listen, i think i've been clear. i believe in a rights-based society, i believe in the rule of law and i believe in an enforcement mechanism.

but, i don't believe in property rights, and i don't believe in ethnic rights, and i don't believe in religious rights, either.

so, it's not a question over whether we're to have rights. we agree on that point. what we disagree over is what those rights are to actually be, which is a debate that we had not so long ago in canada, and which is clearly less closed than some would like to think.

further, the inclusion of religion in the constitution was an issue of major public debate - this wasn't obvious, wasn't without major detractors, including the elder trudeau, himself. it was the religious right, then and still led by alberta's conservative party, that insisted on the kind of language that we ended up with. if it was solely up to the elder trudeau, he wouldn't have given you the rights that his son is being criticized for not standing up for.

and, this goes back to these definitional debates about left and right, yet again.

there's nothing weird about me standing here as a left-liberal and questioning the role of religion in the constitution. we did that. it was the tories - the political ancestors of jason kenney, not of justin trudeau - that fought so hard to get that language in there, and that the chretien/trudeau liberals had to concede to to get the thing signed.

we see the consequences of that language, don't we?

and, i want my secular left back.

the liberals are supposed to do better than this.