this guy used to be an important behind the scenes guy in the liberal party.

i don't believe people have inalienable rights to religious expression at all - i think it's society's fundamental responsibility to ensure that religious beliefs are kept in line with more substantive civil liberties, and i think it was an error to include religious liberty in the charter because it creates this whole mess of contradictions that shouldn't be contemplated.

consider bountiful, for example. the idea that these people have some kind of right to wed children to old men is not something that the court should even be contemplating. that's not a defence that should be available to them. what's disgusting is that the law provides this as an out.

the constitution also provides an argument for practitioners of fgm and all other types of misogyny and i think this fact is lamentable. if i could take a magic marker to our laws, that "and religion" at the end of 2a would be the first thing i'd scratch out.

when these issues come up, and they are legitimate rather than contrived as per the previous examples, there is always something else underlying them. and, what's happening in quebec is no different. this should not be thought of as an issue of religion. rather, the state is targetting a gender and an ethnic group.

people do have the inalienable right to individual expression, so long as they're not fucking bothering anybody. and, wearing a goddamned scarf doesn't fucking bother anybody.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/warren-kinsella/i-am-disgusted-by-trudeaus-response-to-quebecs-racist-law_a_23250135/

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.