DOSSIER # 11: HOW SSM INVALIDATES THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
"No man is above the law and no man below it." Theodore RooseveltSuppose that you went out today to buy a new home entertainment system. One with a new widescreen TV, subwoofers, surround sound system, amplifiers etc. You spend anywhere from 8-10 thousand dollars. And then let’s presume you ask the salesman before you purchas the final terms of the warranty. It says all parts and labour are guaranteed for 2 years. There is a stipulation though. All parts and labour are guaranteed for two years unless the corporation changes the warranty without serving notice as is their right. In other words, the two year guarantee might be changed to 10 years or 6 months or 0 years.
Would you still go through with the purchase?
Would the warranty be worth something to you?
The philosophical or academic reasoning behind SSM to the academics and legal proponents of it is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an elastic document that must constantly change with the times. Everyone from Jean Chrétien to that towering pantheon of ‘conservative’ thought, Joe Clark, has used this argument. To be blunt, the right to SSM is no where to be found in the Charter. At it’s formation, the creators of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms deliberately decided against incorporating sexual orientation into it. It is now being read into the Charter by elites who confuse their own ‘moral’ worldview with the legal text of the Charter.
In essence, this renders the meaning of the language of the Charter irrelevant. If a document can be re-interpreted so loosely that it can be made to go against the will of the majority of the populace at the imposition of the minority, what good is the document in protecting anyone’s rights and freedoms?
All documents, charters and constitutions in every language and culture are constructs of language. Language and words are imbued with meaning. The meanings of these words and how they form together to contain thoughts are interpreted through context. Context involves discerning a moral worldview.
What worldview of morality then must one adhere to so that one can interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a way that so many disagree with. The world view is that of Radical Feminist Gender Identity Theory, one of the philosophies which forms the crux of the New Left. In short, it is the belief that all humans are pansexual and that all concepts and notions of gender have been instilled in humans by an oppressive, patriarchal Judeo-Christian culture. The goal therefore is the eradication of gender. For a more in depth discussion of this please see Dossier # 6.
What happens then, when the Charter is now interpreted using a moral worldview that not only is scientifically incorrect but also is not known by the overwhelming majority of Canadians?
In a democracy, laws come from the wisdom and morality of the majority of the people. These laws are then codified and enforced as best as possible using the wit and wisdom of the common person as the guide.
People are now being told what their morality is from elites above and they must conform or suffer the consequences. Without resorting to hyperbole and rhetoric, this is not how a democracy works. However, we must also note that for democracy to flourish, the people themselves must take the responsibility to educate themselves of their choices before they go into the voting booth. They also must care about the choice they make.
The proponents of SSM believe that this new law will be like the laws of old that many don’t agree with. That people will conform, conscript and fall in line.
However, unlike other laws that people disagree with, for many, compliance and acquiescence with this law requires one to consider the implications on their very soul. It will force those with religious convictions, be they Sikh, Evangelical, Orthodox Jewish, Catholic, Muslim etc. to understand why they believe what they believe and to fight for it. It will also strengthen the intellectual arguments of secular individuals who are opposed to SSM on philosophical grounds.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms will now be seen as a document which protects only those who conform to the morality of New Canada. Eventually, one by one, there will be fewer and fewer people who are willing to conform to it. They will also be willing to endure whatever punishment the government metes out to them for their dissonance.
No man is above the law and no man is below it. But when a law, Charter or Constitution becomes merely a tool for elites to force an agenda on a populace that it does not want, in a democracy, that law, Charter or Constitution renders itself invalid. When this happens, the populace has very little choice but to disregard those laws and engage in civil disobedience. Some will pay a price, others will prevail.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become a worthless document. Because its meaning can be changed at whim without consent of the populace it protects no one but those who gain power from it. It has become antithetical to the cause of freedom and assumes the worst of human nature.
Such documents do not form the basis of a functioning democracy.
They form the basis of governments that are rooted in corruption, tyranny and lies.
posted by Nicol DuMoulin @ 6:35 AM
2 Comments:
So many errors, so little time.
1) You compare your decision to purchase an entertainment system, something that is YOUR choice, with that of MBCSSA (Marriage By Consenting Same Sex Adults - the SSM of course, is so close to S&M, but that is deliberate) - Canada legally allows people to form a union that is recognized in our laws; it could be argued that Canada should not discriminate in favor or against married people (i.e. "get out of the business" - remove the word "marriage" from our laws); until such time, Canada's laws do recognize a difference between married and not (check your tax returns, for example). Since they do, and since Canada does NOT support discrimination in this area (proof: we have laws that prohibit refusing to hire someone if they are gay, for example), we are currently discriminating against homosexuals by refusing to recognize the bond.
The real problem is this: we have TWO marriage definitions - one, a religious one that I do believe is everryone's right - that you are free to believe that homosexuality is wrong, or not for you, etc, as long as in our society, you do not practice discrimination; then there is the legal definition. Since the act of getting married implements the two definitions more or less simultaneously, we often do not acknoledge the difference. Maybe if the gov't used a NEW word - instead of marriage, they used "partner"; if the gov't then changed all references to "marriage" in the laws to "partner", then we could all have our cake - homosexuals and heterosexuasls could be joined as "partners" before the law, with all the inherent benedits and responsibilities. The churches and religious bodies could continue to exclusively use the word "marriage" and as it would then be strictly a religious construct, it would be up to each church to decide what constitutes "their word of god".
