Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 11:03:51 -0500 [ Send all responses to quadrat@INTERLOG.COM only. Any responses to the list or list-owners will be returned to you. ] The Liberal party, which holds a majority in Parliament and forms Canada's federal government, is proposing changes to the Criminal Code of Canada. Part of the changes that would be made to the Criminal Code by Bill C-41 are intended to include gay-bashing as a form of hate-motivated crime. As well, Canadian courts have ruled that discrimination on the basis sexual orientation should be "read into" the Canadian Human Rights Act as prohibited, and Allan Rock, the Minister of Justice, has stated his intention to amend the Human Rights Act to specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The government is now grappling with dissent from some its own Members of Parliament over these proposed changes. This past summer a weak attempt by the New Democratic government in the province of Ontario to introduce amendments to provincial legislation to equalize the treatment of gays and straights met with severe opposition both outside and inside government ranks and resulted in the ultimate defeat of the legislation. Since then the right in Canada has become even more vociferous in protecting its privilege to discriminate. This story is from _The Globe and Mail_, Thursday, November 17, 1994. David Vereschagin quadrat@interlog.com 75645.1752@compuserve.com * * * * * Rock yanked into debate on gay rights Sentencing bill refers to sexual orientation by Tu Thanh Ha Parliamentary Bureau OTTAWA -- For Justice Minister Allan Rock, two words in a 75-page bill on criminal sentencing rules unveiled last spring have turned into the equivalent of Alice's looking glass. Those two words -- sexual orientation -- have yanked Mr. Rock through a mirror into a controversy he was not planning to be dragged into. It has developed into an intense debate about gay rights that has invoked emotional arguments about hatred, pedophilia and the roles of lawmakers and of the courts. Mr. Rock is to appear this morning before the Commons justice committee to defend Bill C-41, which overhauls sentencing clauses in the Criminal Code. The section of the bill that has triggered this controversy says harsher penalties can be imposed when a crime is motivated by prejudice or hated based on -- among other things -- sexual orientation. One of the most vocal critics of the bill, Liberal MP Tom Wappel, is a member of the committee. Other opponents of the project are also expected to be on hand. "The issue is finally coming forth," Liberal MP Daniel McTeague said. Like other backbenchers who disagree with the government's bill, Mr. McTeague thinks it is a Trojan horse that will entrench the concept of gay rights within federal statutes. The challenge for Mr. Rock will be to convince his critics that the scope of the bill is limited and that its impact will not spill into other areas, such as extending same-sex federal benefits. "The bill is talking clearly about sentencing. It doesn't deal in any way with lifestyles. Not in any way," said Gordon Parry, a Justice official who co-ordinates the policy unit in charge of sentencing. Eight of the 10 provinces already recognize gay rights in their statutes, and several courts have had to deal with the issue. "It's already in law and has been the subject of jurisprudence," Mr. Parry said. In the so-called Haig case, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in 1992 that sexual orientation, while not explicitly listed in the Canadian Human Rights Act, can be "read in" as prohibited grounds for discrimination. The ruling was not appealed by Ottawa, and hundreds of complaints dealing with sexual orientation have since been handled by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. To recognize this situation, Mr. Rock has said he plans to amend the Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation -- a change that would affect all federal jurisdictions. But while the government is arguing that it is merely putting into law what already has been recognized by the courts, Mr. Wappel, a staunch opponent of recognizing sexual orientation as a prohibited basis of discrimination, said it is lawmakers, not judges, who should set the agenda. "It's totally inappropriate for a court to read in words that are not there. That's legal fiction," he said. Mr. Wappel's opposition to gay rights is multilevelled. He does not believe that homosexuality is moral. He said it is hard to justify prohibiting discrimination based on homosexuality, because he believes that it is neither visible nor inherited, like skin colour or gender, but is a chosen way of life. Reminded that people may be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, he said: "Religion is virtually genetic, since it is passed from generation to generation. Homosexuality is not genetic, but a choice." If sexual orientation is recognized, Mr. Wappel said, it could open the door to courts to legislate gay rights into other matters -- for example, changing immigration sponsorship rules to allow for same-sex couples, or even, allowing pedophiles to legitimize their actions. For John Fisher, executive director of the gay rights group EGALE, such fears are unfounded, and feed into stereotypes of gays as being sexual predators. "There isn't a single decision of a court that might suggest it. Pedophilia is not related to sexual orientation." Mr. Fisher said. * * * * *