Thursday, June 18, 2009

Whites Only Signs: Catholic Insight Is Cool With 'Em

From their website:

In what he describes as “an essential first step to refocusing the Ontario Human Rights Commission on its original mandate,” Klees introduced a private member’s bill into the Legislature on June 4 to repeal Section 13 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

However, this is a relatively innocuous provision of the code that prohibits the display of “any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other similar representation” that indicates an intention to violate or incite others to violate a ban on discrimination in the code. Unlike human rights legislation in Alberta and British Columbia, neither Section 13 nor any other provision of the Ontario code authorizes the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to censor newspaper and magazine articles.

Repealing Section 13 is a good idea, but it would do little to safeguard freedom of expression in Ontario and nothing at all to stop the OHRT from suppressing the freedoms of conscience, religion and association for the benefit of feminists, gay rights activists, racial minorities and other groups designated for preferred treatment in the Ontario Human Rights Code.

You know, the folks at Catholic Insight want you to think they're nothing but good Christians suffering under the government jackboot, but in reality--and as I think this kind of response demonstrates--they're a far right freak-show whose primary use for The Bible is as a mud-flap to deflect criticism when they go off a gay-bashing. No wonder they keep getting in trouble with the law.

Meanwhile, the light continues to dawn! Bashing HRCs is a vote evaporator! Too late, suckah's! Take it off the agenda, and next election McGuinty will just argue its on the hidden agenda!

(By the way, a quick explanation for the headline is here.)


MgS said...

S. 13 and S. 3 (in Alberta) exist as moderating influences for those that would engage in group libel (something which is not adequately handled by either libel law or the criminal code)

What the opponents of these sections seek is freedom of speech without consequences, not freedom of speech. They do not want to be accountable for their actions, and yet they are the first to demand accountability from others.

Ti-Guy said...

What a tissue of lies that whole article is. It would take ten times as much space debunk all of them.