TheoCon Reprise

Back here, I raised my ongoing concerns that the CPoC is being driven by religious conservative interests, and pointed to the appointment of Darrel Reid to what amounts to a political advisory position in the government as an example.

In this morning's Globe and Mail, we learn that the Federal CPoC is considering writing something very similar to Ted Morton's Bill 208.

While refusing to discuss specifics, Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed the government's intentions yesterday in an interview.

“The nature of the concerns that are being raised with me are relating to freedom of religion and freedom to practice religion [and] freedom of expression,” he said.

“The Prime Minister has indicated that he is bringing the matter forward — the issue of same-sex marriage — on a free vote. And there may be certain options open to the government as to what the response should be in either event, whether that opening is successful or not successful.”

Coming out of Toews, that's a pretty good clue what's going on at the cabinet table these days - even when you consider Harper's zippered communications style. It also gives us some insight into just why Harper has decided to delay his "free vote" to the end of the session - it gives him a chance to write his version of Morton's bill 208 quietly, and the public uproar to "die down" - so he can introduce this piece of legislation "quietly".

Sources say the government is considering measures to protect individuals who oppose homosexual marriages or even relationships from human rights' complaints.

The measures would seek to ensure, for example, that churches cannot be forced to rent their halls for same-sex marriage receptions, or that a justice of the peace cannot be compelled to marry a same-sex couple in violation of his or her religious beliefs.

Justice officials have also been told to search for ways to protect the rights of individuals to criticize homosexual activity because it contravenes religious teachings, or to refuse to do business with organizations whose purposes he or she disagrees with, without being brought before a human-rights tribunal.

The working title for the vehicle that could enshrine these measures is the Defence of Religions Act.

This is substantially the same list of talking points that I debunked in earlier postings on the matter.

Intriguingly, such legislation would theoretically elevate freedom of religion above other rights outlined in the charter. Since the Charter does not impose any hierarchy of precedence, one tends to assume that all rights are of equal importance. So, that probably means that the CPoC would have to impose the legislation with the notwithstanding clause in order to avoid Charter challenge in the courts. (Please note, the CPoC just axed the very program that would fund part of the legal expenses - which probably means that the government would find itself being sued civilly to recover expenses in such a case)

[Update 19:00]

Tonight, we learn that Harper is denying that the "Defense of Religions Act" is something that his government is considering. Being the cynical sort that I am, I'm going to make a wild guess that this legislation will be introduced as a 'back bench' bill - it will merely get the mysterious support of Harper's cabinet.
[/Update]