Blog Archives

You will not forgive yourself: John Greyson and Tarek Loubani

9/24/2013

You can help save two lives.

Our own John Greyson and Tarek Loubani have been detained in an Egyptian prison since August 16. They had stopped at a police station to ask directions, and were not permitted to leave.

Yesterday Egypt announced that they had outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood - who until they were overthrown had been the elected government of Egypt. Mass arrests and detentions are expected.

A citizen of France, detained in similar circumstances, was murdered in his jail cell.
Our government must act immediately, and forcefully, to get John and Tarek out of jail in Egypt.

So far, despite John Baird's assurances that steps are being taken, nothing has happened.
These two men are in imminent, serious risk of being killed.

Only our government can get them out.

Write today: to John Baird, Minister of Foreign affairs. Demand that he take immediate, effective action.

Tomorrow John and Tarek could be dead.

You would not forgive yourself for not writing today.

Please send me a copy of your email : bjf@barbarafindlay.com. And re-post this message.

John Baird
phone: 613 990-7720
email: bairdj@parl.gc.ca

And send a copy to your own M.P.

Do it today, and tomorrow, and the next day until John and Tarek are home.

For more information on John and Tarek.

0 Comments

Hate speech: a wobbly line

9/24/2013

0 Comments

A couple of people have asked for clarification of yesterday's post about hate speech.
How do you know if a comment is hate speech?
The Supreme Court of Canada says a comment is NOT hate speech if it "merely" ridicules you or subjects you to embarrassment.
It IS hate speech if it incites hatred against you.
In other words, if you draw a line between an innocuous remark ("I don't like your hair") through objectionable ("God says that gay people are evil and should be shunned) to vicious ("Let's kill all the queers/Indians/etc"; or "Science says disabled people should be euthanized" it is clear that innocuous remarks are not hate speech. It is clear that remarks inciting violence against an identified group ARE hate speech. Whether the remark about God's opinion about gays (a) is hate speech or (b) is protected by freedom of religion/conscience/expression depends on the view of the judge hearing the case.
When the judge hears the case, she is supposed to consider the question not from the perspective of the group being maligned but from an objective point of view; and she is supposed to ask herself whether an 'objective' person hearing the remark and knowing the relevant circumstances would understand it to be hate speech.
The general idea - which is one we all support - is that truly hateful speech should be banned; but free speech is precious and should be limited only for very good reasons. However we might disagree vehemently about whether a particular remark is or isn't 'hate speech'.

0 Comments

Where's the line of hate speech?

9/23/2013

1 Comment

The Supreme Court of Canada has drawn the line between what counts as 'hate speech' - and is therefore prohibited - and what is protected 'free speech'. In Saskatchewan v Whatcott, Whatcott had circulated pamphlets saying things like "Keep Homosexuals out of schools" and "Keep Sodomites Out of Schools".
The court said that free speech, including free speech about political issues, and freedom of religion are protected rights -- but subject to the limitation that it not be hate speech.
How do you tell if speech is hate speech? The court said that the test is an objective one: Would a reasonable person, aware of the relevant context and circumstances, find the speech to expose or likely to expose people to detestation and vilification. Speech which merely ridicules someone is not hate speech. Speech in private is not hate speech; and speech directed personally at an individual is not hate speech.

1 Comment

Remember the Charter of Rights? Not so fast...

9/14/2013

0 Comments

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enacted in 1982, has become a cultural touchstone, guaranteeing that Canada is a place of freedom, respect, and equality.
Right?
Two events this week underscore the Charter's weaknesses. The first is an . underreported court case in Ontario, Tanudjaja v Canada. In that case, a coalition including B.C.'s Pivot Legal Services argued that the Charter imposed an obligation on the federal and provincial government to ensure that affordable, adquate and accessible housing is available for all Ontarians and Canadians. The coalition argued that section 7 of the Charter, a guarantee of of "life, liberty, or security of the person" imposed that obligation.
The case was thrown out as soon as it was filed, before any evidence was heard. The court said that the Charter imposes no positive obligation on governments to do anything. If the government gets into the affordable housing business, it must do so in compliance with the Charter which among other things guarantees equality. But the government has no obligation to get into the affordable housing business if it doesn't want to.
So your 'right' as a Canadian to "life...and security of the person" doesn't include the right to eat, or be sheltered.

