They are sooo good at naming things

Perhaps tired of all the press the Liberal leadership race has been getting (latest rumour, Rae to endorse Dryden, pass it on) the Conservatives made some news of their own today by releasing plans to introduce a "Defence of Religions Act."

Man the barricades! Or, as the witty Zac put it, Onward Christian Soldiers!

You know, I've said it before and I'll say it again, no one is better at naming things then the political right. These are the people that gave us the Death Tax and the Defence of Marriage Act, after all. A source close to Conservative CoS Ian Brodie tells me Defence of Religions Act narrowly won-out over their second choice, the Defence of Cuddly Wuddly Puppies Act.

Make no mistake though people, this has nothing to do with protecting religion. Or puppies. Religion is protected. How do I know? Well, the law says so, and so does, who was it…oh yeah, The Supreme Court of Canada. My friend (when he's not talking about Dion) TDH (now permalinkable!) lays out the history there quite clearly. As for puppies, they have the SPCA.

Clearly then religion is just being used here as cover, as nearly everyone would say heck yeah, religions should be protected. And they ALREADY ARE PROTECTED. So, what's this about then? Well, clearly one motivation is to rally their base in advance of the next election. Because hey, the Republicans do it every two years, and it works for them, right?

That's part of if, but there's more. This is from the Globe piece:

The measures would seek to ensure, for example…that a justice of the peace cannot be compelled to marry a same-sex couple in violation of his or her religious beliefs.

I agree that churches shouldn't be forced to perform ceremonies. Everyone does. But a justice of a peace isn't a priest or a rabbi. They don't work for a church. They work for THE GOVERNMENT. THEIR JOB is to marry people. If you don't want to marry some people, don't take the job! What if it's against their beliefs to marry, say, an inter-racial couple? Should that be acceptable too?

Here's more from the Globe, bolding is mine:

…there is acknowledged uncertainty about the rights of individuals to publicly criticize homosexual behaviour, to take out advertisements that quote scripture demanding that homosexuals be put to death, or to refuse to do business with groups whose views an individual or group finds objectionable.

Umm, why would we want to protect such speech as that in bold. Try replacing homosexuals with jews, blacks, Asians, etc., still acceptable? And on the issue of refusing to do business with "objectionable" people, how will that work? So, you're gay? Sorry, that Harvard MBA is impressive but you're not getting the job.

This proposed act has nothing to do with religion. Religion is protected. What this proposed legislation is about is legislated gay bashing, and I surely hope it will never see the light of day. Clearly, some Conservatives hope so as well:

Conservative MP Garth Turner, however, said Wednesday that such a law could be the “slippery slope” toward protecting bigotry and intolerance.

And fellow Tory Art Hanger said Charter protections of religious freedom are “cast in stone,” so another law may be unnecessary.

Cast in stone. Slippery slope to bigotry. Thats from your own caucus. Time for a rethink, Vic.

UPDATE: The always witty, and biting, Canadian Cynic sees the upside to the proposed Conservative legislation.:

I mean, surely no one is suggesting that taxpayer-funded bigotry be restricted to only the devout, are they? If Canadian Christians are granted that kind of freedom, it would seem inarguable that all taxpayer-financed Canadians will have the same choice to associate, or not, as they see fit based on nothing more than their personal beliefs. And, oh, the possibilites are endless.

For instance, teachers in Canada's public school system might decide that they just don't feel like teaching students who are strict Biblical creationists. (Such students are typically a royal pain in the ass anyway, so booting their sorry asses out the door of the science classroom can't help but be an improvement.) And why stop there? Why, indeed?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers