Immigration Minister pulled gay rights from citizenship guide, documents show

[Gordon Nore]

Bob often posts here on the status of equal rights for gays and lesbians as they are debated in different States of the Union. This one's from my neck of the woods. The Federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney has withdrawn references to equal rights for gays and lesbians from a citizenship handbook for new Canadians.

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney blocked any reference to gay rights in a new study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship, The Canadian Press has learned. 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.
But Mr. Kenney, who fought same-sex marriage when it was debated in Parliament, ordered those key sections removed when his office sent its comments to the department last June.
Senior department officials duly cut out the material - but made a last-ditch plea with Mr. Kenney in early August to have it reinstated.
"Recommend the re-insertion of the text boxes related to ... the decriminalization of homosexual sex/recognition of same-sex marriage," says a memorandum to Mr. Kenney from deputy minister Neil Yeates.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...izenship-guide-documents-show/article1486935/

Just an fyi... The Deputy Minister is usually the one who knows what he's talking about. Cabinet Ministers are roughly equivalent in status to US Secretaries, but they are not selected by the PM from the population at large. They are already elected MPs, so it's already a thinner gene pool.

 

[Blade96]

Hah, big surprise.

and yes, I really hate the conservative party of canada (sorry ken the party you belong to but I do)

 

[Gordon Nore]

Hah, big surprise.

and yes, I really hate the conservative party of canada (sorry ken the party you belong to but I do)

Don't know that I'd go that far, Jackie. There's been plenty of cowardice to go around on this issue. Take Ontario in 1990, for instance...

New Democrat Bob Rae had his majority gov't. Equal rights for same sex couples was a plank in the NDP platform. At that time the gov't extended benefits to same-sex couples, as did municipalities and many large companies. The NDP introduced legislation to make that mandatory for all employers in the Province and to extend adoption rights to to the non-biological parent in same-sex led families.

Rae chickened out and declared a free vote in the House, allowing New Democrat MPPs to vote against policy and 'vote with their constituents' or 'vote their conscience.' When gays and lesbians came to Queen's Park to protest this betrayal, they were hauled away by the police.

Lynn McLeod, the Liberal leader during the same time frame, had said coyly she had no quarrel with equal rights for gays but did not want to change the legal definition of spouse.

Ironically, who ended up passing this legislation in Ontario? None other than Mike Harris, probably the meanest leader the Tories ever produced. Harris was being expedient, as there were several court cases on the go that would have eventually forced Queen's Park's hand.

 

[Ramirez]

Ironically, who ended up passing this legislation in Ontario? None other than Mike Harris, probably the meanest leader the Tories ever produced. Harris was being expedient, as there were several court cases on the go that would have eventually forced Queen's Park's hand.

Yeah Harris did seem to have a cadre of gay advisers, Leslie Noble is a lesbian IIRC and we all know about Baird....strange.

 

[Ramirez]

I like how Kenney tried to avoid responsibility for it.....I guess he doesn't have a "the buck stops here" sign on his desk.

 

[Gordon Nore]

I like how Kenney tried to avoid responsibility for it.....I guess he doesn't have a "the buck stops here" sign on his desk.

Today's news has been conflicting. As of this morning Kenney that he did not order the content removed from the guide. He's later said that he takes responsibility for the guide -- which he should. He's the Minister responsible, and he is therefore responsible for everything that comes out of the Ministry.

 

[Blade96]

Don't know that I'd go that far, Jackie. There's been plenty of cowardice to go around on this issue. Take Ontario in 1990, for instance...

New Democrat Bob Rae had his majority gov't. Equal rights for same sex couples was a plank in the NDP platform. At that time the gov't extended benefits to same-sex couples, as did municipalities and many large companies. The NDP introduced legislation to make that mandatory for all employers in the Province and to extend adoption rights to to the non-biological parent in same-sex led families.

Rae chickened out and declared a free vote in the House, allowing New Democrat MPPs to vote against policy and 'vote with their constituents' or 'vote their conscience.' When gays and lesbians came to Queen's Park to protest this betrayal, they were hauled away by the police.

