Following Up On The Rumour Mill

Sometimes the Rumour Mill is correct. According to CBC, there were protests at the legislature today over Bill 208.

This is Ted Morton's little pet hobby horse bill.

According to Mr. Morton:

Morton, reached in his car in Carstairs, Alta., said those who oppose his Bill 208 need to understand that the issue is not about marriage, but about the balancing of rights.

"Critics of 208 should take a reality pill," he said.

"Same-sex marriage is not a basic human right.

Well, let's go take a look a the "reality" pill of his little bill, shall we?

It is his first clause that is the most troubling:

1(1) The Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act is amended by this section.

(2) The following is added after section 11:

Same-sex marriage
11.1 No person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under this or any law of Alberta, solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Bill of Rights, or the expression or exercise of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

This is an amazingly broad set of statements. Basically, it allows people to discriminate without recrimination based on their particular views about marriage. This goes beyond simple expression of a few words, but can easily expand into topics such as refusing GLBT people service, firing them from their jobs, evicting them from an apartment rental, whatever you want - as long as you claim that you are doing because of your "religious" opposition to their marital status (real, imagined or anticipated).

I do not, for one moment, think naively that Mr. Morton hasn't thought of this in writing this bill.

Morton defends himself with the following piece of logic:

"(It) does not appear in any recognized human rights document. It's not in the Charter of Rights. It's not in the Canadian Bill of Rights. It's not in the European Convention of Rights, It's not in the American Bill of Rights.

Perhaps not, but all of those "bills of rights" contain significant amounts of verbage that oblige governments to remove legalized and systemic discrimination. As has been pointed out numerous times in the past by others, failure to recognize same gender relationships has resulted in people's wills being disregarded, and loved companions being shut out from critical decision making during times of illness. (This has been more of a problem in the United States than in Canada, I believe, but in Little Texas (Alberta), I can see some people trying the same tactics)

He then argues further that the bill is necessary because:

Morton, who is running in the fall leadership race to replace outgoing Premier Ralph Klein, said the bill is needed to correct abuses that are occurring now in Canada.

He has cited the case of a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia fined for refusing to rent space to a same-sex wedding party, and the case of a B.C. teacher suspended for speaking out against gay marriage in a newspaper.

Now, let's review these two cases - because they have dramatically different outcomes:

1) The Knights of Columbus Case:

What about religious organizations that don't want to rent their space for same-sex weddings?

In B.C. a lesbian couple signed a contract to rent a Knights of Columbus hall for their wedding reception. The K of C are affiliated with the Catholic Church. When the K of C discovered the couple's intention, they cancelled the booking. The couple launched a human rights complaint. The human rights tribunal found that the Knights of Columbus should not have signed the contract and for that reason fined the Knights. However it ruled the Knights had a right to refuse to rent the hall, based on protection of their religious freedom. This case clearly shows that religious freedom is fully protected.

So, I think that pretty much shoots the first canard that Mr. Morton is whining about out the door. The KofC is quite clearly free to refuse such rentals. At the same time, they don't have a blanket right to simply cancel an existing contract.

2) The Chris Kempling Case:

From Wikipedia, we find the following bits:

Kempling appealed to the courts to over-turn his suspension. The Supreme Court of British Columbia and the British Columbia Court of Appeal both upheld the BCCT disciplinary action. The BC Civil Liberties Association and the BC Public School Employers Association both intervened against Kempling in the Court of Appeal case.[2][7] The BC Human Rights Tribunal denied his complaint in November, 2005.[3] The Supreme Court of Canada decided in January, 2006, that they would not hear his appeal.[8]

So, Mr. Kempling not only has had multiple hearings before the BCCT, but also in every level of court in the country all the way up to the B.C. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Canada examined the case, and chose not to hear Mr. Kempling's appeal earlier this year. To me, this hardly smacks of discrimination at this point. Clearly there's a little more to his actions than merely making a religiously based statement of opinion about homosexual relationships.

Sure enough, we find he is quoted as writing:

He also cited various studies that he interprets as showing harm caused by what he described as the "homosexual lifestyle". Among other things, Kempling wrote:

"Sexual orientations can be changed and the success rate for those who seek help is high. My hope is students who are confused over their sexual orientation will come to see me."

Yikes! First, that is very troubling. The evidence surrounding the "successes" of so-called "reparative therapy" and "ex-gays" is highly problematic. Since Kempling was in a role as both teacher and counsellor in the school where he was employed, I can certainly see how GLBT students just coming to terms with themselves would see that as both threatening and creating an environment that is detrimental to their studies.

The BC Human Rights Tribunal ruling on the matter is here, and quite thorough in its analysis of why Mr. Kempling's actions are arguably discriminatory.

In other words, both situations have been processed and evaluated on their merits. One case was decided in favour of the defendants, and one in favour of the complaintants. Seems to me that our system of management for dealing with complaints of discrimination is doing exactly what it should be doing - evaluating things carefully and dealing with them in a reasonable and appropriate fashion.

No, Mr. Morton, it is you that needs to take a "reality pill" - discrimination, systemic or legalized is the problem here. Just because you wrap yourself in the cloak of "faith" doesn't automatically give you carte blanche to say or do anything you like with respect to other people who may or may not share your particular brand of faith.

This is a piece of legislation that should never see the light of day - and it will hopefully never actually be passed. If it is, I expect it will become the subject of an array of legal and human rights challenges the like of which Mr. Morton has yet to imagine.