Friday, June 30, 2006
Dems finally get some backbone
This is awesome. It's disgusting how the Republicans are going on and on about the NYTimes for doing its job - reporting. The mock outrage coming from the GOP is appalling. Forget the real problems we face (all of their doing) like New Orleans, the war, the deficit, healthcare, the fact that the entire planet loathes the United States - they're not really a big deal. Oh no, we have to go after the New York Times with some pathetic resolution condemning it for reporting on something that terrorists already knew.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
A Snowflake's Chance in Hell
Oh poor, poor Snowflake. First it's revealed that his party knew and willfully ignored the fact that they were benefitting from sponsorship scandal funds (he claims innonence from involvement. Ask a guy named Martin how that defence played out). Then Harper and Co. arrive on his doorstep for a Quebec love in. Together with Charest, the heat is getting turned up, and he's slowly melting away...
Let's hope certain afflictions don't pop up again now that he's under stress.
Let's hope certain afflictions don't pop up again now that he's under stress.
Flag Burning Nonsense
At least the Senate saw some sense - barely - and defeated the flag burning amendment. Thank god.
The sanctimony that comes out of those in favour of the amendment is truly sickening. According to the Post, the proponents "said that burning a U.S. flag in public -- while rare these days -- is a reprehensible insult to the nation's founders and a dishonor to the Americans who died fighting tyranny."
Well. Doesn't that sound a lot like the nutjobs in the Middle East saying that some cartoons are reprehensible insults to Mohammed and such things should be banned?
America: Free Speech, unless, of course, the moral majority doesn't like it. Once you open up the Constitution to being amended to prohibit controversial speech (not harmful), where does it stop? What about criticizing the President? What about insulting the nation? These are popular sorts of laws in other countries, but conceptually, once you ban burning a symbol of the nation, you open a pandora's box.
The scary thing is that the Constitution is now considered a legitimate battleground for any particular group that wants to impose its way on others.
The sanctimony that comes out of those in favour of the amendment is truly sickening. According to the Post, the proponents "said that burning a U.S. flag in public -- while rare these days -- is a reprehensible insult to the nation's founders and a dishonor to the Americans who died fighting tyranny."
Well. Doesn't that sound a lot like the nutjobs in the Middle East saying that some cartoons are reprehensible insults to Mohammed and such things should be banned?
America: Free Speech, unless, of course, the moral majority doesn't like it. Once you open up the Constitution to being amended to prohibit controversial speech (not harmful), where does it stop? What about criticizing the President? What about insulting the nation? These are popular sorts of laws in other countries, but conceptually, once you ban burning a symbol of the nation, you open a pandora's box.
The scary thing is that the Constitution is now considered a legitimate battleground for any particular group that wants to impose its way on others.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Things that unite us
It really is great how, no matter what your political stripe in Canada, the misfortune of separatists is something that can bring us all together. (On Kinsella's, scroll down to the Journal de Montreal entry).
Monday, June 26, 2006
Now that is power
I absolutely love that She doesn't even have to stand up to greet a premier.
For our American viewers, "She" is our beloved Governor General--I'm sure you've seen my adoration for her. The premier in question is the Hon. Dalton McGuinty, premier of Ontario, and arguably one of the more important political figures in Canada. This is from her visit to Ontario (cool pictures here).
Scalia, Bastard
The Court just decided that, in capital cases where aggravating and mitigating factors are equal, it is not wrong to require death. It's exciting to know, of course, that the top five countries in terms of executions include such luminaries as China, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.
But worse was Scalia's concurrence. He said,
But worse was Scalia's concurrence. He said,
The American people have determined that the good to be derived from capital punishment — in deterrence, and perhaps most of all in the meting out of condign justice for horrible crimes — outweighs the risk of error.
Um. No. This shouldn't be a risk-balancing test. You have a constitutional right not to be executed for a crime you didn't commit. The American people do not have a similar constitutional right to subject you to that risk for the purpose of retribution ("meting out of condign justice") or deterrence.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
The politics of victimhood
I have to say I completely agree with Margaret Wente, which is probably going to get me labled as some sort of racist bastard. Oh well, tough.
The politics of "we're sorry for ancient wrongs that Canadians of generations past committed against your ethnic group, here's a cheque." Maaaaybe, and only maybe, it might be okay to say, "Yes, it was wrong to do x or y or z."
