© News the other press e SaraJames e otherpress@hotmail.com June 2003 Amendment to Hate Crimes Goes to House for Vote Sara James News Editor Bill C-250, which seeks to amend the Hate Propaganda section of the Criminal Code to include “sexual orientation” in the definition of identifiable group, is on its way to the House of Commons for debate and full vote. The Commons Committee of Justice and Human Rights voted to send the Private Member's Bill to the House of Commons for a third reading and full vote. Current Hate Propaganda legislation in Canada defines “identifiable group” as “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.” The legislation is directly aimed at propaganda that promotes hatred, violence, or genocide toward people that fall within the definition of identifiable group. The inclusion of “sex- ual orientation” would provide equal protec- tion for gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgen- dered people. The Private Member's Bill, initiated by MP Svend Robinson, was first read in May of 2002. It received the support of all parties with the exception of the Canadian Alliance. The Alliance Justice Critic Vic Toews has been quoted, “While the Canadian Alliance rejects hatred directed at any group in Canada, it has consistently expressed con- cern about Bill C-250 on the basis that it raises serious concerns for freedom of expression and religion in Canada.” The Bill has generated large volumes of mail to MPs, both in favour of and against the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code. Much of the mail is in response to organized campaigns by interested and con- cerned groups. Groups opposed to the Bill, such as the Canadian Alliance and REAL Women of Canada, have expressed concerns that the amendment would inhibit or prevent free- dom of expression and the practice of reli- gious beliefs. In early May, REAL presented a Brief to the House of Commons Justice Committee, detailing their concerns with the proposed amendment. The 24-page Brief begins with the history of the Hate Propaganda provi- sion and ends with REAL’s recommenda- tions. One of REAL concerns is the lack of def- inition of “sexual orientation.” Their unease is that without a definition, the amendment could potentially include pedophiles and polygamists. The Brief also expresses “con- cern that those who wish to challenge homosexual conduct as unhealthy, immoral, or sinful, may be obliged to answer to a hate crime charge.” REAL recommends “a thor- ough re-examination of the Hate Propaganda provision in the Criminal Code or at the very least the removal of the list of identifiable groups so that all Canadians are provided protection.” In addition to the Brief they presented to the Justice Committee, REAL is using its website to actively encourage “individuals, churches and pro-family organizations” opposed to the Bill, to contact a member of the House of Commons and express their concerns. Active advocates of the Bill include Inspector David Jones of the Vancouver Police Department. Jones addressed the Commons Justice Committee in May, urg- ing them to vote in favour of the Bill. Jones presented the Committee with the results of his research into hate crimes, com- mitted in Vancouver, during 2001 and 2002. He included crimes against homosex- uals, as well as those crimes that are current- ly covered under the Criminal Codes defini- tion of “identifiable group.” 62 percent of the 128 cases he reviewed were violent acts based upon sexual orientation. In a recently published editorial, Svend Robinson voiced hope that the amendment might save lives and prevent hate-mongers from entering Canada: Such a law might have helped save the life of Hamed Nastoh, 14—a Surrey, BC male stu- dent who killed himself after being taunted with homophobic insults, (though he was not gay). It would allow Canada to prevent visits by hatemongers from abroad. Kansas preacher Fred Phelps, whose infamous web- site called for the killing of “fags and dykes,” threatened in 1999 to come north to spew his hatred (so far he hasn't crossed that boundary). Robinson’s editorial addresses accusations that approval of the Bill could inhibit free- dom of speech and religion. He points out that the Criminal Code’s Hate Propaganda provision protects “the defence of religious belief.” In a press release detailing the Bill's move to the House of Commons for a full vote, Robinson calls upon supporters of the Bill to speak out. In the same release, Robinson applauded the support the Bill received from members of the Liberal, Progressive Conservative, and Blog Quebecois parties. The vote on the Bill is expected to take place in the fall. Page 4 e hittp://otherpress.douglas.bc.ca Guarded Reactions to Same-Sex Marriage Endorsement Photo by Kim Meier Sara James News Editor The recent endorsement of same-sex marriages by the BC Court of Appeal has received guarded reactions. The appeal court gave a July 12, 2004 deadline to provincial and federal governments to amend existing marriage laws. The endorsement was a result of the ruling in the Barbeau v. British Columbia case. In her ruling, The Honourable Madam Justice Prowse wrote, “the primary issue of the appeals was to determine whether there was a common law bar to the marriage of same-sex couples, and if so, whether the bar should be removed because it offended the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Madam Justice Prowse determined that there was a common law bar and that the bar contravened the Charter. Her conclusion was reached after reviewing the cases included in the Barbeau appeal, similar cases in Ontario and Quebec, and applicable sec- tions within the Charter. She suggested the definition of marriage be amended to “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.” The Honourable Mr. Justices Mackenzie and Low concurred with her ruling. Mr. Justice Mackenzie added, “I wish to empha- size that the issue concerns civil marriage only and does not dis- place the rights of religious groups.” Advocates of same-sex marriage view the ruling as another step toward equality for gay, lesbian, and transgendered people. BC is the third province to recommend amendment of the definition of marriage. Federal reaction to the ruling was guarded. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon indicated the federal government is in the process of deciding whether or not to appeal the BC ruling. The government is currently appealing the Ontario and Quebec rul- ings. Reaction from the Douglas Students’ Union Pride Collective was guardedly optimistic. Heather Barnes noted there was nega- tive reaction to the Collective's same-sex marriage campaigns and the defacement of campaign posters and petitions. Neil Adams, Communications Officer of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster, stated that Bishop Michael Ingham would have no response to the ruling because it’s a civil matter. Adams said, “The church hasn't taken a position whether a church cere- mony should be related to a civil ceremony.” The Anglican Diocese of New Westminster Synod has voted three times to allow priests to bless same-sex couples and each time the votes were in favour. Bishop Ingham gave priests the option to bless the unions. Opponents of same-sex marriages are actively soliciting people to write to their MP regarding the issue. REAL Women of Canada’s website provides visitors with a contact list of MPs the letter writers should appeal to. A House of Commons Justice Committee is currently holding cross-country hearings into same-sex marriages.