Talk:Egale Canada

Untitled

My name is Don Kearney and I am on the Board of Directors for Egale Canada Inc. I posted the information about Egale on this page and took it from our page "About Us" page. As a member of the Board of Directors and the National Treasurer, I am empowered to speak for Egale publically and use its name accordingly. Posting our "who we are" section is within my mandate to speak on behalf of Egale Canada Inc. The full text from this posting can be found at [1] (See Link) and the list of Board members can be found at [2](See Link) showing my name and e-mail address for contact purposes.

Shouldn't it be Égale?

I know the organization's website, its own press materials, and such often omit the accent aigu on the first "e." However, the organization's official charter from the government, by-laws, all of its materials in French, and a good deal of its materials in English to refer to the organization as Égale Canada. I've created redirects for "Égale" and "Égale Canada," but shouldn't it really be the other way around? ("Egale" and "Egale Canada" redirecting to "Égale"?)

And the latter assumption there points to another question... Ironically, I advocated sticking to the organization's charter and by-laws in the first because there isn't a clear preference from Égale itself in regards to with or without the accent aigu. However, even though the organization is officially Égale Canada, it is much more widely known simply as Égale.

So I think...

The article should be renamed "Égale". The following redirects should be created: "Égale Canada," "Egale," and "Egale Canada".

Anybody follow all that? Anybody agree or disagree?

I disagree. I've always seen it as Egale. Spinboy 01:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree as well. The organisation was formerly named EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere), but they changed it to Egale since the name was not including bisexuals and trans folk. -- Iothiania

I disagree with renaming the article to Égale. This because there are also a French organization (Égalité, Laïcité, Europe) and a German sports club called Egale. Aecis 12:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

We can oppose without being goofy vandals

I oppose what EGALE lobbies for, but I would not descend to the contemptible level of deleting all kinds of descriptive text and inserting profanities and insults.

However, I believe EGALE would not stand against, or EGALE would itself actively support, actions that would deny people of deep Godly faith the right to stand on their beliefs, practice their beliefs, speak of their beliefs, and maintain their beliefs. I defend Chris Kempling; I defend the Toronto printer who was ordered to print homosexual literature that violated his beliefs; I defend the PEI couple who had to close their B&B to not admit homosexual men to share a room; I defend Christian churches that rightly (in the sight of God) refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

How long will EGALE (or people that EGALE accepts as members) wait before supporting a challenge against these expressions of the right of freedom of speech and thought?

GBC 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, in the article itself, EGALE is even acknowledged as having intervened in legal affairs to support homosexuals against opponents. Marc Hall is listed as a case they've gotten involved in, acting to try to defeat the deeply-held convictions of obedience to God that are held by the Roman Catholic church and the Godly example it seeks to set before the young people entrusted to its guidance and education.

It is inevitable that, when EGALE is told that one of its members tried to get married in a conservative church and is refused, EGALE will intervene by supporting a legal challenge or a human rights challenge, seeking to overturn any remaining shred of protection under the law for a religious organization to refuse to carry on activities that conflict with what that organization believes to be God's will. I doubt that EGALE, even with a church in nearly every city and town that will marry homosexuals, will tolerate any churches that refuse. Such churches would be am obstacle to EGALE's desires that every human being believe EGALE's message homosexuality is normal, healthy, natural and pleasing before God. EGALE will not be able to tolerate the contrary view: that homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural, unhealthy and an abomination before God. They who call for tolerance will not tolerate a dissenting viewpoint.

GBC 23:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Imagine if Gcapp had written:

I defend the Toronto printer who was ordered to print Jewish literature; I defend the PEI couple who had to close their B&B to not admit black men to a room;

It would be quite different wouldn't it? Or would it be just as offensive. A basic principle of our society is that someone running a business cannot discriminate against black people, or Jews, and now, the same is true for gays and lesbians, because our society has evolved.

Gcapp's second point is not supportable -- the "slippery slope" argument is an old and feeble debating trick. If you can't win convince people of your position in an argument, you try to switch the argument to one where they will agree with you. Egale has never, ever argued that churches should be forced to marry anyone. Never. Not once. Saying "Oh well, that's what they'll do next" is baseless speculation. Furthermore, since no-one has ever used the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to force a synagogue to marry a non-Jew, or a Catholic church to marry a divorced person, there is no reason to believe that anyone would be able to use it to force a church to marry same-sex couples. Freedom of religion is protected in the Charter as well, and that is the freedom that would prevail in determining whether a church should marry anyone. A restaurant, a print shop, a B&B -- that is a different matter. There, freedom from discrimination by a licensed business prevails over the religious views of its owners.

I find it interesting that the opponents of Bill C38 wrap themselves in the banner of "religious freedom" while campaiging to get the Government to prohibit United Churches, Reform Synagogues, Quaker assemblies, and so on, from performing legal marriages of same-sex couples, even though these organizations believe that doing so is consistent with their faith and interpretations of their scriptures. "Let's protect religious freedom by having the Government -- and not the churhces -- decide who they cannot marry." Odd. Ground Zero | t 20:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Limitations on freedom of speech

Please note that Category:Limitations on freedom of speech is up for deletion. It's discussion can be found at the following link: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 14#Category:Limitations on freedom of speech. - Arcuras 21:52, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Is rainbow Canada flag better?

On April 11, 2006, NTK replaced the Canadian flag in this template with a rainbow version of the Canadian flag.

Since this is only one of the articles affected, please give your comments at this central location: Template talk:GR-C Wuzzy 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Little Sisters case

As a law student who has studied the Supreme Court case of Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice) [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, I take issue with the statement "decried the heavy-handed censorship practices of Canada Customs and helped Little Sisters Bookstore win their court case" in 2.2 of this article.

First of all, it's not exactly accurate to say that Little Sisters "won" this case. The Supreme Court did say that the border practices were discriminatory, however, the court neither struck down nor read down the legislation as Little Sisters had requested in their factum (See paras. 156-157 of Little Sisters' factum, available at http://www.bccla.org/othercontent/lsfactum.html). In fact, the only constitutional violation the majority of the court found with respect to the legislation was the "reverse onus" provision of s.152(3) of the Customs Act. Given the huge difference between what Little Sisters had asked from the court and what was granted, I think it's entirely inaccurate to say that they "won" their case.

More than that, though, it's arguable as to whether any victory that Little Sisters did achieve was supported by Egale. Some scholars have actually argued that Egale's intervention in the case in fact undermined Little Sisters' submission that the obscenity law are discriminatory and a violation of s.15 equality rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horpy (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)