Defence of Religion Act

There are rumours swirling about the Conservatives proposed Defence of Religion Act and what will be contained in it. According to the Globe and Mail, it will allow marriage commissioners to refuse to marry SSM couples if it goes against their religion, permit hate speech against gays and lesbians, and allow businesses to refuse to do business with gay and lesbians. Now this is just a rumour and depending on the public reaction, it may never see the light of day, but I have some grave concerns here. I am a strong supporter of religious freedom and I believe no religious institution should be forced to marry same-sex couples if they don't approve of it. This is protected in C-38 and is a protected Charter right. If the human rights code ever clashes with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Charter always takes precedence. However, when one is a justice of the peace, they are a civil servant and must serve all people who come to them. If marriage commissioners can refuse to marry gays and lesbians because of their religion, does that mean someone's religion that prohibits inter-racial marriage, can refuse to marry an inter-racial couple? I would think not! Now in most cases there will be another justice of the peace who can perform the marriage if one is unwilling to, but if an incident ever arose where no justice of the peace was willing to marry a same-sex couple in a given location, then they should have no choice but to marry them since it is the law of the land and refusing to marry them is essentially denying gays and lesbians the right to get married. Marriage commissioners are under no obligation to work where they do so those who oppose certain aspects of the job, should look for a job elsewhere. As for the issue of renting out space for gay weddings, my view is that if it is property owned by the religious institution, they can refuse them, but if leased property then no unless the owner allows them to do so and the owner does not fall under the human rights code. In terms of businesses refusing to do business with gays and lesbians, I hope this part of the bill is buried for good as this is legalizing discrimination and even the thought of introducing a bill to allow this is absolutely disgusting.

As for freedom of speech, I am also a strong supporter of freedom of speech. As long as one's speech does not infringe on another's rights, it should be allowed. However, when it becomes hate speech, then it is crossing the line and infringing on another's rights. That should be illegal, however when taken to court, I believe proportionality should be used, i.e. which infringement is greater. Someone publicly speaking out against gay marriage should continue to be allowed as much as I may disagree with their view, since they are not infringing on another's right. But publishing hate literature urging genocide or violence against gays and lesbians should be banned since this is infringing on the rights of gays and lesbians.

Two side notes: I am pleased to see Bill Graham apologize for mistakenly misquoting Darrel Reid. I just wish the Tories would do this as well when they misquote someone, which they almost never do. Finally I do agree with the Tory government's decision to cut funding to women's advocacy groups (please note I still support keeping Status of Women Canada, but putting in programs to help advance women equality and give government advice on the effect of each legislation towards women). I generally as a rule of thumb don't support funding advocacy groups regardless of their political orientation. This is probably an area I suspect my views will go against the Liberal Party, but I am not a blind partisan, so if I occassionally disagree so be it. This Pretty much sums up my views quite nicely on funding for advocacy groups