Human Rights Offence!
What gets into people? Why does everyone feel so entitled? Why is someone's entitlement someone else's loss of personal autonomy and self-respect? Why must one segment of society claim that another, not sharing their values, must adhere to theirs and not heed their own? Why, when other, alternative solutions are available and taken advantage of, is that not sufficient?
Why then, does it become necessary to mount an offensive against someone else's values to satisfy the rejected person's aggrievement? Other than malice. Why do we uphold, much less tolerate that?
Just because people who feel affronted by others not sharing their values and beliefs feel entitled to air their discontent and in the process punish others for not agreeing with them, why should we permit that to happen? Is this fair, is this justice? Does it not reflect reverse discrimination? What a balls-up we've created with our overzealous need to soothe the hurt feelings of those who feel they have been insulted. It certainly does not create a comfort zone for everyone.
When an unnamed individual sought to have a civil ceremony of marriage conducted by a civil marriage commissioner in Regina, he was mortally offended when his request was refused on the basis that it would contravene the religious beliefs and values of the commissioner he approached. But there were other commissioners available to conduct the requested ceremony and the marriage took place.
Case closed, everyone happy? No, not exactly. The offended individual thought he would exact a toll on the values of someone whose religious faith informed him not to proceed with the marriage ceremony for same-sex couples. He brought the offender, Orville Nichols, someone who had been conducting civil ceremonies for over 20 years, before the Saskatchewan Human rights Commission.
Whereupon Mr. Nichols found himself fined $2,500 for violating the rights of the civil-marriage-requesting individual. Who himself should have been fined for malicious mischief, but obviously was not.
While other provinces do allow for exemptions since the legalization of same-sex marriages (kind of oxymoronic, actually; what's the point?) the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will now consider whether Charter rights are offended by such refusals.
"Accommodations have to be made to respect both parties' rights but now and again we've seen circumstances where some rights conflict with other rights and sometimes rather directly", was the obvious comment of the legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. "...What we hope to do in this case is find a way to respect both parties' rights. That's what the Charter demands."
Simple enough, actually. If all citizens are to be treated equally under the Charter then both sides of the issue should be respected, equally. It's called reasonable accommodation. Something that human rights groups pay lip service to, but who also seem to grasp any opportunities that come their way to prove their unswerving devotion to the 'underdog' as they perceive it.
Deep-six them all. At the very least, re-structure their mandates.
Why then, does it become necessary to mount an offensive against someone else's values to satisfy the rejected person's aggrievement? Other than malice. Why do we uphold, much less tolerate that?
Just because people who feel affronted by others not sharing their values and beliefs feel entitled to air their discontent and in the process punish others for not agreeing with them, why should we permit that to happen? Is this fair, is this justice? Does it not reflect reverse discrimination? What a balls-up we've created with our overzealous need to soothe the hurt feelings of those who feel they have been insulted. It certainly does not create a comfort zone for everyone.
"I have nothing against gay people. I have a nephew and niece who are gay. I don't hate them. I just don't want to take part in a same-sex service."What is wrong with that? Well, evidently it's very wrong, it's a bad attitude, even if one's religious convictions are involved. This then becomes a matter of faith on the one hand, and a matter of social re-construction on the other. If faith is not to be respected, but differing social mores and values are, this does not construe an even-handed outcome.
When an unnamed individual sought to have a civil ceremony of marriage conducted by a civil marriage commissioner in Regina, he was mortally offended when his request was refused on the basis that it would contravene the religious beliefs and values of the commissioner he approached. But there were other commissioners available to conduct the requested ceremony and the marriage took place.
Case closed, everyone happy? No, not exactly. The offended individual thought he would exact a toll on the values of someone whose religious faith informed him not to proceed with the marriage ceremony for same-sex couples. He brought the offender, Orville Nichols, someone who had been conducting civil ceremonies for over 20 years, before the Saskatchewan Human rights Commission.
Whereupon Mr. Nichols found himself fined $2,500 for violating the rights of the civil-marriage-requesting individual. Who himself should have been fined for malicious mischief, but obviously was not.
While other provinces do allow for exemptions since the legalization of same-sex marriages (kind of oxymoronic, actually; what's the point?) the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will now consider whether Charter rights are offended by such refusals.
"Accommodations have to be made to respect both parties' rights but now and again we've seen circumstances where some rights conflict with other rights and sometimes rather directly", was the obvious comment of the legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. "...What we hope to do in this case is find a way to respect both parties' rights. That's what the Charter demands."
Simple enough, actually. If all citizens are to be treated equally under the Charter then both sides of the issue should be respected, equally. It's called reasonable accommodation. Something that human rights groups pay lip service to, but who also seem to grasp any opportunities that come their way to prove their unswerving devotion to the 'underdog' as they perceive it.
Deep-six them all. At the very least, re-structure their mandates.
posted by Pieface | 7:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home