Many groups around North America are weighing in on this trial, which began after prolonged jury selection, on the anniversary of the case that legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade. Don Spitz, a reverend from Chesapeake, spoke on behalf of the group ‘Army of God’, commending the Judge’s decision to allow the defense. As he see’s it, there might be people that would have shot doctors before, but were afraid of being punished; now, they might actually do it. Demonstrating once again that I sure hope the Roeder’s of the world don’t start hating something I do!

The end of the story? Truth be told, I’ve certainly been feeling a bit safer since Scott Roeder was found guilty of first degree murder. He was convicted of this offence after less than 40 minutes of jury deliberation – I guess it helps to have 250 witnesses and a jury that understands the difference between personal belief and what is legal.

What made this particular refugee claim newsworthy? Thousands of refugee claims are processed in Canada every year that are the result of violent racial discrimination and oppression. Why was Huntley’s case singled out as newsworthy… was it because he is caucasian? Is it SO rare that a white person from another country applies for refugee status as to make it newsworthy? Is it really that rare; are white people universally privileged and immune from racial oppression? Oh, but wait… this story gets better!

Huntley’s refugee claim is now under review after last week’s media coverage. Why, you ask? No, it’s not because his claim of being violently attacked is being investigated; and no, it’s not because the voracity of his claim is being challenged. In response to the media coverage of Huntley’s case, the South African government released a statement saying that “white South Africans live in peace”. So, the Canadian government, apparently taking this statement at face value, has put his claim in review. Why would he need refugee status if his government says that you all live in perfect harmony?

The legitimacy of Huntley’s claim aside, I find the statement made by the S.A. government to be just a tiny bit ludicrous. Is there a population in ANY country where an entire demographic of people live in total peace with one another? Moreover, why hasn’t the mainstream media picked up on the larger story? If the government is seriously saying that the white population of South Africa lives in peace, are they not indicating that white people are immune to the corruption and turmoil that has existed in South Africa for so long?

It seems to me that this is a topic that should be questioned endlessly – else we conclude that the most overt example of white-skin privilege can be found in South African, and be endorsed by our own government as it tosses out a refugee claim because Huntley is white – and therefore “lives in peace”.

Any thoughts?

There’s a new buzz word that I really dig that’s being used to describe this conundrum – eco-discrimination. The hot topics of the day, such as the unanimous (albeit grudgingly) support in the Saskatchewan Legislature of nuclear power, or the equally hot debate surrounding Regina’s new stadium, often neglect that massive amounts of discrimination go into decisions like these. Especially when it comes to location – and the consequences are grave.

There’s a reason that Regina’s landfill is located just outside the city, right by our penitentiary. No one wanted a damn landfill in his or her neighbourhood. The consequences? Environmental standards require that garbage dumps be built on top of at least 8-10 feet of clay when they’re in proximity to a water supply or aquifer. Regina’s landfill is built above only 2 feet of clay, putting an aquifer that supplies vast numbers of Regina citizens with water at risk. It was viewed as the only acceptable place… and we will pay the price.

Mosaic Stadium, home of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, was built in one of the lowest income communities in Regina. Why? Because these citizens had little means of protesting it – unlike the successful protests that prevented the stadium being built elsewhere. Moreover, let’s set aside the accompanying noise levels for a moment. Stadiums have the ability to bring communities together with sport and cultural events – if they can afford to go to them. So, how nice for little Timmy or Suzie, getting to watch all the people going to events in the stadium across the street that they don’t have the money to attend. Does anyone else see the irony here?

As a last example of eco-discrimination, take the Saskatchewan government’s newfound collective support for nuclear power. Numerous Indigenous communities are bracing themselves for the inevitable battle for environmental and human rights. The fact remains that many lucrative, beneficial, yet environmentally invasive projects are situated incredibly close to Indigenous communities whose opinions are neither valued nor wanted by industry or government. One needs only to look to natural resource industry for existing examples.

Location matters – both of those making the decisions, but also the communities that will be affected. We must think critically about why certain locations are chosen for projects like stadiums and power plants, and who comprises the communities that live in proximity. Eco-discrimination takes many forms, but the underlying commonality is that it takes advantage of communities with little recourse to defend their rights. If you are in favour of Regina’s new stadium or prospective nuclear power plant, I ask you – whose backyard should they be built in?

