Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
Protection based on sexual orientation was considered at the time the charter was written, and rejected. It would have been politically impossible to amend the constitution in that way at that time. The fact that it is now politically possible to read that into it is an example of how it was in fact a political decision, which is what Knalus was saying.
The SCC can read that into the charter, and they've done so. But politics absolutely came into it.
|
Fair enough, but agreeing that politics, changing social norms, etc., came into it is different than the shallow "political correctness" that knalus was alleging.