ChristianGovernance – October 27, 2010
The humanist spirit of affirmative action is alive and well in Canada’s Parliament
By John Newnham
As we’ve noted before, affirmative action, group rights and parity of action are vehicles for the implementation of socialism or state-ism at the expense of our Judeo-Christian tradition of liberty and equity.
Following are some examples of this spirit in Canada’s current parliament as reflected in Private Members’ Bill introduced by various Members of Parliament. Private Members’ Bills are pieces of legislation that any MP who is not a Cabinet Minister can introduce in Parliament. These bills, then, can be understood to reflect, not just the beliefs, but also the priorities for the government, held by these MPs.
Bill C-380 was introduced by Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre). It would amend the Criminal Code by expanding the definition of “identifiable group” in relation to hate propaganda in the Criminal Code to include any section of the public distinguished by its sex. Bloc Quebecois MP Nicole Demers (Laval) has introduced a similar bill – C-531 – that would make that same amendment to the Criminal Code as well as a “Coordinating Amendment” conditional on the final passage of another piece of legislation). Ms. Demers is one of the most strident voices for radical feminism and abortion rights in Parliament today.
This Section 318 of the Criminal Code is one of many places in Canadian law and public policy where people are characterized by certain group affiliations for the sake of political advantage and special treatment, contrary to the Christian Canadian tradition of equality before the law. The other expected group classifications are already in the Clause 318(4) that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj wants to amend: colour, race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation.
Homosexual NDP MP Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas) introduced Bill C-389 to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to add the terms or groups “gender identity” and “gender expression.” In effect, he wants transvestites protected from “discrimination” in Canadian law. The CHRA amendment would make “gender identity” and “gender expression” prohibited grounds of discrimination. In other words, a person could file a “human rights” complaints before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (within the jurisdiction governed by the CHRA) if (s)he believed (s)he had experienced “discrimination on the basis of his/her “gender identity” or “gender expression.”
He also wants to add “gender identity” or “gender expression” to Section 318 of the Criminal Code, as well as to Section 718.2. This latter section requires courts to consider giving someone found guilty of an offence a harsher sentence if they believe that the offence was committed because of the victim’s “gender identity” or “gender expression.” So someone assaulted allegedly over being a transvestite is considered more valuable in law than a plain ordinary victim of domestic violence or hit and run.
Mr. Siksay seems to like the Canadian Human Rights Act – not surprisingly since it’s a body of humanistic law: he has also introduced Bill C-536 which would add “genetic characteristics” to the list of “prohibited grounds of discrimination.” So did his former colleague, Manitoba NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis – with Bill C-508 – who has since resigned to run for Mayor in Winnipeg.
It is extremely important to note the language “prohibited grounds of discrimination.” Not all discrimination is against the law in Canada, only discrimination on the basis of politically advantaged groups. We might not have political prisoners in Canada but, on the other end of the spectrum, we have politically favoured groups that receive special treatment in law. One of the many atheists stirring up the Comment section of our website, trying to defend the need to have legislation that banned human rights criticised me for pointing out that only certain forms of discrimination were identified as wrong in law. He must have been an American because when I pointed out to him that this was true and that, for example, there’s no provision for pro-lifers to file discrimination complaints, he was silent.
Even most Canadians have no idea that Canada’s liberal establishment tore up our commitment to the rule of law and equality before the law years ago, replacing it with a system of deeply entrenched manipulation and political favouritism. And instead of fixing it, the politicians just want to make it worse by adding ever more categories of politically favoured people at the expense of justice and equity for all.
Lesbian NDP MP Libby Davies (Vancouver East) has introduced Bill C-558 which would add “social condition” to Section 718 of the Criminal Code so that someone found guilty of an offence against someone over his/her social condition might receive a steeper sentence. So what on earth does “social condition” mean? This bill “requires an increased sentence where there is evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the social condition of the victim. It strives to protect people experiencing social or economic disadvantage on the basis of their source of income, occupation, level of education, poverty, lack of adequate housing, homelessness or any other similar circumstance.” I guess that means that if you assault someone, and are heard calling him a “welfare bum,” you might be in for a harsher sentence.
Ms. Davies also introduced a companion piece of legislation, Bill C-559, which would add “social condition” to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Presumably this means that if you are a landlord, and you refuse to rent to anyone who is on welfare, you can be found guilty of discrimination and forced to rent to him free of charge for a year, or something like that.
Probably of much greater concern as an assault on our democratic tradition are the affirmative action mandates in two PMBs introduced by top Liberal MP (and a former Cabinet Minister) Marlene Jennnings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine). Ms. Jennings introduced Bill C-552 that would amend the Canada Elections Act “to provide a special quarterly allowance for registered parties in which a certain percentage of the members elected are women.” A previous Liberal government already assaulted our democratic traditions by passing legislation that channels taxpayer dollars to political parties, forcing you and me to fund parties whose values we reject. And now this Quebec Liberal MP wants to launch an even more offensive assault against our democratic principles by having taxpayer dollars dispersed at the same partisan level on the basis of socialist affirmative action criteria.
But it gets worse… Ms. Jennings has also introduced Bill C-553, which would amend the Canada Elections Act on the basis of the same rationale, but for additional criteria: “This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to provide a special quarterly allowance for registered parties in which a certain percentage of the members elected are Aboriginal people, members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities.
Ms. Jennings’ values might fit well in Sweden or North Korea, but what on earth is such an anti-democratic person doing in the federal Parliament of Canada?
Let’s wrap up here with reference to one more Private Member’s Bill, another one introduced by Bill Siksay. He introduced Bill C-407, which would ban what he calls racial and religious profiling. The official summary of the bill reads as follows: The purpose of this enactment is to prevent individuals from being stopped or otherwise investigated by enforcement officers wholly or partly on the basis of the individual’s race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion or place of origin. The enactment prohibits the practice of racial and religious profiling. It also requires enforcement agencies to establish policies and procedures to eliminate racial and religious profiling, including the collection of data sufficient to determine whether enforcement officers have engaged in racial or religious profiling. The enactment requires the Minister responsible for an enforcement agency to submit to Parliament each year a report of the agency on racial and religious profiling.”
It is rather unlikely that any of these Bills will come before Parliament for debate and a vote, so they probably won’t become part of the law of the land. But we continue to face this pressure against Canada’s Judeo-Christian social order with its commitment to liberty and equity. Humanist forces that have embraced the vision of a messianic state are constantly vying for control. They believe in a state that has the responsibility and power to crush liberty and to enforce parity of outcome when the free choices of Canadians don’t produce results they like. These socialist forces have made great strides already over the past generation. We must resist any further advances and take back territory from them. We need to reinvigorate the family, the church, local communities and the voluntary sector in place of the suffocating tentacles of a bureaucratic, institutionalized state machine.