It has recently become public that MLA Ted Morton has put Bill 208 "Protection of Fundamental Freedoms (Marriage) Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 (Morton)" before the legislature during the Spring 2006 sitting.
I am writing to protest in the strongest terms the ill-conceived nature of this bill. Instead of protecting the rights of Albertans, this law effectively creates an environment where a couple can be verbally harassed by someone with no recourse.
The amendments to the "Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act" are so broadly worded that a legally married couple in this province could be subjected to unreasonable harassment in the guise of "criticizing" their marriage. This bill, in its current form, will give many people the inappropriate impression that as long as they mention "marriage", they can say anything they want about sexual minority populations in this province.
This is apalling to me as a citizen of Alberta - we need to be making all of our citizens feel welcome, not subjecting some of them to government sanctioned harassment.
The amendments to the School Act are similarly offensive in my view. Denying that homosexuals exist, or that they have relationships is putting one's head in the sand and does no favours to the students. Denial of reality means that we are lying to our students - a disingenuous thing to do indeed. Again, the wording used is so broad that it quickly becomes abused. High School classes that discuss the topic as part of the study of Canada and its laws suddenly become controversial. Again, many will twist these broadly worded clauses to demand that their children be "excluded" from any class that discusses topics they find "morally difficult" for whatever reasons.
For the most part, this bill is rooted in fear and ignorance, and those are not values that this province should be promoting.
I urge you to vote against this bill, or any similar bill which is so ill conceived that it can result in further harassment of people who wish to live their lives in relative peace.
I know the bill itself is pretty much "dead" in the legislature, but I would be remiss if I did not at least communicate my objections to my MLA anyhow.
4 comments:
While letters to those we elect **CAN** be effective, in the case of the current crew... well, Grog has an Ostrich as an MP, a loose cannon as Alderman (Grog - you do have Ric 'I'm always right and you should worship me' McIver, don't you?) and an Conservative as a MLA... need I say anything further?
Actually, McIver isn't my Alderman - but that might change with Council re-examining the boundaries map.
The PC MLA has been at least reasonably good about responding to communication - which more than I can say for my MP.
Can this legislation be used as a precedent for someone to criticize a marriage between members of different racial background?
-The Bungle Lord
The legislation itself could not, but as a 'precedent wedge', yes, someone might try to use a similar argument line vis a vis interracial marriage.
The underlying motive of this legislation is the "persecuted christian" line that has been getting bandied about recently. (What it really means is that so-called "christians" are finding it harder to be outright bigots)
Post a Comment