Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I think that the Quebec Seperatists certainly saw it as a rights issue, but its just one example.
|
Well even if they did I would have to say that's incorrect.
I think people try to muddy up the lines but I think there is a clear distinction.
Deciding how your province should govern itself (IE as a country or not) = Democratic choice.
Asking to have the same rights someone else in your country already has = Civil rights example.
I mean, I could declare MYSELF and my house a sovereign nation. But I doubt the government would let me. It's just a right I don't have. Which is fine.
But protecting (or correctly rewriting) the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to make sure everyone is protected the same way would be one of the most important principles of a democracy. Just because it isn't put to a vote, doesn't mean it's undemocratic. Protecting the freedoms of all, ESPECIALLY minorities is one of the hallmarks of democracy.
Democracy, and voting, is used to make choices that affect us all. Not to decide who gets what freedoms. And as much as some people argue, gay marriage is NOT going to affect them or the country as a whole.
And as for Stephen putting it to a vote, but knowng it wouldn't pass. Well I think that's a bad move. What if the ban did pass? I would say that law would be illegal and oppressive. Besides, we all do know there was a time when he WANTED it to pass. He's just warmed up to the idea like many people in the country have, as saw the will of the people.
MarchHare said it well just under your post.