 For instance, let’s say that you’re sitting at your computer when you hear a knock at your door. You get up, open the door and see a politician running in a local election. Now let’s say you’re sitting at your computer and you see that the same politician is following your twitter account, or has added you as a friend on Facebook; or maybe they made a comment on your blog. To which are you more receptive?

 Consider how great the influence of social media on the global political scale. There are several countries around the world that have placed grave restrictions on freedom of speech, the freedom of dissent, and on independent media and engaged citizens. Places that are currently in a state of social upheaval, but where people face restrictions in speaking out, are using social media as a way to get their voices heard. This is happening in China, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Palestine, Russia … even in Mongolia to a certain extent.

 In locations where government seeks to commit repugnant acts against its residents without impunity, social media is facilitating the circumvention of restrictions, once again giving rise to the voice of the populace – whose views are neither valued not wanted by oppressive regimes that seek to silence them.

 However, is this access to the world (through the internet) changing the ways in which governments act and create policy? To be continued…

 Will the Supreme Court actually re-examine portions of Canada’s same-sex marriage law at the bequest of Brad Wall and the governing party? My question to you is how religion and equality should be reconciled in this case. Should religious figures be bound by law to perform same-sex marriage, or should it be their right to respectfully decline the request?

 I think that this is a reasonable debate to engage in. I think this discussion has merit in a free democracy that values the law, and respects the right of all residents of Canada to hold their own point of view… and I invite you to participate…

Additionally, I do think what Saskatchewan’s ruling party is doing presents a good opportunity to have broader conversations and debates. Such as a newly invigorated examination of how to reconcile Canada’s Freedom of Religion with our equally important right to be free from discrimination, as legally outlined in Section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Before we go and spout off about how right or wrong same-sex marriage is, let us remember that it is a legal right both to marry the person of one’s consensual choosing, but also to be free from hateful commentary about an indemonstrable part of their identity. This has been clearly stated by the highest law of Canada, and I would humbly submit that our government has bigger fish to fry.

Saskatchewan doesn’t want me…or other gay people. It’s an apartheid province.

The Saskatchewan Party government is proposing legislation that would allow the province’s marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

Where to placate its rabid hate mongering Christianist base a Canadian government is prepared to humiliate gay people, deny them equal rights, treat their love as something dirty, and turn them into second class citizens.

http://montrealsimon.blogspot.com/2009/07/saskatchewan-apartheid-province.html

So, let’s break it down. You have a government job performing marriages. Not a church job, a government job – and you want special rights to refuse to perform your lawful duty, using religion as an excuse. Here’s a thought – get a different job. If your religious convictions are that strong that they prevent you from doing your government job, you could enter the seminary and become a priest or pastor.

http://www.acreativerevolution.ca/node/1909

Let’s step into fact.

• In Saskatchewan, Marriage Commissioners earn $50.00 (plus a mileage fee of 36.23 cents/kilometre) per ceremony. It is not a salaried position.
• There is a list of marriage commissioners. If one refuses, you can move down the list and call the next.
• The Saskatchewan Government will make sure someone is available to perform every legal ceremony.

Let’s consider two examples for a moment.

• A marriage commissioner turns down a gay couple.  That couple calls the next number and books their wedding.
• A marriage commissioner has held the title for 25 years.  A gay couple asks him to marry them.  He interprets Christian scriptures in such a way that he believes that a vengeful God will frown upon him (and possibly send him to hell for eternity) if he performs the ceremony.

The gay couple has the right to find another marriage counsellor.  But, can a person that devout find another relationship with God?  Is it humane to force another to violate his/her religion?

And now, consider the economic arguments in favour of this legislation.

• A group of marriage commissioners are fighting for a scarce number of resources (marriages) .
• They have the right to turn down marriages if they conflict with their religious freedoms.
• Not all marriage commissioners share the same convictions.

Tolerant marriage commissioners will make more money.  The market will reward tolerance. Everybody’s rights are protected and tolerant people get to make significantly more money.  This legislation uses positive reinforcement to promote modern morality.  Isn’t this actually a positive step in the battle to remove extremism?

I’m going to steal a line from Stacey, “removing freedom to promote freedom is like fucking for virginity.”  If you love freedom, you must be prepared to defend those whose beliefs seem abhorrent.  Our generation’s greatest challenge will be learning how to find compromise between disparate points of view.