The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,Bill c-38 and the impact it has on history--my view.

Hey everybody!

After a long absence I am finally back. And I just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject of the Bill C-38 and The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“This is an important day. The attention of our nation is focused on this chamber, in which John Diefenbaker introduced the Bill of Rights, in which Pierre Trudeau fought to establish the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our deliberations will be not merely about a piece of legislation or sections of legal text – more deeply, they will be about the kind of nation we are today, and the nation we want to be…”

Prime Minister Paul Martin on his website: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=421

You might be wondering why is our Prime Minister supportive of Bill C-38? I think the answer is simple. And it is because of this document that all Canadians benefit from:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#egalite


This Charter came into existance because of another legendary figure in Canadian Political history: the late, former Canadian PM Pierre Trudeau, and before him, Conservative PM John Diefenbaker created The Bill of Rights.

In Section 15 of the Charter it states:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

32. (1)This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

So what does this mean?

It means that all Canadians are equal under law, not the few, all people. So my question is: How is it fair that there is such a thing as "Separate but equal" ? So why is same sex marriage an issue?

Common arguments include:

1. Gay marriage would destroy the institution of marriage
2. Same sex marriage is not considered true marriage
3. The purpose of marriage is procreation
4. Same sex marriage would harm children
5. People are just not comfortable with the idea
6. It offends what religion stands for

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counter arguments:

1. It is a question of justice and civil rights
2. It is a issue of acceptance to fit into society
3. Since same sex marriage is voluntary it is possible that religious groups may feel pressure to assist although this is not the case.
4. Gay marriage would not destroy the institution of marriage because it is just about the definition of family and changing the definition of traditional marriage

So, I guess you might be wondering: "Where Thomas do you stand?"

Here's what I feel from my heart:

I first and foremost, believe in God. I know that my values have been different from others, I am very conflicted as to how I could possibly say that marriage is only traditional. For me I believe as Mr. Martin does that this is a matter of justice.

I believe in the rights of people to be free , where they are not prosecuted on the basis of the fact that they are different. I believe that Canada is a just society and that I do not share the views that Mr. Harper so proudly endorse. I see the reasoning as flawed and biased let me address this:

1. Gay marriage destroys the institution of marriage

Are we having a debate on the nature vs nuture debate? Have we forgotten what injustices this world has suffered ?

Think for a moment: I am proudly Chinese, and yet history has treated my people and their culture poorly. You want proof? look at the buliding of the CN Railway. How many Chinese have died buliding the railway? What about the famous photo of the "Last Spike"? Where did the Chinese labourers go?

What about World War II? When the Japanese invaded the rest of Asia in an attempt to rule all of Asia? By the same token: What about the Japanese-Canadian internment camps?

What about the Jewish people who died at the hands of the Nazi Regime? What about people who gave us a lesson in what the power of the written word can do? Do you remember Anne Frank? Or the death camps "Gulug" of Joseph Stalin?

Oh...have we forgotten the First Nations people? The eradication of their langauge? culture and their way of life? Have we forgotten not that long ago when Africans were sold as slaves?

How about a time our history when women did not have rights? When children were seen, but not heard?

Gay marriage would destroy the institution of marriage? I admit, I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of marriage meaning a man and a man either, but I believe in change and that if we are to include all Canadians as equals, do we as citizens not have a duty to carry on the legacy of John Diefenbaker and Pierre Trudeau? I believe in the rights of human beings. I believe in acceptance with understanding. I draw the line when I perceive discrimination.

I see it this way: There is a minority that seeks to be accepted into society...and from the looks of our track record we have done well, we only need to look at what happened to the First Nations people. But we must face the future, I believe we have to "step forward" as Mr. Martin put it...and the time is now.

2. Same sex marriage is not true marriage

I don't know that. So I honestly can't comment.

3. The Purpose of Marriage is procreation

I agree. In some ways...but not all, here is why: If I ever find love and marry the woman that I love, I would like to think that she is more to me than just someone I have sex with! A woman is not a toy, she is a person! If I ever do fall in love, I like to think that I have a connection with the person I am with. In other words, I would like to think the woman can feel safe to do as they please, that means have a career and that the person means more to me than anything, that there is no price to be placed on love.

In the Bible, it calls for women to be submissive to their husbands ( Ephesians 5:22-28) But I do not agree with that briefly it says that men should love their wives as they love Jesus, and that women should submit to the husband's authority I understand the context...but I cannot say that I agree. I think that if I have choosen to be with the person the rest of my life, I'd like to think that I am capable of respect. Loving someone does not in my mind mean that anybody is to be submissive. If and when I am a husband, I would like to think the person I love has a mind of their own.

But I also admit my own bias that I think evolution and birth would stop if we all turned into homosexuals...even though it would seem unlikely.

However, it did not mean same sex-couples cannot adopt: which brings me to my next point.

4. Same sex marriage would harm children

Um...How exactly do we know that? There are two sides of the coin. We have anti-gay groups, church groups believing that gay parents with teach their children to be gay or lesbian, while on the opposite side of the coin The same sex couples themselves believe that 90% of their children would end up being heterosexual anyway!

(Source: Gay Marriage essay: "Being raised in a Gay Family does not harm children" by April Martin, P.41-45, Greenhaven Press, 1998)

How on earth do you teach sexual orientation? I have heard of stories where homosexual people eventually confessing they have "sinned" and "redeemed" themselves by being heterosexual...but what happened to the other side of the story? Is there any reserach done on the people we later "reverted" back to being homosexual? You would never hear about that at church! But since I have no idea how other kids are raised, who am I to comment on it?

5. People are not comfortable with the idea

You know, I admit that I am not entirely comfortable, but there is no reason for me to treat anyone differently. That includes discrimination by not looking at the rights promised by our Charter! The Laws said so, the courts decreed as such, and many feel that there is a need for change.

6. It offends what religion stands for

Whose religion? I know that the big three (Christianity, Islamic and Jewish religion) all have their own mandate...but does that mean what I see in the media mostly (Ultra right wing Conservative Christian groups) represent EVERYBODY?! I hope not! Not everyone thinks the same. So what next?

For the counter arguments:

1. It is a question of justice and civil rights:

Need I say more? Look to the Canadian Charter: see section 15.

2. It is a issue of acceptance to fit into society:

Can you envision a Canada where other people are deported from the country for being homosexual? You might be saying: "Not in my backyard" but the truth is this is yet another example of a group of people struggling to fit in to society. (better yet can you see the possibility of people saying "you don't belong in my _______(fill your own blank here)" Wait! that already has happened it's called racism! Need examples? see what the U.S. historically did to African-Americans!

3. Since same-sex marriage is voluntary is it possible that religious groups are forced to assist in conducting same sex weddings?

Simple answer? No. Again, the Charter protects the rights of religious officials as well.

4. Gay Marriage would not destroy the institution of marriage because it is about the definition of family and the changing definition of traditional marriage:

Well, the definition of family changed a while ago: it was no longer the family with one mother, one father and one child, it changed to the extended family including later generations. Taking on many different forms, it's about a open mind and knowledge and understanding. So how does a minority group fit? You only need to change the definition to include those excluded from society.

Mr. Prime Minister, I hope you don't have more scandals , I hope you can be remembered someday as one of the people who helped change the course of history for the better.

Signing out,

TKO