this is lovely

[meggo]

Tories plan to protect same-sex opponents

If government loses bid to reopen debate, Defence of Religions Act is next option

By JOHN IBBITSON , BILL CURRY and BRIAN LAGHI

OTTAWA -- The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

The measures are also intended to protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders and others who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Any legislation would be brought forward only if the government loses the motion this fall to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage. All indications are that the motion, which would authorize the government to introduce legislation to repeal the same-sex marriage law passed by Parliament last year, will be defeated by a combination of Opposition MPs supported by a few Conservatives.

Introducing a Defence of Religions Act would breathe new life into an issue that otherwise might have expired, and could become pivotal in an election expected as early as next spring. A solid core of Conservative MPs and socially conservative supporters are determined not to let the issue die without introducing some protections for those who are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage.

While refusing to discuss specifics, Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed the government's intentions yesterday in an interview.

"The nature of the concerns that are being raised with me are relating to freedom of religion and freedom to practice religion [and] freedom of expression," he said.

"The Prime Minister has indicated that he is bringing the matter forward -- the issue of same-sex marriage -- on a free vote. And there may be certain options open to the government as to what the response should be in either event, whether that opening is successful or not successful."

Sources say the government is considering measures to protect individuals who oppose homosexual marriages or even relationships from human rights' complaints.

The measures would seek to ensure, for example, that churches cannot be forced to rent their halls for same-sex marriage receptions, or that a justice of the peace cannot be compelled to marry a same-sex couple in violation of his or her religious beliefs.

Justice officials have also been told to search for ways to protect the rights of individuals to criticize homosexual activity because it contravenes religious teachings, or to refuse to do business with organizations whose purposes he or she disagrees with, without being brought before a human-rights tribunal.

The working title for the vehicle that could enshrine these measures is the Defence of Religions Act.

The former Liberal government said that existing laws and court rulings already protect the rights of religious groups not to be compelled to perform same-sex marriage.

However, there is acknowledged uncertainty about the rights of individuals to publicly criticize homosexual behaviour, to take out advertisements that quote scripture demanding that homosexuals be put to death, or to refuse to do business with groups whose views an individual or group finds objectionable.

For that reason, a Defence of Religions law could face challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Rulings by human-rights commissions and courts across the country have sent mixed signals about the limits of freedom of expression and religious freedom when they conflict with equality rights and existing hate laws.

One source said the complexity of the subject has delayed the bill, which could also delay the timing of the motion on same-sex marriage. However, the source maintained that, while work on the new federal measure is not nearly finished, "the point is there. People have to have the right to say what they want."

Without preventive legislation, some government members fear that church groups and individuals would be taken to court for uttering negative remarks about gays that other members of society view as discriminatory.

That is why the measures are being considered in two parts: to protect individuals from having to perform same-sex marriage, and to protect free speech.

Protecting the rights to freedom of religion and speech will be a key theme of the Conservative government, as it attempts to navigate the same-sex marriage issue without alienating either its social conservative base or more socially liberal supporters.

In response to allegations in the House of Commons yesterday of homophobic remarks by a member of the Conservatives' political staff, Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeated his government's determination to protect the rights of gay and lesbian citizens.

"At the same time," he added, "we also defend the right of people of religious faith to practise their religion and to express their religious views."

The measures the Conservatives are pondering resemble a private member's bill unveiled this year in the Alberta legislature, which would have allowed civil service marriage commissioners to refuse their services to gays.

That bill, introduced by Alberta MLA and PC leadership candidate Ted Morton, would also have forbidden anyone from being punished legally for speaking out on or acting on their beliefs against gay marriage.

Mr. Morton is a leader among the social conservative movement and is close to a number of Conservative MPs.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

This makes me want to pursue ordination just to see what I could get away with under the auspices of this kind of Act.

This is just absurd. Any minister has the right to refuse to marry people if they don't adequately subscribe to the tenets of the faith. Being married in an Anglican church way back when, we were obliged to go through the marriage prep course they'd set up; had we refused, we'd have just had to keep shopping around - or go civil. And that's just the Anglicans; I bet the Baptists, C&MA, Reformed, or other churches set the bar considerably higher. Try getting a job teaching in a confessional school without signing off on the statement of faith they put in front of you.

