Oooh.. it could be like this and they could hold it up against the person they are frightened by...
I think we need a hall of shame for those who are waging a jihad on satire.
No kidding.
snicker.
When glancing at a photo of Kathy Shaidle recently, I noted that she looked suspiciously and disturbingly olive-hued.
I believe this warrants further investigation. CSIS and the RCMP should get right on it.
The terror colour alert for today is "swarthy."
CC, could I get a billing address from you? I will need to pay someone to remove the diet coke that just came shooting out my nose after reading your comment.
Plus emotional damages.
Careful, CC - Cameron uses high-end equipment: this is not going to be a cheap round...
Based on new intelligence, tomorrow's alert will be upgraded to "dusky".
Haill, we wuz at high-yeller fer awhile. Sorta lulls ya into complacency.
Deaner.. plus it was my office rig... so it's even more high end...
Hmm-
White, Christian, printer + refuse to print gay stationery = Hero/Martyr
Brown,Muslim, taxidriver + refuse to transport dog = Evil threat to western way of life.
wtf?
Nbob:
That's a very good point. I wish I'd thought of it.
" I wish I'd thought of it"
If I had a dime for every time I said that after reading one a yer posts -I'd have that porsche by now ( rather than taking a taxi everywhere)
As a New Yorker, I have been driven by very friendly and exceptionally courteous male Muslim taxi drivers from Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, and Somalia,
I can't support your rote, grab-bag racism charge, but why do the Islamophobes write stuff like that and then blithely ignore the implications? Are we to assume she is worried these guys are plotting the Caliphate between fares?
White, Christian, printer + refuse to print gay stationery = Hero/Martyr
Brown,Muslim, taxidriver + refuse to transport dog = Evil threat to western way of life.
Nbob - yes, an interesting comparison. Of course, the printer is simply an independent businessman, facing competition from anyone who might care to open a shop to serve a market he disdains, and who holds no special monopoly on providing that service. By comparision, the cabbie is a holder of a government-issued permit to perform the otherwise illegal activity of coveying passengers for a fee. Add to that the fact that the printer's service is not nearly as time-sensitive as a cabbie's, or that the refusal of service is based on one hand on an unavoidable physical incapacity that necessitates a guide dog, and on the other hand on a lifestyle choice, and the comparision becomes slightly less on-point. I think the situation of a pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control or morning-after pills out of moral conviction is a more direct comparison - although that gets into other (and more serious) medical and health issues.
If your comment was directed more at those who observe (and even celebrate, in the case of the printer) such refusals of service, I agree completely that they are too absolute and extreme in their views.
All that being said, I am troubled by the refusal of service in the case of the printer and the gay wedding invitations, but I think there is a legitimate question of a clash of competing rights. In the case of a taxi-driver refusing service, I think the competing rights question is much less legitimate: the condition of getting a restricted license to carry passengers carries the implied obligation (which should be explicit) to carry all legal passengers: if you don't like that, or cannot abide that due to your faith or any other reason, then find another line of work that does not require a limited-availability license. I think the "printer" issue comes very close to (and perhaps crosses) a line of what is acceptable, while the "cabbie" issue is clearly across that line.
The eminent socon lawyer Iain Benson are thinks most people on both left and right have missed the point of the Brockie case.
Why Some People Just Don't Get the Brockie Decision
That is, the HRC originally directed Brockie to print not just stationery for the gay-lesbian rights group, but "any other materials" they or any similar group brought to his printery. The appeals court trimmed that back considerably, saying that, while he had to print neutral materials like letterhead, he could refuse to print content offensive to his religious beliefs. In fact, it was a significant victory for freedom of conscience.
As for the cynophobic Muslim taxi-drivers, if the taxi companies can offer a reasonable alternative to customers, such as dispatching pet-friendly vehicles to customers with dogs, it might be reasonable to accommodate them.
I'm not crazy about imposing more such mandates on private businesses, mind you.
Deaner:
"lifestyle choice?" Come on, now.
Good catch... Dawg...
That foolishness needs to go away now.
Dawg - speaking of the choice to marry rather than living together, to hold a wedding, to get invitations printed, to use that particular printer (or reception hall in the KofC case out here), etc, not to the underlying sexual orientation. Lifestyle choice was probably a poor phrase; it's too much of a hot button (or maybe I was subconsciously trying to poke people with a stick - my apologies). Consider "discretionary selection of public demonstration of their commitment" instead.
In any event, the use of that particular printing service was much more a discretionary choice than the hire of that particular cabbie, given that they are dispatched randomly.
Ah... thank you for the clarification Deaner.