But when does it end? As Wente says,
Victim groups are swarming to this pot as bees to nectar. According to government records released to the Winnipeg Free Press, Ukrainians want $12.5-million for their internment during the First World War. The Germans want $12.5-million, too. The Italians want $12.5-million for the internment of 700 men during the Second World War. The Sikhs want $4-million, the Croats $2.8-million, and the Jews $2-million for being barred from immigrating to Canada between 1923 and 1945. African Canadians and Doukhobors want another $7-million for unspecified grievances.
It never ends. Okay, I'm a white male anglo-saxon, so I don't get any ethnic grievances, but I am gay, and even though my experience in Canada has been overwhelmingly positive (as likely is the experience of every hyphenated Canadian, particularly Italian, German, and Ukranian), my gay ancestors were the victims of institutional discrimination - which continued until just last year when we could get married! Where's my cheque?
And also: sure, by our modern standards, head taxes and other stuff might be bad. By the standards of the time, Canada was still a much better place than the rest of the world. Sure, we might have put Japanese Canadians in interment camps between 1939-45, but there were other camps in other places that were a little more unpleasant.
There is not a nation extant that has a perfectly clean past. The general human condition is to kill his neighbour, or steal his cows or is wife. As I've said before, the study of history is the study of human misery and suffering. As countries go, Canada was relatively mild. The Chinese lamenting the head tax might do well to think of what life in China at the time was like - or what it's like now.
And: what real purpose does giving someone now - who probably is living a good life - a cheque for wrongs committed against their ancestors? What good does that do? Do they sleep better at night? (Maybe, if they buy a new mattress) Does a cheque give them some greater sense of dignity or worth (other than financial)?
So, I just don't get it. I don't understand the logic of because the Canadian state, a century ago, didn't live up to 21st century standards in its conduct, and did something to your distant ancestors (maybe, given immigration has continued), the consequences of which are not impacting on your life now, we need to give you a cheque?
All it will do is keep us mired endlessly in the past, with opportunistic groups seizing on their past identity, foresaking their modern identity as Canadians, lamenting some past mistreatment, and asking for a cheque.
The government should just say "Look, we regret that it took us some time to become the beacon of freedom and justice and tolerance that we are now. We are sorry that we couldn't get to our modern standards back then. We now regret some things that were done back then. Let's move on and keep building a better country, together."
The politics of "we're sorry for ancient wrongs that Canadians of generations past committed against your ethnic group, here's a cheque." Maaaaybe, and only maybe, it might be okay to say, "Yes, it was wrong to do x or y or z."
But when does it end? As Wente says,
Victim groups are swarming to this pot as bees to nectar. According to government records released to the Winnipeg Free Press, Ukrainians want $12.5-million for their internment during the First World War. The Germans want $12.5-million, too. The Italians want $12.5-million for the internment of 700 men during the Second World War. The Sikhs want $4-million, the Croats $2.8-million, and the Jews $2-million for being barred from immigrating to Canada between 1923 and 1945. African Canadians and Doukhobors want another $7-million for unspecified grievances.
It never ends. Okay, I'm a white male anglo-saxon, so I don't get any ethnic grievances, but I am gay, and even though my experience in Canada has been overwhelmingly positive (as likely is the experience of every hyphenated Canadian, particularly Italian, German, and Ukranian), my gay ancestors were the victims of institutional discrimination - which continued until just last year when we could get married! Where's my cheque?
And also: sure, by our modern standards, head taxes and other stuff might be bad. By the standards of the time, Canada was still a much better place than the rest of the world. Sure, we might have put Japanese Canadians in interment camps between 1939-45, but there were other camps in other places that were a little more unpleasant.
There is not a nation extant that has a perfectly clean past. The general human condition is to kill his neighbour, or steal his cows or is wife. As I've said before, the study of history is the study of human misery and suffering. As countries go, Canada was relatively mild. The Chinese lamenting the head tax might do well to think of what life in China at the time was like - or what it's like now.
And: what real purpose does giving someone now - who probably is living a good life - a cheque for wrongs committed against their ancestors? What good does that do? Do they sleep better at night? (Maybe, if they buy a new mattress) Does a cheque give them some greater sense of dignity or worth (other than financial)?
So, I just don't get it. I don't understand the logic of because the Canadian state, a century ago, didn't live up to 21st century standards in its conduct, and did something to your distant ancestors (maybe, given immigration has continued), the consequences of which are not impacting on your life now, we need to give you a cheque?
All it will do is keep us mired endlessly in the past, with opportunistic groups seizing on their past identity, foresaking their modern identity as Canadians, lamenting some past mistreatment, and asking for a cheque.
