Obviously, the Harper strategy is to firm up his base - which is a neanderthal gang on human rights and economics and religion. He cannot afford to lose any of them. People who are angered by what he has done are  the ones who were going to vote against him anyway. Meanwhile, he depends on the continuing disorganization of the liberals to keep their vote down.

Expect plenty of obnoxious stuff like this as an election nears.

Notice, too, that he is conforming very closely and very publicly to US foreign policy.

what an asshole that jason kenney is.

In about another 1.5 years my wife and stepson will be eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship. The actions of Minister Kenney are problematic. I would like my wife and stepson, and all newcomers to our great land to know just what kind of country they're signing themselves up for.

I don't think it's only about rights, however that is important. It's also about giving those who are planning to move to Canada information about the laws, not just the rights, of this land. Different countries have laws that are built out of a code, norms, or the moral framework of each of them. As we know, equality on the basis of sexual orientation is not something that every country supports so I think it's important to educate potential newcomers that we, backed up by our laws, do. The expectation is that people will respect and obey (civil disobedience notwithstanding) our laws and because our laws in this area are quite different from those of many other areas, it's important that everyone knows what they are.

Beshpin - you asked what I meant...  I have worked with people who are in a situation very new to them, where they didn't know how to act, what to expect, who would help, or even what questions to ask. It didn't matter if these people were rich or poor, educated or not, sick or healthy... they had no bearings on even where to start from.  Having someone provide basic info and FAQ's and wisdom, rather than treating them as if they were just a number meant a lot and opened up a new world to them.  It made the difference between a rich experience and a frightening war story.  Often the people in control of the situation would say things like "don't worry - we do this all the time" which is really disempowering.  For the record, that situation is childbirth in a hospital.

For an immigrant to this country, whether they are rich or poor, educated or not, sick or healthy... when they are handed a document meant to inform them of their rights/options/next steps etc; it needs to tell them what they need to know, or they have been poorly supported.  Especially if the document is intended to provide that sort of information.

I agree, this is not the biggest issue Canada faces, but it is one more painful symptom of that biggest issue - that we have a jerk as a PM.

besh, for me the problem is simply that of all the stuff to cut, kenney chose to cut a paragraph which stated that you cannot discriminate against people because of their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.  it makes no sense to take this out of a booklet which is supposed to be providing information for new canadians... that is just BASIC STUFF.

considering kenneys background, it simply makes one wonder if he is trying to make a statement.  if he wants to make a statement about something, fine.  by all means.  as a canadian citizen, he has that right and freedom, and as a citizen, he is allowed to do so.

HOWEVER, as the minister in charge of this portfolio, he must act as a representative of the canadian population, and must act on behalf of all of us, NOT JUST HIMSELF.

deleting this very basic and neccessary detail from such an important book simply proves that because of his personal bias, the man is not able to fufill the duties of the position he has been given.

and THAT is a huge problem, imho.

Sexual orienetation as a basis for discrimination is not a protected charter right. Gender, however, is. Gender is not sexual orientation. While Kenny's decision may be offensive to some, there is a legal and appropriate background for what he has said.

Who said Minister Kenny was appropriate? His path is legally appropriate, however. 

If it was shown that Kenney, or some other gov't rep chose to exclude gay rights information from a public purpose, based on personal bias, that would be illegal I think      Birthstone ----Wrote----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would agree. that we check both sides of the Issu. But I don't belive a gov"t rep would use his or  her office to Be Bias, Not in Canada.

well, according to the globe and mail article it is...

Internal documents show an early draft of the guide contained sections noting that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and that same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2005.

 ....

And in the section on citizenship rights, the early draft said: "Equality Rights - Canadians are protected against discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or age."

'illega'l would be to use public funds inappropriately, to further one's personal agenda.  Something not unheard of in Canada, airclean.  I wish it was, but every time the Conservatives send out a myriad of postcards slamming the Liberals with a pretty C in the corner, they use public money to put forward their gov't.  Remember the big huge pretty cheque that the gov't gave to some maritime thing, with the big C in the corner?  Illegal.  Now, it would be dealt with more in an ethics committee (aka 'shelved') but rarely would it be taken to a court level.

And yes, there are many examples of the Liberals doing it too.  No secret.

in that situation, DKS, it is not the particular issue of gay rights that makes this illegal, but the improper use of public money.  And yes, bias can be demonstrated adequately in a court of law through previous behaviour and reasonable doubt being the measure.  So if one can find enough evidence that a defendent has demonstrated bias as a pattern, and reasonable doubt of other motives is given, and reasonable proof is provided, I'm sure such an argument would be worthwhile in a court.  Particulary if the bias works against something protected in our laws/charter and is affecting the public work of a public servant.