You're welcome, Cameron - but I should have been clearer in the first instance.
For the record, Deaner, the Brockie case was about stationery for a gay-rights group, not same-sex wedding invitations.
If some printer doesn't want more customers....he may be a hero to the bigots, but he is an idiot as a business person.
IP - I obviously have it mixed up with another case, then (or I am relying on a scrambled recollection, which amounts to the same thing). I hope you will forgive my Emily Latella moment.
Mike - sure; but that hardly warrants government action, does it?
In general, if you believe that a printer should not be able to refuse my patronage because -say- I want him to print a gay-rights flyer, should a Muslim print-shop owner be able to refuse my custom because I want him to print images of Mohammed? Whether he accepts the job or not, should he be entitled to have me questioned by a HRC because I printed (perhaps at a different printer) and distributed those images (yes Dawg - it is -at that stage- only an enquiry; none-the-less, I still have to come in, rather than the HRC telling the complainant to buzz off). If so, should our Human Rights law compel him to do something that would in itself be grounds for a human rights complaint?
Take a look at the article I linked in a previous comment. According to Iain Benson, the current state of the law (based the Brockie's appeal) is that Brockie couldn't turn down stationery but could turn down something with content offensive to his religion.
I assume the reasoning is that refusing to print a business card "Joe Blow - Gay Activist" must be seen as an illegitimate attack on Mr. Blow's dignity as a person, but refusing to print his pamphlet "Public washrooms as 'gay space': the case of McDonald's" would be an legitimate rejection of his ideas.
Btw, when I worked for the undergrad paper we had trouble with our printer, 'cos he wouldn't print cuss words.
"Btw, when I worked for the undergrad paper we had trouble with our printer, 'cos he wouldn't print cuss words"
God all the printers I've ever worked with in connection with student papers were just happy to get the newspaper at all... it was usually so late that they didn't bother reading it at all...
IP - yes: so when the business card says "Joe Blow - Gay Wedding Planner" is that content offensive to the printer's religion, or is it an inextricable component of Mr Blow's personal dignity? Can it be both - and if so, whose rights do we enforce, and whose do we violate?
Cuss words in a student newspaper?!? Surely not!
At one time, the UBC Administration frowned on promotion of events that included alcohol. They probably still do, actually, but back in the day, they wouldn't allow flyers, Ubyssey articles, etc to mention the demon rum - so all references to beer were entered as bzzr. The tradition continued long after the administration (apparently) lost interest in the fight, with the common question in the Engineering building being, "do ya wanna go for a buzzer after class?"
I was on an editorial board that ran a front cover made up of a connect the dots puzzle (surrounding a very becoming smiley face).
When you connected the dots it said "we have no fucking front cover".
For a little while (like a year) this was literally true, as it was decided for us that we were not allowed to run covers that featured full page illustrations of any type.
"So when the business card says "Joe Blow - Gay Wedding Planner" is that content offensive to the printer's religion, or is it an inextricable component of Mr Blow's personal dignity? Can it be both - and if so, whose rights do we enforce, and whose do we violate?"
Yes, you can imagine extremists tormenting some pious Muslim printer by ordering business cards for pork butchers, sex-toy manufacturers, gay wedding planners, etc. Still, this is where the court chose to draw the line, and as Benson points out, their decision gives fairly wide protection to rights of conscience. If it stands, of course.
Doesn't this then allow for the creep of this sort of ruling to other professions?
Pharmacists refusing to fill out prescriptions?
Doctors refusing certain procedures?
I'm pretty certain doctors have that right, as do hospitals. As they should. Pro-choice groups make regular campaigns to curtail conscience rights around abortion, evincing a mentality that leaves me quite chilled. I'd call it fascistic if the word weren't overused, but maybe Sauronian will do (One ideology to rule them all...).
The case of pharmacists is disputed, I think. A point that's overlooked is that pharmacists are less likely than doctors to win freedom-of-conscience fights, because their profession has much lower status. One law for the elites, one law for the plebes.
IP:
No pro-choicer I know wants to force doctors to perform abortions against their will. I assume Cameron was referring to sterilization and the like.
Could you both be more specific?
For sure they have asked for mandatory training and mandatory referrals - the CMA deals with these debates every so often.
So what's the problem with that, exactly?
Dr. Dawg, there are cases in the US where women have been refused morning after pills by pharmacists, or have found it hard/impossible to fill contraception prescriptions, because the pharmacist has decided that they can't fill them due to whatever reason....
Sorry, I was referring to IP's 2:30 post.
I have no sympathy for anyone serving the public being allowed to discriminate--housing, morning-after pill...you name it.