This is how a government encourages intolerance - by willfully promoting it. And what gay couple would ever want to be married by these people anyway?

[ollie]

OTTAWA -- The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

I don't have a problem with religious figures refusing to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony because it conflicts with his or her faith but aren't Justices of the Peace supposed to be secular?

[Birdy]

yes, they are.

i'm with you ollie.

[ollie]

yes, they are.

i'm with you ollie.

Twice in the same year?

[Booche]

You guys make a cute couple.

[phishtaper]

its all such wasteful political pandering to the ultra right wing element of their base of support. the proposed defense of religion act would be shot down by the supreme court eventually, like every other legislation designed to limit, or worse - retract, rights (and they know that, but they get a few years of 'benefit'), and/or; create a huge legal quagmire as to what constitutes 'religious expression' in the workplace. messy messy

it is indeed quite sad that they would consider this very hurtful approach. i just figured they simply would have held the vote to re-open debate (it wont pass) and then say to their conservative base "well, we tried" and move on, into the 21st century.

oh well. such is politics, and one can never underestimate the resoursefulness of nutbars.

[phishtaper]

This will appease and mobilize the religious right in the CPC party for the next election.

true, nothing like a little bit of common hatred and bigotry to bring people together, eh :crazy: and here I thot that was the definition of fascism

[djmelbatoast]

No clergy can be forced, by the government, to marry same-sex people if they don't want to.

[SmoothedShredder]

its all such wasteful political pandering to the ultra right wing element of their base of support. the proposed defense of religion act would be shot down by the supreme court eventually, like every other legislation designed to limit, or worse - retract, rights (and they know that, but they get a few years of 'benefit'), and/or; create a huge legal quagmire as to what constitutes 'religious expression' in the workplace. messy messy

it is indeed quite sad that they would consider this very hurtful approach. i just figured they simply would have held the vote to re-open debate (it wont pass) and then say to their conservative base "well, we tried" and move on, into the 21st century.

oh well. such is politics, and one can never underestimate the resoursefulness of nutbars.

Good post.

[StoneMtn]

I don't think that is the definition of fascism, actually.

Fascism comes from the idea that the group as a single unit is stronger than any individual, and on that basis strives for a strong, central government with a focus on nationalism, and the good/benefit of the state is of paramount importance. That is where the symbol of fascism comes from, being the twigs bundled together.

Fascism is not inherently a bad system of government; it just tends to be co-opted by evil people and abused.

[The Chameleon]

My firends were just married in Halifax last August and another firend of thiers got ordained on-line!, and was legally allowed to perfom the service.

So this is just more ultra right wing knee jerk "gay people are icky" boasting and grandstanding.

'Casue if you are gay and want to get married, it is not hard to be approved to do so.

[phishtaper]

ive always bought into the school of thought that fascism also included a distinct element of unity based on difference with, or superiority to, others, usually outside the state. cool cool, i wont argue the definition of it with ya because I agree with what you say.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

That is where the symbol of fascism comes from, being the twigs bundled together.

Quite right - the fasces comes from imperial Rome, as a symbols of its power. I'm surprised you didn't mention the thing it's bundled around, though - the axe that is to deal with people who don't accept that power.

Lipset calls fascism an "extremism of the centre" - I've always found that one intriguing.

[StoneMtn]

the axe that is to deal with people who don't accept that power.

I prefer to believe it's an electric guitar; '80s metal style.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Somebody once made the comment that a house divided cannot stand.

[Yoda]Legion, these Tories are.[/Yoda]

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Good piece; yes, Ollie nailed it. We have a public/private distinction around religion that has ultimately to be respected.

Unfortunately, it means that public officials need to be able to recognise and respect other (private) people's choices about how they conduct their lives. I don't think the jokers in power right now necessarily want to bolster these sorts of distinctions. They're too busy trying to "reclaim this country for Christ" to allow that kind of thinking to be entertained.

