Simple solutions

My dad and I got into a bit of a discussion on the whole "Sanctity of Marriage" issue. Since we both think generally in the same way, it can't really be described as a debate, but it was a discussion on the subject matter.

My dad actually came up with a remarkably simple solution which, I think, would basically sweep away any arguments that would come up.

The solution is twofold:

1) make Marriage an institution which is specifically religious. And give them the power to marry whoever they feel they should, and to restrict it as they see fit.

2) begin another institution which has a different name (it doesn't really matter what you call it, as long as you call it something other than "marriage"), and which will be the legal and social equivalent of marriage. This institution will apply to all "marriages" not performed by a religious institution whether they be same-sex or opposite-sex unions, and will be unrestricted on those terms. Religious institutions will have no power over this type of union.

When you think about it, this solution makes a lot of sense:

1) it makes the people who are ranting about the "sanctity of marriage" happy because any homosexuals who "marry" won't have something which is called a marriage. It'll be the exact equivalent of a marriage, and will likely be referred to as a marriage in casual conversation, but it'll technically be something different.

2) it makes any homosexuals who wish to marry happy because they will have the exact same legal rights as a heterosexual who wishes to enter into a non-religiously based union.

3) it makes the churches happy because they have the power to refuse to marry two people on whatever grounds they see fit. If they say they're only going to allow opposite-sex marriages; fine. If they say that they'll also allow same-sex marriages; also fine. If they decide that they're not going to marry people with blond hair, so be it. It's up to them; but they only have this power over unions that are performed within their church.

The only downside to this plan arises if a same-sex couple absolutely wants a religious union. The majority of churches will likely refuse to perform such unions, at least for now. But that's likely to change, eventually, as the various faiths begin to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle.

Hmmm. Maybe I should write this up and send it off to the PM...

Short-lived weaning

I have been attempting, for the last month, to cut back on my caffeine intake.

I did that whole thing where you buy a bag of normal coffee and a bag of decaf and bit by bit, you replace some of the coffee grounds in your coffee maker with decaf. I guess the idea is that your body doesn't know the difference between coffee and decaf at 6:00 in the morning.

It was working, too. I was down to about 1/4 normal coffee and 3/4 decaf.

Then I made the mistake of staying up working untl 3:00 this morning.

At last count, I'd had four cups of coffee, and it's not even 8:30 yet.

So much for weaning off.

More things I don't get.

I did my weekly cleaning of my spam folder today and I found I had two messages from the same crazy fundamentalist Christian group. One of which was screaming about the evil of Homosexuality, the other which was screaming about the evil of abortion.

Then it occurred to me: is there another class of people on earth who has fewer abortions than Homosexuals?

Seriously, we have an entire class of people who are practically guaranteed never to have an abortion. You'd think that the two would make natural allies.

Before I go on here, I want to make absolutely clear that I have no issues whatsoever with the Christian faith, or any faith for that matter. However, I feel that an importand divisoin must exist between Religion and Government. There are, admittely, people in Canada who disagree with this assessment. I don't think that a book written thousands of years ago, which has been translated and retranslated countless times, and often with contradictory meanings, can necessarily tell us much about how to run a country today.

But narrowing it down significantly, it's my experience that the people who are truly fundamentalist, who can quote the bible with vehemence to condemn some heinous sin, and who insist that every passage in the bible must be interpreted literally, show a remarkable ignorance of what the bible actually says.

For example, it's a commonplace occurrence for people to demonstrate at various Gay Pride rallies about how much "God hates fags." When was the last time you saw people demonstrating in front of a Red Lobster proclaiming that God Hates Shrimp?

Don't get me wrong, the bible has a number of very valuable lessons to teach, but it is not, and should not be seen as the final word on any given subject. If you're going to condemn someone based entirely on a biblical passage, then you should endorse the selling of one's daughter into slavery, or lighten punishment for rape, or condemn the eating of shrimp. There are a number of passages in the bible which are either horribly violent, blatantly racist, or borderline pornographic. Not a lot of people know about those passages of the bible, however. If you're going to condemn a group of people based upon the Bible, you should have a good understanding of what the bible actually says.