P.S. In the off chance that you somehow believe in the Christian faith, tell me, do you REALLY think Jesus healed one after another, then at one point stopped and yelled "hey faggot - I ain't treating you - be gone"? Not the Jesus I was raised with.
The more that churches deviate from the bible, the more people are confused and leave the church. People are no less religious today than in yesteryears; they are just more enlightened to the teachings of the church being quite different from the teachings of the bible.
Jesus loved all of his childen - equally.
When you came to Canada, did you think we practiced racism? Canada is one if not the most advanced nations in the world (please don't confuse the less populated Canada with the less evolved larger but more ignorant neighbour to the south). Canada wants everyone to be treated equally. So what "warranty" is being changed on you? If someone invalidated your marriage to someone presumably of the opposite sex, your point would be valid. Did your marriage become invalid when someone got married after you? No. So why does your marriage become invalid because someone whom you do not have to associate with, got married to someone, just like you, that they love - it just happens to be of the same sex.
So your argument about your opposite sex marriage being invalidated is invalid.
It is precisely that our CRF is NOT an elastic document. MBCSSA is indirectly crafted in many areas of the CRF - when the gov't says a man and a woman can do something, but a man and a man cannot - that is discrimination; the gov't must either outlaw opposite sex marriages, or allow sam sex marriage, in order to comply with anti-discrimination clauses of our charter.
You make an erroneous statement, then refer to it as proof of further (invalid) conclusions. There has been no loose interpretation of the constitution.
I don't care if 90% of Canadians are against MBCSSA. What would you say if 90% of Canadians were against letting blacks vote? Call it what it is.
You go on to state something that no one, including you, can ascert. No one knows from whence we came. Many have a belief, but no one knows. So you cannot state that MBCSSA is "scientifically incorrect" as we have no way of knowing what happened thousands of years ago, nor do we really know how we got here, other than it was something super human beyond our current knowledge.
When all of your other arguements are proven invalid or self-ascerted, you fall back on the good old "democracy". This at least I can in part agree with you. But I go back to the dual purpose meaning of "marriage" as the crux of the problem. Yes, everyone is entitle to their religious beliefs that may preclude believing taht MBCSSA is correct. I believe that the gov't should get out of the entire "marriage" business and start using a new definition - perhaps "partner" - whatever, as I stated above. No law should infer a difference based upon sexual orientation.
"People are now being told what their morality is" - did I miss something? I am not and have never been told by the gov't what my morality should be. I am being told what the law is. That even if I don't believe in homosexuality, it is NOT MY RIGHT to impose it on others. In this respect, the gov't and myself are on the same side, with you opposing, believing that your rights should trample on my rights.
Throwing in a lost quote "No man......" is straight out of freshman university political science - an attempt to elevate your image in the eyes of your readers.
I see you for what you are - an arrogant, self appointed dictator who wants to run my life, dictate what I can do in my bedroom, and with whom I can do it. You cannot be content to run your own life, but then, neither could Hitler. Hitler hated all those unlike himself.
Maybe your next article could be a defence of why you and Hitler are not the same.
For the record, since I am trying to meet a nice lady to marry (I am a man), I will say that I am totally heterosexual, but I have no issues whatsoever with homosexuals - they don't try to pass laws that I change to become homosexual, and in return, I don't try to force them to become heterosexual. I believe I have the right to marry, as I believe they have the right to marry.
It is because of people like you that we have so many damned laws, courts and lawyers.
Very simple - MY RIGHTS END WHERE YOUR'S START. And your rights do not include deciding who I marry, male or female.
Robert Bertand
People seem to confuse what happens in the bedroom with marriage. Maybe that's the problem. Why is it that only 'conjugal' relationships are legit when it comes to marriage?
Society creates and promotes institutions which benefit society, marriage is one of those institutions. If same-sex relationships benefit society, it has nothing to do with their sex lives, so it must be something else.
If we are to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, why stop there? Why not include any coupling, tripling, quadrupling where the partners provide mutual support and comfort -- the sexual aspect of marriage was only an issue when it came to procreation -- that's not an issue any more, so let's elevate all couplings to the status of marriage so their tax returns can be the same and everyone's self esteem can be bright and shiny.
As for one person's rights ending where another's start . . . I hope people like Robert remember this argument the first time a gay couple challenges a religious community's right not to perform a wedding service, or a separate school's right to teach a heterosexual normative curriculum.
P.S. In the off chance that you somehow believe in the Christian faith, tell me, do you REALLY think Jesus healed one after another, then at one point stopped and yelled "hey faggot - I ain't treating you - be gone"? Not the Jesus I was raised with.
Nor the Jesus I was raised with. If a homosexual had come to him for a healing, I've no doubt Jesus would have cured his affliction. How many homosexuals would want cured today?
The new left always says 'who would choose' and then act insulted when a question like this is asked.
Post a Comment
<< Home