In the UK, some Muslim women medical students are refusing to scrub because they would have to bare their arms. Too bad. Choose another profession.
When it comes to doctors, I don't like them picking and choosing on the basis of private beliefs. But in the case of abortion (or, less emotively, a hypothetical open heart operation) do you really want someone performing that kind of surgery on you if they are strongly opposed to doing it?
No, clearly not, but by the time they get to the point where they can do that, the ones who don't want to will have been weeded out.
When you connected the dots it said...
I like that one. Of course, I'm going to think about it everytime someone utters the "just connect the dots..." cliche.
I'd written a good chunk of the following purple prose, but decided not to post it. Now you've forced my hand!(Unfortunately, Haloscan doesn't recognise FONT tags, so I can't actually make it purple.)
My old doctor had a notice on the wall of her examining room saying she wouldn't provide prescriptions for birth-control or referrals for sterilizations. That was an inconvenience for us, but I'd rather put up with an inconvenience than force her to act against her conscience.
When we talk about hate speech etc., there's often a subtext suggesting that if we don't shut down Zundel & Co., THE NAZIS WILL RISE AGAIN! That's far-fetched, of course, but it's not far-fetched to think that some of us may some day find ourselves in situations where we're asked to do evil - somewhere beyond the reach of any human-rights commission. In the Rwandas and Bosnias, as well as in smaller evils, conscience can be the last defence of the good. But conscience needs to be cultivated.
Getting back to the Nazis (and casting aside Godwin), a prof of mine once told me that the Nazi party had taken a poll in wake of the Kristallnacht. A poll of party members, not the general public. Surprisingly, only a small minority (something like 6 percent) actually were happy it. A much larger group (maybe 15 percent) were deeply shocked. But the overwhelming majority were simply indifferent, - and that (pace Goldhagen's discredited thesis) is what made the Nazis' crimes possible. There was in Germany a long-standing culture of obedience, of not thinking for yourself. "The first duty of the citizen is to remain calm" was a typical slogan, which some doofus in my office was quoting as late as the 1980s (I hung out over there for a while).
Compare that to the collective heroism shown by the Danes in the face of the Holocaust, initiated by the king's decision to wear the yellow star and others' bravery in following him. Conscience + solidarity --> effective resistance to evil.
Over history, most countries have been like the mid-20c Germans, only more so; few have been like the Danes. We, I hope, are more like the mid-20c Danes, but only so long as the constituent value remain strong in our culture. I'm sure you admire the hell of the Danes, but I'm not sure you understand how they got to be that way.
One way you don't get a culture to be that way is by routinely pressuring people to put aside their conscience in the interest of conformity or career advancement.
Finally:
Dawg wrote, "When it comes to doctors, I don't like them picking and choosing on the basis of private beliefs." [Emphasis added]
What a difference a word makes! I take it your willingness to let doctors opt out of performing abortions is based on pure pragmatism, and none of this "conscience" stuff.
(You come amusing close to Hobbes' definition of religious freedom: Leviathan has the right, or power, to compel his subjects to attend the official church
[Continued]
...and repeat its prayers, but inwardly they may of course believe whatever they like.)
Cameron: When you say, "weeded out", do you mean you expect med students who are unwilling to perform abortions to be forced or pressured out of the program?
Yup. You're a doctor, that's for the community. You don't get to be a doctor for white people, or a doctor for Catholics, or a doctor for Muslims. Same as a supermarket proprietor. Everyone gets a crack at the groceries. Or a politician: every constituent is treated as an equal. You aren't a politician for the Catholics, or a politician for the white supremacists.
Novel concept, eh?
Deaner-
Here's what the tribunal said in Brockie about your non-essential argument:
Focusing on the 'non-essential' nature of the service would not reflect the seriousness of the impact on the Complainants of this refusal in the context of historical and continuing discrimination. Such a focus devalues their experience of discrimination and the endeavour the Archives is involved in to allow lesbians and gays to live open and proud lives. As Dr. Robin Brownlie testified during the first phase of these proceedings, "each new incident (of denial) reopens the wound of that discrimination and harm."
'Novel' is putting it mildly. This is what comes of using the experience of the U.S. civil-rights movement as the template for all moral issues. To annotate one of your examples, is a vegetarian grocer committing an illegitimate act of discrimination against carnivores if he refuses to stock meat?
I'd be interested to know your opinion on conscientious objectors during the First and Second World Wars.
Nbob,
Remember that the tribunal had its wings clipped by the appeal court. Rightly so, if the sentimental slop you've quoted is typical of their judgements.
is a vegetarian grocer committing an illegitimate act of discrimination against carnivores if he refuses to stock meat?