The government should just say "Look, we regret that it took us some time to become the beacon of freedom and justice and tolerance that we are now. We are sorry that we couldn't get to our modern standards back then. We now regret some things that were done back then. Let's move on and keep building a better country, together."
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Australia's GG's Abuse of Power
It's older news that the Australian federal government just nixed Canberra's same-sex marriage law. However, I didn't read until this morning about the procedural vehicle John Howard used.
The Australian Capital Territory passed a same-sex marriage bill. John Howard, the Tory Prime Minister, didn't like it. So he instructed the Governor General to decline Royal Assent.
This is wrong - a total abuse of power. Don't get me wrong. I believe that the GG - and the Sovereign - should have the power to disallow laws. But not like this. The GG isn't a device for the Federal Government to nix any law that it doesn't like. If the GG, on the advice of the PM, refuses to sign any bill that the PM doesn't like, then you run into the joy of a provincial government (e.g. Liberals in Ontario) being at the mercy of a federal government of a different political leaning (e.g. Tories in Ottawa).
The GG should be able to act on his or her own to protect the country as a whole - dealing with issues of constitutional importance, not political. I remember back in high school when the GST was introduced, we asked our history teacher whether the GG would veto the bill. He laughed, "It's only a tax bill." Exactly.
Imposing taxes, allowing same-sex marriage, creating agencies, reforming the criminal code - these are all political decisions, and should be left to the various governments, free of Royal interference. The Crown should move, however, when the state itself is threatened: if Parliament passed a law abolishing elections, or reversing the presumption of innocence, or abolishing the Supreme Court or judicial review. These are the sorts of decisions that the Crown should protect us from.
But using the Crown as a vehicle to stop decisions that the PM just doesn't like is an abuse. Australia's GG was wrong.
The Australian Capital Territory passed a same-sex marriage bill. John Howard, the Tory Prime Minister, didn't like it. So he instructed the Governor General to decline Royal Assent.
This is wrong - a total abuse of power. Don't get me wrong. I believe that the GG - and the Sovereign - should have the power to disallow laws. But not like this. The GG isn't a device for the Federal Government to nix any law that it doesn't like. If the GG, on the advice of the PM, refuses to sign any bill that the PM doesn't like, then you run into the joy of a provincial government (e.g. Liberals in Ontario) being at the mercy of a federal government of a different political leaning (e.g. Tories in Ottawa).
The GG should be able to act on his or her own to protect the country as a whole - dealing with issues of constitutional importance, not political. I remember back in high school when the GST was introduced, we asked our history teacher whether the GG would veto the bill. He laughed, "It's only a tax bill." Exactly.
Imposing taxes, allowing same-sex marriage, creating agencies, reforming the criminal code - these are all political decisions, and should be left to the various governments, free of Royal interference. The Crown should move, however, when the state itself is threatened: if Parliament passed a law abolishing elections, or reversing the presumption of innocence, or abolishing the Supreme Court or judicial review. These are the sorts of decisions that the Crown should protect us from.
But using the Crown as a vehicle to stop decisions that the PM just doesn't like is an abuse. Australia's GG was wrong.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
"Unfairly singles out the South"
So the House, in its wisdom, has delayed renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act, because apparently it unfairly singles out 9 southern states for special federal oversight.
Well, DUH. That's the POINT. It isn't the Northern states (or, for that matter, the blue ones) who go out of their way to keep black people from voting. Just like it wasn't the Northern states who had a poll tax on blacks to keep them from voting. For that matter, of course, it also wasn't the Northern states who, you know, had to have federal troops escort black kids to school.
It is ridiculous to me that the US, which advertises itself as the model democracy in the world, is so dysfunctional in its elections. The stories, every election, of trying to prevent blacks and latinos from voting (disguised as a concern over "voting fraud." Voting fraud happens in Kraplakistan, or in those countries where "elected" leaders routinely get 98.8% of the vote.) are sickening. Hanging chads, anyone? Stop the recount? Voting machines?
If the federal government didn't keep a gun against the heads of the southern states, they'd ban blacks from voting so fast it would be silly. But oh, no, we have to be sensitive to the South.
As the good folks over at Americablog point out:
Exactly. Fuck the South. Bible thumping conservative redneck hicks. It's time to stop letting them set the national agenda. Of course, the problem is that like rabits they breed faster than the rest of us . . .
