"Why Canada is better than you", episode 3,411,263.

[theweaselking]

A summary of recent changes to Ontario marriage laws.

Personally, I think that the civil clerks *should* be invited to resign if they don't want to issue marriage certificates, for the same reason that they're fired if they refuse to grant interracial marriage certificates, or if they refused to grant marriage certificates to Quebecers, or if they refused to process paperwork for people they personally disliked.

Comments

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Actualy, "people you personaly dislike" is not a group protected under the constitution, so if the regulations allowed it (which I'm pretty sure they don't) someone could do that last catagory. But yeah, all the other ones are a nono.

However, when it comes to this specific issue, if I was running things I'd wait a bit for the dust to settle and people to at least assume that gay marrage is here to stay until I started firing people.

[jsbowden.livejournal.com]

Nope. They're acting as agents of the state, and the state explicitly allows and performs this function. It's their job.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Which statement of mine are you objecting to?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Not consitutionally protected, but at the same time, if you in your current job decide do not serve me because you don't like me, you're still going to be fired. It's your job to fix my computer.

And I'm not suggesting "firing", per se - they mention Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, where the people whose job it is to provide marriage certificates have been told that their job is to provide marriage certificates to *all* legal couples, and some have resigned. I'm saying that you tell people that their job is to provide certificates to every legal couple, and allow people a chance to resign over principle if they feel they have to, or think it through and decide that "not being a bigot" is better than "being unemployed."

Let the firings wait for the few people who refuse to do their job *and* who refuse to quit. Give people a while to get used to it, but don't enshrine a policy of "You don't have to do this if you don't want to" - that way lies the American stupidity of doctors and pharmacists and insurance companies not having to provide contracted ,paid-for services because they don't feel like it.

Your Honouuuur, I object! (Extra 'u's for Canookian Compliance)

[jsbowden.livejournal.com]

I object to the idea that they not get fired for refusing to provide the service they are explicitly paid to give.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

>>Not consitutionally protected, but at the same time, if you in your current job decide do not serve me because you don't like me, you're still going to be fired. It's your job to fix my computer.
<<

For most sensable companies, yes. But there's no law requiring me to serve people I don't like, and if I ran my own company I could just kick people out who anoy me. I could not legaly kick people out for being gay however.

And I'm not saying let this get enshrined, just wait until the conservative nutbars have another windmill to attack.

Re: Your Honouuuur, I object! (Extra 'u's for Canookian Compliance)

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Even if it results in the conservatives taking power (given that we have a minority government, it's possible) and getting rid of gay marrage by invoking the notwithstanding clause?

Re: Your Honouuuur, I object! (Extra 'u's for Canookian Compliance)

[jsbowden.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, the clause that pretty much invalidates the entire rest of your Constitution. What the fuck were you guys thinking, inserting that?

Our government down here may be ignoring portions ours, but they can't just declare it null and void on a whim.

Re: Your Honouuuur, I object! (Extra 'u's for Canookian Compliance)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

------------------------------------------------------------
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
------------------------------------------------------------

Oddly, while Sections 2 and 7-15 involve freedom of expression and assembly and equality, Section 33 doesn't apply to Section 1.

----------------------------------------------------
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
----------------------------------------------------

"Demonstrably justify" the need to discriminate against gays who want to get married. You're *allowed* to discriminate against them, if you can do that AND get elected AND pass a "Notwithstanding" bill without breaking the government. While you're at it, check 25 through 31.

(By the way, "freedom of conscience and religion", guaranteed in section 2(a), is consistently and absolutely applied as "freedom FROM religion" - the right to practice any religion, or none, freely - meaning you'd need TWO "notwithstanding" applications of section 33, one to remove equal rights and one to remove the restriction against religious lawmaking, AND you'd need to "demonstrably justify" to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court that these restrictions are consistent with a free and democratic society.)

Not to mention, incidentally, that every goverment that's invoked or attempted to invoke section 33, except for the insipid but not actually harmful Quebec language laws, has fallen.

Obligatory Jingoistic moment: Americans in the audience, this is one of many reasons why Canada's Charter is better than your Constitution, too.

Re: Your Honouuuur, I object! (Extra 'u's for Canookian Compliance)

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Did you know that a bunch of our constetution isn't even written down? Or that our judges are supposed to do what makes sense and is a good idea, instead of just blindly following the law? Or that the Queen technicaly holds all sorts of power over the country, yet the thought of her using it is actualy laughable?

Yet we somehow manage to have more freedoms here. Funny that.

Oh, and it doesn't just get avoided on a wim. Any law that uses it has to be ratified every few years (can't remember if it's 4 or 5 offhand), if it isn't, the law is gone.

Re: Your Honouuuur, I object! (Extra 'u's for Canookian Compliance)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It was include that or lose Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Quebec.

No, really. That one had to be there or the prairie bits (our equivalent to Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas) wouldn't sign the rest of it.

Societal engineering has made using Section 33 the Kiss Of Death for a government, though.

Re: Your Honouuuur, I object! (Extra 'u's for Canookian Compliance)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

5 years. Chosen specifically because there *has* to have been an election in that time, so the government that voted in that law can be thrown out, and the law dies *no matter what* unless it is passed again. Without a sunset clause, even a government that lost the election could theoretically stop a minority from repealing the law. As-is, you need a majority, actively working, to keep it.

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

i believe private US entities can reserve the right to refuse service for any reason. the difference here is these workers are NOT the decision makers. their job is to provide a certain service in accordance with the law. if they don't feel they can do that job, they should quit.

"Why Canada is better than you", episode 3.411.264

[sivi-volk.livejournal.com]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4519090

http://immigration.about.com/b/a/150950.htm