Sounds like it might be time to get the "wondercafe letter writers" into action again.  Write your MP - let them know your objections.  It may not change, but we need to speak our truths to power, not be complicit. 

I really wish people would recognise the fallacy of that statement, and stop using it.

so, where is it, then?? 

so, where is the bit about how 'canadians are protected against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, age, or sexual orientation', then??  where is that found??

What is fallacious about it? You will have the right to express your opinion inthe next election. That does not mean that your opinion will be the one which will win in our "first past the post" electoral system, but you will be able to express your feelings.

well, considering that canada is one of what, 5 countries in the world that legalized same sex marriage, i'd suggest that its something rather important to impart to new citizens... chances are, its not something they are familiar with.

besides, uganda is trying to have gay people executed, so we probably should give them the heads up on that one.

From Sexual Orientation and Legal Rights, a paper from the Parliamentary Library:

"The courts have accepted that Section 15 is to be interpreted broadly, and that 'analogous' grounds, i.e., personal characteristics other than those listed, may also form the basis for discrimination against a group or an individual (Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia). In 1995, the view that sexual orientation is such an 'analogous' ground, and therefore a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Charter, was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada under the Egan decision, discussed below under the heading 'Same Sex Spouses'."

I think the debate about sexual orientation being included implicitly is over and that the decision was made, gradually, over time.

 Beshpin: Well, part of the point of this Citizenship and Immigration guide is to tell people what their rights are.

And I did read the guide.  It was a resource in my Civics class.

It wasn't very in-depth.  In fact, here's an interesting thing I found on that Facebook group about its MANY omissions:

The following facts about Canada also don’t appear to be important enough to Minister Kenney to merit a mention in his guide:• Canada has laws against propagating hate.• No mention of Peacekeeping, the Canadian flag debate, or the legacy of Lester Pearson.• No mention of Pierre Trudeau or his role in repatriating the C...onstitution in 1982.• Canada played a role in the mission in Rwanda.• A Canadian, John Humphrey, spearheaded the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.• Canada’s literary, dance, and music icons have left their mark on the world, but none are mentioned in the guide.• Nellie McClung, a leader of Canada’s suffragette movement, is not mentioned.• While prominent Conservatives like John A. Macdonald, George-ÉtienneCartier, and Robert Borden are featured, Canada’s longest service PrimeMinister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, is not mentioned.Hmmmmm...when is this government going to govern for ALL people?

Yeah, it's definitely not in depth... and all the depth is on one side.

And easily done since the Charter explicitly states

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

Last time I looked GLBTs were individuals and therefore worthy of protection.

That hasn't changed has it......

LB - re - Harper's government, nothing surpises me anymore

Is life not a hundred times too short for us to stifle ourselves.
     Friedrich Nietzsche

"It's not in the Charter, however"

This is factually wrong.  Sexual orientation was read into the Charter as a protected category by the Supreme Court.  It's in there. 

Here:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_1

And you are probably thinking of section 15, where it says sex, not sexual orientation.  Which could lead folks to wonder what if they wrote gender instead of sex... ???

I think the point is best made by considering that it's not a question of what should or should not be in the document in questionm, but rather what was in there, and was taken out.

If it's a question of omission due to space, or just forgetfullness, then the debate over inclusion might be appropriate.

However, the fact of the matter is that references to LGBT rights were already in the citizenship guide.... and someone said "Oh my God, we can't have THAT in there."

It is quite possible that a challenge to section 293 of the Criminal Code would suceed ....

Whatever the historical reasons for not laying charges under the polygamy prohibition, apparently contemporary prosecutors hesitate because they believe this prohibition violates the Charter right to freedom of religion.

DOSSIER: SHOULD POLYGAMY BE RECOGNIZED IN CANADA?
ETHICAL AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

We'll have to wait for the decision of the current challenge...

Rather than appealing that decision, the provincial government asked the B.C. Supreme Court to decide whether the federal law banning polygamy violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[...]

Legal observers have predicted the case will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Blackmore seeks funds for polygamy hearing

Further, and your evidence may differ, I have not heard of any Canadian polygamist who has been denied

... 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.

or denied the right to vote, enter, remain, leave Canada, to move within provinces and seek employment, deprived of life, liberty and security, subjected to unlawful search or seizure, arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, denied legal counsel upon arrest, continued to be held when detention is not lawful, etc. etc. 

Perhaps a full reading of the Charter would be helpful... 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms