Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. And we never legalized same sex marriage.
Immigration Minister pulled gay rights from citizenship guide, documents show
Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney blocked any reference to gay rights in a new study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship, The Canadian Press has learned.
Internal documents show an early draft of the guide contained sections noting that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and that same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2005.
But Mr. Kenney, who fought same-sex marriage when it was debated in Parliament, ordered those key sections removed when his office sent its comments to the department last June.
Senior department officials duly cut out the material - but made a last-ditch plea with Mr. Kenney in early August to have it reinstated.
"Recommend the re-insertion of the text boxes related to ... the decriminalization of homosexual sex/recognition of same-sex marriage," says a memorandum to Mr. Kenney from deputy minister Neil Yeates.
"Recommend the addition of 'equality rights' under list of rights. Had noted earlier that this bullet should be reinserted into the list as a means of noting the equality of all based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc ..."
In the end, however, Mr. Kenney's view trumped that of the bureaucrats. The 63-page guide, released with fanfare last November, contains no mention of gay and lesbian rights.
posted by calgarygrit at
6:41 p.m.
30 Comments:
Good title, Orwell seems to be quite poular today in the blogosphere.
By
thescottross.blogspot.com, at 6:56 p.m.
One wonders what John Baird thinks about this.
By
James Bow, at 7:02 p.m.
I suppose there should be a mention that third trimester abortions are legal here too.No?
By
Anonymous, at 7:31 p.m.
Don't forget that it's apparently legal to drink in public, too.
By
Paul, at 8:16 p.m.
I'm sorry but I have to ask this of the last anonymous.
What does my marriage have to do with late term abortion? What does informing new immigrants of the accepted norms in hiring and firing and equality have to do with abortion.
Really? What does it have to do with it?
I am so over ignoring hateful little shits like you.
By
Anonymous, at 8:17 p.m.
anon, the married one,
abortion on demand was a right won thru the courts by Morgentaler,
and it is equally as important for new citizens to know as is the legallity of ssm.
Because BOTH ssm and abortion on demand are not likely the norm in their ex-home country.
By
wilson, at 8:28 p.m.
ps.
straight prolife Canadians of every political stripe, are also entitled to opinions, in Canada,
incase you think that has been ruled illegal by the Supremes,
it has not.
By
wilson, at 8:37 p.m.
Very amusing.
It seems that some Libs are happy to exploit the uncomfortableness that some Conservatives have with SSM but when it is suggested that abortion laws (or lack of them)be discussed we are hateful shits.
As Wilson stated one right is as relevent as the other
By
Anonymous, at 8:39 p.m.
LES TROUS DE CUL!
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 8:48 p.m.
Excellent debating skills Vert!
By
wilson, at 8:52 p.m.
The act of removing references to same-sex marriage is to be expected from this lot. It is a joke, like most of this government's non-military policies. But no one should be surprised. What does bug me, (if the reports are true) is the cowardly way Kenney went about pretending that he had nothing to do with it! I hope, for his constituents sake, that the reports are false. At least with Myron Thompson we always knew where he stood.
By
Anonymous, at 9:25 p.m.
wilson,
I know you're just giddy at the fact that Jason Kenney exercised his "straight opinion" when he scrubbed any mention of gay rights from the immigration manual.
But that doesn't make it right.
Maybe the next Immigration Minister will include an addendum noting that you're a spineless sack of shit so any new arrivals will be forewarned. After all, as you've noted, opinions apparently override the law or decency these days. Seems lying is in vogue as well, since Kenney claims not to even realize he was the one who axed the references from earlier drafts.
By
Anonymous, at 9:26 p.m.
I was told by a very well informed politico in Ottawa that Jason Kenney is in fact a homosexual and that this has been known in Ottawa circles for years. This was said with complete 100% certainty. It wasn't "I think Jason Kenney is gay" it was "Jason Kenney IS gay and for that reason he won't ever lead the Conservative Party because it will come out sooner or later and members of that party will never tolerate having a homosexual leader"
So does Kenney just take all these anti-gay actions to try to cover up this long-standing suspicion? Sure a person's sexual orientation is their private business, but IF his orintation is leading him to take actions that he wouldn't have otherwise (to try to "prove" to his base that he's really not gay), then perhaps it shouldn't be.
By
Anonymous, at 9:53 p.m.
John Baird is just fine with anything the government does as long as they don't cut him off when he's talking, and as long as the taxpayer keeps covering his bills.
By
Anonymous, at 10:16 p.m.
Jason Kenney is as queer as a three dollar bill, and everybody knows it.
By
Anonymous, at 12:41 a.m.
Conbot "wilson" usually parroting the war room talking points has now escalated to a new level of contempt.
At first I merely considered your comments as those from another conservative dullard. Not now. You "wilson" are a bigot, and a stain of a human being. The majority of straight people in Canada agreed to stop discriminating against homosexuals because it is the right thing to do, and we like it. Tuff titty for you and minister Kenney - wear the egg on your faces and like it.
By
Anonymous, at 2:00 a.m.
Anon @ 2:00 am. You lose.
