I'm pleased to say that James Moore was the MP for whose reelection I volunteered in the last election, just before I came to South Korea. We need more Conservatives like him.

You mean like conservatives who are progressive?

It's been a big year for Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland. First, justice on the off-shore oil and gas taxation and, now, justice for the gays and lesbians of Newfoundland and Labrador. <blockquote class="smalltext">I practised law for over 30 years and championed social justice and believed in minority rights and believed in the rights and freedoms of individuals under our Charter of Rights.</blockquote>Simple plain and no twisting of legal arguments that do not hold up.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "good tories" if they have decided to play it safe and follow a path of political correctness all the way to electoral oblivion then yeah they are great. We need leadership in this country and people that will stand up to judicial activism, run-away social engineering and the erosion of traditional(not necessarily Liberal)values.

What's the rush to codify something into law, why can't we have a national referendum on the issues and winner gets a constitutional amendment. I'm willing to take that wager and will live with the results of a direct vote of the people either way. Bet your "good" side wouldn't take that bet, or live with the consequences of defeat.

Because it is a constitutional right, you ninny, not a matter of personal taste. If you do not understand that just say so but do not play that it means nothing. We do not hold referendums of the education of African-Canadians, the access to health care for the blind or the things that we allow artists to express. There is no difference at all. These are the rights that the country exists upon, not some couch-scratchers' idea of what others "ought to be". Instead of knee-jerking consider the meaning of legal correctness, respect for the rule of law, being a citizen and not a just a bullying objectivist maximizing consumer.

You have read the back of the cereal box. Now why don't you try learning about the actual legal issue involved - freedom to be free from others telling you what you can and cannot be. Why are you so against the actual nature of the country, the law of the land? What other rights would you take away from me and my family?

I will begin by resorting to calling anybody names (ninny? Whatâ??s with that?) but I have to ask where it written in the Constitution that sexual orientation is a Constitutionally Protected right?

Here's a link to the Constitution :

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html

I've read it, have you?

If you remember when the Constitution Act of 1982 was passed, that great civil libertarian Pierre Trudeau specifically didn't include sexual orientation in the document. One of the reasons given at that time was that society was not ready. He wrote that when the time came in the maturity of the nation, the Constitution provides for amendments to extend additional rights.

Why can't we use the tools we have available to fix your perceived lack of rights. That way subsequent governments will not be able to easily take them away. Even thought he constitution dose not require a referendum, in an issue as important as this why can't the people have their say and put this issue to rest once and for all.

Take ninny for what it is worth - chaff from the chaffmaster. Thank you for coming back.<p>That being said, yes, I have read the Charter and proven an unenumerated ground within section 15 in the course of my legal career. The list of grounds of discrimination in section 15 discrimination is not a closed set. It is a list of examples. If you have a look at the case I argued in 2001 proving for the first time that "political belief" was in the Charter you will see how that works withing the analysis that has been worked out over twenty years for that section. You might be surprised to find that you were not constitutionally protected against discrimination based on your political belief until that ruling.<p>We do not have referendums on minority rights as they are most often unpopular. Few in PEI's political classes are pleased that political discrimination is being addressed as it takes a tool away from them in hiring those they like. Similarly, in the 1950s most were quite happy with the exclusion of Jews from hotels when the first Human Rights laws were brought in to deal with it. We rely on courts to make the decisions our politicians are too cowardly or too sidetracked to make. This is a great example of it. Besides, only about 40% of Canadians do not want it according to most polls. 45% are in favour and 15% do not care. There is not political or constitutional reason to wait. Even if Trudeau was right to leave sexual orientation out as Canadians were not ready, most now are. But that is ultimately irrelevant as it was with Jewish access to accomodation, blacks to education, women the vote. The last people to know time has passed them by are the discriminating.