No more so than a shoe store not offering lawnmowers. But he or she should obviously advertise wares as "vegetarian."
I have no idea what the introduction of COs adds to this discussion. They aren't selling anything or offering anything to the public.
IP -
Here's what the Court of Appeal said in upholding Brillinger's appeal of the Divisional Court decision that " clipped" the wings of the tribunal :
Second, the respondent’s “material success” was on a single, minor issue. Indeed, it is likely that the slight change in the tribunal’s order by the Divisional Court had no impact on the respondents’ legal rights. At most, the respondents’ success was minuscule compared to the appellants’ success on all the other issues in the appeal.
IP: if you can't do heart surgery and or refuse to do so and you're majoring in, you know, heart surgery, you fail. Weeded out.
And Dawgs point is spot on about being doctors for everyone. Furthermore, I pay for the med school through my taxes (I know, the fees are burdensome - imagine how high they are in the US) which subsidize the lower tuition here in Canada and then I pay them again through my taxes for their salaries.
...I pay for the med school through my taxes... and then I pay them again through my taxes for their salaries.
The same could be said of every product or service you buy that includes the contribution of anyone educated in Canada.
So what?
dcardno -
I'm not so sure of that -
I look at the income taxes I paid when I worked in media/PR compared to the taxes I pay now as a lawyer.
By my calculations the extra revenue I now generate for the gov't more than pays for 3 years of law school - and that's income tax alone - factor in the GST I collect and my own tuition payments and I figure I've got undergrad paid for as well.
Then again - if I recall correctly -you're the C.A.
plus I suck at math : )
Dr Dawg:
So I guess your idea of a doctor who should have been disciplined or banned is Henry Morgentaler? I mean, we can't stand by and allow these doctors to break the rules by injecting conscience into the mix, can we?
How did Morgentaler break the rules? He was acquitted of every charge, and then the SCC threw the rules out. And from a medical point of view, he observed every requirement.
I'm not going to be able to participate in this thread today, but anyway...
Dawg: I'd have thought the Catholic physician/CO parallel was crystal-clear. In both cases individuals are asking to be exempted from what would normally be an obligation, on the argument that the state should defer to individuals' considered ethical or religious conscience, even where the individuals' beliefs do not fit the social consensus.
I'll stick with my theory that you (like many people influenced by American liberalism) are overinvested in metaphors deriving from the American civil-rights movement.
Alabama 1964: "You can believe whatever you want about colored folk, Mister, but the law will oblige you to serve them at your lunch counter."
This is the wrong framework.
Nbob: Did you mean to insert a quotation in your last post to me?
I've taken my understanding of the Brockie appeal from the Benson article I linked. How would you summarise it?
This is the wrong framework.
Huh?
I'm sure that's an entirely sincere "Huh?" I'll try to get back to you on it.
I.P.
Yes that's a quote from the Court of Appeal. I don't think the reasons had been released ( the appeal mightn't even been filed) when Benson wrote that article.
The merits of the Divisional Court reason's were not in issue when it went to the CoA. The Divisional Court awarded partial costs to Brockie because he was successful in getting them to tweak the order in his favour.
Brillinger - or maybe the HRC- appealed the costs order only to the CoA, who- as you see above- thought the tweak was miniscule.
Hi Nbob - I was confused by the absence of quotation marks - they can be useful, you know.
I think Benson's article came out while the appeal on the costs was pending. Still, I don't see that the CoA's decision has much relevance outside of the narrow areas of costs.
The nub of the matter is that Divisional Court had found the parts of the Board of Inquiry's original decision to be unconstitutional, that is, the requirement that Brockie print any material brought to him by the complainant or any other gay or lesbian. The DC modified the order, permitting Brockie to refuse projects "which could reasonably be considered to be in direct conflict with the core elements of his religious beliefs or creed." In doing so they expanded Brockie's and (anyone else's) right to manifest his religious beliefs in the workplace - from effectively zero (in the original decision) to a limited area of protection.
If that's a mere "tweak", we could use more tweaks.
Here are some more technical commentaries from Benson:
- the original Board of Inquiry decision.
- the Divisional Court's decision
He criticises the BoI for a several points, including a superficial understanding of the relevant religious and conscience issues, and both decisions for failing to distinguish between the provision of services to gay and lesbian persons (which Brockie had done on several occasions) and the provision of services to gay and lesbian organisations (that is, organisations pursuing particular interpretations of gay and lesbian rights.
I gather Dawg has fled to the Caribbean, so I'll cut it.
Commenting by HaloScan
