Tuesday, October 12, 2004

The Supreme Court of Canada in 2010 ...

Four reference questions for The Supreme Court in
2010?
by Stephen Gray

The year is 2010. The land is still tolerant and
becoming even more so. There has been an addition to
the hate crimes laws, stating that ridiculing and
criticizing animal lovers will not be tolerated. This
addition has already been passed by the Senate and
will become law.

Still, animal lovers are claiming their equality
rights are being violated under The Charter. Some
animal lovers wish to marry their pets and claim they
have been in loving, caring relationships for many
years. A lower court judge has stated, there is
nothing in the Charter that disallows any loving,
caring relationship, and to rule otherwise, would be a
violation under the "equality" rights of The Charter,
and "discriminatory" to boot.

Numerous animal lovers have mustered the support of
various influential groups, including the Human and
Animal Rights Commissions (HARC). A press release
from HARC has stated: "We are distressed that there
still seems to be discrimination abroad in the land.
Humans and animals have lived side by side for many
years. In some homes caring and loving relationships
have been formed. These relationships deserve
recognition in a civilized society. There is no room
for bigotry, intolerance or cruelty to animals and
humans by marginalizing these relationships. We
therefore call on our government to show compassion
and tolerance and give these relationships the
recognition they deserve."

The government decides to have a debate on this
pressing and important matter.
Honorable Member 1: "Mr. Speaker I believe it is an
affront to democracy that in this day and age, loving
and caring relationships of any sort are still
discriminated against."

Honorable Member 2: "Mr. Speaker it is only a number
of years ago that full marital status was given to
others of different lifestyles and if it was
discriminatory then to oppose these couplings surely
it is discriminatory now to refuse any loving caring
relationship, the approval of being married."

Honorable Member 3: "Mr. Speaker Honorable Member 2
has just said what I was going to say: Love is love
and any kind of love makes a loving relationship and
doggone it animals and people do love one another."

Honorable Member 4: "We are told the Charter is a
'living tree.' So surely this tree is an appropriate
reference in the present debate. I think it is pawed
awful that one's faithful companion can be
marginalized."

Right Honorable Member: "Mr. Speaker, since we seem to
have reached a consensus on this issue and since this
question continues to dog us I propose we send four
reference questions to The Supreme Court on this
matter."
Much applause, hear, hears and a standing ovation for
the Right Honorable Member.

Right Honorable Member: "These four reference
questions are as follows:"

Does Parliament have the exclusive legislative
authority to introduce animals into the legal
definition of marriage?
Is extending the capacity to marry ones pet consistent
with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Does the Charter protect religious officials opposed
to bestiality, "from being compelled to perform this
type of marriage, that is contrary to their religious
beliefs?"
Is the same-sex animal and human requirement for
marriage consistent with the Charter?

Right Honorable Member: "Are there any questions on
these reference questions from the Honorable Members?
Since there are no further questions on this important
matter, we will await The Courts decision, I am sure
it will be up to their usual competence on these four
reference questions."

Stephen Gray
Oct. 11, 2004
graysinfo@yahoo.ca