Okay, down off the soapbox...

Federal Election

Well, Canada's within a few days of a federal election. Again.

I, as a general rule, try to keep my ass out of politics. I'm a scientist, not a politician. I have some opinions on the matter, and I like to think that I can contribute meaningfully to a conversation about politics when the occasion arises, but in terms of actually playing a role in the process, I tend to butt out.

There is, however, something about the Canadian election process about which I was unaware prior to this election (in part because it wasn't really a possibility in any election in my lifetime), namely that it's possible for the party in power to remain the party in power, even if they have fewer seats in parliament than another party.

For the last ten years, the Liberal party in Canada has held a majority parliament (for the yankees out there, that means that the Liberal party has had more than 50% of the seats in the house of commons). Now, the idea of a majority parliament is something I object to on principle. I feel that it gives too much power to one specific group of people. Suffice it to say that in a minority parliament (where no one party has more than 50% of the seats in the house of commons), the parties are forced to compromise. No one group can overrule the others, so on any bill they have to find a middle ground; something that all parties and all viewpoints agree on, or at least agree on enough to pass the bill. The problem I have with the electoral process is what happens when the Canadian citizens elect a minority government.

At that point, the serving governor general gets to decide who will serve as the party in power, even if that party has fewer seats in the house than another party.

There are two things I find rather disturbing about this.

1) The party in power does not have to have the support of the majority of Canadian citizens, or even the support of more Canadian citizens than another party. They can become the party in power even if they have the support of fewer Canadian citizens than another party. This strikes me as fundamentally undemocratic.

2) This means that the system is geared to favor a majority parliament, which I've already mentioned I object to on principle.

Either way, the next few days should be interesting.

Duct Tape, wonderful stuff...

Okay, this is actually pretty cool.

A while ago, in a fit of boredom (and motivated, to some degree, because my wallet was on its last legs), I sat down with a roll of duct tape and constructed a wallet made entirely out of the amazing silver stuff. So far, it's lasted far longer, and held up far better than my old wallet. I'm gonna have to make a new one soon, not because this one isn't doing well, but because there are a few things that could be added to it, and it would actually be easier just to make a new one than to try to add to this one.

Now we've got these kids going to their high school prom in tuxes and dresses made completely out of Duct Tape. Apart from the fact that sitting down might prove a little on the difficult side, I have to admit that that is supremely cool. Makes me wish that I had a talent like that.

Signs that the world is going to hell

10. Three words: "President George Bush"

9. Three words: "Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger"

8. Clinton gets nailed (so to speak) on an issue which is really nobody's business but his own, and his presidency almost explodes around him. Canada's prime minister mismanages (to be kind) public funds, and he's still in office.

7. Mad Cow disease causes a panic in two countries.

6. Two words: "Hanging Chad."

5. Approximately 29 million people cared enough to vote in the last "American Idol" final. That's roughly the population of Canada.

4. The capture of Saddam Hussein got infinitely more press in Canada than their new Prime Minister (appointed the same day).

3. The Matrix, Part II

2. The Matrix, Part III

1. Five Words: "Donald Trump, Reality TV star."

Things I don't get.

I really don't get it.

There's been a lot of press coverage both in Canada and in the US about Gay marriage. Some support it, some oppose it, and frankly, I can't see why anybody cares. I'm straight and single, so I'm arguing, to some degree, from ignorance here, but the advantage of a Blog is that I get to put my $0.02 without anybody having a damned thing to say about it.

Don't get me wrong, I understand (I think) both sides of the argument, but I really don't get how this is necessarily a bad thing. Three separate state supreme courts have ruled that there's no reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry, so what's the problem?

So, I did a little googling to find out.

1) Homosexuals are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.

Relativist fallacy: If such a law were passed, heterosexuals would also be allowed to enter into same-sex marriages, if they chose to do so, therefore the right is not "special" by any definition of the term. What you don't seem to be grasping is the fact that homosexuals have no more desire to enter into an opposite-sex union than heterosexuals have to enter into a same-sex union.