Well, DUH. That's the POINT. It isn't the Northern states (or, for that matter, the blue ones) who go out of their way to keep black people from voting. Just like it wasn't the Northern states who had a poll tax on blacks to keep them from voting. For that matter, of course, it also wasn't the Northern states who, you know, had to have federal troops escort black kids to school.
It is ridiculous to me that the US, which advertises itself as the model democracy in the world, is so dysfunctional in its elections. The stories, every election, of trying to prevent blacks and latinos from voting (disguised as a concern over "voting fraud." Voting fraud happens in Kraplakistan, or in those countries where "elected" leaders routinely get 98.8% of the vote.) are sickening. Hanging chads, anyone? Stop the recount? Voting machines?
If the federal government didn't keep a gun against the heads of the southern states, they'd ban blacks from voting so fast it would be silly. But oh, no, we have to be sensitive to the South.
As the good folks over at Americablog point out:
First off, you southern states are the reason the law exists in the first place. Loving v. Virginia, anyone? Not to mention Virginia's penchant for being possibly the most homophobic state in the Union. It seems there is still a special place for hatred and bigotry in the soul of the south, so spare us the victim crap. And how about that old civil war war-horse you people can't seem to ever get over. A people who get beyond your past you are most certainly not. (Yes, yes, many of you are sane liberals and independents, and that's great, but far too many are not, and your representation in Congress proves what the majority of your brethren really are.)
Exactly. Fuck the South. Bible thumping conservative redneck hicks. It's time to stop letting them set the national agenda. Of course, the problem is that like rabits they breed faster than the rest of us . . .
God Save the Queen
Yet more proof that having an unelected head of state is a good thing. Elizabeth II's official birthday was last Saturday. Thousands came out to cheer. The quote that proves my point that an unelected sovereign (and for Canadian purposes, the GG) can be loved by everyone and can represent the state while rising above politics:
Of course, I think we should be calling her Elizabeth I, but that's just me.
"As Americans, we're sort of in awe that thousands of people would come out for the queen's birthday," said Bill Wycoff, 59, of Sewickly, Pa. "I can't imagine Americans doing this for George Bush or any other American president."
Of course, I think we should be calling her Elizabeth I, but that's just me.
Getting blamed for having to fix the problem
A great posting by Stephen Elliot in Huffington Post. Top quote:
(Hat tip to my buddy David in DC, who really needs to come back and visit).
The story in the media: Democrats are losing because they can't agree on what to do in Iraq. It's like the older siblings who are punished because they can't agree on how to clean up the younger siblings' mess. The child has puked all over the kitchen and destroyed the vases and wrapped his fat fingers around the cat's skinny neck and now the parents are home and the older children are punished and the younger child is rewarded. Why? Because the young child is consistently wrong and has no intention of fixing anything. The Democrats are in trouble because they can't agree on how to fix the mess the Republicans have made. The Republicans are rewarded for staying the course.
(Hat tip to my buddy David in DC, who really needs to come back and visit).
If you're a part of the solution, you likely caused the problem
The expression usually goes like this: "If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
But in Liberal land, you can be part of the problem, pretend you had nothing to do with it, turn around and offer solutions to anyone who will listen!
The Star reports that the Liberal grassroots are not in a good mood . While I'm not entirely sure how you determine this by talking to about 5 people (all from Ontario), it does contain this gem of a quote:
"This isn't an unusual problem for the Liberals. They always tune out the grassroots until they are out of power and need them," said Ottawa consultant Jamie Deacey, who co-chaired Paul Martin's leadership campaign in 2002/03.
But wait, it gets better!
"Another problem, according to Deacey, is that since the leadership convention won by Pierre Trudeau in 1968 (and despite the 1990 convention that elected Chrétien), "there's always been an heir apparent, robbing the party of the necessity of really defining itself through a healthy leadership debate. There's been an accumulation of frustration at the grassroots who have no sense of being part of the party."
Do I need to re-emphasize that this guy co-chairedthe heir apparent's Paul Martin's steamrollering of the grassroots leadership campaign?
But in Liberal land, you can be part of the problem, pretend you had nothing to do with it, turn around and offer solutions to anyone who will listen!
The Star reports that the Liberal grassroots are not in a good mood . While I'm not entirely sure how you determine this by talking to about 5 people (all from Ontario), it does contain this gem of a quote:
"This isn't an unusual problem for the Liberals. They always tune out the grassroots until they are out of power and need them," said Ottawa consultant Jamie Deacey, who co-chaired Paul Martin's leadership campaign in 2002/03.
But wait, it gets better!
