Some Advantages of (Hypothetical) Defence of Religions Act
October 5, 2006 · By Tom Cerber
John Ibbitson makes some interesting observations on how a Defence of Religions Act can clarify the Canadian legal landcape and provide the Conservatives some advantages.
The legal advantages:
But there have been actions taken against a teacher, a bishop and others for condemning homosexuality as a perverse lifestyle. Further, there are conflicting understandings of whether public servants who refuse to perform same-sex marriages for religious reasons could be fired.
In settling these ambiguities, the legislation — and the court challenge that would inevitably accompany it — might help clarify conflicting Charter rights of freedom of speech and equality. It might also help settle a nagging and unsettled constitutional question of the limits to which Ottawa can intrude in areas of provincial jurisdiction, since provincial governments are in charge of the administration of marriage.
In other words, the Defence of Religions Act is, in principle, a potentially valuable document that, in combination with judicial review, could sort out some troublesome constitutional questions.
The political advantages:
The Prime Minister may believe that there are a large number of voters out there who do not consider themselves intolerant or bigoted, but who do feel that the gay-rights agenda has become relentless and is threatening traditional freedoms of religion and speech.
Such voters would not see a Defence of Religions Act as dangerously homophobic. Instead, they would welcome it as a sensible insurance policy against present and future excesses by zealots of all persuasions.
All this is still speculation, as the Tories kept insisting yesterday. The bill, according to sources, is weeks away, and the government is also looking at equivalent measures that could avoid the need for a parliamentary vote.
Ibbitson doesn’t mention it, but the Conservatives might be strategizing to solicit more idiotic statements from the Liberals, like that of Bill Graham on Darrel Reid, that demonstrate that the Liberals are hostile to religious people.
London North Centre (who was given notice of the by-election by party officials, even before London Tories) is a big time social conservative and pro-Tory pundits are trumpeting that fact, it doesn’t take a paranoid mind to connect the dots. If a party talks like a social conservative and actively recruits social conservatives,it is probably in the pocket of social conservatives.
“Ibbitson doesn’t mention it, but the Conservatives might be strategizing to solicit more idiotic statements from the Liberals, like that of Bill Graham on Darrel Reid, that demonstrate that the Liberals are hostile to religious people.”
I think you nailed it on the head here.
Very interesting perspective!
Give the Grits enough rope and they’ll hang themselves over and over again.
PLEASE Stephen Harper, make this DORA happen. I can’t wait to refuse to teach those annoying, brainless Christians – especially the ID/creationist ones.
I have held back my personal religious beliefs for too long.
I doubt the strategizing would work. Too many people believe the Liberals. I think it is a good fight back at the power of the supreme court though. No matter what the supreme court says, marriage is not a right. The fundamental rights have to do with the individual; like to speak freely, practice (or not) your religion of choice, even property rights (which was in the bill of rights but was left out of the charter of rights) all have to do with the individual without interference from the state. Marriage is not about the individual but is between two people. It is a partnership.
John M Reynolds
[...] Tom Cerber from a couple of days ago: …the Conservatives might be strategizing to solicit more idiotic statements from the Liberals, like that of Bill Graham on Darrel Reid, that demonstrate that the Liberals are hostile to religious people. [...]