2) It denies the self-evident truth of nature that male and female bodies are designed for and complement each other. Opposite-sex marriage is the natural means by which the human race reproduces.

a)Appeal to belief fallacy: what makes this truth "self-evident?" Homosexuality is commonplace in the animal kingdom. Some of our very close evolutionary ancestors engage in homosexual and lesbian liaisons. The location of the prostate gland in males; the location of the clitoris in females; from a purely biological perspective, it could be argued that we're built for liaisons with both sexes.
b) so what?

3) Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural. It would be a state-sanctioned counterfeit, a sham and a fraud. A licensed electrician cannot produce power by taping two same-sex plugs together. Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body and powerless for human reproduction.

Appeal to Common Practice fallacy: The only justification you give here for homosexuality being "unnatural" is that they can't make babies. I'm not sure I like where you're going with this. Are heterosexual couples who choose never to have children equally horrible in your eyes? (oh, and point of fact, taping two same-sex electrical plugs together can result in the transmission of an electrical current. I've done it, and I'm not even a licenced electrician)

4) Homosexual marriage will always be an abomination to God regardless of whether a clergyman performs the ceremony. When God calls something unholy, man cannot make it holy or bless it.

Appeal to belief fallacy: What if a clergyman is homosexual? The Anglican church just appointed its first openly gay bishop. Is this not an acknowledgement by the church (and presumably, in the eyes of God) that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle?

5) Homosexual marriage is as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister or a group.

Appeal to belief fallacy: I hear this a lot, but nobody seems to be able to answer one simple question: Why?

6) Homosexual marriage will harm children by denying them the love and nurture of a mom and dad. The only "procreation" homosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship.

Appeal to common practice fallacy: The only "procreation" heterosexuals who, either by choice, or for medical reasons cannot bear children can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship (sometimes a third and a fourth party must be brought into the relationship: a sperm donor and a surrogate). Are they also abominations? Do you assume that a homosexual couple isn't capable of showing the same love to a child that a heterosexual couple is?

7) Granting a marriage license to homosexuals because they engage in sex is as illogical as granting a medical license to a barber because he wears a white coat or a law license to a salesman because he carries a briefcase. Real doctors, lawyers and the public would suffer as a result of licensing the unqualified and granting them rights, benefits and responsibilities as if they were qualified.

Straw man fallacy: You're assuming that the reason for granting a marriage licence to homosexuals is because they engage in sex. That's ridiculous. Homosexuals have been engaging in sex forever without having a marriage licence, and there's absolutely no reason to believe that this has now become the driving reason for homosexuals to seek a marriage licence. Ideally, you're granting them a marriage licence because they care for each other, support each other, and would like to spend the rest of their lives together; basically the same reasons that we're supposed to grant marriage licences to heterosexual couples.

8) Homosexual marriage will devalue your marriage. A license to marry is a legal document by which government will treat same-sex marriage as if it were equal to the real thing. A license speaks for the government and will tell society that government says the marriages are equal. Any time a lesser thing is made equal to a greater, the greater is devalued. For example:

If the Smithsonian Museum displays a hunk of polished blue glass next to the Hope Diamond with a sign that says, "These are of equal value," and treats them as if they were, the Hope Diamond is devalued in the public's eye. The government says it's just expensive blue glass. The history and mystery are lost too.

If an employer uses a robot as an employee and treats the robot the same way it treats human employees, human employees are devalued. By doing so, the employer says, "A robot can do your job, you're no better." What will you and the public think of your job and you?

If the government issues a license to babysitters that grants them the same rights, protections and responsibilities as a child's parents, parenthood is devalued. The government says parents are just babysitters.

If government grants professional licenses to just anybody, every profession and qualified professional is devalued. The government says an uneducated panhandler can do brain surgery.

Appeal to Belief Fallacy: that a homosexual marriage is "less valuable" than a heterosexual marriage. Nobody seems to be able to explain why.