[bradm]

The Conservatives also seem to have a mix-up between beliefs and behaviour. I saw a segment on CTV Newsnet last night about the (alleged) legislation*, with one Liberal, one NDP, and one Conservative. The Liberal and the NDP members took the position that the matter had been decided, that religious freedoms were protected under the current legislation, and that nothing needed to be done. The Conservative member then went on about how provincial officiators (e.g., Justices of the Peace) had to be protected from being fired for "their religious beliefs" if they didn't officiate same-sex marriages.

I started speaking back to the TV in a raised voice: an officiator who's fired for not performing same-sex marriages is not being fired for his/her religious beliefs, he/she is being fired for not performing his/her job. If your job is to officiate marriages according to the law(s) in your province, then if you don't do that, you should be fired. It's the same as if the stated officiating hours were 9am-5pm, Monday-Friday, but the officiator decides that nobody can be married between 2pm and 3pm because his/her favourite soap opera is on. It doesn't matter why an officiator declines to marry a couple, if he/she implements policy that's different (more restrictive, in particular) from the law, he/she should be disciplined or fired.

Aloha,

Brad

* Would alleged legislation be allegislation?

[Birdy]

It doesn't matter why an officiator declines to marry a couple, if he/she implements policy that's different (more restrictive, in particular) from the law, he/she should be disciplined or fired.

i agree... but all you need is an ambitious lawyer to throw the Charter in front of a court's face to change it all... whether they'd win, i doubt it.. but

then again.. that appointment of what's his face, the social Conservative judge (mentioned in another thread), Justice David Brown (i really can't remember) is interesting when considering all of this.. looks like the Conservatives might be stacking things up.

[ollie]

I started speaking back to the TV in a raised voice: an officiator who's fired for not performing same-sex marriages is not being fired for his/her religious beliefs, he/she is being fired for not performing his/her job. If your job is to officiate marriages according to the law(s) in your province, then if you don't do that, you should be fired. It's the same as if the stated officiating hours were 9am-5pm, Monday-Friday, but the officiator decides that nobody can be married between 2pm and 3pm because his/her favourite soap opera is on. It doesn't matter why an officiator declines to marry a couple, if he/she implements policy that's different (more restrictive, in particular) from the law, he/she should be disciplined or fired.

Mmmmm... sweet delicious logic.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

This looks like a job for... the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!

Or how about the Raelians? Maybe all public processes ought to be conducted by people in their natural, stark-naked state.

Unless, that is, someone has solid evidence that certain religions can be judged empirically more valid than any other traditions anyone wants to cook up.

I can't believe the CPC is walking open-eyed into this. Or maybe the point is that they're not yet open-eyed. Didn't they learn anything from Ontario and its troubles around confessional education?

[djmelbatoast]

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/57/fsmpiratespz5.th.jpg' alt='fsmpiratespz5.th.jpg'>

[d_rawk]

Apologies for skimming ... the thread is pretty long.

I also have no problem with the meat of what has been proposed. But, as been pointed out, it is redundant. These things are already protected. So why go through this motion? I don't understand how pandering to the right-wing base makes any sense, because those are not the type of people to stay home during an election in the first place, and they have no other option than the CPC anyways.

So why all this convoluted twisting to say something that has not only already been said, but to (re-)make legally something that is already a matter of law? 'Tis fucked up.

The only interesting and unique part of this whole exercise seems to be the bit about the Justice of the Peace. I'm on board with Ollie, Birdy, et al. in thinking that this particular bit is entirely unacceptable. A public civic duty is something quite distinct from a private religious conviction. The cynic in me imagines that the entire proposed "Defense of Religions Act" can only be cover for sneaking in the bit to exempt public officials from their sworn and legal duty. The rest of it is just rehashing those same rights that are already guaranteed. As they should be.

[djmelbatoast]

The only logical reason for this is that they are NOT pandering to the social conservative fundamentalists but in fact ARE and allways have been the social conservative fundamentalists.

[Hux]

You're exactly right.

These are not your Mother's Progressive Conservatives.

They believe this stuff.