when you're being accused of discrimination, and your response is "but, religion.", you're not actually presenting a defence - you're just explaining why you're guilty of discrimination.

and, i consequently think the correct thing for a judge to do is be explicit about it, in identifying the religion as the source of discrimination, and causally deducing the reality of discrimination from the religious principle, itself; if the judge wanted to really do this right, it would find the precise place that the discrimination is written into the muslim scriptures, and begin the argument from that point.

the correct answer is that islam is an inherently discriminatory system of thought, and muslims need to be held accountable for it when they follow through with it.

i've been clear about this: i think that s. 2a of the charter was a mistake. it's not going to be easy to strike it out. but, for right now, anyways, judges have a responsibility to ensure that it isn't used a tool to circumvent the charter, altogether - which is what a judge would be doing in ruling that muslims have the right to discriminate against trans people, via conscience of religion. i just can't accept that argument; it's the religion that needs to be put on trial here, not the complainant.