|
LGBT is part of the Equality program. You can find more information about it on its main program page. |
LGBT
By Noa Mendelsohn Aviv on January 13, 2011
It now remains to be seen what will happen in practice, whether students will be permitted to form LGBT groups – in the Halton Catholic School District and elsewhere. If you are a Canadian high school student looking to create a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) or other LGBT group in your school and you are being blocked by your school authorities, you may be interested to know your rights:
In order to support you and protect your rights, we invite you to contact CCLA if these rights are being violated. Noa Mendelsohn Aviv Director, Equality Program Contact: mendelsohnaviv@ccla.org
By Cara Zwibel on January 10, 2011
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has handed a victory to advocates of equality in rendering its decision in a reference on proposed amendements to Saskatchewan’s Marriage Act. The proposed amendments would have allowed provincially appointed marriage commissioners to refuse to perform civil marriages where to do so would conflict with their religious beliefs. The amendments were proposed in large part because of objections by some commissioners to same-sex marriage, which became legal in Canada in 2004. The proposed amendments are also broad enough to allow commissioners to refuse to perform marriages on other grounds, including objections to inter-faith and inter-racial unions. A unanimous five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal concluded that the proposed amendments were unconstitutional as they violated the right to equality in a way that could not be justified. The CCLA, represented by special counsel Merrilee Rasmussen, intervened in this case to argue that the proposed amendments were unconstitutional as they violated the Charter’s fundamental right to equality. The CCLA argued that the amendments would risk creating a system of unequal access to basic government services. While the CCLA has always been, and remains, a staunch advocate of freedom of religion, the core function of marriage commissioners is to preside over civil marriages and, in Saskatchewan, marriages are performed either by religious officials or civil commissioners. The CCLA has advocated for the right of religious officials to refuse to perform ceremonies that are contrary to the tenets of their faith, but believes that as marriage commissioners are hired to perform a secular government service, they must serve the public equally. Read the CCLA’s factum here. Read the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s decision here.
By Noa Mendelsohn Aviv on January 10, 2011
A reference on proposed amendments to Saskatchewan’s Marriage Act which would have allowed provincially appointed marriage commissioners to refuse to perform civil marriages where to do so would conflict with their religious beliefs. CCLA intervened to argue that the amendments would unjustly violate the right to equality of same-sex couples and thereby risk creating a system of unequal access to basic government services.
By Noa Mendelsohn Aviv on May 12, 2010
Since the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2004, there has been an ongoing controversy in Saskatchewan regarding whether civil marriage commissioners should be required to solemnize same sex marriages. The government of Saskatchewan has asked the Court of Appeal to examine the constitutionality of two proposed bills that would permit civil marriage commissioners to refuse to perform civil marriages which run contrary to their personal religious beliefs. Although the bills make no reference to same-sex marriage, it is clear that the proposed changes arose from ongoing controversy surrounding civil marriage commissioners being asked to perform same-sex marriages. Read more…
By Noa Mendelsohn Aviv on February 24, 2010
CCLA has been granted intervenor status in the May, 2010 reference to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The government of Saskatchewan has asked the Court to examine the constitutionality of two proposed bills that would permit civil marriage commissioners to refuse to perform marriages which run contrary to their personal religious beliefs. Although the bills make no reference to same-sex marriage, it is clear that the proposed changes arose from ongoing controversy surrounding civil marriage commissioners being asked to perform same-sex marriages. While CCLA firmly supports the freedom of religious officials to decline to perform religious marriages based on their beliefs, the function of a civil marriage commissioner is to provide a basic non-religious government service; to do this, they must serve the public equally. CCLA will be intervening before the Court to argue that the proposed amendment would unjustly violate the right to equality of same-sex couples. Although CCLA sympathizes with the attempt to accommodate marriage commissioners’ individual religious beliefs, giving individual public servants the right to discriminate in the provision of basic public services is not an acceptable solution. Allowing a general right to deny a government service based on personal religious beliefs would open the door for civil servants to deny government services based on a multitude of factors. Individuals should not have to fear that a government employee will deny them access to a basic public service due to that employee’s personal convictions.
December 11, 2009
On December 3, 2009 the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta released its ruling in the judicial review of Boissoin v. Lund. The decision overturned an Alberta Human Rights Commission Panel’s ruling that Mr. Boissoin had contravened Alberta’s hate speech prohibition. Mr. Boissoin, wrote an opinion piece which was strongly critical of those in the gay rights movement. The letter was published by the Red Deer Advocate – the largest daily newspaper in central Alberta. CCLA, which intervened at both the Commission Panel and before the Queen’s Bench, argued that a broad interpretation of the provincial hate speech laws was an unjustifiable infringement on freedom of expression. Read more…
September 8, 2008
This case concerned the constitutionality of curtailing polemical and inflammatory messages by labeling them “hate speech.”
September 5, 2005
This case concerned the application of the Charter’s guarantees of freedom of religion and expression to a provincial statute banning hateful speech.
May 18, 2005
CCLA wrote to the
May 11, 2004
In this reference, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to consider the constitutional issues surrounding granting or explicitly barring to civil marriage for couples of the same-sex. Also at issue were the religious rights of clergy who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages. |
   |
|
Copyright © 2013 Canadian Civil Liberties Association - All Rights Reserved |
|
Hon. Marcel Proulx, Chair of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, addressing whether recognizing same-sex marriage would impinge on certain religious groups’ Charter rights (s. 15). We argued that it would not.