"Another problem, according to Deacey, is that since the leadership convention won by Pierre Trudeau in 1968 (and despite the 1990 convention that elected Chrétien), "there's always been an heir apparent, robbing the party of the necessity of really defining itself through a healthy leadership debate. There's been an accumulation of frustration at the grassroots who have no sense of being part of the party."
Do I need to re-emphasize that this guy co-chaired
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
We are well and truly screwed
So. For years, we're told that the single greatest threat to the world is Iraq. Condi tells us all about mushroom clouds. We're told that Saddam has some really bad weapons. If we don't go and invade now, our children are all going to be gassed/nuked/zapped.
And we get there and he's got nothing.
Meanwhile, Iran's mullahs get pretty hardcore about the bomb.
And now, North Korea claims it has a bomb, and is about to test a missle capable of reaching parts of the US.
Certainly took our eyes off the ball there, eh?
But what kind of principled response can we make? The "there's a treaty that forbids you" is a bit rich, given the number of treaties Bush has ripped up.
"The international community and the UN say now." Right, that's credible, from Bush.
"Unilateral action to protect your security" rings a bit hollow too.
"Oh and empty your prison/torture camps while your at it" might not work either.
Basically, every single mechanism other than force which might work has been previously ignored by the Bushies. Offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel anyone?
We're screwed.
And we get there and he's got nothing.
Meanwhile, Iran's mullahs get pretty hardcore about the bomb.
And now, North Korea claims it has a bomb, and is about to test a missle capable of reaching parts of the US.
Certainly took our eyes off the ball there, eh?
But what kind of principled response can we make? The "there's a treaty that forbids you" is a bit rich, given the number of treaties Bush has ripped up.
"The international community and the UN say now." Right, that's credible, from Bush.
"Unilateral action to protect your security" rings a bit hollow too.
"Oh and empty your prison/torture camps while your at it" might not work either.
Basically, every single mechanism other than force which might work has been previously ignored by the Bushies. Offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel anyone?
We're screwed.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Republicans just aren't cute
Okay - Wonkette here has a list of the top ten male hottie White House staffers.
I wouldn't do a single one of them. Actually, that's a lie. I'd do all 10 - hard - give them a taste of what Republicans have been doing to the country since they've been in power.
But seriously. They all have that boring, dull, preppy frat boy look. Do you reckon a single one of them has ever drank anything other than Bud Light? I love the surfer boy who needs to put the little III after his name. I'll bet that they ALL wear blazers with khaki pants.
I wouldn't do a single one of them. Actually, that's a lie. I'd do all 10 - hard - give them a taste of what Republicans have been doing to the country since they've been in power.
But seriously. They all have that boring, dull, preppy frat boy look. Do you reckon a single one of them has ever drank anything other than Bud Light? I love the surfer boy who needs to put the little III after his name. I'll bet that they ALL wear blazers with khaki pants.
Happy Birthday Aung San Suu Kyi
Leader of the National League for Democracy in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi is 61 today, and still under house-arrest after winning elections in 1989. It is heart-breaking. The whole story of Burma is heart-breaking. But she perseveres, as the Burmese always have.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Our head of state is hotter than yours
I think Jean wins hands down over Bush on the sexiness front.
Thoughts on the whole Pride thing
So LA just had its big Pride parade and whatnot. I'm not so sure how I feel.
I really have no issue with certain parts of the parade. I mean, the various activist groups, charity groups, Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, Red Cross, PFLAG, Gay Men's Chorus, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, support groups - yeah. Bring 'em on.
But there are points it starts to get silly and we start to get used.
I think I'm pretty much okay with bars having floats. I mean, they're sort of safe spaces, places that really offer the only place to go and be confident that most people are gay (the Abbey notwithstanding) and thus suitable targets.
But I was a little shocked that bathhouses have floats. I mean, come on. What does that say? Part of the gay community is a place you can go have anonymous sex? People do it, sure, but does it have to be so . . . accepted?
And then the brazen advertising gets to me. How many different alcohol companies had floats? What is that - "Ooh, look, Bud Light is supportive! They come to Pride!" Great. They ticked that box. What else do they do for us? (I have no idea about Bud Light. I just pick it as an example.) Great, Absolut - you got a float and put a bunch of half-naked probably-straight muscleboys on it. Do you give domestic partnership benefits? Do you give money to gay charities? Do you give money to fight Republicans or the FMA?
When we let that happen, we're just getting used. Those companies go, aha, this is good advertising, we know gay men and women can consume prodigiously, let's toss them a bone and look supportive, they'll buy it, and then we can say we've done our part.
