Tuesday, March 16, 2010

The Base Squirmeth

If I hadn't read it, I would never have believed it.

Over at No Apologies, we find one Tim Bloedow airing his opinions Canada's Discrimination Law.

Think about it… the non-discrimination categories are politically defined. Some of them, like ethnicity and colour of skin and marital status, may line up with real-world distinctions, but it’s a particular worldview – and a non-Christian one at that – which has selected the particular categories that exist today in non-discrimination – or Human Rights – codes. In other words, the state has been given the divine right to define reality and morality by declaring that “sexual orientation” should be a non-discrimination category, but suit colour should not be; marital status should be, but hair length should not be.

Besides setting up one of the usual straw-man arguments that the religious right likes to throw around, Bloedow is also telling us a great deal about his thinking as to what government can or should do.

The straw man is easy enough to discount. He tries to equate sexual orientation with 'suit colour' and 'hair length'. Of course, this is fairly typical rhetoric - according to the extreme religious right wing, sexuality is entirely a matter of choice, no different than choosing a suit. The rational research into human sexuality seriously calls such a simplistic view of things into question.

“Human rights” – or non-discrimination – law is predicated on Humanism/Atheism/Socialism, so it discriminates against Christianity.

So ... you wanted to better understand the double standards that seem to permeate the current CPoC? There it is in black and white. It boils down to 'rights for me, not for thee' - especially for those who are not hardline followers of a particular notion of Christianity which I will dub 'Christianist' - in a manner consistent with the distinction between 'Islam' and an 'Islamist' (a term often used with respect to violent, political advocacy groups whose roots are in Islam).

I find it interesting that Bloedow argues that Humanism effectively discriminates against Christianity. He seems to have lost sight of the fact that in Canada, the fundamental foundation of human rights law is rooted in individual rights and freedoms. Therefore, for example, the concept of Freedom of Religion in fact encompasses not only Christianity, but other forms of belief (or non-belief) as needed. However, that freedom exists primarily for the individuals who live in Canada, and does not give any one system of beliefs the right to demand that others live by its specific creed.

What does this mean in the real world? It means that an employee can file a discrimination complaint against his employer, but an employer has no recourse to file a discrimination complaint against an employee (or a potential employee who he thinks decided not to pursue employment with him due to his race). It means that a tenant can file a discrimination complaint against a landlord, but a landlord can’t file a complaint against a prospective tenant who finds other accommodations due to a discriminatory attitude. It has meant that 99% or more of the time when Christians file “human rights” complaints, they’re complaint is rejected, but when homosexuals file discrimination complaints against Christians, almost every single one is accepted and more than 95% of them are decided in favour of the homosexuals. It is also why many vehicles for combating “gender” discrimination can only be used by women, not men.

Once again, Bloedow is grossly misrepresenting the situation. Of course the opportunity to file complaints exists (for example, an employer could file a complaint against a prospective employee for refusing an offer based on the employer's race). However, the chances of being able to substantiate such a claim would be astonishingly small, unless there were overt actions taken by the prospective employee. (e.g. being tattooed with swastikas and making obviously racist comments during the interview - in which case one might wonder aloud about the employer's sanity in even extending an offer of employment)

Further, cases of discrimination where a group that has been in a position of power and/or dominance for an extended period of time are involved are extremely rare (e.g. gender discrimination against men, or discrimination based on someone being Christian). It is far more likely for a woman to hear "that's a man's job" in the workplace than the other way around.

In fact, the HarperCon$ dismantling and weakening of the very programs that strive to ensure equality in Canada have already had a serious impact on the very people that Bloedow and others seem to think they have a biblical right to treat poorly. (e.g. women and homosexuals for a start)

Non-discrimination law is a perpetual act of war against Christianity. It reflects a complete abandonment of the Christian principle of equality – equality before the law – that is absolutely foundational to the survival of a just civilization.

One can only come to a conclusion like this by thinking that there is some kind of 'right' to impose your particular brand of religiosity on the breadth of a nation's populus. Doing so would naturally negate the concept of individual liberty, leaving many subject to treatment as second class citizens simply for not following the religious edicts handed down.

... and if you think that given a majority that Harper wouldn't go down this very path, consider this.

1 comment:

Diane Gall said...

Bloedow says, "Non-discrimination law is a perpetual act of war against Christianity."

Well, no.

Non-discrimination law is a perpetual act of resistance against Christians, among others, who pervert their religion for their own personal political motives.

I do not for a moment think that Bloedow actually believes what he writes. The lengths to which some people will go to ensure their right to marginalise people with whom they have irrational fears/hatred astounds me.