Protecting those that would garry
David Warren today wrote wrt Bill C-250:
"The bill adds "sexual orientation" to a list which already includes race, colour, and religion. It makes it illegal to advocate "genocide" against identifiable groups. This is adding an apple to a list of oranges. Race and colour, even the religion in which we are raised, are integral parts of being human. Sexual choice is not -- it's something you do, not something you are."
Now, since Warren just recently changed religions, I find this a little strange for him to start his argument this way. If religion is not something you do then I'm more than a little confused.
Admittedly, the change from Anglican to RC for most outsiders would be like changing from 1 to 2% milk, but there are many examples for much more extreme shifts in an individual's 'religion'. (As for race and colour, I can only think of one person that has changed theirs - Michael Jackson?)
For most people, the reasons for a group being included in that law would be for historical reasons, not whether the group can or cannot choose to be such a way.
Warren's concern is that the "creation of a new law for such a special purpose is thus an invitation to our very activist courts to define "incitement" more broadly and vaguely." I think he has a little to much gay on the brain and has lost perspective.
See RevMod's entry on C-250 for more...
"The bill adds "sexual orientation" to a list which already includes race, colour, and religion. It makes it illegal to advocate "genocide" against identifiable groups. This is adding an apple to a list of oranges. Race and colour, even the religion in which we are raised, are integral parts of being human. Sexual choice is not -- it's something you do, not something you are."
Now, since Warren just recently changed religions, I find this a little strange for him to start his argument this way. If religion is not something you do then I'm more than a little confused.
Admittedly, the change from Anglican to RC for most outsiders would be like changing from 1 to 2% milk, but there are many examples for much more extreme shifts in an individual's 'religion'. (As for race and colour, I can only think of one person that has changed theirs - Michael Jackson?)
For most people, the reasons for a group being included in that law would be for historical reasons, not whether the group can or cannot choose to be such a way.
Warren's concern is that the "creation of a new law for such a special purpose is thus an invitation to our very activist courts to define "incitement" more broadly and vaguely." I think he has a little to much gay on the brain and has lost perspective.
See RevMod's entry on C-250 for more...
