a w a k e : t o : d r e a m

For the past several years in my church, people have been warily looking to parliament to see how the passing of bill C-250 would affect the rights of people of faith as pertains to the marriage of same-gender couples. Originally a bill called An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), this bill was meant to add sexual orientation to the list of differences that we are protected from discrimination on the basis of. I support it completely. But when people in my church got nervous and felt that our rights as people of faith would conflict with the rights of same-gender couples to be protected from discrimination (ie married if they want to be), I scoffed. I felt that since the amendment had also called for protections for religious people so that they would not be compelled to go outside their beliefs because of this, I believed them.

Yesterday, in BC:

VANCOUVER - A B.C. lesbian couple, who accuse a Catholic men’s group of discriminating against them by refusing to rent them a hall for their wedding reception, took their case to a human rights tribunal Monday.

“The hearing is sure to further inflame passions over the issue, given that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last month that religious officials opposed to same-sex marriages do not have to perform them.
CBC News”

The back story is that the couple tried to rent a hall owned by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men’s service club. When the group found out that it was a same-gender marriage, they cancelled the booking and refunded the money.

Let me clarify by saying that I support bill C-250 100%. I support human rights for all people.

I am such a big fan of Canada’s best known political export, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Louise Arbour. She is a former Canadian Supreme Court Justice who worked as a prosecutor for war-crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia (i.e. Slobodan Milosevic) and for Rwanda. She is so amazing to me as a woman who went far beyond the constraints of her profession to change the world - even a little bit - with her skills. I’m listening to an interview with her on CBC Radio’s Ideas right now and she is full of amazing statements. I want to have coffee with this woman. I want to hear what she thinks. I want to watch her in action.

I hope that in my career I act with such conviction and justice as she does.

My residents (three of whom are American) gleefully informed me of a recent news story (I can’t believe I didn’t hear of it first given my news addiction) about a local case to indict President George W Bush under the Canadian War Crimes Act for war crimes regarding his actions as the leader of a country who invaded Iraq, and more specifically, perpetrated torture against prisoners of that war, including Ontario teenager Omar Khadr.

A group of B.C. lawyers who want U.S. President George W. Bush put on trial for allegedly torturing thousands if not tens of thousands of those ghostly detainees in the war on terror was in B.C. Supreme Court Friday to argue its case. The federal government, however, argued the allegations were being made in the wrong jurisdiction and that such a prosecution must be approved by Canadian Attorney-General Irwin Cotler. The Crown says the case involves a non-citizen being accused of crimes committed outside Canada who was visiting the country as a guest of the government.

From an editorial by Ian Mulgrew, The Vancouver Sun, Nov. 27th, 2005.

I’ve always thought that a great way to make a political point is to arrest the duly (well, sort of) elected leader of a sovereign country! What are they thinking? Furthermore, Mulgrew goes on to say that Davidson, the non-practicing family lawyer who presented the brief was unprepared and inexperienced in these matters… I’m disappointed that they (Toronto legal group Lawyers Against the War (LAW)) didn’t do their homework, for starters, but also that they didn’t find a more credible person to write and present the brief - if you’re going to make a point, then make it in a way that lends credibility to your cause, not removes it!

Interestingly, if you search for it, the majority of links you will find to this issue will have to do with urban legends and internet hoaxes than actual hard news - because of an existing publication ban declared by the first judge who heard the case, Provincial Court Justice William Kitchen. It occurs to me that only in Canada could this even occur: an inexperienced lawyer from a different specialty launches an indictment as a private citizen against a world leader… and we hear nothing about it because of our tradition of publication bans on court procedings.

Beautiful. I like the way our country works sometimes.