🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert Speirs 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.

< snip >

So?  What's wrong with this?


> - 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.

I find it unlikely that it would become illegal to state that homosexuality is wrong or
abnormal.  After all, it isn't illegal to state that heterosexuality is wrong or abnormal.


> - Legalization of same-sex marriages.

< snip >

So? What's wrong with that?


> - 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.

I would like to know what would be the consequences to these fifty-one statutes
if the definition of the word spouse were changed to include same-sex couples.
 

> - 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.

Since it has never been tried before in Canada, I can understand a certain amount of
fear of the unknown with regard to same-sex adoption (particularly among homophobics).
However, these same-sex couples would be subject to screening by the social services
authorities, while any heterosexual couple could simply give birth to a child without
any prior checks into their child-raising abilities.  Therefore, I think that
the potential that the child will experience a happy childhood with loving, caring
parents would be higher than average with same-sex (or any) adoption.


> - Changes in immigration policy.

> Homosexual spousal applications will be allowed for immigrants. <snip>

So?

> Refugee claims based on sexual orientation will be made.

Would you rather have these people tortured and killed in a foreign country?

< snip >

> - 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).

I don't think that positive discrimination is encouraged by the government's current
employment equity programmes.  If I am wrong, please post your evidence.  I personally
do not believe in "positive discrimination".  "Positive discrimination" is still
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.

There is no law that says that the Church has to rent its facilities.  But, if the
Church chooses to do so, it cannot discriminate against potential renters.  This is not
restricting anyone's freedom to practice their religion.  It is restricting their
freedom to discriminate against renters.  You are free to form any religious group you
like, but forming a religious group does not give anyone the freedom to discriminate
against others.

> 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.

Hmmm... this is a tricky one.  I can't offer a quick rebuttal to this one.
I am surprised that this teacher wanted to work there.

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

The neo-nazis preach hate all the time.  People don't like them, but do they get
prosecuted for it?  I don't think so.  Things change, however, when someone is
getting paid to preach to (teach) children. Especially in the public school system.


> - 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.

This does not sound right at all.  Is there something about this case that you
are not telling us?  If the majority of voters want a "Gay Pride Day", or if the
a majority in the city council votes for a "Gay Rights Day", then the Mayor is
obliged to declare one.  Otherwise, there should be no punishment (in my opinion).

> 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.

I don't agree.

It is FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION AND PERSECUTION that the lobbyists are seeking.
You seem to be overlooking the obvious.


> - "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.

I agree! This is dangerous. Paedophiles and the like MUST NOT be included in
the Human Rights Act.  This must be kept to CONSENTING ADULTS.


> 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.

I wouldn't call a free vote "pushing through".


> 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.

Doesn't the "moral basis for the traditional marriage and family" also include massive
discrimination against women (and others)?  I would argue that the moral basis of
our society has changed from that of the "traditional marriage and family".  The
traditional marriage and family is being re-defined whether we like it or not.
I like it, but apparently you do not.

> 
> 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.

It is equally important that those of us who DO support this bill also express their
opinions.


> 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!


-------------------------------------------
Jen Chitty

Expressing my (equal) right to freedom of expression.