9) The assumption by many is that marriage is just two people with a license who have sex and wear rings. Homosexuals do that?why not give them the license? Engaging in sex doesn't equal marriage. Adults involved in incest have sex too; should government call it marriage and license them? Certainly not.

Straw man fallacy: you have not established that this is the assumption made by homosexuals who wish to marry. Certainly sex is one possible reason for marriage, but it isn't the only one, or even a decisive one. Lots of people have sex these days without getting married. Considering that homosexuals have been having sex for, well, forever, I guess, without getting married, I'd have to say that it's probably unlikely that it's the driving reason behind their desire to get married.

10) The biggest problem we have in getting people, especially younger ones, to understand why marriage is devalued by the existence of a counterfeit is that much of the public does not value marriage at all. Adultery is no big deal. No- fault divorce is tolerated. Absentee fathers and mothers devalue marriage. Unmarried pregnancies are common. Fornication is "normal." When we make the case against homosexual marriage, we need to speak against these other problems that devalue marriage too. As we acknowledge these problems we can emphasize that legalizing homosexual marriage will compound the problems, not solve or lessen them.

Appeal to belief fallacy: Again, why? See, it's things like this that scare me somewhat. I'm not Gay; I'm not married, either; so whether we allow homosexuals to marry has, at the end of the day, no bearing whatsoever on me. But, I would like to get married some day, and I think I would sleep a lot better next to the spouse in question knowing that the right I enjoy has been granted to everyone; not just people like me. There was a time in the United States when African-Americans were not given the right to vote, could not use public washrooms, or had to use water fountains specifically for "colored" people (the term used at the time). Regardless of your personal beliefs, do you want to go back to that America?

Back in le swing de things

So I'm back. I had to step away from, well, just about everything for a few days, like a week. Partly because I was in a panic from having to present my thesis proposal to my committee last Tuesday.

Okay, entirely because I had to present my thesis proposal to my committee last Tuesday.

That, and I tested for my Red Sash on Monday (I passed, incidentally), and the thesis proposal that I had to present to my committee last Tuesday was not written.

And as if all that wasn't enough, I managed to pick up a nasty Flu bug somewhere last weekend, so when I went in to do my Red Sash test, I was feverish, sick, sore and blind (my eyes were aching too much to put contacts in, and Kung Fu in glasses just doesn't work all that well).

My committee meeting went remarkably well, considering that I spent the better part of it thinking to myself: I want to go home and go to bed, can't we just end this? It didn't quite happen that way, but all in all, it could have gone worse. I went home immediately after the meeting and, quite literally, slept from 2:30 pm on Tuesday afternoon to about 6:00 pm on Wednesday. Thursday, I was back in work, at least for a time. A cohort and I have started working on a rather impressive modeling project which'll be a pretty big publication, if we can get it to work. It looks as if we'll be able to, too. And we're learning a lot of really, really neat stuff.

Suffice it to say, I'm back up and running. Still not 100%, but a definite improvement over Tuesday.

Once more unto the breach

So I'm heading out of town for the weekend.

April and I decided that we'd do a little backpacking this weekend. It should be a lot of fun. Hike out, pitch a tent, stay there, cook our own meals. It should be a lot of fun.

A buddy of mine was nice enough to get a hold of some GPS maps. That'll make life significantly easier, since we won't have to guess as to where we are at any given point.

We go out, we stay in the middle of nowhere for a night, we come home. Pretty simple, I guess. With a little luck, this'll become a regular thing. I'd like to do at least four more trips after this one. April's super-keen on it right now. We'll see if she still thinks that way after we get back from the wilderness.

It would be really cool to do this on a regular basis. I haven't done any backpacking in a long time. A good long hike, getting back in touch with nature, as it were, would be really nice. I haven't done that in a long time. Actually, I'm pretty sure the last time I did any backpacking at all was well before I went to Bishop's. So that'll be almost seven years. Now, I'm in the best physical shape I've ever been in, so I think that now might be the time to do it. It'll be lots of fun. Might have to drag more of le gang out as well, if they're interested.