Lynn McLeod, the Liberal leader during the same time frame, had said coyly she had no quarrel with equal rights for gays but did not want to change the legal definition of spouse.

Ironically, who ended up passing this legislation in Ontario? None other than Mike Harris, probably the meanest leader the Tories ever produced. Harris was being expedient, as there were several court cases on the go that would have eventually forced Queen's Park's hand.

Um, my name's Jacklyn.

and Whoa there Stallion.

Don't need to tell me about dirty deeds of liberals and ndp as well. I know they arent always the best either. That is why I dont carry a membership card or have affiliation with either one.

I just vote for who I think might do the best job. while knowing that neither one of them can I actually say, 'that party is PERFECT for me!"

I do know though, that I always hated the reform/alliance/what is now conservative party and stephen harper, the most. Always have.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Um, my name's Jacklyn.

and Whoa there Stallion.

First, it's been a long time since anyone called me, "Stallion," so, thanks for that. Sorry about the name, Jacklyn -- I thought I saw a post in which Ken called you Jackie, so I assumed it was ok. First I get your gender wrong, now your name. Mea culpa.

Don't need to tell me about dirty deeds of liberals and ndp as well. I know they arent always the best either. That is why I dont carry a membership card or have affiliation with either one.

Didn't mean to lecture. In citing the Ontario examples, I just wanted to emphasize that political leaders have often chosen sides on this issue out of expedience, not personal integrity.

 

[CanuckMA]

Didn't mean to lecture. In citing the Ontario examples, I just wanted to emphasize that political leaders have often chosen sides on this issue out of expedience, not personal integrity.

:lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2:

 

[Blade96]

First, it's been a long time since anyone called me, "Stallion," so, thanks for that. Sorry about the name, Jacklyn -- I thought I saw a post in which Ken called you Jackie, so I assumed it was ok. First I get your gender wrong, now your name. Mea culpa.

Tis ok....people most of the time think i'm a guy on forums for whatever reason....maybe i talk like one =]

Its ok....most people dont know what name people like to be called ....thats why I always ask. I have some very insensitive relatives who insist on calling me by that name even though they know I hate it. So I promise myself I would always ask what people like to be called. For example I'd ask if you liked Gordon, Gord, Gordie, etc.

as for stallion, I say that to guys sometimes when they go on and I'm like Whoa, backup =]

 

[yorkshirelad]

Have they had the rights of Polygamists and siblings in relationships removed also. I wouldn't want to think that Canadian government ministers were not sensitive to the rights of all 'alternative' relationships.....Just saying!!

 

[Gordon Nore]

So I promise myself I would always ask what people like to be called. For example I'd ask if you liked Gordon, Gord, Gordie, etc.

Actually, I appreciate that. I answer to "Gord" or "Gordon." "Gordie" is something my parents and east coast relatives called me growing up, so it feels strange when my peers do, but I don't mind it in the least. The nickname "Gordo" I loathe.

as for stallion, I say that to guys sometimes when they go on and I'm like Whoa, backup =]

You may call me "Stallion."

And I will call you Jacklyn.

 

[Ramirez]

Have they had the rights of Polygamists and siblings in relationships removed also. I wouldn't want to think that Canadian government ministers were not sensitive to the rights of all 'alternative' relationships.....Just saying!!

First of all polygamy and incest are illegal in Canada, so they have no legal rights and your post is utterly irrevelant to this discussion, second wtf does polygamy and incest have to do with homosexuals any more than it has to do with heterosexuals?

The constitution of Canada prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation...I'll bet race and religion made it into the handbook.

 

[Ramirez]

I have to add, I get sick and tired of this slippery slope argument used against gay marriage, as if allowing gay marriage will lead to polygamy, by what fevered idiotic reasoning does one come to that conclusion since it is heterosexuals practicing polygamy and usually whacko fundamentalist religionists maybe what we should do if we want to avoid the slippery slope is ban heterosexuals practicing fundamentalist religion.

Seems to be just as valid reasoning as not allowing gay marriage because it will lead to polygamy.

 

[Gordon Nore]

The constitution of Canada prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation...I'll bet race and religion made it into the handbook.

