[GMMAC]

One of the most concise and scathing critiques I've so far seen of Martin's politically correct cowardice and hypocrisy.
And, rather surprisingly, from the Editor of a paper that's habitually Canada's literal voice of red-Toryism (stateside read: RINOism)!

[Betaille]

What do the public opinion polls look like on this?

[youngtory]

Proponents argue the court was simply fulfilling the intent of Parliament, given the "open-ended" wording of Section 15, which guaranteed "every individual" freedom from discrimination based upon -- but not limited to -- race, origin, colour, sex, etc.

WTF????It says nothing like that in the charter Here is what the charter ACTUALLY SAYS in Section 15:

"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Can any one tell me where the hell it says Sexual Orientation. They are making it up. I bet these bastards don't even read it.