On a sadder note, I heard that Ray Charles died today. He was a very talented man, who will be very sorely missed by those of us left behind.

The little team that could.

Calgary's going a little nuts lately.

More than a little nuts, actually.

I'm not a big hockey fan by any stretch of the imagination, but after our team pushed its way past Detroit in the second round, I have to admit that it was hard not to get swept up in the hype. We were seen as a long shot to get past Vancouver, and the general concensus was that Detroit would walk over us in, at most, five games. Now, two series later, we're within sight of bringing Ol' Stan back to Canada. The cup hasn't been back to Canada in almost ten years, and the team that might bring it back is Calgary. Who woulda thought?

My Shi Fu is starting to drop hints of the "We're about to test you for your next sash level" variety. This'll be our red sash. Although, in our particular school, sashes aren't all that important. Nobody in our school actually wears them. Just about everybody in our school is at least tested for their yellow sash, a fair number of us are entitled to wear a higher sash, and some of us, like myself, are about to test for our second. I'm not entirely sure, to be honest, how sashes in Bak Fu Pai relate to the sashes in other Kung Fu styles. In most of the other styles I'm aware of, the red sash is much, much closer to the end. In some it's the sash you get just before you get your black sash. I'm nowhere near that good yet. But I'll get there.

To say that Kung Fu has been a positive force in my life would be a massive understatement. After a year studying this particular form of Kung fu, I can safely say that it's been the best year of my life. I'm stronger and healthier than I have been in a long time. I've got more confidence and I'm just all around a more balanced person.

We had a massive celebration when we passed our last sash level, so I think we're going to have another wild party at the end of this one. Wild raucus party, here we come.

Bill C-250

Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but what is with people these days?

A huge amount of whoopdedoo is being made of Bill C-250 which passed through Canadian Parliament on February 2, 2004, and which was signed into law on the 28th of April this year.

So what?

What, exactly does bill C-250 say?

1. Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

2. Paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

So, the obvious next question is "What do sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal code say?"

Well, as it happens, I have that, too:

Advocating Genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(7) In this section,

"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

So, I get an Email in my spam folder screaming that with the passing of bill C-250, it has been made illegal to criticize homosexuality, and freedom of religion has been made illegal in Canada.

Not to ask stupid questions or anything, but have these people ever learned to read!? Seriously?

Basically Bill C-250 is a very minor amendment to sections 318-319 of the criminal code. All it says is that the same type of speech which his illigal towards people of different races, origins and faiths is also now illegal towards people of different sexual orientations. For example, it has been illegal in this country for some time to say "you should all go out and kill a couple of black people," now, it's also illegal to say "you should all go out and kill a couple of homosexuals."

Frankly, I don't see this as an unacceptable limit on free speech. And, frankly, that is the limit I believe should be put upon free speech. You can say "homosexuality is wrong and is condemned by the bible" all you want, but saying something like "homosexuality is wrong and is codemned by the bible, therefore you should all go out and shoot a couple of homosexuals" is a very, very different matter.

So, let's see what some of the major objections are:

1. Sexual Orientation is not defined. For instance, is pedophilia a “sexual orientation”? Can a citizen be imprisoned for advocating prison sentences for sexual predators? (See Appendix 1)

Well, not to point out the obvious, but heterosexuality is undeniably a sexual orientation, so these laws also protect you. More importantly, what occurs between consenting adults is a very different matter than what happens between an adult and a child. Sexual predators are already guilty of a crime, and under most circumstances will go to jail. They don't need hate speech or literature directed towards them.

2a) Hatred is not is not statutorily defined. But the Supreme Court of Canada has defined it as connoting an emotion of intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 397. Is vilification and detestation of homosexual acts considered “hate”? Where does this leave the bible in relation to hate legislation in light of texts like Romans 1:24-27? Will the bible be banned in Canada as hate literature?

That's why we have courts of law in this country. The laws are interpreted by the judicial branch of our government, which in turn determine what constitutes hate. Laws are often nebulous specifically for that reason. There is no possible way a law can be written for every single possible circumstance, however, it is up to the courts to decide whether and how a given law applies to a certain situation. So to answer your question: yes, it's possible for the bible to be banned as hate literature, but I wouldn't count it as likely. I can't imagine any judge is willing to set that precedent.

