[RhinofromWA]

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CANADA_SAME_SEX_BENEFITS?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Guess Canada has it's own gay rights problems......



Now they are fighting for pensions back to 1983 or something.

 

[LordOpie]

i didn't read the link, cuz, well, I don't care, but wouldn't suing for back pensions be tantamount to blacks suing for slavery? Sh:t's in the past, right? Should people be allowed to sue for a time period based on a law that's been changed since then?

 

[RhinofromWA]

i didn't read the link, cuz, well, I don't care, but wouldn't suing for back pensions be tantamount to blacks suing for slavery? Sh:t's in the past, right? Should people be allowed to sue for a time period based on a law that's been changed since then?

I guess gays were given rights back when......

but it wasn't until recently as the late 90's that pension rights were acknowledged.

Rhino

 

[LordOpie]

good lord... ok, fine, what will make the queers gay, err, happy?!

 

[RhinofromWA]

good lord... ok, fine, what will make the queers gay, err, happy?!

For LO: Bits from a short article I might as well pasted it all.

The case has to do with Canada's decision in 2000 to include gays and lesbians whose partners had died in the national pension plan but to limit retroactivity to Jan. 1, 1998.

Gay plaintiffs filed a class-action suit arguing the payments should go back to April 1985, when Canada granted gays and lesbians equality rights under its Charter of Rights of Freedoms.

In December the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision sided with gays and ordered the government to make back payments covering the 13 years between 1985 and 1998.

The government appealed and the Ontario Court of Appeals began hearing its arguments Thursday. The hearing is expected to run into Friday.

Government lawyer Paul Vickery said the legal, political and social consensus that gay couples needed the same constitutional protection as opposite-sex couples only began to emerge in the mid- and late 1990s.

"There are very strong policy reasons why the courts should not attempt to view events of the past through modern-day eyes," said Vickery.

"It would involve a distortion of the historical record," he said.

Gail Flintoft, chairwoman of the Canadian AIDS Society, said the government position doesn't make sense.

"We don't understand why the federal government is choosing to spend a lot of money fighting against the rights of Canadians to be treated equally," Flintoft said.

 

[LordOpie]

thanks Kevin, but I don't have an opinion either way and you're not enjoying my sarcastic posts, so i go now

 

[RhinofromWA]

thanks Kevin, but I don't have an opinion either way and you're not enjoying my sarcastic posts, so i go now

Oh I liked them but I am feeling PC today for some reason. *shrug*

PC means I keep my mouth shut when I want to speek most of the time.

 

[LordOpie]

well, I'm not feeling PC and you made the mistake of encouraging me...

"Silly gay Canadians..."

Isn't that redundant 3x over? :devil:

 

[RhinofromWA]

well, I'm not feeling PC and you made the mistake of encouraging me...

"Silly gay Canadians..."

Isn't that redundant 3x over? :devil:

*Twitch*
*snirk*
neaky:

Damn you LO!