Realwomen of BC - Archives - Jan2003

Back to Contents
Svend Robinson on a Quest Again Svend Robinson, member of parliament from the Burnaby riding, is at it again. Over the years, Mr. Robinson has made a name for himself with schemes such as a private member’s bill to take God out of the pre-amble of the Canadian Constitution. This time, Mr. Robinson has brought forth a private member’s bill C-250 (originally called Bill C-415) that would include sexual orientation into the Criminal Code. This bill is not dead as some have claimed but simply re-named. There are, of course, several problems with this bill. For one thing it is an affront to millions of Canadians who, for either religious or other reasons, do not agree that homosexuality is natural and normal. This bill will thwart freedom of expression and opinion. In a talk show on October 23 Mr. Robinson defined the religious exemption on rather vague terms “..the existing provision of the Criminal Code very clearly states that a religious belief even if it was that black people were inferior, even if it’s a belief you should hate Jews or Muslims,..as long as that’s a bonafide belief – not an excuse, then it’s covered.” Will Mr. Robinson be the one to interpret what is a bonafide belief or just an excuse? Mr. Robinson went on to say that people who are against his bill are “leading a campaign of distortion, of lies&by the religious right that is unbelievable.” So, according to Mr. Robinson, those that disagree with his bill are liars and do not have any factual information. It is somewhat ironic that Mr. Robinson is pushing this bill all in the name of tolerance. According to the dictionary, the term “tolerate” means “to endure, to allow something to exist” and tolerance means “the disposition or willingness to tolerate or allow, the permissible range of variation.” Obviously Mr. Robinson expects tolerance of others while he is not willing to extend the same. Although Mr. Robinson claims that there is an exemption on religious grounds, Canadians can be assured that this exemption will not stand for very long. We have seen enough examples where people of faith had their religious freedom trampled on and where even factual information did not count as defence. There are other problems with this bill as well. The term “sexual orientation” is not defined. There are those within society that do not think it is wrong for adults to have sex with children or animals. The term “pedophobe” has already been coined. How can society declare sex between adults and children as wrong if our Criminal Code states that negative comments about sexual orientation (which is not defined) can be constituted as a hate crime? What about other sexual practices that people do not consider acceptable? How can society engage in open dialogue when any opposing view to unusual sexual practices could become a criminal offence?
Back to Contents

Svend Robinson on a Quest Again