Of course they did, as well they should. The list of groups protected from discrimination and harassment by federal law or provincial human rights code can be summed up in a paragraph or a short list of bullet points. It's not a matter of so many exceptions for so many groups. I believe the article I quoted above identifies essentially a few lines of text removed from the guide.

One of Kenney's earlier comments was that the guide can't be encyclopedic. Fair enough, but a few bullet points is hardly encyclopedic. Identifying our country's position on human rights seems to me fundamental to a citizenship guide for new Canadians.

While we're talking slippery slopes, would it be appropriate for a pro life Minister to omit the circumstances under which abortion is legal in Canada from a public document? Would it be alright for a pro choice Minister to omit circumstances under which abortion is illegal?

People going through the citizenship process are by definition legal residents, and therefore entitled to the services of our government, including the accurate portrayal of laws and rights.

What is galling to me, apart from the omission, is the denial. The request to reconsider omissions was sent by the Deputy to the Minister. Whether or not the Minister read the memo and reviewed the changes -- one hopes that he did for the sake of accountability -- the decision belongs to him. As one analyst said on CBC this morning, "The decision wasn't made by a door knob." Somebody decided to make the omission and subsequently uphold it, leaving the Minister responsible for the change.

 

[Blade96]

You may call me "Stallion."

And I will call you Jacklyn.

Ok Stallion =]

First of all polygamy and incest are illegal in Canada, so they have no legal rights and your post is utterly irrevelant to this discussion, second wtf does polygamy and incest have to do with homosexuals any more than it has to do with heterosexuals?

I was thinking that when i read that post actually

 

[Cryozombie]

First of all polygamy and incest are illegal in Canada, so they have no legal rights and your post is utterly irrevelant to this discussion,

LOL.

Its funny, when someone wants to argue that Same Sex marriage should be legal (which I am for FWIW) when its not, that's ok, but whenever someone brings up the stupid but valid arguments about OTHER sexual preferences (Hey, sorry to burst your bubble, but yea Zoophillia, and Pedophillia etc are other preferences too) its "hey those aren't legal, STFU!"

Do you see how Hypocritical that is?

I understand BTW that sexual preference is protected, but isnt Baa Baa or Moo Moo a preference too?

 

[Cryozombie]

Just to clarify, all I mean is that if you are going to protect 1 orientation, you should have to protect them all, even if you don't like them.

I think if Straight people will be allowed to marry, then Gays should also. And anyone else who can consent, even if that means a group of 5 all want to be intermarried.

Otherwise, IMO its the same as saying "Equal rights to all men regardless of race, except for those damn dirty Irish"

 

[Ramirez]

LOL.

Its funny, when someone wants to argue that Same Sex marriage should be legal (which I am for FWIW) when its not, that's ok, but whenever someone brings up the stupid but valid arguments about OTHER sexual preferences (Hey, sorry to burst your bubble, but yea Zoophillia, and Pedophillia etc are other preferences too) its "hey those aren't legal, STFU!"

Do you see how Hypocritical that is?

I understand BTW that sexual preference is protected, but isnt Baa Baa or Moo Moo a preference too?

perhaps you have a problem with reading comprehension, homosexuality is legal in Canada, sexual preference between consenting adults not related to each other is protected in the constitution, it was excluded from the citizenship handbook.

Pedophilia, zoophilia, polygamy , incest are illegal, why would they be included in the citizenship handbook?

Do you see how stupid your post is?

 

[Ramirez]

Just to clarify, all I mean is that if you are going to protect 1 orientation, you should have to protect them all, even if you don't like them.

I think if Straight people will be allowed to marry, then Gays should also. And anyone else who can consent, even if that means a group of 5 all want to be intermarried.

Otherwise, IMO its the same as saying "Equal rights to all men regardless of race, except for those damn dirty Irish"

You should have posted that in the first place...actually if consenting adults want to engage in polygamy I don't have a problem with that.

However bringing pedophilia into this even for the sake of argument is beyond the pale, there is nothing consenting about adults preying on children, it is one of the worst crimes than anyone can commit.

It's often brought into gay rights arguments just to inflame hatred against gays imo.