![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciroccojBack from choir and too exhausted/high to go to bed yet. That was quite the workout. Modesty aside, we sounded amazing. If we can do this well at the concert, there's going to be some very happy people in the audience. And in the choir itself :)
We're finally singing "The Virgin Mary Had a Baby Boy" with Caribbean oomph instead of Ontarian Aryan stiff blandness. Thank god. And the "monks & angels" sound is coming along quite nicely for Brother Heinrich's Christmas. The Messiah rocks. We should do OK.
::crossing fingers:: Please, please let us do OK.
So, trying to bring myself down so I can go to bed, I decided to read through some of the gay marriage stuff before the Supreme Court. And because I have no need of this thing called a "life," I've gone through and picked out, for those of you who also scorn non-geek related pastimes, the most frequently mentioned sections of the Charter referred to in the arguments.
Section 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.
In Canada, you can have laws that violate one of the rights guaranteed in the Charter, as long as you can justify doing so. So, for example, we can violate the freedom of expression of tobacco companies to advertise to children. Some of the intervenors argued that even if keeping marriage het violates gay citizens' rights of expression, association, equality, etc, this was OK because it was for a good reason: preserving the sanctity of marriage as a whole.
Section 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
It was argued that restricting marriage to hets violated gay citizens' freedom of expression and (I think) association, and that the right to freedom of conscience and religion for religious groups was/was not violated by allowing gay marriage.
Section 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The Court has previously ruled that the list (race, national or ethnic origin, yadda yadda) is not exhaustive. I.e., you can add other 'analogous' terms in there, like age or sexual orientation. It was argued that not allowing gay marriage did/did not violate the equality rights of gay Canadians.
Section 28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
Because if a guy can marry a girl, why can't a girl do the same?
Section 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.
AKA the Notwithstanding Clause. This was mostly an Alberta thing. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has declared that if the Feds legalize gay marriage, he'll invoke the Notwithstanding Clause and un-legalize it in Alberta.
Incidentally, here's a recipe for Alberta:
1 cup Texas
1 cup Alabama
2 cups snow
dash of yeeha
12 years of Ralph Klein
1. Blend Texas, Alabama, snow and yehaa until lumpy.
2. Add in Ralph Klein, blending until grotesque.
3. (Optional) Add a pinch of Chinook and/or gorgeous vistas out of pity.
4. Drop into the middle of Canada.
5. Watch the rest of Canada say WTF? a lot.
6. Hear citizens of Texas and Alabama indignantly deny any association with these wingnuts.
And for those who really need help getting to sleep tonight, here's the Full Text of the Charter.
Nighty night, everyone!
We're finally singing "The Virgin Mary Had a Baby Boy" with Caribbean oomph instead of Ontarian Aryan stiff blandness. Thank god. And the "monks & angels" sound is coming along quite nicely for Brother Heinrich's Christmas. The Messiah rocks. We should do OK.
::crossing fingers:: Please, please let us do OK.
So, trying to bring myself down so I can go to bed, I decided to read through some of the gay marriage stuff before the Supreme Court. And because I have no need of this thing called a "life," I've gone through and picked out, for those of you who also scorn non-geek related pastimes, the most frequently mentioned sections of the Charter referred to in the arguments.
Section 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.
In Canada, you can have laws that violate one of the rights guaranteed in the Charter, as long as you can justify doing so. So, for example, we can violate the freedom of expression of tobacco companies to advertise to children. Some of the intervenors argued that even if keeping marriage het violates gay citizens' rights of expression, association, equality, etc, this was OK because it was for a good reason: preserving the sanctity of marriage as a whole.
Section 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
It was argued that restricting marriage to hets violated gay citizens' freedom of expression and (I think) association, and that the right to freedom of conscience and religion for religious groups was/was not violated by allowing gay marriage.
Section 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The Court has previously ruled that the list (race, national or ethnic origin, yadda yadda) is not exhaustive. I.e., you can add other 'analogous' terms in there, like age or sexual orientation. It was argued that not allowing gay marriage did/did not violate the equality rights of gay Canadians.
Section 28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
Because if a guy can marry a girl, why can't a girl do the same?
Section 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.
AKA the Notwithstanding Clause. This was mostly an Alberta thing. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has declared that if the Feds legalize gay marriage, he'll invoke the Notwithstanding Clause and un-legalize it in Alberta.
Incidentally, here's a recipe for Alberta:
1 cup Texas
1 cup Alabama
2 cups snow
dash of yeeha
12 years of Ralph Klein
1. Blend Texas, Alabama, snow and yehaa until lumpy.
2. Add in Ralph Klein, blending until grotesque.
3. (Optional) Add a pinch of Chinook and/or gorgeous vistas out of pity.
4. Drop into the middle of Canada.
5. Watch the rest of Canada say WTF? a lot.
6. Hear citizens of Texas and Alabama indignantly deny any association with these wingnuts.
And for those who really need help getting to sleep tonight, here's the Full Text of the Charter.
Nighty night, everyone!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 05:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 10:47 am (UTC)Isn't it amazing? ::happy sigh::
And thanks as well for the pertinent bits of the Charter; I'm nothing like a lawyer but I found them pretty darn interesting.
You're welcome :)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 08:16 am (UTC)ROFLMAO. That is so damn perfect. And my sister wonders why I don't want to move to Calgary...
Also linking this to my journal because I have a couple friends from overseas into this gay marriage thing ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 10:53 am (UTC)Thanks! I had fun writing it :)
And my sister wonders why I don't want to move to Calgary...
Chris' family occasionally asks him when/if he's going to move back. And we don't want to say "We'd rather dive into a pool of slime" because that sounds like we don't love them, but... really. Bucket O Slime v. Klein? Which one is less likely to make you puke? And what about being surrounded by people who keep electing him??
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 08:40 am (UTC)I live in B.C., the province whose government wants us to be Alberta.
Re:
Date: 2004-12-09 10:56 am (UTC)Yeah, it doesn't translate real well. Feel free to quote though :)
I live in B.C., the province whose government wants us to be Alberta.
Oh, ouch. I live in Ontario, where for the first little while after Mike Harris was elected, Ralphie was heard referring to him as a wingnut.
Happily, we eventually turfed him and his ilk. We're feeling better now :)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 12:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 12:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 01:02 pm (UTC)LOL yeah, I can imagine. My partner's an Alberta refugee, and comes from a family of non-wingnuts, so I'm familiar with the above sentiments :) At one point, his dad and stepmother, both fairly progressive folks, were horrified to find out that their section of Calgary was responsible for electing both Ralph Klein and Preston Manning. Eeep.
By the way, I love your icon :D :D :D
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 02:40 pm (UTC)*sigh* Yeah, I know. It's horrible, isn't it? At least Manning's gone (although I don't think Harper is any better -- in fact, I believe he might just be worse), but when a man who kicks homeless people and drinks like a fish can keep getting reelected, and with NO discernable Party platform to boot... it makes everything seem awfully bleak, doesn't it?
By the way, I love your icon :D :D :D
Hee. Thanks. The text is courtesy something Rick Mercer said on Monday Report.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 12:28 pm (UTC)Try living in America.
Hi, I'm here by way of
no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 12:34 pm (UTC)That, unfortunately, is something I'm really going to have to pass on. Although you have my sympathies, you really do. >_<