Charterland: Truth and Consequences.
One of our kind readers commented yesterday as follows:
Indeed, I caught that in the NP this morning, just a few hours after I wrote the previous posting. It is good to be reminded of the NAC call for research proposals. I have a copy of it somewhere. I'll post some of the key passages from it later.
Also on the NP of this morning, the editorial reminds Prime Minister Martin and Justice Minister Cotler that they are not telling the truth when it comes to homosexual marriage being mandated by the Supreme Court because it violates the Charter.
The feds seem very worried about at least one unintended consequence.
A couple of weeks ago Status of Women Canada sent out a call to university researchers, offering grant money to study polygamy and its harmful effects on women. The statement was a veiled call for social science data that will be used for possible future court cases, as a way of assisting the government to prove that polygamy is harmful to women.
However, in February 3rd's National Post, we find a story that the BC Attorney-General has confidential legal opinions claiming federal anti-polygamy laws might not be able to withstand a Charter challenge. The article goes on to say that these documents have played a role in the refusal by the province and police not to lay charages against polygamists in Bountiful, BC, for fear that could spark a Charter challenge and that the polygamists could win. The article is on p. A8 of today's paper, though I don't think it made into their online edition.
Indeed, I caught that in the NP this morning, just a few hours after I wrote the previous posting. It is good to be reminded of the NAC call for research proposals. I have a copy of it somewhere. I'll post some of the key passages from it later.
Also on the NP of this morning, the editorial reminds Prime Minister Martin and Justice Minister Cotler that they are not telling the truth when it comes to homosexual marriage being mandated by the Supreme Court because it violates the Charter.
And so, Mr. Martin and his Cabinet have spent the last two months trying to convince Canadians that the Supreme Court said something it didn't: that the current definition of marriage in unconstitutional. Appealing to the vague emotional attachment many Canadians have to the Charter, the PM and his Justice Minister have falsely declared that implementing gay marriage is necessary to protect the document, and suggested that their opponents seek to tear it up or vitiate it through use of the notwithstanding clause.
posted by kaqchikel at
2/03/2005 11:30:00 PM
1 Comments:
Frankly, I'm a little skeptical that the SC would strike down the antipolygamy law on the grounds of religious freedom. Its "jurisprudence" (I use the term lightly) on religious freedoms cases has tended to preserve the "group rights" of established religious groups while narrowing the grounds on which they can discriminate against Charter minorities within those groups. For instance, Trinity Western University was allowed to keep its code of sexual ethics, not on principle, but because no discrimination was found. However, the SC never defined what constitutes discrimination. It would have been interesting to see how they would have dealt with the case of a sincere but politically incorrect attempt by someone at TWU to counsel someone to avoid homosexual activity.
The other case is an Ontario provincial decision where the Roman Catholic school board was required to permit a male student to take his boyfriend to the prom, on the dubious grounds that proms are inessential to Catholic identity while essential to a high school student's sexual identity. Even so, I'd be surprised if the courts forced the RC Church to ordain female priests.
The trend of these cases (and others) is to narrow the ability of religious groups to define their doctrines and practices. Religious groups may preserve their beliefs, but the sphere in which they may act upon them is shrinking. Moreover, these two cases also involve 2 mainline churches. Minority religious groups - JWs come to mind - haven't been so successful, and I highly doubt the LDS polygamists in Bountiful, BC, would find a sympathetic judge. I also doubt Clayton Ruby or any other high-priced "human rights" lawyer would take up their cause. No polygamists allowed in the Court Party, as the rights of postmaterialists outweigh those of those who lag behind in the course of progressive history.
By
Anonymous, at 2/04/2005 08:59:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home