The second event - this one all over the news - is Quebec's intention to introduce a "Charter of Values" which would prohibit the wearing of some religious symbols (all except Catholic crucifixes, in fact) if you work in the public sector - government, hospitals, educational institutions.

This law does contradicts the guarantee of 'freedom of religion' and the guarantee of 'freedom of expression' in both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Quebec's own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Courts have consistently upheld the rights of religious minorities: for example in Multani, a affirming that Sikh boys could wear kirpans (a religious symbolic metal knife worn under clothing) to school; and in Amselem, permitting Jews to erect succah, a small ritual dwelling, on their balconies notwithstanding a rue of the luxury condo where they lived that prohibited balcony structures.

Queers have objected, unsuccessfully, that 'freedom of religion' should not be a licence to discriminate against queers just because they 'sincerely believe' that being queer is a sin. In Trinity Western, for example, queers lost an argument that the Christian College should be refused accreditation as a teacher's college because it required all students to sign a contract agreeing not to engage in sexual 'sins' including homosexuality.

So it seems obvious that Quebec's 'Charter of Values' would be thrown out because it contravenes the Charter of Rights. Because the Charter of Rights is part of the Constitution of the country any other law that conflicts with it can be declared null and void.

Right?

Not necessarily.

The Quebec government can throw in a 'notwithstanding' clause. Any government is permitted to enact a law which they know contradicts the Charter of Rights if they include a section that says the law is valid notwithstanding the Charter. If the 'notwithstanding' clause is included, the Quebec Charter of Values would be good for five years, after which it would have to be reenacted. Governments have to think twice about using the notwithstanding clause, because they know that every five years they will have to pay the political cost of enacting a Charter -violating law.

We queers must stand firmly with the religious minorities in Quebec, even though 'religious freedom' is often pitted against queer rights. Because what is at stake is our country's very soul. Unless we all recognize that conflicts among rights - religious freedom and queer rights, or any other conflict - must be settled by the courts, we will inevitably end up with the shameful spectacle of governments enacting legislation designed to hurt minorities just to get votes. And when that day comes, we will be among the minorities targeted for legislated bigotry.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is deeply flawed because it does not even pretend to address the worst inequalities among Canadians - the inequalities created and perpetuated by poverty. And the Charter is fragile: if ever it becomes politically acceptable to tack the 'notwithstanding' clause onto any piece of legislation which is currently in favour, all of our Charter rights will succomb.

But, as minorities of any kind - sexual, racial, religious, disabled, immigrant, women (though not a minority!) the Charter is all we've got.

0 Comments

Baby making

9/13/2013

0 Comments

This is an interesting summary of some of the technological assists for queers wanting to have babies:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013LGBTFamilies/09/prweb11113712.htm

0 Comments

Gender training resource: trying again

9/6/2013

0 Comments

A wonderful thing happened yesterday: three people wrote to say the link to the gender training resource wasn't working.
Which means: people are reading! A thrill for any blogger.
Here's a second try to publish the link to the Gender Handbook. Let me know if it works!

0 Comments

Wonderful resource for gender training

9/5/2013

1 Comment

Sam Killerman has just published a wonderful resource for people doing training about gender (and other oppressions).
He is making the pdf of his book available for free. Check it out - I especially like the genderbread person!
The Social Justice Advocate's Handbook: A Guide to Gender

1 Comment

Manitobans oppose anti-bullying law; claim religious freedom

9/5/2013

1 Comment

Hundreds of Manitobans have organized to speak at public consultations about Manitoba's Bill 18, anti-bullying legislation which would require all schools to address internet and in class bullying. Some parts of the Christian community object to the bill, which affects private and religious schools, because it requires a human diversity policy which accommodates pupils who want to establish organizations promoting (gasp!) gender equality, antiracism, the awareness and understand of, and respect for, people who are disabled by barriers, the awareness and understanding and respect for people of all sexual orientations and gender identities; and mandates 'gay straight alliances' in all schools.
more

1 Comment

Archives

Categories