by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
2/18/05
Earlier this month, Dr. Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College and the Canada Family action Coalition wrote an article that appeared in Canada Free Press entitled, "31 Reasons to Vote ‘No’ to Changing the Definition of Marriage".
To put the number of arguments against changing the traditional definition of marriage into perspective, it is approximately 31reasons more or less than Conservative leader Stephen Harper made prior to the matter being debated in the House of Commons.
Unfortunately, Dr. McVety got his first reason wrong. He argued that the government has no authority to change the definition of religious terms, giving as examples, marriage, baptism and bar mitzvahs. While it is true that the freedom of religion clause in the Charter of Rights prevents the government from intruding on these practices within religious institutions, there is nothing to prevent the government from creating parallel practices in the parallel universe in which they inhabit.
OTTaWa (June 16, 2006) The Supreme Court of Canada handed down its much awaited decision in the case of Mohammed and O’Malley v. Canada yesterday. Speaking for the majority, Chief Justice Neil Finkelstein said that restricting bar mitzvahs to 13-year-old Jewish kids was unfair and contrary to the equality sections of the Charter of Rights. The Court found that all 13-year-olds were entitled to have a ceremony and get lots of presents, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, and of course sexual orientation. The Supreme Court of Canada gave the government six months to bring in legislation to provide that the availability of bar mitzvah for every person in Canada.
Prime Minister Paul Martin who was recently reelected with a massive majority said that he would introduce legislation immediately to comply with the Court’s directive. "Canadians don’t want to live in a country where Muslim teenagers are deprived of having a bar mitzvah. We have to comply with the Charter of Rights."
Jack Layton, leader of the Official Opposition, said that his NDP party would support any equality legislation brought in by the government.
Conservative Party leader Belinda Stronach said that she might support the government legislation; then again she might not. Stronach acknowledged that she really wasn’t sure what a bar mitzvah is and said she would make her decision after discussing the matter with her other member of caucus, Peter MacKay-Stronach.
There was no official comment from the Bloc Quebecois. However in Quebec City, PQ leader Bernard Landry was overheard saying, "Buddhist and Baptist bar mitzvahs? If this isn’t reason enough for having our own country, what is?"
No serious opposition is expected in the Senate according to a statement released by the office of Senator Bono.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler was asked if this proposed legislation wasn’t infringing on the religious rights of Jews. Cotler smiled and sarcastically explained that this legislation doesn’t take away rights. It adds rights it does not take away any rights to the religious practices of Jews. and if Jews somehow think that civil bar mitzvahs are somehow mocking their religious practices, we’ll they’re just intolerant bigots. When asked what would happen to Jewish civil servants who refused to perform civil bar mitzvahs, Cotler smiled and said, "How would I know? Performing bar mitzvahs is a provincial responsibility. No Jewish synagogues or temples will be affected by the government’s legislation."
Okay, so this might be a little bit of a stretch. Well, at least the Senator Bono part.