Canadian Politics

Ambassador tells truth to Americans after government lies to Canadians

A few hours before Parliament voted to legalize same sex marriage on June 28, Frank McKenna, Canada’s ambassador to the United States went on American University Radio, a National Public Radio station in Washington D.C. During his one hour appearance on the Diane Rehm Show, McKenna spoke on a variety of issues from the war in Iraq to trade to Mad Cow disease. When a listener sent an email to the show that mentioned same sex marriage, the Ambassador said the following:

"Well, I’m glad Andrew asked that question. Canada, the Parliament, is about to vote and it would appear to approve, same sex unions. They also simultaneously are affirming the very clear right that churches have to make decisions about who they will marry and who they will not marry so there’s a respect for each for the institutions of marriage and the right of the church to perform it but also to recognize that the Canadian Charter of Rights, interpreted by the courts would seem to require the government to acknowledge the legality of same sex marriage. When my American friends ask me how that could come to be I just give them a very simple answer; in the United States, I know there are other arguments, but one of the arguments as to why guns aren’t controlled although they are in Canada is that Americans will often say that the right to bear arms is enshrined in our constitution. So my answer to that, whether everyone agrees with that or not is the fact; well in Canada our Charter of Rights confers rights interpreted by the courts that would lead towards same sex marriage. So there’s a balance in our respect that we have for our Charter of Rights and we have for your constitution and so as a result of that, that application or interpretation of our Charter of Rights; we will be seeing in the next week; a respect for churches right to choose in terms of who gets married and also the right for same sex marriage to take place."

Despite McKenna’s somewhat lengthy and repetitive answer, his characterization of the right for same sex couples to marry as being the same as the right to bear arms was spot on. Same sex marriage is a "Canadian right" in much the same way as the right to bear arms is an "American right". But that is not what Paul Martin and his trained seals have been telling Canadians. On a CBC Town Hall meeting, Martin said,

"It is absolutely a question of human rights and under these circumstances there is no way that anybody should be allowed to discriminate or prevent same sex marriage."

Same sex marriage as a human right has been the mantra that the prime minister has consistently used, not only to try and reconcile gay unions with his Roman Catholic beliefs but to sway many middle of the road Canadians, his largest support base, into believing that same sex marriage is in fact a human rights issue. "It’s a human rights matter" was the standard response of Liberal MPs to constituents who voiced their opposition to the legislation.

Not even the most pro-gun American could seriously argue that the right to bear arms is a human right. If it was, rock concerts would be held all over the U.S. in support of the right of all people of the world to carry Uzis. If possessing a gun was a human right, the United Nations would have come out with a "Convention on the Right to Own Magnum 357s" by now. The right to bear arms is not a human right and neither is the right of gays and lesbians to enter to a "marriage" with a person of the same sex. It is, as Frank McKenna said it is, a Canadian right.

If the right of same sex marriage was a human right, the drafters of the Charter of Rights would not have intentionally left sexual orientation out of the equality sections of the Charter. Were it a true human right Parliament would not have overwhelmingly voted in 1999 to keep the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. To argue that same sex marriage has become a human right within the last six years is absurd.

Paul Martin has no respect for the concept of human rights; if he did, he would not be playing fast and loose with its definition for partisan political purposes. To somehow link two gay people not being able to enter into a marriage (as opposed to a civil union) as being in the same category as blacks being required to ride in the back of the bus, diminishes the entire notion of human rights.

Of course the legislation is now passed. Paul Martin and his Liberals will probably never speak of it as a human rights issue again. After all, they don’t have to.

Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Men's News Daily, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck and The Rant. Arthur can be reached at: aweinreb@rogers.com

Other articles by Arthur Weinreb