It was the supreme court that gave Canada SSM.The Liberal gov't right to the very end insisted that they supported traditional marriage.
Scott Brison was right. The gov't was sent kicking and screaming into all of this.They ultimately blamed the supreme court.
By
Anonymous, at 8:27 a.m.
Conservatives hate gay people.
Guys like baird and Kenney make me sick.
Are they trying to kill the inner gay in themselves?
By
Anonymous, at 11:06 a.m.
To anon 8:39 PM, I would say the conservatives who have an issue with ssm are the hateful shits.
Anybody know if Kenney is still a life long bachelor?
By
Anonymous, at 11:21 a.m.
Duh,
Of course Kenney is a lifelong bachelor.
Didn't you hear his proud statement a while back, that he has never slept with a woman.
Personally I can't see what woman, or MAN would even want him.
Any thoughts on that?
By
Anonymous, at 3:04 p.m.
anon 8:27 PM:
That is incorrect.
The Supreme Court never dealt with any challenge to previously laws. 8 out of 10 provincial courts of appeal had and no doubt the Supreme Court would have upheld the Constitution had it gone up one more rung.
But the only dealing with same sex marriage by the SCC were 4 questions brought by reference from the Chretien/Martin governments to ensure that their draft Civil Marriages Act was constitutional. i.e. they had already accepted the Constitutional right and had drafted a law to that effect.
By
Ted Betts, at 5:22 p.m.
Yeesh, the usually calm and informative level of debate around here sure is absent from this thread for some reason.
(However, don't worry, because this will all be settled once the right for everyone to have their pet causes mentioned in gov't immigration brochures is read into the Charter. ;)
Ted Betts: The Supreme Court never dealt with any challenge to previously laws. 8 out of 10 provincial courts of appeal had and no doubt the Supreme Court would have upheld the Constitution had it gone up one more rung.
Well, not quite. For all intents and purposes, it did "go up one more rung" with the four questions you mention in your next paragraph. And the Supreme Court deliberately declined to say that not allowing SSM was a Charter right, even though Paul Martin all but begged them to, so he could get off the hook.
Any claim that the Supreme Court would have said SSM is/isn't a Charter right is pure speculation and/or wishful thinking.
By
The Invisible Hand, at 10:53 p.m.
Oh, and it's rather sad that so-called "progressives" in this thread are saying "Jason Kenney made a decision I don't like, therefore I'm going to call him GAY!!!11"
By
The Invisible Hand, at 10:59 p.m.
Invisible Hand:
If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.
No one is questioning Jason Kenney and his homo sexuality.
Who cares?
It's hypocrisy that really irritates people.
Jason Kenney is a hypocrite.
So is John Baird.
Don't confuse the two issues.
Progressives dont care about homo sexuality, but we do care about hypocrisy.
By
Anonymous, at 11:37 p.m.
My comments were in response to the claim that the SCC did the work of the government. As you pointed out, Martin may have wanted them to but they didn't.
"Any claim that the Supreme Court would have said SSM is/isn't a Charter right is pure speculation and/or wishful thinking."
Hardly speculation when 8 provincial courts of appeal out of 8 provincial courts of appeal (I believe unanimously in each or almost every case) ruled the same sex only marriage laws were a violation of the Charter rights of gay men and women. No one seriously doubted the SCC would have found any different.
More significantly, because those rulings have not been appealed, they have indeed established marriage as an equality right.
By
Ted Betts, at 11:51 p.m.
I was told by a very well informed politico in Ottawa that Anonymous 9:53 is in fact an alien invader from Ceti Alpha 5, and is here to feast on all our brains.
By
Equally Credible Anonymous Poster, at 10:28 a.m.
"Supreme Court would have upheld the Constitution"
Except that the Constitution (in its broad sense in Canada) does not address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
What you appear to intend to suggest is that the SCoC would have extended the Constitution in line with the lower Courts.
By
Paul, at 3:49 p.m.
Ted: My comments were in response to the claim that the SCC did the work of the government. As you pointed out, Martin may have wanted them to but they didn't.
Right, I agree with you on that point.
Hardly speculation when 8 provincial courts of appeal out of 8 provincial courts of appeal...
The provincial appeal courts are supposed to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court, not the other way around.
By
The Invisible Hand, at 2:04 a.m.
"The provincial appeal courts are supposed to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court, not the other way around."
A little trite, no?
Obviously, the SCC does not follow the CAs. The point is obviously just that judges on 8 provincial courts of appeal, each with 3 or 5 senior judges, most of them unanimously, have found that the prior marriage law violated rights to equal treatment under the law because the law excluded same sex marriage.
The SCC does often overturn decisions of courts of appeal. But when you have that amount of near unanimity about the interpretation of the Charter, you can rest assured that it is extremely extremely unlikely that the SCC would have done so in this case.
By
Ted Betts, at 8:54 a.m.
You can never "rest assured" that the Supreme Court will do something until they actually do it.
Ergo, claiming they would have decided one way or the other is speculation.
By
The Invisible Hand, at 11:54 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home