centre of the universe - the dreaming: A subtle twist

06/01/2008: "A subtle twist" The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a marriage commissioner who refused to perform a mixed-race ceremony for religious reasons to pay $2,500 in compensation to the black complainant. James Leslie, has also been ordered to stop discriminating against mixed-race couples in a judgment issued in Saskatoon Friday by the quasi-judicial provincial body that adjudicates human rights complaints. In the 25-page decision, tribunal members ruled that as a public servant providing a government service, Leslie does not have the right to refuse service on the basis of his personal or religious beliefs.

The purpose of civil marriage is to give people, including mixed-race couples, who have the legal right to marry, a chance to be wed outside of a church. To refuse service on the basis of personal, or religious, belief is to remove the distinction between religious wedding ceremonies and civil ceremonies, the ruling states. In testimony before the tribunal, the complainant testified he was devastated when he telephoned Leslie to make arrangements for the ceremony.

The complainant, who has very dark skin, testified Leslie confirmed a date on which he could perform the marriage ceremony, but when told it would be a mixed-race ceremony, Leslie said his personal beliefs would not permit him to perform the ceremony. And while Leslie did provide the name of a marriage commissioner who subsequently performed the ceremony, the initial refusal was damaging, according to testimony from the complainant.

At the time of the incident, the complainant testified, his fiancee's family was still coming to grips with the idea that their daughter, a white woman, was marrying someone from a different ethnic background. The complainant, identified as K.R., 51 at the time, had testified earlier that he had been married to a black woman for about 17 years and had three children. He indicated he did not realize he was attracted to white women until after he was divorced.

A.M., K.R.'s fiancee at the time, testified that Leslie's decision to refuse to perform the ceremony, coupled with the resulting publicity in the local press and on the internet, led to bouts of anxiety and difficulty sleeping for the complainant, K.R.. In his testimony before the tribunal, Leslie, a marriage commissioner since 1983, said his personal beliefs took first priority in his life. In day-to-day terms, he testified, this meant reading on a daily basis. He testified he viewed the books he was reading as the inspired work of a political leader and that in it stated that blacks should not sleep with whites. He indicated that these were the particular provisions of the book he relied upon when he decided to refuse to perform mixed-race marriages. He testified that even his church had a doctrine whereby it would not perform mixed-race marriages.

Public servants still have rights, the commissioner argues.

Leslie acknowledged the marriage unit of the Department of Justice had directed that marriage commissioners were required to perform mixed-race marriages, the judgment states. However, Leslie testified, he was not able to follow that direction as it went directly against his personal and religious beliefs. Leslie, who failed in a bid to get a tribunal hearing of his own on the basis that his own rights had been violated, said he was disappointed by the decision.

"Did every public servant in Canada lose their rights when they became a public servant?" he asked.

The head of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, which refers complaints to the tribunal, said she supports the ruling.

"Well, the starting point is the law," she said. "And the notion, the overriding notion, is that we all live together in a democracy. And we live together as part of an implicit social contract that we're not going to be discriminating against each other and particularly where any of us want to access a publicly funded service."

She said Leslie's bid for a tribunal hearing was turned down by the commission because he had accepted an appointment to perform civil marriages.

"That statutory appointment is based on a law in Saskatchewan that offers a publicly funded public service," she said. "That public service is defined, partially, by a promise that people can get married with no religious content and that anybody in Saskatchewan who qualifies for that marriage will not be turned away for discriminatory reasons." (original story is here)

[Dear closed-minded bigot I heard on the radio yesterday: does this make it any more clear 'in what way were "those people" discriminated against'? When I heard you say, on that opinion talk show, that "those people were not harmed in any way, but the civil servant was discriminated against based on his religious beliefs", I damn near choked on my own vomit. It's people like you who give those of us who *do* understand the *intent* of our religious doctrine a bad name. Not only that, but the example you gave of why the marriage commissioner was in the right to deny service was asinine and an utter fallacy. I hope some day your tongue falls out of your head. If someone denied a civil service to someone else because of the colour of their skin, you would be outraged...at least outwardly (you might not be all that upset if it was "one of them Indians", huh?). Rot in hell.]

"Famous Friday" "A Religous Experience"

7 Comments

melistress , on Sunday, 1st June:

People like these aren't as rare as you might think and it is people like these that cause me to rant the way I do about certain things. It drives me batty.

Coyote , on Monday, 2nd June:

Oh wait ... I get it now.

You're switching in racism for gay discrimination to show that it doesn't matter why you discriminate, any form of it is damaging and bigotted.

And let me guess, the radio host is a former Sask Party MLA? What say we plan a road trip to Saskabush and demonstrate the truly negative side of bigotry, that is the angry people he discriminates against.

My favorite moment of his when I had to listen to his take on why there were so many Natives in the Sask penal system. I think I ranted about it for about 5 days.

Parmeisan , on Monday, 2nd June:

Ah. And here I was thinking, "This sets a lovely precedent for commissioners that try to discriminate against gays. Thank you, Mr. Leslie, for discriminating against someone that it's not socially acceptable to discriminate against!"

I am happy to hear that the tribunal made this ruling for a gay couple, first, and didn't have to forced into it by precedent.

The commissioner certainly has rights of his own, but the right to take a job that requires you to do something against your beliefs? You shouldn't be a pharmacist if you're not willing to sell birth control. You shouldn't run a deli if you're not willing to give people meat. And you shouldn't be a marriage commissioner if you're not willing to marry people. There are lots of other job options out there.

Paul , on Monday, 2nd June:

Pft, Parmeisan, way to say what I was going to say. Since you've heard me say it before I can only conclude that it wasn't an accident but rather you deliberately stealing MY angry rhetoric.

Anyway, most of these people claim their discrimination is based in Christianity, which is a trend we can assume will continue based on the relative breakdown of religious convictions in Canada, but they've got this persecution complex where they want to feel like the righteous victim, and they're so caught up in feeling like heroes that they don't stop and ask, "what would Jesus do?"

I have trouble imagining Jesus remaining in a job that came into conflicts with his religious convictions to begin with. Also, I have trouble imagining Jesus going to a human rights commission and claiming he shouldn't have to do his job while he's a work because it conflicts with his religion.

Parmeisan , on Monday, 2nd June:

I stole your points because I agree with them, and I wasn't sure if you would post. ;)

I feel the need to add this to my comments: That there is one difference between Mr. Leslie and his non-fictional counterpart. Mr. Leslie would have almost certainly become a marriage commissioner with the full knowledge of the job and of his beliefs and where they might differ. The REAL Mr. Leslie (aka Mr. Nichols) had possibly been a commissioner for 20 or so years before it ever really came up that he might be asked to marry gays. I do NOT think that this gives him the right to refuse; however I do think that the government of Saskatchewan has failed him in not offering an option - severance or some such - for marriage commissioners who do not want to perform same-sex marriage. If he's been doing this job for 20 years, it's no longer easy to quit and find a new job. The government should be doing something to offset that possibility.

cenobyte , on Monday, 2nd June:

Coyote: No, the radio host was not John Gormley. It was an *entirely different* radio talk show. And the guest was not Jim Pankiw, surprisingly enough.

Paul: Who, exactly, would preside over a human rights tribunal to which Jesus was called to testify, I wonder?

Melistress: I never said they were rare. I said this guy's tongue should fall out of his head.

melistress , on Monday, 2nd June:

Please substitute "one" for "you" as that is what I meant. :-)

distractions