Canadian equality or intrusion on free thought?

Originally Posted by pellaz

Human rights issues were addressed way back in the 60"s and it was a long bitter fight. Street riots and demonstrations, this stuff was HARD won. This led to affirmative action things like equal housing, employment, inter racial marriage. The fight for inter racial marriage is the same as gay marriage.

None of those things you listed are "affirmative action" things.

[pellaz]

Originally Posted by Inchante

So, you hope that its job is never done?

no you got the terms reversed

[pellaz]

Originally Posted by Inchante

None of those things you listed are "affirmative action" things.

for your reference:
[Only registered members can see links. ]

[OrphanPip]

Originally Posted by Inchante

Certainly, the "reactionary wingnuts" have some reason for concern. The language in both of these are so vague, unless I am missing where the legislature defined certain terms, it could be construed as almost anything. This really will be a matter of the Judiciary threading the needle on this topic.

[Only registered members can see links. ]

No it is quite clear, the first part is a restatement of the multiculturalism act, which is reinforced in the charter, and the second part is merely stating that the curriculum must conform to the requirements of the Charter. Restrictions on curriculum to conform to anti-discrimination legislation have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.

There is no tradition of ringing out every little ambiguity of language found in the charter. The intention is already well established and elaborated on in the legal and political literature.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

This means that other sins also have to be taught as OK. Such as divorcees who are adulterers, and the men who have relations with their wife, even sleep in their wife's bed when its that time of the month (it is a sin you see).

All of those pork eaters (a huge majority eat pork, they are going to hell). Now have to be accepted and we have to teach our children that although they eat unclean flesh we must accept them and tolerate them and that nasty behavior.

The real problem here is that people are picking and choosing what parts of the bible they want to use as a weapon against others, instead of actually applying it fully and completely in their own life.

Homosexuality and eating shell fish and pork and wearing clothing made of poly/cotton blends are on the same level of sin. When is the last time a christian organization has rallied at a funeral with signs saying 'Got Hates Pork Eaters'?

While most if not nearly all Christians would think this is ridiculous, many have no real issue with teaching that homosexuality is abomination - one that we stick to while we have disregarded the other 100+ abominations of Leviticus.

This is really no different than laws abolishing Slavery - While the bible stand by slavery (Even Jesus didn't condemn that), no one in the western world would dare dream to teach their children that invading a neighboring nation to get slaves is ok.

Originally Posted by pellaz

no you got the terms reversed

Pellaz: "I hope affirmative action NEVER goes away because its job is not done."

No, I was just following your statement to its rational conclusion. If affirmative action has a job that can be done (as in completed), and you "hope affirmative action NEVER goes away", one must rationally conclude that you must also hope that that job is never completed.

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

No it is quite clear, the first part is a restatement of the multiculturalism act, which is reinforced in the charter, and the second part is merely stating that the curriculum must conform to the requirements of the Charter. Restrictions on curriculum to conform to anti-discrimination legislation have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.

There is no tradition of ringing out every little ambiguity of language found in the charter. The intention is already well established and elaborated on in the legal and political literature.

I beg to differ with you, Orphanpip. Without adequately defining certain terms, terms like discrimination and contempt. Posting a sign that states your opinions on why Gay Marriage should not be permitted could be construed as inciting discrimination, and thus be a criminal act. One could equally be breaking the law by making a flyer that states that all Christian precepts are irrational hogwash because it could be construed as inciting contempt.

I must say though, that there are equally vague statements in American laws.
That is why I wanted to know how these things have been interpreted.

One should never underestimate the tremendous responsibility nor the tremendous power placed with the judiciary.

Originally Posted by Bowyn Aerrow

The real problem here is that people are picking and choosing what parts of the bible they want to use as a weapon against others, instead of actually applying it fully and completely in their own life.

No, the problem is that some "Christians' think that everyone should live according to the rules they believe are important.

Frankly, it does not matter to me what parts of their scripture they chose to adhere to or not. What matters is if they try to force me to live by their rules.

Anyway, I have spent entirely TOO long on this today. It has been a good debate. Thanks guys, but now I NEED to get some work done or I'll be behind.

[Rainbowmum]

I really like the idea of this .
That being said , I fear this will just give the religious zealots more reasons to spread the hate at church , home meetings and street corners.

Another question arises , what about Islam?
They do not recognize state above religion .

Gosh thinking about it .neither do the Adventist , Brethren, JW, and the Mormons.