Sidney Green goes too far

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/09/2009 (6102 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

I agree with Sidney Green on one thing: Stuart Murray’s vote several years ago against (a bad choice) inclusion of sexual orientation under provincial human rights legislation should not disqualify him to serve as head of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. As for the rest of Green’s assertions in an article he wrote for the Free Press Sept. 23, I heartily disagree with him.

Green has written a solid piece befitting of a first-rate lawyer and that he is, but let’s cut to the chase: While he is not a homophobe, Green is not prepared to lift a legislative finger for a group of citizens who for centuries have suffered from some of the worst kinds of discrimination known to mankind.

Gays and lesbians, as Green sees it, should be left to fight their own battles. (That would be difficult without the right of free speech). If they can convince the community that discrimination against them is bad and that it should be stopped, that’s all well and good. But they shouldn’t have support of the law. In other words, no human rights legislation.

That’s going too far, according to Green who made quite a name for himself decades ago supporting a collective approach through the law to provide universal health care to Canadians. Obtaining legal rights for health care for all Canadians is OK with Green but it’s not OK for gays and lesbians to secure a legal shield against discrimination. Let’s call a spade a spade: this is nonsense.

Green says he believes human beings should have the right to discriminate against one another on the basis of political opinion. Moreover, as an employer, he would not hire an applicant for employment that he knew to be a Nazi. It’s a pretty good guess that Nazis would come near or at the bottom of lists of very bad people, but just how far is Green prepared to go with this? After all, there are wing-nuts out there ready and willing to discriminate on the grounds of race, colour, religion, age and, yes, sexual orientation. It could get pretty messy out there.

Just the other day, I read a story in the Free Press about women in a Muslim country who were given the lash for wearing — are you ready for it? — pants. No human rights code there. If Sidney Green had his way, Manitobans, or for that matter all Canadians, would not have one either.

Now, to be fair to Green, he wants people to be respectful of each other. (Love thy neighbour as thyself, as he put it.) It’s just that he doesn’t want it backed up by and through human rights legislation. He prefers “social and cultural development which affect the inner conscience of human beings.” It’s a pleasant thought and, who knows, it may come about several centuries from now (these things take time). In the meantime, what do we do as a society to protect the vulnerable from some of the worst kinds of discrimination? A human rights code may not be perfect but it comes out far ahead of Green’s laissez-faire approach.

John Harvard is a former lieutenant-governor of Manitoba and a former Liberal member of Parliament.