Layton in violation of the Charter

The 'progressive' blogs are filled with righteous indignation that some Roman Catholic Priests have withheld communion from MPs who openly denied the church's teaching on the sacrament of marriage.

Many of them have repeated the calls for yanking of the tax-exempt status of the church. Some have had the effrontery to ask 'who does the Catholic Church think it is?' --- as though, by enforcing its doctrine, the church has overstepped its authority.

In light of the negative yap about the Roman Catholic Church by those on the left, I would like to remind people of two things:

Jack Layton violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by disciplining Bev Desjarlais after she voted her conscience, and said 'nay' to Bill C-38.

Section 2 of the Charter reads:

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Bev Desjarlais exercised her Charter rights of 'freedom of conscience and religion', and 'freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression' when she voted against the Civil Marriage Act. Jack Layton subsequently demoted and publicly humiliated her for her stance on this issue of conscience. His actions could be described as punitive and vindictive. His reasoning seems to be that Bev knew the rules going into the vote, and yet she chose to buck the party line. Bev has taken her lumps without complaint and has not pleaded her case for victimhood in the media despite such strong arm tactics by Layton. Regardless of his justification, his actions go against the protections given all citizens under the Charter.

Paul Martin is also guilty of violating the Charter. Liberal MP and Cabinet Minister, Joe Comuzzi was forced to resign from Cabinet in order to be allowed to vote his conscience. When he refused to allow a free-vote on SSM, the Prime Minister cherry-picked which Charter rights he was willing to uphold. His blatant disregard of this sacrosanct document with regard to Cabinet Ministers, exemplifies Martin's willingness to ignore the charter when it suits his ends.

Now, as to the churches losing their tax exempt status for being 'political'.

One would hope the left is including all churches in this demand ---- not just those with whom they disagree.

Will they insist that Metropolitan Community Church lose its tax-exempt status for playing politics with marriage?
You'll recall the first same-sex 'marriage ceremony' was performed there in 2001 -- less than 18 months after Parliament had affirmed by an overwhelming majority that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This was more than four years before same-sex marriage became the law of the land. Political, no?

Where was the left then? Religious interference in politics wasn't a problem when it suited their political agenda.

In our increasingly secular society, people often donate their time and money to the political party of their choice, rather than to a religious institution. Since the left believes both churches and political parties advance political causes -- taxing churches would give political parties an unfair financial advantage.
If the left wants churches to lose tax-exempt status for being 'political' - perhaps the churches should register as political parties instead. They'd continue receive tax free donations; they'd still be allowed to issue income tax receipts; and they would be part of the political infrastructure -- and free from interference by the state.

The left is going to continue to whinge -- when I see Jack Layton and Paul Martin hauled in front of human rights tribunal -- that's when I'll start to listen.

canadianna