I say keep them out. Let the people who really do something for us march, and let them march because it's a statement or a cause, not because some straight guy in a suit saw a marketing opportunity.
I really have no issue with certain parts of the parade. I mean, the various activist groups, charity groups, Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, Red Cross, PFLAG, Gay Men's Chorus, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, support groups - yeah. Bring 'em on.
But there are points it starts to get silly and we start to get used.
I think I'm pretty much okay with bars having floats. I mean, they're sort of safe spaces, places that really offer the only place to go and be confident that most people are gay (the Abbey notwithstanding) and thus suitable targets.
But I was a little shocked that bathhouses have floats. I mean, come on. What does that say? Part of the gay community is a place you can go have anonymous sex? People do it, sure, but does it have to be so . . . accepted?
And then the brazen advertising gets to me. How many different alcohol companies had floats? What is that - "Ooh, look, Bud Light is supportive! They come to Pride!" Great. They ticked that box. What else do they do for us? (I have no idea about Bud Light. I just pick it as an example.) Great, Absolut - you got a float and put a bunch of half-naked probably-straight muscleboys on it. Do you give domestic partnership benefits? Do you give money to gay charities? Do you give money to fight Republicans or the FMA?
When we let that happen, we're just getting used. Those companies go, aha, this is good advertising, we know gay men and women can consume prodigiously, let's toss them a bone and look supportive, they'll buy it, and then we can say we've done our part.
I say keep them out. Let the people who really do something for us march, and let them march because it's a statement or a cause, not because some straight guy in a suit saw a marketing opportunity.
Simpson on Air Canada, part 2
Jeffrey Simpson take note: instead of your unproductive bitch-fest on the weekend, Macleans puts out a balanced (and actually informative) take on the new reality of airline travel.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Reasons to care
In response to my posting about the Brokeback Mounties, one of our readers posted this comment:
But, if the majority of Canadians are, and, want the definition of marriage to stay between a man and a woman, what does it matter??
This misses the point. The whole reason why we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is so that the majority cannot decide the rights of an unpopular minority. As the court so majesterially stated in Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 at 69:
As the Court later stated in the Separation Reference, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 at 74:
So we see two threads: the protection of the rights of a minority matters, and the rights of the minority cannot be subject to majoritarian rule.
While, then, for our reader, it may not matter whether same sex marriage happens or not, for those whom it is deprived, it matters quite a lot. The Courts have said marriage to another person to the exclusion of all others is a fundamental right. That fundamental right cannot be restricted by the will of the majority.
But, if the majority of Canadians are, and, want the definition of marriage to stay between a man and a woman, what does it matter??
This misses the point. The whole reason why we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is so that the majority cannot decide the rights of an unpopular minority. As the court so majesterially stated in Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 at 69:
It is easy to say that everyone who is just like “us” is entitled to equality. Everyone finds it more difficult to say that those who are “different” from us in some way should have the same equality rights that we enjoy. Yet so soon as we say any enumerated or analogous group is less deserving and unworthy of equal protection and benefit of the law all minorities and all of Canadian society are demeaned. It is so deceptively simple and so devastatingly injurious to say that those who are handicapped or of a different race, or religion, or colour or sexual orientation are less worthy. Yet, if any enumerated or analogous group is denied the equality provided by s. 15 then the equality of every other minority group is threatened. That equality is guaranteed by our constitution. If equality rights for minorities had been recognized, the all too frequent tragedies of history might have been avoided. It can never be forgotten that discrimination is the antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.
As the Court later stated in the Separation Reference, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 at 74:
First, a constitution may provide an added safeguard for fundamental human rights and individual freedoms which might otherwise be susceptible to government interference. Although democratic government is generally solicitous of those rights, there are occasions when the majority will be tempted to ignore fundamental rights in order to accomplish collective goals more easily or effectively. Constitutional entrenchment ensures that those rights will be given due regard and protection. Second, a constitution may seek to ensure that vulnerable minority groups are endowed with the institutions and rights necessary to maintain and promote their identities against the assimilative pressures of the majority.
So we see two threads: the protection of the rights of a minority matters, and the rights of the minority cannot be subject to majoritarian rule.
While, then, for our reader, it may not matter whether same sex marriage happens or not, for those whom it is deprived, it matters quite a lot. The Courts have said marriage to another person to the exclusion of all others is a fundamental right. That fundamental right cannot be restricted by the will of the majority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
