On November 29, 2005 the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal rendered judgment on a case between a same sex couple and the Knights of Columbus. In summary, the couple booked the Knights of Columbus hall for their wedding reception. The Knights, upon finding the the reception was for a gay couple canceled the booking, refunded the women their money and reimbursed the women for the cost of sending out new invitations and the difference in renting another hall. The women then referred the matter to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

The Tribunal then rendered the following judgment:

1. the complaint against Ms. Hauser is dismissed;
2. a declaration pursuant to s. 37(2)(b) of the Code, that the Knights and Mr. Lazar, on behalf of the Knights, discriminated contrary to s. 8 of the Code;
3. pursuant to s. 37(2)(a) of the Code, that the Knights and Mr. Lazar are to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention of s. 8 the Code;
4. that pursuant to s. 37(2)(d)(ii) of the Code, the Knights and Mr. Lazar pay to the complainants the sum of $444.59 for expenses incurred as a result of the contravention of the Code, plus interest, from November 1, 2003 pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act; and
5. that pursuant to s. 37(2)(d)(iii) of the Code the Knights and Mr. Lazar to pay $1,000 to each of Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith for injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect.

What this judgment basically says is that the section 8 of the Canadian Human Rights Act trumps the section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In simple terms it means that gay rights trump religious rights.

Okay, maybe that is a little bit of an oversimplification. What it means is that a religious organization can not discriminate against a person on the basis of their sexual orientation. For the Knights this judgment means is that they can not refuse to allow their hall to be used for activities that are contrary to their beliefs; in this case they can not refuse to rent out their hall for the purposes of celebrating a gay marriage.

The link to the judgment is http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Smith_and_Chymyshyn_v_Knights_of_Columbus_and_others_2005_BCHRT_544.pdf
The link to the Canadian Human Rights Act is http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-6/31435.html
The link to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

Here's a little article to get you thinking. The University of Kansas is planning a new course named "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." Mythologies? I thought universities were there to open a persons mind not narrow it down to a pre-chosen path. I am not talking about the merits of Intelligent Design, I'm talking about the position the university has taken by targeting a belief as a "myth." There is something wrong when intellectual institutions ignore their mandate, that of training the next generation of intellectuals, and attempt to suppress the beliefs of a person, not through discourse, but through belittlement. Myth. Is there no longer the need to respect the beliefs of others? Is there no longer a need to train minds through and in the skills of logic and critical thinking? Is the opinion of the old guard so sacrosanct that it can not be questioned or arrived at through independent thought? Must the next generation be spoon fed the ideas of the current rather than be allowed to arrive at those conclusions on their own? Is there such a fear in academia that the current set of assumptions could be challenged or even, heaven forbid, disproved, that students must be directed in their thinking so that dissent can not raised without risking failure? It is indeed sad to think that our centres of learning could be transformed into centres of propaganda and spin in order to maintain the status quo. Could "Introduction to Politics" become "The Inferiority of Other Political Systems?" Could "Introduction to Macro Economics" become "The Inevitable Evolution to Market Based Economies?" It is difficult to see why these changes can not be made. If our mosaic of ideas can, through the "education" of our institutions of learning, be reduced to a single square, how will new ideas ever hope to see the light of day?

This makes me nervous. 1st Story Line Patent Published. It's true. Some is actually trying to patent a story idea. I have looked over the patent and it kind of looks like an old plot line from Star Trek: The Next Generation so it's not original but that's not the point. The point is that this is a blatant attempt to patent an idea. This has been an issue with software over the last ten years or so and now it seems to be spilling over into other creative areas as well. The question I have now is; if someone can patent a story line does that mean that someone can patent a jazz progression? A modernist style? Slang?

Patent law is supposed to be for the common good. By forcing "inventors" to expose their methods and devices others could, after a period of time, innovate and improve on the invention and in so doing benefit society. Patents are, in a literal sense, a government approved monopoly allowing the inventor to reap the rewards of hard labour. However, the monopoly is limited, allowing other inventors to extend and improve on the original invention after a period of time.

In the world of raw materials and production costs patents make sense. It costs a lot of money to build prototypes, set up a new production facilities, adhere to government regulations, etc. In short, in the physical world the risk is great so it makes sense that the reward also be great in order to attract people.

In the world of ideas, writing, music, sculpture and even mathematics, the risk is very low. Most software companies can build a throw away prototype for the cost of a few man weeks of labour. If the cost of failure is so cheap, why introduce a monopoly mechanism for a great reward. And more to the point, how does this monopoly benefit the common good? How can preventing anyone except the patent holder from writing about comatose amnesiacs for the next twenty years benefit society?

Is half a generation a reasonable amount of time for an idea to be withheld from the commons? In that time many things can change. Music can go out of style, technologies can be obsoleted, new scientific theories can conceived. How much will that slow if one person is prevented from building on the ideas of another?

Companies and individuals who fund the creation of new intellectual products should be rewarded for the risks they assume. However the reward should be proportional to the risk. Providing monopolies for economic advantage to individuals and corporations does not make sense if it is to the detriment of common good.

Bishop Henry, A bishop in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary, was reciently raked across the coals in Canadian newspapers (i.e. Globe and Mail, CBC, The Star) and of course gay rights Web sites (365Gay.com). I decided to check out the Pastoral Letter myself. In my own opinion, the most damning quote from the letter, "Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good" loses its original meaning when taken out of context and in isolation. The Bishop does not, as the the papers suggest, state that Ottawa should target gays. The Bishop does state however that citizens should "to enter into the debate and, with clarity and charity, to make their voices heard". But hey, don't take my word for it. Check out Bishop Henry's Pastoral Letter yourself and, for balance, the response from the same sex community.