE TIME LEFT!