2b) Hatred is a highly speculative judgment. What is understood as hatred to some people is considered criticism to others. Many of our opponents have labeled opposition to Bill C-250 or rational criticism of homosexuality “hatred”. (See Appendix 2)

No. Section 319(3) specifically states that making rational arguments for or against homosexuality is not subject to prosecution under 319(2), provided that the arguments are true.

3. There is no language regarding the intent to cause harm. Without the requirement to prove a defendant’s intent to cause harm, anyone who might genuinely care for a person with homosexual inclinations can be convicted for their criticisms of the lifestyle or even their recommendations of therapy.

The intent to cause harm, to my knowledge, has always been the measure of the law for any given offense. Even in murder cases, it needs to be established that the person intends to cause harm, in spite of the fact that it is not explicitly stated in the criminal code.

4. There is no provision for a non-religious defense. Subsection 319(2) provides an exemption from conviction by referring to a religious text. But what if a citizen appeals to Anthropology, Science, Anatomy, Natural Law or mere personal conviction without reference to a religious text? There is no provision for a defense on these bases.

Bull. The only thing the alleged perpetrator has to do is establish in a court of law that his statements are true, regardless of their content (as per section 319(2)(a)). Do you have a problem with legislation against falsehood?

5. There is no protection for health professionals who counsel and speak out against the destructive homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual activity has been long acknowledged to be very unhealthy. Yet, this legislation will stifle legitimate debate and discovery in the medical community. Not only will it lead to possible criminal convictions against doctors, but their professional associations might threaten them with sanctions and dismissal if they do not abide by the law (See Appendix 3).

Bull (again). As long as they can prove their statements to be truthful, they cannot be prosecuted. Seems to me that there's a passage somewhere in the bible about bearing false witness....

6. Citing a religious text does not exempt a citizen from prosecution under the legislation. Although there is an exemption from conviction under Section 2 which deals with “promotion of hatred” (no defense can be used unless a religious text is cited), there is no such defense at all under Section 1 which deals with “incitement of hatred”. Technically, therefore, there is no real protection for those who appeal to a religious text. The prosecutor will simply by-pass Section 2 and indict the offender under Section 1.

Technically true, but a judge would still need to rule that quoting the bible is dissemination of hate. Can you imagine even one judge who's willing to create that kind of a precedent?

7. The definition of “incitement of hatred” in Section 1 is purposely designed to intimidate and suppress freedom of speech. The legislation says that if the incitement “is likely to lead to a breach of the peace”, a citizen would be convicted. “Breach of the peace” can simply mean upsetting a group of homosexual activists whose peace has been breached!

Careful, you're starting to sound paranoid. No society in the world exists that does not have some limitation on freedom of speech. But this argument is even more ridiculous than that. The exact same restrictions on freedom of speech have existed in this country for decades, and not one person has spoken out against them. Now they make a minor addition to these laws and people are up at arms? For example, do you agree with a statement such as "you should all go out and shoot a couple of black people?" Why would you agree any more with a statement such as "you should all go out and shoot a couple of homosexuals?"

8. The Bill is a political ploy to silence dissent from the Gay Agenda. The Bill is being proposed at a time where judicial activism is out of control. Because the judiciary in Canada is determined to re-engineer the social structure of society (as evidenced, for instance, by its destruction of the traditional definition of marriage), this legislation will be used as an intimidation ploy to silence people of faith, particularly Christians. Sympathetic judges and a zealous prosecutors could easily result in widespread religious persecution which has already started in earnest (See Appendix 4).

Now, you're really starting to sound paranoid. This bill, at the end of the day is a very minor change to sections 318-319 of the criminal code. All it says is that people of a given sexual orientation have the right not to be hated. For a bill which is a ploy to silence dissent from the Gay Agenda (whatever that is), homosexuality isn't even mentioned in it.

Some people, I tell ya.